Corine Schleif: Hands that Appoint, Anoint and Ally. Late Medieval Donor Strategies for...

Art History Vol. 16 No. 1 March 1993 ISSN 0141-6790

HANDS THAT APPOINT, ANOINT AND ALLY: LATE MEDIEVAL DONOR

STRATEGIES FOR APPROPRIATING APPROBATION THROUGH PAINTING

CORINE SCHLEIF

Fur Herrn Dr Heinz Stafski zum 80. Geburtstag

... the description is less a representation of the picture, or even a representation of seeing the picture, than a representation of thinking about having seen the picture.2

Images of contemporary persons are ubiqui tous in virtually all media and genre of sacred art in the Middle Ages- carved stone tympana, stained-glass windows , frescoed plaster walls, polychromed wooden altarpieces, chased metal reliquaries , illuminated liturgical manuscripts and embroidered ecclesiastical paraments. 1

These individuals are usually depicted as kneeling figures worshipping Christ, adoring the Virgin and Child , venerating a saint, or prayerfully witnessing an event from salvation history; often they a re accompanied by selected saints who likewise participate in the worship or adoration . Such images owe their existence to the custom that allowed sponsors of sacred works the prerogative of pictorially attaching themselves to the monument - be it a monastic complex , a church or chapel, or an object that belonged to the vast realm of church or alta r furnishings- quite li terally becoming a part of the work for all etern ity, travelling with it down through time. Images of venerators became a main component of late medieval epitaphs and cenotaphs, which were either commissioned by the persons represented or on their behalf by relatives, friends or executors of wills after the person 's death.

By the fourteenth and fifteenth centu ries the arrangement of images with venerators had become standardized for murals and panel paintings: the venerator or venerators, their hands raised in prayer, knelt to the left and/or right of a central image of Christ , the Madonna and Child, or a hieratically composed narrative scene. 3 In some German examples, the venerators are depicted in a separate zone below the main representation . It was common for a married person to include his or her spouse and sometimes children as partners in veneration. T his occurred whether or not the family members were living at the time the work was commissioned (plate 1). When saints accompanied the venerators they were usually depicted with their hands resting in commendation on the shoulder, back, or back of the head of the venerator (plate 2).

Asl<tm •m ion of Att H i-srutian~ JQ<)'l Puhla, hc:d h\ RJ,u;k\\t'll PubJi,f1t·r ... 1 lOll Cowky Ro:od . O •furd OX I l[t". UK .ond nR Main So·c·o•o. Camb11clge. MA 0~ 111. USA.

LATE MEDIEVAL DONOR STRATEG IES

I Hailer Epitaph (Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nuremberg) (Photograph: Germanisches Nationalmuscum Nuremberg)

2 Pet rus Christus, Exeter Madonna (Gemaldegalcrie der Swatlichen Museen Prcussischer Kuhurbcsitz, Bc:rlin-Dahlcm) (Photograph: Staatlichc Museen Prcussischer Kuhurbesitz)

All too often, kneeling venerators have simply been labelled 'donor figures ', and as such have been extracted from the images and relegated to the marginal issues of art history , since they do not bear heavily on what have traditionally been regarded as the central concerns of the discipline- establishing stylistic influence or determining iconographic precedence. Within the image set within its original historical ambient, however, such figures had great potential for polysemy and multifunctionality .

An integral part of the picture, the figure provided a bridge between the viewer and the holy person or scene from salvation history: either the venerator looked out towards the viewer, as if mediating or narrating the event and thus acting as interlocutor, or the viewer could find a way into the work by identifying him- or herself with the venerator as a compatriot closer in time and space than the intercessor saints. One message the figures could convey to the viewer was that the venerator was in some way responsible for the work- possibly by financing it out of private capital or by administering communal funds. The images likewise served to memorialize the persons represented, and reminded the living to pray for their souls. Further, it can safely be said that all these figures expressed one common theme- the venerator's pious devotion- and one generic goal- eternal favour for the venerator. The pictorial arts allowed the faithful the unique opportunity to continue in devotion, striving for divine benevolence even after dcath! 4

Because of the fundamentally pious content and message of the figures, being

2

LATE MEDIEVAL DONOR ST RATEG IES

portrayed as a venerator was not only a universally acceptable enterprise but a generally laudable one. Even in localities in which the displaying of donors' coats of arms was strictly controlled through formal legislation or severely restricted by unwritten policies, the inclusion of donor figures appears to have been a privilege beyond contention. 5 Thus, figu res of venerators were assured a ready and accessible audience.

Beyond the pious and sacred , however , the figures could likewise be imbued with countless other meanings and could dispatch additional messages. In fact , the pious underpinnings and sacred ambient often provided the necessary and legitimate framework for specific, temporal, political endeavours. Although the figures themselves nearly always give the impression of having been created with a kind of universal stencil , appearing static in pose and austere in artistic elaboration, the freedom to manipulate the immediate pictorial context enabled the sponsor radically to structure his or her own reality.

The following study will analyse a variety of strategies for political 'selfrep resentation' employed in four well-known paintings from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The works present extreme cases in which the manipulations and the motivations arc q uite transparent.

EMPEROR C HARLES IV 'S ALTAR FRESCO AT KARLSTEJN

In 1348, two years after having been crowned German king and one year after being crowned Bohemian king, C harles IV began building the fortress of Ka rlstejn near Prague. This elaborate and heavily fortified castle was designed to house the imperial relics and regalia. Upon returning from Italy after his coronation as H oly Roman Emperor in 1355, C ha rles adjusted the original plans of the build ing, which was nearing completion. It was probably at this time that he commissioned the fresco for the altar niche in his private oratory (plates 3, 4).6 Although much of the surface modelting has deteriorated, composition and iconography are still readily discernible. The cast of characters and their arrangement is simple and conventional : the enthroned Virgin and Child are fl anked by smaller kneeling figures of Charles IV and his third wife, Anna von Schweidnitz. Unconven tional are the gestures of Mary and Christ - gestures that physically bind them with their venerators. As the Virgin lowers her gaze to address Anna she extends her right hand, clasping the empress's raised hands. In like fashion , the Christ Child lowers his head, twisting his upper torso in order to extend both his hands toward C harles, who lifts his praying hands to be caressed by Christ.

The gesture twice employed is appropriated from another context. It is one of the ritual gestures of the ceremony that formal ly established a relationsh ip of vassalage that has been adopted and slightly adapted to fit the situation here. 7

Charles and Anna approach the Virgin and Child to pay homage and swear fealty; the Virgin and Child accept the pledge and promise protection to the empress and emperor . The Virgin 's gesture involves only one hand , allowing her to maintain her majestic bearing, enthroned with the child on her lap. The Christ C hild , however, appears to be about to bring his right hand down to the level at which

3

LATE MEDLEY AT. UONOR STRATEGIES

3 Private Oratory of C harles tV (St Cathcrine Chapel), Karlstcjn (Phowgraph : Foto Marburg)

4 Altar Niche and Fresco, Karlstcj n ( Photograph: Fuw Marburg)

he can press both of Charles's hands between his palms in order to formalize the feudal contract more properly through the immixtio manuum.u

This ritual gesture of the ' interlacing of hands' was quite foreign to the context of sacred images with venerators, although a parallel example does appear on a reliquary diptych in Warsaw that postdates the fresco by fifty years.9 The gesture was represented primarily in illustrated legal texts that elucidated feudal principles and practices by explicating certain specific situations. In both the Heidclberg Sachsenspiegel, a manuscript fragment dating from c. 1300, and the Dresden Sachsenspiegel, produced at approximately the same time as the Karlstejn fresco, scenes focusing on the gesture such as that of a seated lord and a kneeling vassal (plate 5) are prevalent. 10 In the Willehalm Codex, dating from 1334, the gesture appears within a rare quasi-historical context, in a miniature showing Willehalm becoming Charlemagne 's liege man (plate 6) . 11 The gesture is perhaps best known to historians of medieval art from the representation of the T heophilus Legend in the tympanum at Souillac, dating from 1120-35, in wh ich it is used to depict Theophilus's pact with the Devil (plate 7). It can safely be assumed that the gesture in the Karlstejo fresco did not result from the unconscious iconographic ' influence' of an earlier representation. The motif was deliberately taken over, probably directly from the realm of ritual gestures rather than representations of gestures.

Karel Stejskal has suggested that the scene in the altar fresco relates to the Golden Bull, issued by Charles in 1356 - approximately the same time that he

4 :'i'l Ass<K·t.uum ut An ll"cori.ws 1993

LATe ~1EDIEVAI. DO!'\OR STRATEG I ES

commissioned the fresco. 12 It is not difficult to find evidence in support of Stejskal's association. The bull proclaimed that the selection of the emperor by the seven Electors was essential - not the emperor's consecration by the Church. When, in the Golden Bull, Charles described the exact ceremonies that were to precede the election procedures in Frankfurt, he determined that 'with all Electors present the Mass De sancto spiritu should be sung, in order that the Holy Spirit will illumine their hearts and fill their minds with the light of his power ... '. 11

C harles believed that in choosing him , the Electors had acted according to divine inspiration. Similarly, according to Stejskal, the altar fresco can be linked with the Greek notion of ektheosis, the 'sanctification' or 'deification' of the office of the emperor - an even older tradition that can be traced back to Constantine. For the emperor, the most significant aspect of this doctrine, however, was that it circumvented the necessity of receiving formal approbation from the Church, that is, the pope. This had important practical political ramifications during the years of the schism. 14 For his altar picture Charles chose as the central focal point of his veneration not a favourite saint or saints, nor an episode from salvation history, but rather an image of the Virgin and Child, from whom Charles believed he directly received both eternal grace and political approbation.

The theme of the fresco appears to parallel the various motifs of direct divine intervention that occur throughout Charles's autobiography. Indeed, he structured the text as a narrative account of how he received divine protection and holy approbation for his office over a period of years, beginning already in his youth . In Pavia he escaped attempted poisoning 'by the protection of divine grace' , when he refused to eat breakfast because of his intent to partake of the Eucharist. in the famous dream at Terenzo, God, warning him to avoid sexual temptatio ns, foretold to Charles the death of a relative who had succumbed to the lures of the flesh. Always mentioning the saint's day on which a battle lOok place, Charles was likewise quick to ascribe military victories to holy intervention and to com memorate them with appropriate donations. All of these 'credits', carefull y woven into the fabric of his vita, functioned as a prefiguration of the doctrine Dei gratia in regem Romanorum elect us. 15

It is instructive to observe how, in the fresco, the traditional representation of holy persons fl anked by venerating fi gures has been redesigned in order to manifest divine approbation. The poses of the venerators do not deviate from normative poses; it is the gestures of the venerated that have been substantially altered. Rather than the usual pair of earthly donors focusing their devotional attention on an iconically represented Virgin and Child, who typically appear oblivious to the reverence being shown them, here it is the celestial beings who, enlivened, bend down to bestow imperial authority on their steadfast venerators.

Conveniently , there was no need to alter the venerators' poses because the posture traditionally assumed by a venerator corresponded to the position taken by a vassal paying homage to his lord, that is, kneeling with hands raised, palms pressed together. This correlation of gestures was certainly no mere coincidence; but the actual reasons for the correlation and the relationship between the pose of the venerator and that of the vassal is unclear. Gerhart Ladner has compeJlingly argued that the palms-together prayer gesture that began to proliferate in the thirteenth century derives at least in part from the gesture of homage. 16 Whether

5

LATF. M El)IEVAL DONOR STRATEG IES

5 Scene from 1he Heidclbcrg Sachsenspicgtl (Universi1atsbibli01 hck I !eidclberg) (Photograph:

7 Relief Showing rhc T heophilus Legend, Sarmc Maria, Souillac ( Phorogra ph: Foro MarbLn·g)

U niversitii r ~bibl io thck)

6

rote' hat~ I~ $1Jdl~t(l taminrtr«tm1t'Uii ilnronO))$ ~~ p )JratOt1Jnmato,s

m: <\) ii~ tlr~nfn?!ftt ~~ ~(-~~mui~

ntrnmtt gar war 1nu 11111 ltJt

' rmttn mun gtfltl· tfHa.nit rfttt ~Mm!' ~~~ b Miniarure from rhe WiUebalrn Codex ( llessichc l.andesbibliorht·k, Kasscl) (Photograph . Foro Marburg)

LATE MEI)[EVAL OONOR STRATEGIES

or not an association of signification was still alive in the fourteenth century cannot, however, be discerned. Perhaps the 'etymology' of the prayer gesture was as distant and forgotten as that of the modern custom of a man tipping his hat as a greeting, a practice traceable to the medieval knight raising his visor to show friendly intentions- to reuse Erwin Panofsky's example. 17 Whether the connection was one of mere origin or enduring meaning, certainly the fresco profited from the resulting ambiguity. It was, after all, an ambiguity that was only possible in a painted image that usurped a gesture from an extended ritual context, freezing the action in time and space. Thus the sponsors of the fresco could maintain the humility and decorum of the commonplace pose of the venerator.

It was the daring manipulation of the holy figures that signalled a message radically surpassing that of a conventional image of an empress and emperor adoring the Virgin and Child. The feudal ritual projected - in the words of Jacques Le Gaff- a 'hierarchy of equals'. While the Virgin and Child receive homage, and a vow of service as well as fidelity, Charles and Ann a receive the fief of the empire as well as the promise of protection. The relationship expressed was an asymmetrical one of power and submission. This aspect of the feudal gesture likewise made it quite fitting to the end of appropriating divine approbation. Ironically, as sponsor of the work, Charles could actually make the Mother of God and the Christ Child do his bidding. Here, too, parallels in the strategies employed in the autobiography are obvious. For example , Charles himself never voiced the wish or ambition to become king and emperor, but presented his learned teacher Pierre Roger von Frecamp (later Pope Clement VI) as the agent of prophecy when he recorded the words the cardinal spoke to him in 1340, 'You will become the Roman emperor. ' 18

The fresco presents a two-fold exchange: not only the transaction between the Christ Child and the emperor but also that between the Virgin and the empress. Charles could thus present the Virgin as the titular saint of the oratory . (The designation 'St Catherine 's Chapel ' did not originate until the sixteenth century. 1'

1) Franz Machilek has shown that Charles had long been steeped in

Marian devotion. 20 Likewise the presence of the Madonna provided Charles with an opportun ity to incorporate an image of his consort uniquely within the fresco. Throughout his reign, Charles commissioned works that included images of his wives. At least seven portraits were included in the murals at Karlstejn and six in the architectural decoration of St Veit Catbedral .21 Through his series of marriages Charles carried out carefully calculated political manreuvres. 22 That with Anna von Schweidnitz brought a large portion of Silesia under Charles's control. Integrating images of his wives in the sacred monuments he commissioned allowed him to proclaim the various political and dynastic alliances in a subtle, pious and discretely traditional context. These arrangements, like countless similar late medieval representations of imperial, royal and aristocratic couples, served to reinforce apparent gender symmetry, although real equality or shared power did not exist. In fact, the altar fresco actually denies the true validity of the apparent symmetry: Anna was associated with the Mother of God , but Charles with God himself. Similarly, Anna von Schweidnitz and the other three spouses were crowned empress- yet the power was invested in the emperor . Along with the superficial illusion of gender symmetry and its denial came the polite pretence of dynastic

7

LATE M EDIEVAL DONOR STRATEG IES

equity together with its negation . Perhaps these strategies were consciously employed by C harles. In his

autobiography he used various stylistic means for manipulating the ambient to match his own political vision . For example, he never referred to his rival Louis the Bavarian as emperor but always as ' Louis, who called himself emperor' .23

Both the volume and highly orchestrated diversity of C harles IV's donations and foundations are further proof that he was keenly aware of the potential for structuring reality that the pictorial and literary arts, as well as other areas of cultural endeavour such as higher education and church-related institutio ns, offered to the ambitious patron .24 Cha rles IV wrote in a letter to Petrarch , 'Eve rything else is rather to be pursued than the sword . . . a nd this the emperors have also learned by experience. '~5 The clever strategies employed in the fresco provide yet another reason to believe that Charles lived by this maxim.

The physical context of the fresco serves further to clarify the meaning of the scene. The ritual of the feudal pact usually took place either in the lord's audience hall or in a church .26 The oratory was, in a sense, both. It was a consecrated chapel and also, as such , the aula of the Virgin and Child . M oreover , the ri tual of enfoefment and vassalage commonly took place before an audience or witnesses. Although difficult to recognize in photographs, two witnesses - the princes of the Apostles, Ss. Peter and Paul - a re represented on the fl ankin g walls of the nicheY

Before beginning to make assumptions as to the actual political aims or propagandi stic value of the fresco, it must be stressed that C harles commissioned it to adorn the al tar of his tiny private oratory. The chapel, built into the massive south wall of the tower , measures a mere 4 X 2 'h metres. Clearly C harles did not intend the fresco for viewing by large audiences, but rather for his own contemplation and undoubtedly - like his autobiography - for that of his descendants, whom he believed would succeed him as emperor. C harles spared neither time nor expense imperially furnishing this most exclusive space. Begun shortly a fter 1348, the cha pel was crowned with vaulting that included a keystone fashi.oned by goldsmiths employing thirty-nine amethysts, chrysoprases and carnelians surrounding an immense cameo with the head of M edusa dating from the third or fourth century. Later, in the 1360s, the walls were encrusted with 1, 132 tablets of semi-precious stones, a nd the mortar between them was sheathed with thin bands of gold foiL A second pair of portra its of Charles and Anna is located at the opposite end of the oratory, over the lintel. T he couple holds the gilt reliquary that conta ined wood from the true cross, recalling Byzantine representations of Ss. Helena and C onstantine exalting the cross. 28 The oratory was accessible via a narrow passageway and single massive wooden door with iron fittings. T wo small wall openin gs connected the ora tory with the adjacent cha pel, likewise dedicated to the Virgin . Charles could thus attend M ass privately, without being visible to those present in the chapel. 29

It is not difficult to perceive the dual role of the altar fresco within a circular process. As patron , C ha rles commissioned an artist to paint a picture upon which his political doctrine of divinely invested au thori ty was proj ected . As the primary audience, Charles then spent long hours focusing on the image, which in turn had the power to substantiate this notion of his God-given right to rule and his direct

8 AS!)4X I~U tnn nl A r1 Hhtun.,n~ 1993

LATE MEDIEVAL DONOR STRATEGIES

responsibility as God 's liege man. In fashioning this fresco with its overtly political content but limited audience Charles showed himself to be neither a fanatical mystic (' monk on the throne') nor a calculating tyrant who deliberately fabricated dogma to suit his propaganda goals. Rather he appears as a 'true believer', convinced of his divine right to rule and of the possibilities of visual images to proclaim that right.

Horst Bredekamp commented on the exclusive character of the oratory at Karlstejn in a brief end note in his book on 'art as medium of social conflict'. With a general acknowledgement of the analyses of the Frankfurt School sociologist Jiirgen Habermas, but without further elaboration, Bredekamp asserted: 'In its representation , feudal power requires no dialogue with the people . '30 Indeed no dialogue with the people was intended here, but viewed as a dialogue that C harles held with himself, the fresco programme could have political and historical efficacy. In an essay on the ' holy empire of the medieval West' Ladner calls the claim to universality, which is endemic to the late medieval concept of empire, a ' historically potent idea' . 31 Viewing the fresco, one might ask if the material reality of its visual expression was not perhaps historically even more potent than the idea.

ARCHBISHOP JAN OCKO VON VLASIM' S PANEL IN THE PRAGUE NATIONAL GALLERY

The large ( 181 x96 cm) painted panel commissioned by Archbishop Jan von Ylasim, called Ocko, now hangs in the former St George Monastery, today part of the National Gallery on the Hradschin in Prague (plate 8). Originally the work belonged to the furnishings of the chapel in the archbishop's country residence at Roudnice - a chapel that was dedicated in 14 71 , to the saints depicted in the panel. 32

The larger historical context in which the work was created was the same as that of the Karlstejn fresco . Archbishop of Prague from 1364 to 1380, Jan Ocko van Ylasim was chosen for the office by Charles IV himself and belonged to the intimate circle of the emperor's personal advisors. He has been called one of the 'pillars' of Charles's government.33 His most significant official political function was undoubtedly that of permanent papal legate .34 As one of the scholars at Charles's court, he worked on the so-called ' Klaret ', a Latin-Czech encyclopedia of terms. 35 Himself a leading sponsor of the arts, he also furnished the bishop's palace in Prague. 36

Charles's fresco with its feudal gestures probably influenced the panel painting. This 'influ ence' was not, however, of the nebulous unconscious variety often constructed by art historians to establish self-sufficient iconographic or stylistic links between the works themselves - an artist came in contact with a particular style or saw a given motif in a work and thus these elements were automatically assimilated into his own work. The impact of the Karlstejn fresco on the National Gallery panel would have come via a conscious decision on the part of the artist, probably instigated by the donor or at least implemented with his consent.

It appears thatjan Ocko von Vla5im endeavoured to create his own niche within Charles IV's structure of reality. Here, as in Charles's altar fresco, it is the Virgin

9

10


8 Panel Painting with Archbishop Jan Ocko von VlaSim (Na tional Gallery, Prague) (Photograph: National Gallery)

LATE MEDIEVAL DO NOR STRATEGIES

and Child that form the focal point of the representation. Enthroned in the centre of the upper register, clad in a luminous blue mantle, the Virgin stands out amidst her venerators and against the continuous gold ground and gold cloth of honour suspended behind her by two tiny angels . Crowned as the Queen of Heaven , the Virgin supports the nude Christ Child with her right hand, which is sheathed in her mantle as an expression of her reverence for the infant she embraces . Cupped in her left hand the Virgin presents a golden apple to the child - a motif alluding to the Fall through Ad am and Eve and salvation through Christ. The child props his chin against his hand, a pose expressing cogitation and often assumed by Joseph in Nativity scenes, but somewhat unusual for the Christ Child. With his right arm, hand and fingers extended, Christ gesticulates toward Charles IV , who kneels to the right of the Virgin and Child. Charles's son Wenceslas IV kneels to the Virgin's left. While Charles wears the crown of the Holy Roman Emperor with its distinctive single arch, Wenceslas wears the crown of Bohemia. The latter motif establishes a terminus ante for the work since Wenceslas was not crowned until 1376. The archbishop is the third contemporary depicted and takes the central position in the lower register. In profile to the viewer, like Charles and Wenceslas he kneels and raises his hands with fingers extended and palms together. A shield bearing his coat of arms rests in front of the archbishop.

The six stand ing saints who accompany the kneeling ve nerators establish the structure in which Jan Ocko von Vlasim perceived his own place. They are the same series of saints depicted in the mosaic Charles IV commissioned perhaps only slightly earlier for the Golden Portal on the south side of Prague Cathedral, 37 and they - together with Ss. Cyril and Methodius - were chosen by C harles at about the same time to surround Christ and the Virgin in the cycle of busts on the outer triforium gallery of the cathedral.38 All of them had strong connections with the Prague Archdiocese. The ties with Saint Sigismund had been established by C harles himself. Since the eleventh century a piece of the skull of this Burgundian king of the migration period had been venerated in Einsiedeln . Recognizing the political significance of the relic, Charles had part brought to Prague in 1354. After he himself had been crowned king of Burgundy at Aries seven years later, he brought another portion of the saint's body to Prague and had it placed in the chapel he had furnished and dedicated to Sigismund in the cathedral . 39 Charles' s son, born in 1368, was named for this saint. The emperor had perceived several holy individuals as his royal forebears and professional role models - the priest-king Melchizedek, Saint Henry , the Magus or 'king' from the East, Constantine and Charlemagne - and conflated his identity with theirs in various ways .40 Perhaps for his panel the archbishop chose Saint Sigismund as Charles' s patron, since the emperor had most recently ascended the throne of Burgundy. Undoubtedly , it was considered a sufficient reference to the empire that C harles wore Charlemagne's crown.

Wenceslas is paired with his name patron . This Christian duke of the Premysliden dynasty, who ruled in Bohemia during the tenth century, championed unification with the Holy Roman Empire. Murdered b y his pagan brother, he was buried in St Veit Cathedral where he was venerated because of his Bohemian and Moravian national significance. 41 Charles IV promoted his cult in the cathedral , sparing no expense for the architecture and furnishings of the elaborate

\~octauon of Art Ht~WrMn<. t<)9'J 11

LATE MEDIEVAl. DONOR STRATEGIES

St Wenzel Chapel that Archbishopjan Ocko von Vlasim dedicated in 1367 .42 It was Wenceslas who had the strongest Bohemian identity, and it was he who became the primary ' mascot ' for Charles's campaign to spread Bohemian dominance in other regions . Slightly later, in 1381, during Wenceslas 's own reign, a synod declared that Saint W enceslas should be venerated in the other dioceses that came under the hegemony of the Prague archbishop in his role as permanent papal legatc.13 Gerd Zimmermann has demonstrated how the expanding presence of this Bohemia n saint was accomplished through the observation of festival days, church and altar dedications , as well as visual representations. 44

Four additional patrons associated with the Prague Archdiocese - Prokop, Adalbert, Vitus and Ludmila- flank the archbishop in the lower register of the painting. Saint Ludmila, the grandmother of Wenceslas, died in 921 when her daughter-in-law Drohamila had her strangled for protecting the young Wenceslas and bringing him up in the Christian faith .4 .> The band that hangs loosely around her neck, crossing over her chest, is the instrument of her martyrdom. Another patron of Bohemia, Saint Prokop, stands opposite Ludmila in the lower left-hand corner of the panel. This eleventh-century hermit, monk and abbot founded a monastery in which he introduced Slovak as the language of the liturgy .46 Closest to the archbishop stand Ss. Vitus and Adalbert. Saint Vitus, the youthful , early fifth-century Sicilian martyr, had served as the chief patron of Prague since some of his remains were brought there in the tenth century. H e was the titular saint of the church even before 973 when Prague was elevated to a diocese and the church became a cathedral .'n The father of Charles IV , Johan of Luxembourg, began the ambitious rebuilding and furnishing campaign for the cathedral , and Charles continued it , also importing additional relics of Saint Vitus from Pavia in 1355.48

Saint Adalbert, the tenth-century bishop and missionary, whose relics were likewise venerated in Prague Cathedral, also carried strong national associations. As the second bishop of Prague and first Slavic bishop, Adalbert bore a closer professional connection to the archbishop than the other Bohemian patrons. 49

By underscoring the importance of his office, Jan Ocko von Vlasim could 'tap' Charles's well-spring of national diocesan associations and thus place himself in a favourable position politically. Through the endeavours of Charles IV in 1344, the diocese of Prague had been elevated to archdiocese, bringing the dioceses of LitomySl (Leitomischl) and Olomouc (Oimi.itz) under its domain. Jan von Vlasim was the second archbishop and the first to be named permanent papal legate, which further subordinated the dioceses of Bamberg, R egensburg and M eissen . Upon the death of his great uncle, Archbishop Balduin of Trier, Charles had inherited a particularly prized relic that not only symbolically but practically increased the power of the Archbishop of Prague. It was a portion of Saint Peter's staff tha t gave the archbishop the a uthority to issue indulgences at high festivals. Charles had it placed within the so-called Adalbert crozier that was used by the Prague a rchbishop . 50

As implied above, the emperor had employed a number of saints to support his various roles and legitimize his diverse claims. From this vast array Archbishop Jan Ocko von Vlasim chose that group of saints that suited his own needs of legitimation . Nonetheless, the strategies employed in the panel commissioned by the archbishop exceed those of the mere selection of saints. A comparison of each

12

LATE MEDI EVAL DONOR STRATEGI ES

9 Pa rlcr Workshop, Figure of Saint Wenceslas in St Wenzei C hapd of St Veit Cathedral, Prague (Photograph: Foto Marburg)

contempora ry venerator with hi s saintly patron shows a dose correspondence of figure and physiognomy. Sigismund and C ha rles, each crowned and dressed in a long ample robe , have dominan t noses as well as substantial hair, beards and moustaches. Wenceslas IV and Saint Wenceslas a re each dressed in a tunic, and Saint Wen ceslas's face is made to echo that of the bare-faced youthful Wenceslas in tha t the saint 's thin beard frames the chin rather than obscuring it. In sculpted figures of the saint fashioned at this time, the facial features were simila rly constructed and the beard minimized in order to exhibit a resemblance with the young king- for example, in the standing figure by the Parler workshop in St Wenzel Chapel in St Veit Cathedral (plate 9).51 The closest duplication in the painting is that of Adalbert andjan Ocko von Vlasim. Each is clad in full vestments of rich brocade, each wears gloves and mitre, each holds a crozier , a nd - as if identical twins - each has a large nose, broad pronounced facial folds , short-cropped white ha ir and a very light beard , grey in colour. It is thus made to appear as if each pious follower was cast in the dye of his saintly prototype. Of course, in order to fashion such an image the process was reversed : the dye itself was cast lO correspond with the contem porary model. Thus , the painter had to manipulate

13

LATE MEDI EVAL DONOR STRATEGI ES

the facial features , hair, beard and clothing of the saint to match those of his charge. Saints were made to conform to contemporary material realities.

In the case of Charles IV , it is known that he did have a prominent nose and head that was thrust forwa rd . Not only do the many images of him, both painted and sculpted , manifest these characteristics, but the skull that was taken from his grave and displayed in the Prague exhibition in 1978 offered somewhat macabre lingering evidence of these features. Moreover , an examination of his remains disclosed an injured cervical vertabra. 52 W e may assume that the individuated portraits of Wcnceslas and Jan O cko van Vlasim were likewise based on actual physical likeness.

The panel is unusual in that it shows pa irs o f faces with similar features. A more common device for linking contemporaries with their pa tronly prototypes was the so-called crypto-portrait, in which the ph ysiognom y of a contemporary was projected on to the face of a character from m ythology, a biblical personage, or a saint. Such images of Charles have already been mentioned . The archbishop 's panel provides an interesting didactic lesson in how the cry pto-portrait was fashioned . These portraits associated with the Prague court are among the first since antiquity considered to present the illusion of individual likenesses. Interestingly, although the reappearance of portraiture is often associated with protoR ena issance humanism , it occurs here within the sacred structures that had been passed down through the Middle Ages. In all probability it was the archbishop himself who was responsible both for the selection and matching of saints in the panel. A pa rallel litera ry example demonstrates that he was fond of this device as a strategy in his own writing: in his funeral sermon for C harles I V, he referred to the emperor both as the prophet Elijah and as the sun god HeliosY Indeed , the pictorial arts of the fourteenth century offered opportunities for expressing such associations in an even more compelling manner.

M ost obviou s of the strategies for self-representation is again the unexpected use of a gesture drawn from another con text. Three of the saints - Sigismund, Wenceslas and Yitus - place their hands on the shoulders of their charges, thus assuming the most common pose for accompanying patrons - one associated with introduction, presentation or recommenda tion . 54 Adalbert , however , places his right hand over the hands of J an von Vlasim that a re raised in veneration . It is the gestu re employed in the ceremony of investi ture that is depicted here. Due to the 'contamination' of worldly and ecclesiastical rituals, since at least the twelfth century the interlacing of hands belonged also to the rite of investiture. 55 After the bishop's hands had been anointed , the staff was placed between his palms and the investor enclosed the new bishop's hands within his own. 56 As in the K arlstejn fresco, the gesture has been somewha t adapted to fi t the circumstances in that Adalbert uses only one hand , ma intaining his grasp on his attribute with the other.

H ere, as at Karlstejn, only one element from the r ite, again tha t of the immixtio manuum, has been extracted from a passing ceremony and represented in an enduring iconic image. It might be instructive to compare this fashioning with practices cu rrent today in making photographic images representing talks between world leaders. The gesture of the handshake is frequently removed from the narrative context that imbues it with specific meaning and presented to the public via the press as the summation of an entire meeting. A handshake upon signing a major

14 © ,\ :<.<<>co.olo<m n f Ar1 H bwrinn• 19'l3

LATE MEDI EVAL DONOR STRATEGIES

10 Photograph Showing Tariq Aziz and James Baker on 9 January 199 1, in Geneva (Photogra ph: Gamma Liason for 7i"mr. )

treaty can appear the same as one of mere greeting from a conference at which no diplomatic agreement was attained or perhaps even attempted (such as that from the meeting of Tariq Aziz and James Baker immediately prior to the Gulf War, plate 10). Not infrequently, politicians stage the handshake in order to ensure its appeal and accessibility to a la rge number of cameras making still photographs: the participants look out toward the photographers rather than at each other, and they hold the handshake for an inordinate length of time - far longer than is appropriate to this ritual gesture. Analogous hieratic manipulations , together with a desired indistinctness, are evident in the archbishop 's painted panel. Jan Ocko van Vlasim kneels as humble venerator , and Saint Adalbert affords what might be recognized as both intercession for the archbishop 's soul and special approbation for his office.

In his own eyes the a rchbishop must have viewed himself as having been invested not by the pope but by a higher power - that of his national and saintly forebear. In this vision of saindy investiture a kind of ' after-image' of C harles's fresco in the oratory , in which Charles is empowered by God, lingers in the archbishop' s imagination. Through the representation of this act, together with the choice of the saint , and the similar fashioning of contemporary venerator and saintly patron , Jan Ocko von Vlasim utilized the existing sacred construct to proclaim his own political significance.

'') Associa<ion or Art H iswnans 1993 15


THE EPITAPH FOR PASTOR JOHANNES VON EHENHEIM IN THE CHURCH OF ST LORENZ IN NUREMBERG

The painted panel epitaph (110 X 101 cm) for Dr Johannes von Ehenheim, who died while pastor of St Lorenz in Nuremberg in 1438, today hangs high in a side chapel off the south aisle (plate 11 ). 57 Originally it functioned as a true epitaph mounted on the pier near Ehenheim's gravestone in the choir of St Lorenz. An inscription giving Ehenheim 's name, the ecclesiastical offices he held and his date of death, together with a short prayer for grace, must originally have complemented the picture.58 Whether or not Ehenheim himself commissioned the work is unknown. Even if his executors or family contracted the painter, it was Ehenheim who was intended as the beneficiary of the pious petition expressed through word and image.

The panel shows the small figure of a cleric kneeling meekly before the Man of Sorrows and three saints. The almuce of grey squirrel or marten gives evidence of the clergyman's high ecclesiastical rank; the biretta he holds pressed against his chest distinguishes him as a university graduate; and the coat of arms in the foreground , exhibiting a plume and bands of black and white, identifies him as a member of the Ehenheim family . The Man of Sorrows stands apart from the other figures; he is rendered larger, positioned slightly ahead of them, and occupies an ambiguous foreground space. His near nudity and well-articulated musculature is accentuated against the scourge and the royal robe suspended from his shoulders. The relationships between the five characters have been skilfully orchestrated. Each of the three saints maintains physical contact with the kneeling venerator, yet each directs his or her gaze toward the Man of Sorrows, who completes the triangle by casting a nod of compassion at Ehenheim. The usual composition for this kind of epitaph, which placed the Man of Sorrows in the middle of a row of saints (plate 1 ), would not have permitted the triangular arrangement. The effect is analogous to that of the Heilstreppe that Dieter Koepllin has observed in other epitaphs, except that it provides three possible ·steps' toward the Man of Sorrows - each an independent link. 59

Especially significant for the political implications of the painting is the subtle role differentiation suggested by the particularized gestures of the saints as well as by their ordering. Saint Lawrence, the church's titular saint, clad as a holy deacon in a dalmatic of rich red brocade and carrying the gridiron upon which he was martyred, stands furthest away from the Man of Sorrows and behind Ehenheim. Gently, the saint touches the cleric on the back of the head, commending him to the Man of Sorrows. Ss. Cunegund and Henry, crowned as empress and emperor, together support an imaginative model of Bamberg Cathedral. As the donors of the cathedral and founders of the diocese, Henry and Cunegund were widely recognized as the patrons of Bamberg. Whereas Saint Lawrence's reassuring nudge is again the response expected from a saint, the gestures of the Bamberg saints surpass the expected. Cunegund lays her hand on Ehenheim's forehead, as if blessing or possibly anointing him, and Saint Henry grasps Ehenheim firmly by the wrist, raising his arm and drawing it toward the Man of Sorrows - thus intervening vigorously between him and Christ (plate 12). As with the gestures that bind Charles rv with the Christ Child, Anna van Schweidnitz with the Virgin, andjan

16


A~ot iouiun of Art HiMurian~ l99:,i

11 (above) Epitaph for Dr Johannes von Ehcnheim, St Lorenz, Nuremberg (Photograph: Gcrmanischt:!i Nationalmuscum) 12 (left) Ehenheim Epitaph (detail of plat.e I I)

17


Ocko von Vlasim with Saint Adalbert, here too the surprising departure from convention must have signalled the addition of another level of meaning.

Indeed, the panel bears remarkable testimony to the struggle for control of the prestigious and politically important office of pastor of the St Lorenz parish.60

When the pastorate became vacant in 1438, the Nuremberg City Council nominated the city's leading diplomat, Dr Konrad Konhofer, for the position . The bishop of Bamberg, however, rejected the nomination, appointing instead Dr Johannes von Ehenheim, a member of the Bamberg cathedral chapter. A second attempt to put Konhofer in office by proposing an exchange of prebends likewise proved unsuccessful when Ehenheim refused the offer. Nonetheless, Ehenheim was not destined to enjoy the benefits of the post for long. He died having served less than two months.

The 'grasp on the wrist' , like the gesture of vassalage or investiture, is highly unusual among saints accompanying venerators. One example can be found in an Ottonian manuscript. In an illumination accompanying a saint's vita, a holy bishop - probably Ruodbertus- grasps the wrist of a monk - perhaps a person responsible for some aspect of making the manuscript - in order to draw him to Christ.61 A miniature in the Evangeliary of Henry the Lion bears some similarity, but here it is the hands of Henry and Matilda that are clasped by Ss. Blaise and Giles. 62

Although so rarely employed to show the relationship of venerator and saint, the ' grasp on the wrist ' is extremely prevalent in other pictorial contexts- both secular and sacred - and could carry both positive and negative connotations. Grasping by the wrist was a ritual gesture that generally denoted a relationship in which a weaker person was subjugated to, or dependent upon, a stronger person. Waiter Loeschke enumerated early examples of the motif, many in works dating from antiquity. He suggested that the gesture may have made its way into medieval art via late antique court ceremonies in which a kneeling subject was grasped by the wrist and assisted in coming to his feet by a superior as a sign of the latter 's magnanimity .63 Franc;ois Gamier observed that the gesture could imply possession, protection and control, both on the spiritual and bodily level. 64

The motif was often employed in aJJegoricaJ scenes. For example, in the twelfthcentury sculpted relief in the south porch at St Pierre in Moissac, a devil grasps the personified vice of Luxury by the wrist. In fifteenth-century prints of the Dance of Death, for example the Heidelberg blockbook of 1465 (plate 13), Death was frequently shown overpowering the living by grabbing a representative of a given profession by the wrist.65 The gesture appeared often within the legal context. One example from the illustrated Sachsenspiegel manuscripts shows a case in which the judge rules that the creditor should take charge of the debtor in order to force him to work off his debts, and the creditor is shown seizing his debtor by the wrist (plate 14).66 Current research shows that the grasp on the wrist also served, during the Middle Ages, to denote crimes of sexual violence. 67 Beginning as early as the fourth century, the motif had also made its way into Christian iconography and was used in the representation of the Raising of the Daughter of Jairus on an ivory casket, today in the Museo Cristiano in Brescia . Christ holds the girl by the wrist to show that she has been brought back to life through his power. The gesture likewise occurs on the eleventh-century Column of Bernward in

18 c) As)ociatu.HI of Art l--luuorums 19'l:J


13 Death and the Pope, Heidclberg Blockbook of 1465 (Universitiitsbibliothek, Heidellxrg) (Photograph: U n•vcrsi tatsbiblimhek)

14 Scene from Lhe Heidclberg Sachsnup•tgtl (U niversitiitsbibliothek, Hcidclbcrg) (Photograph: U niversitatsbibliothck)

19

20


15 Master Renram, Christ's Desunt into Limbo, panel painting (Nicdersachsisches Landesmuseum, Hanover) (Photograph: Landesmuseum)

16 Scene from the Passion Kiliani (Niedersiichsische Landesbibloothck, Hanover) (Photograph: Landesbibliothek)

"' As~ut 1a11on nl Art lils10n..tn\ 1991

LAH. MEDIIWAL DONOR STRATEGIES

Hildesheim, both in the scene of the Saving of Saint Peter on the Sea of Galilee and that of the Healing of the Young Man of Nain. Other biblical narrative representations that occasionally incorporated the motif include the Creation of Eve, for example in the twelfth-century Admont Bible in Vienna, and the Sacrifice of Isaac, for example in a twelfth-century capital at Conques.

One representation that virtually centred on the motif is Christ's Descent into Hell. In both the Eastern images of the Anastasis and the corresponding scenes in the West, iconographic convemion dictated that Christ clasp Adam's wrist in order to pull him up out of limbo patrum. 68 Other elements of the representation could vary, but this gesture remained constant. For example, the image in the KJosterneuburg Altarpiece, completed by Nicholas ofVerdun in 1181, shows Eve as the first to be released as C hrist grasps her by the wrist. The painted representation by Master Bertram from the late fourteenth century is atypical in that Adam and the others are clothed, but again C hrist applies his hand to the wrist of Adam (plate 15). The soteriological emphasis of this redemptive grasp is clear: through Christ's power Adam and Eve and- by extension- Everyman are released from damnation. The saved do not and cannot participate in their own salvation.

On the basic level of personal salvation, the motif has a parallel meaning in the Ehenheim Epitaph: Saint Henry actively mediates on behalf of Johannes von Ehenhcim's soul. Ehenheim himself is merely the passive, humble recipient of grace. However, in considering the political circumstances surroundin g his appointment to office another message superimposed onto the soteriology becomes visible. The informed among the original audience must have recognized the general significance of the gesture drawn from its broader context, and related the image of the grabbing Bamberg saint with the Bamberg bishop's active intervention promoting Ehenheim's career.

The placing of Cunegund's hand on the forehead is analogous to Henry' s clasping the wrist. This pose, too, was rarely assumed by saints accompanyi ng kneeling venerators. As Gamier has demonstrated, the laying on of hands was an integral part of many ordination and consecration rites. 69 For example, the Passio Kiiiani, a manuscript dating from the eleventh century, illustrates Saint Kilian's ordination as bishop by showing the pope placing his hand on Kilian's head (plate 16). 70 Thus, this gesture transplanted into the epitaph context also signals an ulterior contemporary political motive.

Not only by virtue of their assertive non-conventional gestures but also by means of their placement, the Bamberg saints play a more dominant role in the epitaph than does Saint Lawrence; he, although the titular saint of the church, stands behind rather subordinately. The political message was again carefully incorporated within the established framework of donor imagery . It was commonplace for donors to have themselves represented accompanied by saints who would act as their patrons and intercessors before God. In a world that still sought out formal visual congruence between earthly events and heavenly truths, a dual interpretation pertaining to eternal salvation and temporal politics must have appeared neither obscure nor indecorous.

Just as Jan Ocko von Vlasim's panel bound the archbishop to saintl y roots in Bohemia in order to serve nationalistic purposes, the Ehenheim panel tied the

21

LATE. M EDIEVAL DONOR STRATEG JI!:S

pastor to a geographically based saintly tradition in order to serve the interests of the Bamberg bishop. Hanging in a large urban parish church, this work addressed a substantial audience. By proclaiming Ehenheim's ecclesiastical-political allegiances, the painting remained a participant in the dialogue as the two opposing parties continued to wrangle over the issue of patrimony for the Nuremberg parish churches for many decades after his death . Indeed the painting may have done more to represent Bamberg interests in Nuremberg than had Ehenheim himself in his brief two-month tenure.

In both panels, by conscious intention, a saint stood not only for him- or herself but also for something else. The modern advertising industry frequently makes overt use of similar strategies. An example is an advertisement for Condor Airlines that conflates pieces of American and German currency in order to con vey a twotiered message (plate 17). The bold black letters read in translation: 'The dollar comes closer to the mark. America comes closer to you .' The indiv iduals pictured can be identified as George W ashington - an eighteenth-century general and statesman , the first President of the United States , whose unfinished portrait was painted by Stewart Gilbert- and Elsbeth Tucber- a member of the Nuremberg patrician class living at the turn of the sixteenth century, whose portrait was painted by Albrecht Diirer. Yet these identities are not essential to understanding the message of the advertisement since the persons represented stand for America and dollars and Germany and marks respectively. Likewise, most of the hagiography of Saint Adalbert - the tenth-century bishop and missionary of eastern Europe

17 Advertisement for Condor Airlines in Zeit Magazin (Photograph: from Ztil Magazin , no. 5, 23 J a nuary 1987)

22 © A ssoc1atlvH of A rt Hist()rians 1993


- or the traditional details that distinguished the life of Sa int Lawrence as that third-century deacon who was martyred on a gridiron after sharing the treasury of the church with the needy, or the historical biographies of a nd legends about Emperor Henry Il and Empress Cunegund at the turn of the eleventh century were not relevant to the intended messages of the picture.

Returning to the selections of gestures; lt was of course due to an infusion of an imation that W ashington and Tucher act and move as if they were once again living human beings in the ad vertisement. The clever commercial a rtist has manipulated the images by adopting motifs from another context : George gives Elsbeth a friendly kiss on the cheek; Elsbeth smiles approvingly. T hrough this ritual gesture the viewer is enticed to think of George and Elsbeth not only as the symbols for America and Germany or dollars and marks but also as an allusion to pleasant social relationships. Likewise the gesture of vassalage or investitute, the 'grasp on the wrist ' and the laying on of hands were all drawn ultimately from alien contexts. Specific late medieval audiences received a message tha t augmented the usual message of a venerator kneeling before an iconic representation from salvation history. In fact , these late medieval pa intings had distinct advantages over this twentieth-century advertisement. M edieval saints were considered agents everactive, omnipresent and capable of lending help and aid. The delightful ambivalence of med ieval attitudes allowed for subtler and fa r more serious fusions of meanings.

T HE MADONNA DELLA VITTORIA PAINTED FOR FRANC ESCO GONZAGA lN MANTUA

Unlike the other paintings discussed , this one comes down to us complete with written sources that substan tiate not only the intentional integration of a second level of meaning pertaining to temporal approbation but document the effect of the work. Although these a rchival materials were already published by Paul Kristeller at the turn of the century, the literature has overlooked both the discrepancies between the texts and the pa inting and the dynamic development within the chronology.

Completed by And rea M antegna in 1496, the basic theme of this la rge canvas (280 X 160 cm) pa rallels that of Charles IV's al tar fresco: Francesco Gonzaga kneels in veneration of the M adonna surrounded by saints, and she, by means of a gesture , bestows special favour upon him (plate 18). 71 The site is an ornate bower lavishly decorated with foliage, flowers and exotic frui ts, suggestive of the hortus conclusus - a fi gure for M ary's purity. Ss. And rew and Longinus peer out from behind the Virgin 's throne, beside which Ss. Michael and George unfurl her mantle, thus making the representa tion conform to that iconographic category known as the Madonna M isericordia . Three individuals are shielded by the Virgin 's protecting cloak: Saint Elizabeth kneels in the foreground to the right ; her son , the infant J ohn the Baptist , stands on the socle above her , gesticula ting toward the Christ C hild ; and Francesco Gonzaga kneels to the left. A sculpted relief showing the Fall is represented on the pedestal on which the Virgin 's throne rests. Perhaps more than any other single motif, this relief underscores the fundamental soteriological underpinnings of the painting.

o(") A\'-4)C' iaunn of An I II'IIIOnan') 1991 23

LATE MEDIEVA L DOI'IOR STRATEGI ES

18 Andrea Manccgna, Madonna dtlla Vrttor~a (Louvre, Paris) (Photograph: RMN)

19 Leonardo da Vinci, Madonna of tht RoeJ..s (Louvre. Pari~) (Phocograph · R M N)

Once again , the venerator kneels humbly, folds his hands piously and focuses his gaze attentively - assuming the stance expected - while the venerated assume poses that are quite extraordinary for the context. Peering down toward Gonzaga, the Virgin extends her hand , palm downward, over her venerator, and the nude Christ Child standing on her lap appear s to mimic her gaze and gesture. M antegna has employed several of the stylistic means at which he was so adept in order to emphasize the Virgin 's gesture. The hand appears extremely foreshortened and exists as the only object in the painting that is viewed from this dramatic a ngle. Further, it is lit from above and stands out sharply in an otherwise void area, crisply hi ghlighted against the deep green mantle in the background .

The gesture is an unusual one. 72 It was employed by Leonardo in his Madonna of the Rocks of 1483, but the context and consequently the meaning was quite different (plate 19). Interestingly, art historians have presumed that the presence of the gesture in the Leonardo painting provided a sufficient raison d'elre fo r its appearance in the Mantegna work, asserting that Mantegna would have seen Leonardo's painting in Milan. 73 Leonardo used the gesture to show the Virgin 's protective motherly care of the Christ C hild . 74 Its meaning changed radically when it was employed with respect to a venerator, and its rarity in this conlext may signal, once again ,

24 Assuc l.tllntl nt An H1'1on.tn~ 1993

LATE M EDI EVAL DONOR STRATEG IES

that the viewer should be attentive to a level of meaning surpassing the conventional soteriological contem . Indeed , it was a more immediate act of favour and protection that the Virgin 's outstretched hand expresses.

In 1495 the marquis Francesco Gonzaga was chosen to lead the combined troops of the newly formed league of Italian states. Venice, Milan , Mantua, Urbino and the Papal States had banded together with Ferdinand of Spain and Emperor M aximilian in an effort to protect their territories against the encroachment of C harles Vlll of France, who had established hegemony as far south as Naples. In the face of this new alliance, Charles decided to return to France with most of his forces. Francesco Gonzaga rallied his troops in an attempt to block the retreat of the French near Parma at the Apennine town of Fo rnovo in the narrow Taro Valley. T he battle took place on 6 July. Although initially the Italians had the upper hand and were a ble to make off with considerable booty, they were finally unsuccessful in halting the French. By all immediate accounts the battle was neither decisive nor a grand and glorious event fo r the Italian forces. In a letter to the V enctian Signorie, expressing his regret that Gonzaga had decided to fight the battle, the Venctian captain Bernardino di Fortebraccio set down a graphic accoun t of how he narrowly escaped with his life, suffering several wounds, losing his horse and two of his most valued men. 75 In a letter written to his wife Isabella d ' Este the day after the battle, Gonzaga himself expressed his dismay at the actions of the undisciplined mercenaries, who had been more interested in plunder than in combat. Gonzaga believed that he himself would have fallen into the hands of the enemy if the French had decided to attack after so man y of the Italian infantry had Oed. Near the end of the letter Gonzaga reported that on that very morning the French had resumed their march to the north . 76 Paul Kristeller has cited a source stating tha t Gonzaga was in fact late r called to Venice to answer allegations regard ing his lack of success in the battle. The concerns were perhaps partially based on his friendly meeting with Charles Vlll in October - less than three months after the Battle of Fornovo. Although he was not found guilty of these charges, the accusations illustrate the less-than-confident attitudes that were rampant after the battle. 77

Interestingly, a steadily accelerating effort to present the battle as a victory and Gonzaga as a victor can be witnessed during the same period . Mantegna's painting played a most dynamic role in this campaign. Plans for the painting were the subject of a letter written in M an tu a by the Eremitani monk Girolamo Redini , on 8 August, a month after the Battle of Fornovo. 78 The letter involved a Jew called Daniele da Norsa, who, after requesting and receiving permission from church authorities to remove a fresco of the Madonna surrounded by saints from the exterior of hi s newly purchased residence in Mantua, was falsely accused of crimes involving the profaning of Christian images. Subsequent to the lawful removal , others had come to renew the image, to which accompanying inflammatory graffiti , blasphemous to the C hristian faith , were added. Apparently these desecrations, perpetrated by unknown parties, had greatly aroused anti-semi tic sentiments. In his missive to Francesco Gonzaga, Fra Girolamo spared no late medieval dramatic effect in his encouragement of the marqui s to require Norsa not only to put up the money for a replacement of the image he had removed but also to tear down the house so that a chapel dedicated to 'Our Lady of the Victory' could be built

25


in its place . To strengthen his case, Fra Girolamo asserted that a chapel dedicated to the Virgin had formerly stood at this site and that two related miraculous appearances of the Virgin had recently taken place. Girolamo implied that the entire city was enthusiastic about the project and then proceeded to outline the iconography of the work that Mantagna was to paint according to the directions of Francesco's brother. It was to show a M adonna M isericordia with Francesco - in armour - as well as his two brothers and, as was customary, his wife lsabella d 'Este, under the Virgin's cloak. Five days later Francesco Gonzaga responded by telling the protonotary to order Daniele da Norsa to pay Mantegna 110 ducats to make a painting of the Madonna. 79

In his subsequent letter to Francesco Gonzaga, dated 29 August, Fra G irolamo reported further details about the iconographic instructions given by Francesco's brother Sigismondo to Mantegna. T he painting was to include Ss. George and Michael 'which pleased everyone greatly , and me more than all , on account of the words that he [Sigismondo Gonzaga] added, sagely, and as I believe, inspired by God, saying that these two saints were bringers of victory, one to the body, the other to the soul , and that together with the Most Holy Mother of Christ, your most devout advocate and only hope, they would grant victory to you r Most Illustrious Lordship' .80

The finished work shows that plans were changed considerably between these early stages and the final execution . With the addition of Ss. Andrew and Longinus, the patrons of Mantua, a strong communal statement was woven into the painting. The exclusion of the additional family members allowed all attention to be focused on Francesco himself as the sole recipient of beneficence. Indeed, not only Mary and Christ but also Ss. Michael , George and Elizabeth all direct their gaze toward him . Perhaps the figure of Isabella's personal patron, Saint Elizabeth,81 was added as a subtle lingering reference, whereas Isabella herself was removed so that the work would not be mistaken for a family epitaph. Whether or not Francesco was responsible for these changes - most likely his brother and other advisers in Mantua continued to plot and plan on his behalf - the increasing efforts to manipula te reality within the painting in favour of the sold ier Francesco Gonzaga become particularly clear.

Indeed, the painting shows not only a pious venerator imploring the Madonna of Mercy to intercede on his behalf for his eternal salvation but also a soldier in armour who is already favoured with the Virgin's protecting gesture. What is more, the viewpoint of the beholder has been manipulated. One is not invited to identify with the kneeling venerator; one is forced to look up toward an impeccable knight, clad in polished armour, kneeling above on the Virgin's marble socle.

On 6 July 1496, the ftrst anniversary of the Battle of Fornovo, the fini shed painting was carried from Mantegna's workshop to the new chu rch in a grand procession. Descriptions of the festivities and reports of the enthusiastic participation of the populace survive in letters written by Sigismondo Gonzaga and Isabella d 'Este to Francesco, who was not present in M an tu a a t the time. 82 It is evident that the sponsors of the painting took advantage not only of late medieval piety centrcing on the cult of images but also of the rampant anti-semitic hysteria , thus being assured of a large, emo tionally primed audience to whom they could present their propagandistic painting. Only three hours after the image assumed its place on

26

LA'I E MEDIEVAL DONOR STRA"I F.G I ES

the high altar, wax images, candles and other votive offerings were brought -demonstrating that the Madonna della Vitton·a had already achieved her own individual identity as a source of grace and aid.

Every year, on the anniversary of the battle, the 'victory' was commemorated before the image at the little church of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Mantua. Four and a half years after the battle took place, and three and half years after the Madonna della Vittoria was placed above the altar of' her ' church, Francesco Gonzaga again reflected on the battle and described ,

... how we were fighting among the thickest of the enemy, with danger on every side and there seemed no way of escape. We therefore sought refuge with our whole mind in the most certain protection of Mary, spotless Mother of God. As soon as we had implored it, our courage was raised, our strength was renewed, and thereupon, our enemies, who were pursuing us in troops, with levelled spears and drawn swords, began to flee , as if terrified by God, so much so that we cut them down in their tracks. s:l

Apparently, Gonzaga's perception of the Battle ofFornovo had changed dramatically since the day it took place!

Thus, the painting played a significant role in the rewriting of history. It is tempting to compare events of more recent decades, when journahsts, and particularly photo-journalists, played an important part in the perceptual shift of the Vietnam War during the late 1960s and early I 970s. Here the process was reversed as the press consciously decided to discontinue the practice of selecting and manipulating the statistics and photographic material as had been being done in order to project a successful and victorious picture of the American efforts, presenting instead the horrors of war and defeat. In the fifteenth century it was unnecessary to depict a victorious warrior on the battlefield, not to mention the comparative difficulty of finding an appropriate public forum for displaying such a work. In the late days of medieval mysticism and the devotio modema it was sufficient to show divine or saintly approbation, as the outcome of wars depended on divine disposition, not on human strengths and efforts. This focus on providence in temporal events could thus be conveniently blended with the general soteriological underpinnings of such images as the Madonna delta Villon·a .

Already in 1902 Paul Kristeller drew attention to what he called the 'double wrong' of the image, when he wrote that the French confiscation of the painting in 1797 could be seen as just revenge for the injustice against Norsa, the Jew who was forced to pay for the painting, and the lie about the victory of the Battle of Fornovo. 84 It might be said today that it is inappropriate to shake a moralizing linger at this or any other image because it lies, recognizing, in this post-modern era, that the truth of images is always a subjective one. But the lies of the painting, perpetrated through the power of this image and its circumstances, were successful in enabling its sponsor(s) to dominate by imposing their own structure of reality upon a large number of people . Perhaps, without a bit of moralizing caution, we are not only prone to admire the lies of the invincibility of those enticingly rendered refulgent surfaces of clean and stately armour, the secure authority of the glowing

27


outstretched hand, and the comfo rtable exotic paradise of beguilingly presented jewels, luscious fruit and chirping birds, but also to promote them.

SYNTHESIS

In each case, the historical circumstances suggest that the adopted gestures, as well as the selection and arrangement of saints, were intended to infuse each work with a particular political message that would have been readily apparent to a specific audience. Each work utilized a unique set of visual strategies to accomplish its double goal. The gestures and the participants were carefully controlled in order to preserve the sacred decorum of the image and its fundamental soteriological function. The paintings further conveyed messages of holy approbation for political doctrine, national ties, ecclesiastical allegiance and military success . Indeed, the political claims could best be made through the authority of intervening holy persons.

In order to compose efficacious hieratic images, motifs were extracted from other narrative contexts. Their unexpected presence alerted the viewer to be attentive for an additional layer of meaning. Their isolation and manipulation afforded them the advantages of ambiguity so that they could be understood as temporal and eternal, historical and metahistorical. While all four paintings are concerned with specific past events, all have present and future political developments among their goals.

In each case the authors of these messages (the sponsors of the works) did not overtly present themselves as the authors. In the works they commissioned , they referred not only to the other participants but also to themselves, using the deceptive neutrality of the third person. The works present supposedly impartial 'snapshots' of encounters between themselves and holy persons, in which the latter bestow eternal grace and temporal favour upon them while they kneel submissively as the humble subservient objects of this grace and favour. Although in most other images with kneeling venerators the means that were used were less dramatic, with the selection of saints and gestures following prescribed conventions, the images always helped to structure reality in the donor's favour. Even the standard figure of the kneeling venerator achieved a permanent presence, the choice of a personal name-saint established a lasting connection within the celestial ' network', and the inconspicuous recommending hand conferred holy approbation. It is clear that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries artists, patrons and audiences were aware of the multivalent opportunities that the visual arts afforded to those who could shape art in order to shape history.

28

Corine Schleif Arizona State University

© Assotlation o f Art fiiMOrihnS 199:1


NOTES

The following article mcorporates material from papers read at the Central Renaissance Conference m 1987 and the Inte rnational Congress on Medieval Studies in 1990. I am grateful to those who posed helpful questions on these occasions. Particularly I would like to thank Bngine Bucuncr and Annc D. Hcdeman. who organized the la11cr session a nd offered comments and bibliographic suggestions. Likew1sc I am indebted to Alfred Michlcr for aSSIStance and advice, to Dtanc Wolfthal for criticizing a draft of this article, to Franz Marhilck for his thoughts and information, to the library staff at the Gennanischcs National· museum, Nuremberg for their helpfulness during the summer of 1990, 10 my colleagues at Arizona State University - especially Diana Huli<"k, Donald Rabiner and Gray Sweeney -for the benefits dt>rivcd from conversations, and to the Sthool of An at ASU for a grant to cover 1 he CO> I of the photographs

2 M Baxandall, PattmiJ of lntentwn On the Hutorrcal ExplanatiOn of Pictures , New Haven. 1985. p 11.

:1 General stud ies on late mcdic,•al 'donor images' mcludt> L . Zinscrling, 'Stifterdarstellungen in der altdt'utschcn Tafdmalerc1 ', Dissertation, Uruversitat Jcna, 1957; D. Kocks, Dir Stiflrrdtmtt//urlg rn drr itahnmchn1 Malne1 dc.1 11-1.5 . .fahrhundnts, Cologne, 1971: E. Helier, Dar altnudnliindl.rchr Stiftnbdd, Munich, 1976; A. Rcmlc, Strlluntrcir:ndr Bddniue, Zurich and Munirh , 1984; A. RooC'h , Stiflerbildrr m Floruurn und Brabant , Essen , 1988.

4 C Sch1cif, Donatw rt Memoria Stiftn, Stif/ur\~tn und JdottMtionm an Bnspultn au.< dn Lormzlnrrht 111

Nurnbn~, Munich, 1990, csp. pp. 234-5 5 ibid , pp 84-9. 2:!5. fi V Dvorakov:i and D Menclova , Karlitl')n.

Prague, 1965, with German and French summanc:s K. Stcjskal, · Karlstejn, Burg, Wandmalc:rcicn', A Lcgner (ed .), D1e Par/a und dn Hhont Sttl, /J50-/400, vol. 2, Cologne. 1978, p 721

7 Z Bouse and J M)slivec ('Saknilni prostOI)' na KariStcJne', Umbu, vol. 19, 1971 , p 280.) wt·n· probably the first to call auenuon to the gesturl' .J. llomolka, 'Zu den ikonographischcn Prograrnmen Karl. 1\ ', Legncr (ed.), op. nt .. pp. 607-18, her<: 61 I.

8 Fo• an analysis of rhrs ritual a nd the ~conomk and social system m which it was embedded see .J Le Goff. 'The Symbolic Rttual of Vassalage' , Time, Work, ar1d Culture in thr Mtddk Agr~. Chicago. 1980, PI>· 237- 87, as well as L. Ganshof. Ftudalum, N<·w York. 1964, passtm. For a discussic)n of the gesture sec K. von Amira. 'D1e Handgt·barden in den Bildcrhanclschriften des Sachscnsp icgel~',

Abhandlun_em dn philosophmh-phzlologuchro Klasst dtr komgluh ba)'triJchro Akadtmit dn Wisstnschajtro, vol 23, 1905, pp 163-263, here 242-6 and F Garnicr, Le Language dt l 'rmagt an mO)'tTI tigt S•llnificailon rt f)mboliquc, Paris, 1982, p. 208

9 J M . Fritz, Colrbchnutdtkunst dn Cotik in Mrllelturopa, Munich, 1982, no. 298; K Szrzepkowska-Naliwajck, ' Reliquiar des Thilc Dagistcr von Lorich', Lcgncr (ed.), op "'·· p. 522. I arn grateful to .John Steyacrt for calling t hi~ cxampl~ to my attention.

10 E.g. H<'idclbl·rg, Umvcrsitatsbibliothek. Cod. Pal. Gl'rm. 164, fol. I', 9' (here plate 5); W . Kosthorrcck (cd.), D1~ Heidtlhnger Bildrrhandschrift dtl SachsenJpt~iftls, commentary volume w facsimil~ . Frankfurt, 1970, pp. 36, 70; Drt'sdcn Siichsischc Landcsbibhothck, M :12. fol. 8': K von Amira (ed.), Dit Drtsdtnrr Btldnhandrchrift des Sachsmspuge/1, facsimile. vol. I , Le1pzrg, 1902; vol 2. part I. Leipzi~ . 1925; pan 2. Leipzig, 1926.

11 Kasst'l, Hcss1sche Landcsbibliothek, Mo. 2" poet c t roman I , fol. 7'. I am grateful tn Joan llolladay fo r brmging th1s example 10 my al!ention Th(• mimature IS discusst>d in her book 1/lummatmg lhr Epu. Thr Patron and thr Program of tht 1334 IVilleha/m Codtx (forthcoming)

12 K. Stt>jskal, Karl 11 und dtt Kullur und Kunst wnu Zctt, Prague. 1978, p . Ill

I :3 JJ,r C:oldtnt Built nadr Komg Wtn.zr/J Prachthanrbchrifl, K Muller (eel). Dnrtmund, 197B (Die hibliophilen Tasrhenbiicher no. 84), pp 108-10.

14 Se(• the commentary by P. Scibt, Die ()oldtrlf Bullr nach Konv: WrnzclJ Prachthandrchrift , K . ~llillcr (cri.), ib1d., pp. 145-53. E. Schuben employs tlw tam 'Wahlheiligkcit', ml.'anmg a kmtl of >ann1fication through election (Komg und Heuh, Giiuingcn. 1979, csp. p. 42). J Speviu:ek emphas1zcs Frt'nch inOuenccc · Frommigkcu und Kirchcrureuc als lnstrumente dcr politischen ldcologie Karls 1\ ·, E. Engd (ed .), Kart 11

Pollltk und ldtolot:Jt 1111 14 Jahrlrundnt, Wcimar, 1982, pp. 158-70, here.' 158-60. In IllS article

cinen Sohn narncns Wenceslaus', publish<'d 111 tht• same volume of essays. pp. 171-8, W F.ggen underscores •·onncctioos with the idcoiOI{) or rule that was current in the eleventh tcmury, [> 172. Regarding the inOucncc of mysticism Sl.'e als<> F Sc1b1, Karl 11 . Em Kaisrr m E11ropa , Munich, 1978, pp. 28-33.

15 E Hillenbrand (ed ), Vita Caroli Quaril Du tlutobwgraphlt Km/< 11., Stuttgart, 1979, pp 90, IJ4-6, 110-14 , 174. For analyses of Charles t\ 's autobiography sec 1-fillcnbrand's rommcntary as wdl as J . Spevacck, Karl 11 Sttn Ltbm untf srtnt staarsmanmsche Ltistung, Vienna, Cologm· and Graz, 1978, esp. p. 38 and W.

29


E~gl'rt, op. cil. 16 C. Ladn<-r, 'The Gestures of Pra)'a in P.1pal

Iconography of the Thrnecmh and Early Fourtl.'cnlh Ccmurics', lmaets and ldrOJ m thr Middlt Agt;, vol. I, Rome, 1983, pp. 209-37 ( first pubhshcd in 1951) and more recently E Gombridr, 'Ritualizt'd Gesture and E"prcssion in Art ', Tht lmagt a11d th~ l:.yt, lthaca, 1982, pp. 63-77, as well as M. Barasch, Giottu a11d thr Lan.fua.~t of Guturt, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 56-71 The rudiments of this idea were publisht·d already in 1905 by von Arnira , op. <'it (a~ 111 n 8), p. 244

17 E Panofsky, ·rconographv and lconolugy An lmroduninn to rh" Study of Renaissance Art', Aftmung ;, tht Visual Arts, Harmondsworth, 1983, pp. 51-81, here 51-2.

18 llillenbrand (('cl), op. cil.. p. 174. 19 Stcjskal, op. cit. (as in n. 12), p 110. 20 F. Machilck. 'Privatfrilmrnigkeil und

Staatsfrommigkeit', F. Scibt (cd.), Kaim Karl tl'. Suwtrmamr und Mtu:m, Munich, 1978, pp. 1!7-101 , here 87-9; Hillcnbrand (ed.). op. cit., pp. 82, 174.

2 1 H . Wammctsbcrger, ' I ndi"iduum und Typ 10

den Port riits Kaiser Karls 1\ . ', Wiswmhajtlrcht Ztllschrrjt dtr Frrcdrrch·&hillrr·Unwmitot jma, Gmlbrhafts· und Sprachwissenschafthcht Re1hr I , vol. 16, 1967, pp. 79-9:!.

22 Spevacck, op. cir. (as in n. 15), pp. 25-26. j . Spcvacek, 'Die Epoche Karls IV', Lcgncr (ed.), op. cir., pp. 585-605, here 589-92; D. Vddtrup. Zw1schm Ehrrtchl und Famil•mfHibtlk Studrro zu dtr dynastischtn 1/matspolitik Kart. tl Warcndorf, 1988; F. Machikk, 'Anna von Schwt·idnilz ( 1338/39-1362)', Schwtrdnrtz rm

Wa11del dtr Zcllm. exh. cat., Stiftung Kulturw<'rk Schlesicn, 1990-91, Wiirzburg, 1990, pp. 3 17-22.

23 e.g. Hillcnbrdnd (ed.), op. cit., pp. 176, 186 24 This has been scrupulously demonstrated h)

Machilck. op. <:it. (as in n . 20). 25 As ci1t·d by E. Mi.illcr· Mertens, 'Kaiser Knrl IV

1346-1378' , Engd (cd .), op. ell, pp 11-29, here 11

26 Le Golf, op. cit .. pp 274. 282. 27 Stejskal, op. cit. (as in n . 12), p. Ill. 28 R. C hadraba, ' Der Triumph·Ccdankc m dt·r

bohmischcn Kunst unter Karl IV. u nd sctnc Quclkn ', I Visunschajtlidrt Ztilulrrijt drr Fritdrrrh· S<hilltr·Unwmitilt Jroa, Ctu!lschaft;· und Sprachwuurrschajtlicht Rt~ht I, vol. 16, 1967, pp. 6:~-78, here 63-7. Chadraba links the doubk portrait not only with Hdcna and Constantinc bur also Chosroc and Schirin. The latter associauon has found li11lc acceptance in subst·qut·nt literature.

29 For information on the St Carhennc: Chapel sec V. Dvorakova and D Mcndova, op. cit.; Ste;skal. op ci1. (as inn 12). pp. 110-11 , Homolka. op. cit., p. 611; K. Stejskal. 'Katharincnkapdk', Lcgncr (cd. ). op cit . r

30

722; W . Liebenwcin , · Privatomtoricn des 14 .Jahrhunclcrrs ', ibid., vol. :i, pp. 189-93 ; A. Lq:-ncr, ' Wiindc aus Edclstcin und Cellif~e aus Kristall' , ibid., pp. 169-1!2, here 169.

30 H . Bredckamp, K unst als Mtdwm sozzaltr KonflrAtt. Bildtrkampft von drr SpatantiAt brs zur Huwltnrruolutron, Frankfurt, 1975, p 2:18 and n. 735. He refers 10 an early work by Habl'rma~ that has r<'<tntly been lranslatt·d into F.nghsh as Tht Structural Transfomration of the Publrc Sphm, Cambridge, 1989, here pp. 7-9

:!J 'cinf historisch wirksame Idee', see C Ladncr, 'Da$ heilige Rc1ch des miuclahcrlichcn W<'stcns'. op. cit., pp. 471-85, here 485 (first printed in 195 1 ).

32 A. Kutal, Gotfuc Art rn Buhnma and Mora v1a, London , 1971, p. 105 ; r..J. Wundram. ' Korpcr und Raurn in der bohmischen K unsl wr Zcit Karls IV.', Seibt (ed.), op. rit., pp. 371-8, here :177 . .J v Hcrzogenbcrg, ' Die Bildmsse Katscr Kurls IV.', tbid .. pp 324-34, hcrc:- 333.

33 F. Kavka , 'Bohrnt:'n, Miihrcn, Schlesicn', 1bid., pp. 189-95, here 193; L. Schrnugge, 'Kuri(• und Kirchc in dcr Politik Karls IV.', ibid .. pp. 73-87, here 86; P. Marrow, ' Rate und Kanzlf'r ', ibid ., pp. 285-92, here 288

'14 Z . Hlcdfkova , ' Die Pragcr ErzbischOfc als stiindigt> piipstliche Lcgatt•n ', BtitrO.t:t zur Gr<chidrte drs Bistums Rrgnnburg, vol. 6, 1!)72. pp. 22 1-56

35 See F. Kavka, ' Hofgelehnt:n', Scibt (ed ). op cit .. pp. 249-53, h<'rt> 251.

36 H l'atze, 'Die Hofgescllslhaft Kaiser Karls I\ und Kiinig Wenzels in Prag', H . Patz<' {ed.) Karm Kml!V 1.116-137/J, Gotlingcn, 1978, pp 7:13-64, hae 762-:l.

37 Hornolka, op. tit .. p. 6J:l 38 J Homolka. cntric, on the busts in !:it Veir'~

Cathedral, Lcgner (cd.). op. cit. , vol. 2, pp. 655-62. H. Dolezcl, 'D•c Grundung de~ Pragcr Slavenk.lusters', Seibt (rd.), op. cit., pp 112-14. here 114.

39 G . Z irnrnemlann, 'Die Vcrehrung dcr bohmischcn Heiligen irn rnittelaltt:rlichcn Bistum Bambcrg', 100. Bmrht dts hutomchrn Vrrnns Bambug, J9M, pp. 209-39, here 216. Mach•lck, op. c1t (as 1n n . 20). pp. 94-9; P Hilsch, 'Dir Kronungcn Karls I\' ', Sc•bt (~d.), np. dt., pp. 108- 111 , here Ill ; H omolka, op. cit.. p 612.

40 Warnmetsbngcr, op c·it • esp r:.ualoguc nos. 15, 18, 19, 20, 26, 5 1, 55

41 Zimmermann, op. ur., p 214; J>. Ass•on, 'W cnzeslaus'. Lwkon dtr chrrstlichm /konograph~t,

Rome, 1976. 42 .J. Burian , Dtr Ve1tsdom auf dtr Pragtr Bur~.

Bayreuth , 1979 (orig. pub. l'ragut, 1975). pp. xx-xxiii; Hornolka, up cit.

43 Z . lllcdikova, op. rit., p. 242. 4•1 Zimmermann, op. Cll. St•e also W . Schwt'mmcr,

·zwc• Frcsken dcr Luxemburgcr in Ni.-.rnbcrg', 11 Pam• (eel.), op. Cll., pp. 539-45.

LATE MEDIEVAl. 00:-JOR STRA I'EGIES

45 f Seibt, ' Ludmilla '. LwAon dn Tluologrt und K,cht, Frcibu rg, 1961; Zimmermann, np rit p 218

46 L Schrmdt, ' l'rokop', LtxrAon <kr Tlrtologrt und KITclrc, Freiburg, 1963.

47 J. Oswald, 'Vitus', Lcxrkorr d" T/uologu und Krrclrr. Freiburg, 1965; F Hcnsel, 'Vitus', Ltxrkorr dtr chrutlulrnr lkonographrr, Rome. ctr , 1976. Burian, op crt., pp "'· xiir

48 M.orhrlt·k. op. dt (as in n 20), p. 94 49 U. StaJ>rewskr, 'Adalbcn', Locikorr dn Thcolo.t:rc

Ulrd K"dre, Freiburg. 1957, Zimmermann, op. en., p . 215; E. Pochc, 'Adalbt.>rt ', Lc.nkon tier clrrrsllichen /J..ono.1;raplru, Rome, 1973

'rO Machi lek. op cit. (as in n 20), p. 90 51 s~hwtrnrner, op . cit. . p. 539 52 J Pdinn, ' l'odoba a podobizny Karla 1\

Pi'ispl:n·k k po1.nanv l:csk~ho ponrcmfho rcalr.mu vc 14. stOit•ll', UmuCT51/as Carolma, Phl/osophua I, no. I, 1955, pp. 1-60, as citt•d by Wammctsbcrgcr, op. nt; A Lcgncr, ' lkonr• und Pun rat'. 1~gnn (cd ), op m • \'t>l. :l, pp 2 17-35. t'SP p 2'22

51 Wamm('tsbcrger, np. nl., p 83. ')4 \ern Amira , op tit (as in n. 8), p 254, Kocks,

up w , pp. 27-9 5'! Le Gofl. op cit , csp p. 255. 'ib Ladncr, np <11 (as rn n 16). p 224, Cllcs thr:

cl<''' rip11un of the ceremony rrom a thlrlt'<'nth· n·mury Roman pontifical

57 C Gt·hhardt. Lht Anjiinl(r drr Tafdmalmt m Nimtb".t: (S111dicn zur deutschen Kunstgesthrrhtc I 03), Stra~burg, 1908, pp 99-106, E. H. Zirnmf•nn;rnn, 'Nurnbt·q~cr Malcrci 1350-1450 Die Tafclmalcrcr', An~n'ger d~r Grmranischrn Natronalmuuum, t9:W-31, pp. 23-48, hen· 4!i: A Stalll.w. D" dmtsclu Mnl~m du C11tt~. vol. !1. 1\tunrth and lkrlrn , 195!1, pp 28-30; C Swlz. nu. 94, Rtjormatton rn Nu,rhrr,~. Umhrudr uud Brwohrurrt:. 1490-1580 (cxh. cat. Gcrmanis<hcs Nauonalmuseurn Nllrnbcrg}. 1979: R. Wohlft·il and T Wohlfcrl, ·Nurnbergcr Epuaphtcn, Vt·rsuch t·tncr Fallstudic zur hi~torischcn Brldkunclr:', Zrrl>chrrft fot hrtlnrurht Fnrsrhuuf! , \OI ·u. 1985, pp. 129-80, llt're 166-73: &hlerl. op cit • pp. I '•6-8

'iS Epitaphs alwa)·:. rnduded instripuons. Sec H. Hoockm.onn, 'Uber Schrifua ldn "' spallnrttclaltcrlich~n Kirchcn', Drutschr> Archu· ]tir Erforschun~ du Mat~laltn-s. vol. 40, 1984. pp 110-24 The inscrrption must have still b<.·r•n pn•":nt rn thl' mnrtccnth century when the venaawr ""' rdcntilicd a nd the lnr:<uicm n·t·ordcd

5!1 0 Koepplin . 'Reformation dcr Glaubensbiklt-r: Oas Erlosungswcrk Christi auf Bilderrr des Sp;irrnrttclaltcrs unci dcr Rr· lormationszen ', Jl.lartm l .uthrr und drr Rrformalwn rn V wtschlantl (t·x h. ntt Gamanischcs Nauonalmust•um Nurembr·rg), Frankfurt, 1983. pp. 333-78. ht>rt• 'l1b-7.

60 M . Wct!;d. ' Or Cumatf Konholcr (gest 1452).

Ein Bt•itrag zur Kirchengcsrhichte Nurnbergs' , ~frtlfllu•r~m drr Vtrmu for Ccschtchtt dtr Stadt Numbrrt:, 1ul 29, 1928, pp 169-297, here HI:

.J Krau\, 'Or~ Stadt :-Jurnbcrg in ihrcn Bczu:hungcn zur Rorni,chcn Ku ric wahrcnd des M rttdahers', .111/tttlun~tn dts Vtmns for Gachtchtc drr Stadt Vumbrrg. vol 41 , 1950. pp. 1-154. lwrt' 74

ftl Rt•rlin, Sta.Hsbrhliotlwk, Ms. Theol Lat 268. fcrl 234'. Sec .J Pnxhno. Da1 Srhmbn-· und Drdr~atron•brld tn tin dtutJChnr Buchmalcrtt. l.r:rpzi'-\ .md Berlin , 192<1, p 9!!.

62 Wollcnbutu: l, HcrL.Og·A ugust·Btblrothck, Cod Gudl 105 No"iss. '2" also Munich, Bayr'risch~ Staatsbiblrotlrt·k, Clrn 30055, fol. 19' H . l'uhr 111<1rrn and F. Mtitht•rich , D11.> Evanqtliar 1/mmdtl drs l.ou•or und rln• millelaltrrltchr 1/mulrtrbild, Munkh, 1986, pp. 50-2.

63 lkr C:rifl .ons lland!>:dcnk ', Ftsl,chrift fur Ptlrr .1/rtz. Bcrlrn. 1!.165, pp. 46-73.

6·~ (;,umcr. up . tit . pp . 199-205 h5 llctdclb<·rg, Unrvcrntat~brblrothek, Cod Pal

G.-rm 438, F'ar~rrnilc W L. Schrr:ibcr. lJrr Twntanz Rlor4!Jurh wn 1-165. Leipzil(. 1900

b6 llcrdelbt·rl(. Univnsllatsbibliothek, Cnd. P .. l. Germ lfi.l, lol 17' \.\ Koschorrcck (ed ). Dn Sathlrnsptrgclm Htldrrn , Aus dn HmklbfTgrr Brldrrlrarrdschrrft , Fr.mkfurt, 1976, p 106-7

h7 I arn (lratdul tu Uwrw Wolhhal tor sharrnl( this rnlurrn.rtion lrorn lrr:r fcrrthtuming book ern rtprt'~cntall<lns of rape.

fill See the rnany cxatnplt:s among C. Schill~r·s illusu·,nions. Unnur:raplut dtr clrnrtlichrn Kun>l , vol. :!, Cuu:rsloh . 1971, pp . 348-77. In the r•xwt·pts ol lituq;ical plays published by K. Schrnidt (/Jrr Dtmtfllwrr: t•orr C/rrult 1/iillttifahrt irr dm d•·ubclrm untl dtn rlrtrnr 1•rrwandltrr Spidm dts Mrll(/a/tm. Marburg, 191 5) the grasp on the 1.rr~t ts never tn<'ntioncd in the stage directions Euhcr it wa~ so customary that 11 did not need tu lw 'peulicd o r th ~: mo11f rs peculiar to an indcpt•ndcm tradrllun 111 the vrsual an•

()'I C,trnwr, op nt . p 196. 70 l':it·clcrsiichstS< he l..orHit-sbibliothck. Hanm cr.

Ms. I 189. fol. 4' , 1\rltan (ex h. cat. l\lainlrankis<"hcs f\1u;cum. Wurzbur!l). Munich , 1989, pp %0-1 , nn 393.

71 I' Krrstcllcr, Andrca .i!atllt_l(na. fkrhn and Lt· rpzig, 1902, pp. 320-3 1, 558-63 (with transrnplluns of docurnc•nts): E. Tictze·Conrat , Hmrtq:na. Cnnllldt, Zcrrhrrurr.lftn , KupjCTsliche, London and Cnlogne, 1956, pp 27- 9. 195-b: J l.atll s, rind rea Mant~ena. Die Madonna dtlla Vrl/orra, Stllfll{art. 1960 (wit h German t.r,mslatiur1s ul clonrnwnts); C. Gilbnt , ltaliatr / lrl 1400- 1500 (H .W . Janson lcd.j , Sourtcs and Docu ll lt'nts in the Htstory of Art Series), Englewood CliiT, , 1980, pp, 133-6 (Englrsh translauons ol two documents); R . Lightbu11n , Manlc1fna. Oxrord, 1986, pp 177-115, 262-3. 1:18- IJ (wrth shun ('xccrpts lrorn tht· dnt·um<'llt< tr<lllslatt•d into Enl(lish): D . Freedberg, Thr

31

LATF. MEDIEVAL I)ONOR STRATEG IES

Powtr of lmagu. Chicago, 1989, pp. 141-6. 72 Kocks makes passing reference 10 two o ther

saints depicted during the Quauroccmo in si milar situations, holding their hands extended over their charges' heads: Saint Lawrence in a fresco by Michelino da Bcsozzo in Viboldonc and Saint Anthony Abbot in a fresco in Parma (as in note 3), pp. 25-fi.

73 Tietzc-Conrat, op. cit., p. 28. 74 Regarding the use of the gesture in the

Leonardo painting see K. Clark. Ltonardo da Vlnci. Hannond sworth , 1976 (lint printed in 1939), p. 50.

75 Lauts , op. cit. , pp . 19-2 1. 76 ibid ., pp. 21-2. 77 Kristcllcr, op. cit., pp 325-6; Lauts, op. cit. ,

p. 6. 78 Kristcllcr, op. cit . pp 558-9, d oe 135; Lauts ,

op. cit., pp. 25-6. 79 Kristcller, op. cit. , p. 559, doe. 136; Lauts. op.

cit. , pp. 26-7. 80 Translation: Llghtbown , op. cit., pp. 178-9;

Kristellcr , op. cit., pp. 559-60, doe. 138; Lauts, op. cit., pp 27 -B; Gilbert , op. cit., p IH.

B I Tht> figure was fir·st idcmilied as Saint Elrzabcth br Vasari although others have contested it See E. Tietzc·Conrat , op. cit. , p. 196

82 Kristeller, op. cit. , pp 561-2, does. 140 and 142; La uts , op. cit , pp 29-31; Gilbert , op. <'it.. pp. 135-6.

83 Ponioli, ' La chicsa c la M adonna della Viuuria di A. Mantcgna in Manwva', Aui t 11wnorie ddla R i lccaduma Jlrrgrlzana, 1884, p. 77 as cited <1nd translawd by Ltghtbown, op. cit.. p 177

84 Kristeller. op. cit.. p . 327 .

Corine Schleif: Hands that Appoint, Anoint and Ally. Late Medieval Donor Strategies for...

Documents

Transcript of Corine Schleif: Hands that Appoint, Anoint and Ally. Late Medieval Donor Strategies for...