Summary

• Technological analyses of the Polyptych of Lusina, as well as inquiries and technology-and-style-related consultations carried out in November 2023 in museums and churches of Nurenberg, Bamberg and Munich have allowed a systematisation of knowledge regarding the Cracow retable’s provenance. Technological and conservation studies in progress since 2018 have confirmed that referring to the present-day Polyptych wing as a potential compilation of sculptures and paintings developed over assorted periods (as some scholars chose to do) was erroneous. A scrutiny of sculpture assembly – and of frame adapting and finishing works – has ultimately proven that the carvings had been an originally planned retable addition in the design visible today. The size and layout of all sections were thus compatible with the author’s early 16^th-century design, constituting an integral part of the retable from the very beginning.

  Consultation with Agnieszka Patała, Ph.D., specialist in late-Gothic Silesian artefacts, held at Bishop Erazm Ciolek’s Palace in Cracow where the Polyptych is on display, have (on the one hand) confirmed the unquestionable influence of Veit Stoss’ art on Polyptych reliefs and the use of iconographic solutions typical for contemporaneous Nurenberg art, while (on the other) casting doubt on the South German provenance of the work. Joint inspection of preserved altar wings in situ in recognition of their three-dimensionality and mobility, structural features and low quality of the underpainting finish (distinctly different from guild standards of the era) was conducive to an in-depth wing structure and framing ornamentation analysis. Given the position of the commissioning party and intent of the retable – as well as the non-typical Marian iconography rendered therein alongside the technique and technology of representation – the option of the artwork having been ordered for a local women’s convent was considered.

  The method of execution employed in the Polyptych (and painting materials used) were also consulted with Ms. Joanna Zyzik-Lubasińska of the Painting and Sculpture Studio of the National Museum in Wrocław. The present-day condition of studying late-Gothic Silesian altars preserved at the Museum does not provide sufficient research materials to allow non-ambiguous authorship verification. Nonetheless, data confirming that distinctive orange mordant mortars (while not studied with the use of analytical methods) were occasionally found beneath selected hair gildings of contemporaneous effigies, ultimately made it impossible for us to unambiguously identify Polyptych authors as Silesian sculptors and/or painters, for reasons of comparative material insufficiency.

  Much more extensive information was secured in style-and-technology-related analyses in churches and museums of Nurenberg, Bamberg and Munich. Methods of affixing outer wings to retables on display at museums and preserved in Bavarian churches were reviewed as well, the measure allowing identification of differences separating the Polyptych of Lusina in terms of its technology and structure from late-Gothic Bavarian retables. The presence of multiple pentaptychs apart, it was concluded that methods of framing development and ornamentation are distinctly different from solutions employed in the Cracow Polyptych. In most South German altars, framing would be developed with the use of three identically profiled laths and a single bottom lath, the latter most frequently unpatterned, tangential, gilded or painted, shaped to resemble a lectern top. Framing ornamentation would usually be monochrome-based and potentially adorned with single gilding bands, their shapes and profiles resembling frames typical for Dutch art. Motifs of gilded, etched or engraved semicircular laths – such as those found in the Polyptych of Lusina – have not been found in South Germany.

  Furthermore, woodcarvings cresting sculpted or painted Bavarian polyptych sections would include other motifs, as confirmed by altars of the Bamberg Cathedral, Saint Sebald’s Church or Saint Lawrence’s Church, not to mention artworks preserved at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nurenberg or Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich. Conversely, main shrine cabinet bodies feature pinnacles flanking bas-reliefs or full-body renderings (such as the Altar with the Madonna and Child and the Saints, Meister des Untermenzinger Altars, Munich, ca. 1500), identifiable in archival Polyptych of Lusina photographs. They may have been assembled (?) secondarily, in emulation of German artworks.

  The inquiry included technological consultations with conservators, art historians, and physicists and chemists of the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg and Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich. Oliver Mack’s team of researchers from Nurenberg confirmed that the form and technique of developing the Polyptych of Lusina differs from other works created in Bavaria at the time. German painters used lead-and-tin yellow rather than orpiment to accentuate luminosity; their technique of embellishing gilded hair surfaces was different as well. While familiar with and happy to employ orange-hued mordant mortars, they would use so-called double leaf (of gold- and silverleaf combined) in the hair. As a result of conversations and artwork scrutiny, painting style of Marcin Czarny was eliminated as the hypothetical author of Passion Cycle scenes in Lusina paintings. Upon closer inspection of thematically related scenes by Marcin Czarny, it was found that both in terms of style and use of painting matter, his oeuvre differs from Cracow images considerably (consider The Flagellation of Christ, Rothenburg ob. Der Tauber, ca. 1485/1490), dissimilarities extending to the force of expression. A scrutiny of works by Hans Schäufelein, whose graphic prints had inspired (the) Polyptych of Lusina author(s) yielded certain similarities in form execution, especially comparable composition layouts, such as the body of Christ crucified (Saint Brigid Before the Crucifix. Detail from Saint Brigid’s Nunnery in Maihingen, Die hl. Brigitta von der Kruzifix. Fragment aus dem Brigittenkloster Maihingen, 1520, Christus am Kreuz mit Johannes dem Täufer und der König David, Augsburg, 1508, Germanisches Nationalmuseum) – yet they have not been detected throughout the reception of Schäufelein’s works, suggesting that the author might have picked up some solutions by watching befriended graphic artists at work. Moreover, Bavarian paintings feature completely different texture and paint layer thicknesses. Rather than dense impasto forms leaving a distinct brushstroke trace, paint layers were developed in multiple thin semi-transparent coatings. Such paint application techniques were certainly more typical for Italian artworks (Beweinung Christi, Liberale da Verona, 1490 r., Alte Pinakothek, Munich). Greatest convergence with late-Gothic Bavarian art has been identified in Passion iconographic themes. Non-typical for the art of Małopolska and present in Schäufelein’s Passion Cycle, the motif of pushing down on the crown of thorns with staves and rods was remarkably popular in the art of Nurenberg (consider the Dornerkrönung Christi, Niederbayern, ca. 1470-80, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, The Crowning with Thorns in the Passion Cycle at Saint Sebald’s Church in Nurenberg). Veit Stoss used the solution – and a composition analogical to The Flagellation in Polyptych of Lusina – in his Rosary Retable at the Church of Our Lady in Nurenberg (Rosenkranztafel (Rosary Retable), Veit Stoss and workshop staff, 1518).

  Consultations with Matthias Weniger, Ph.D., of Munich have proven that Theophilus of Adana iconography is not popular in Bavaria. Following an inspection of works by Jan Polak shown at the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich, no similarities shared with the Lusina work have been identified either – nonetheless, a distant comparability with Veit Stoss’ style of painting has been affirmed. Notably, a conversation with Doctor Weniger who specialises in works from the years 1450-1550 and is passionate about the Polyptych of Lusina has prompted dialogue among German specialists.

  Given the fact that a review of retables, paintings and sculptures has allowed echoes of Bavarian style (Nurenberg circles in particular) to be identified in the Polyptych of Lusina without pointing to any distinct style- or technology-related kinship with specific Bavarian artworks or artists (Veit Stoss excepted), further provenance studies will be redirected to northern Austria (Tirol), the Czech Republic and Slovakia (Spisz). At the current research stage, the described differences would rather suggest the Polyptych’s Małopolska or Galician rather than German origin.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•