xref ref-type="transliteration" rid="trans22" ptype

xref ref-type="transliteration" rid="trans22" ptype

'The Feast of the Rose Garlands': What Remains of Dürer?
Author(s): Olga Kotková
Source: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 144, No. 1186 (Jan., 2002), pp. 4-13
Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/889418
Accessed: 11/10/2010 18:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Burlington Magazine.
http://www.jstor.org
OLGAKOTKOVA
'The
Feast
what
of
the
remains
Rose
of
Garlands':
Direr?
PAINTED by
AlbrechtDuirerin 1506 in Venice, TheFeastof
theRose Garlands(Fig.1) is, despite its fragmentarystate of
preservation,one of the most important paintings in the
It is also a very significantworkof the European
artist's
oeuvre.'
- not leastbecauseit was born of the conjunction
renaissance
of two different artistic traditions:those of Germany (or
rather Nuremberg)and of Venice. Thanks to the felicitous
symbiosisof these two worlds, Diirer created a work which
won high regardin Europeand was acquiredby the famous
patron and collectorEmperorRudolfII in 1606.
On the occasion of the exhibitionRenaissance
andthe
Venice
in
be
North 1999,2the painting could not
lent, but its problematic state of conservationcame under renewed discussion,3the result of which was a call for restorativeaction to
be taken in the near future.But what precisely should such
action entail?Mere conservation,which would unobtrusively remove the most glaring defects, or thorough-going
restorationwhich would alter the painting'sappearance?Or
should we settle for a compromisebetween the two alternatives? A prerequisitefor finding the best solution to such a
problem is an in-depth study of the work in question. The
presentarticlethereforefocuseson the paintingitself- on its
technique,troubledhistoryand currentstate.Collationof the
findings and evaluationof the facts give an indication as to
how the intendedrestorationwork shouldbest proceed;they
also shed light on the questionposed in the title of this study:
how much of Diirer'soriginalactuallysurvivestoday?
The basic data concerning the painting (inv.no.O 1552)
were summed up by the restorerMojmir Hamsikin an article of 1992.4The dimensionsof the supportare 162 by 192
by approximately1 cm. The panel is composed of thirteen
verticalplanksofpoplar wood, 12.5-18.5 cm. wide and glued
together.5On the reverseside the planksare coveredby strips
of linen canvas.The whole panel was re-coveredwith linen
canvasand fixed with three horizontalplanksat a later date,
probablyduringthe years 1839-41 (Fig.2).6The groundlayer
is composedof gypsum(gesso)bound in glue;the presenceof
coccoliths has enabled the identificationof an admixtureless than one per cent - of naturalchalk,and a smallamount
of yellowochrewas also detected.The priminglayercontains
colourlessoil. The binding medium in the paint layeris also
demonstrablyoil. An analysisof the detected pigmentswas
included in Hamsik'sarticle, and it should be pointed out
here that chemical analysisconfirmedthat naturalultramarine is present in considerablequantities.7The use of ultramarine instead of the azuritepreferredby German artistsat
that time is a clearindicationof the influenceof the Venetian
milieu on the work.8
In 1998 the Feastof theRoseGarlands
was examined at the
infra-red
The
galleryusing
reflectography.9 analysisof course
revealedextensivelosses. In the places where the painting is
most damaged (i.e. where both paint and ground were lost
and were replaced during the restorationof 1839-41 to be
discussedbelow) no underdrawingsurvives(Fig.3).In other
parts affected by restorationthe underdrawingis indistinct
and hard to trace. The underdrawingis clear, on the other
hand, in areas where there has been no later interferencei.e. at the edges and in the background.It is mainly executed
in a black liquid medium applied with a brush, although
the architecturemay have been sketchedwith a pen, possibly
a quill, as proposedby Hamsik, who studied infra-redphotographsin 1992.10In places,parallelhatchingis evident,and
in some of the faces there seem to be washed areasof brushwork.Minor correctionsand shiftingmay be observedin the
figures'faces- for instance,in the face of the man holdingthe
set-square(generallyidentifiedas the architectofFondaco dei
Tedeschi, Hieronymusof Augsburg),"the positioningof the
righteye and nose has shiftedand the positionof the head has
also been slightlyadjusted (Fig.4).Correctionsare also evident in the faces of the man holding the rosary(usuallyidentified as a member of the Fugger family; Fig.5),'2and of
the man standingtowardsthe left edge of the painting (who
might be a dignitary of the church of San Bartolomeo;
Fig.6).13There are severalsuch minor modifications,none of
'This text is an expanded version of the paper presented by the author at the informal scholarlyconference 'Venice and the North' held at The National Gallery,
London, on 19thJanuary2000; the conferencetook place thanksto the supportof
the MatthiesenFoundation.
Venice
andtheNorth.Crosscurrents
intheTimeof
2B.AIKEMA
and B.L.BROWN:Renaissance
Bellini,DiirerandTitian,exh. cat., PalazzoGrassi,Venice [1999].
3Thestateof the paintingwas discussedon 3rdMay 1999 by a commissionof experts
(arthistoriansand restorers)who met to considerthe possibilityof lending it to the
Venice exhibition.They recommendedagainsttransportingthe paintingin view of
its dimensionsand state, and inclined to the view that restorationwork should be
carried out in the foreseeablefuture (curatorialfiles, Collection of Old Masters,
National Galleryin Prague).
4M. HAMSiK:
'Darers Rosenkranzfest:Zustand und Technik.Mit einer Laboruntersuchung von JindnichTomek als Beilage', Bulletinof theNationalGalleryin Prague,II
[1992], pp.128-31. See also numerous laboratoryand restorationreports in the
restorers'archives,National Galleryin Prague.
5Identifiedas poplar wood by microscopic examination of a sample by Jindfich
Tomek;confirmedby PeterKlein (Universityof Hamburg)in 1995.
6A label from the World Exhibition in Vienna in 1873 is affixed to the canvas,
antequemfor this strengthening,which was probablycarriedout
providinga terminus
duringthe restorationof 1839-41.
loc.cit.at note 4 above,pp.129 and 131.
HAMSiK,
'North and South: PaintingTechniquesin Venice', in AIKEMA and
8J.DUNKERTON:
BROWN,op.cit.at note 2 above,p. 100.
9Duringinfra-redexaminationthe whole surfaceof the paintingwas scanned and
some twenty detailswere photographedas a provisionalmeasure;in the futurethe
paintingwill be scanned again and the data digitalised.KatharineCrawfordLuber
(PhiladelphiaMuseum of Art) examined the pictureby infra-redreflectographyin
1989, but the findingsof this examinationhavenot been sent to the NationalGallery
in Prague.
loc.cit.at note 4 above,pp. 129 and 130.
10HAMsiK,
"Forthe varying opinions regardingidentificationof the figures, see for instance
H. TIETZE
derWerke
Albrecht
and E. TIETZE-CONRAT:
Kritisches
Verzeichnis
Diirers,II/1,
Basel and Leipzig [1937], pp.29-30; F. ANZELEWSKY:
Albrecht
Diirer.Das malerische
Werk,I-II, Berlin [1971]; 2nd ed. [1992], Textband,pp.195-201; D. KUTSCHBACH:
Albrecht
DieAltdre,Stuttgartand Ziirich [1995], pp.107-08.
Diirer.
and BROWN,op.cit.at note 2 above,
in AIKEMA
'2lbid.,pp.199-200; see also I. LUBBEKE
p.308. Peter Humfrey identifiesthe man as LeonhardWild (P.HUMFREY:
'Diirer's
Feast of the Rosegarlands:A Venetian Altarpiece',Bulletinof theNationalGalleryin
Prague,I [1991], pp.22-26).
3'ANZELEWSKY,
op.cit.at note 11 above,p. 199.
4
DURER'S
'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
1. TheFeastoftheRoseGarlands,
by AlbrechtDurer. 1506. Panel, 162 by 192 cm. (NationalGallery,Prague).
them significantly altering the composition for which Darer
had made a number of preparatory drawings." The underdrawing appears to have been made in Durer's own idiosyncratic style."'
In technique the painting was, as one might expect, very
much influenced by the Venetian milieu (particularly in the
use of poplar wood, the gypsum ground mixed with animalskin glue and the abundance of ultramarine). On the other
hand, the use of oil as the binding agent in the paint layer
may be found in Darer's earlier works made on German
soil.61
Once the painting left Venice in 1606, fate was not kind to
and
we can only speculate whether its current state was the
it,
result of frequent travelling or storage in unsuitable conditions. Hamsik has suggested that the poor quality of the support and an excessive admixture of glue in the ground might
also have been responsible." However, the 1621 Prague
Castle Inventory, which refers to the painting as 'Eingar schon
Marienbild'does not yet mention any damage.8 It is often
pointed out in the literature that, during the invasion of
Saxon forces in 1631, works of art housed in Prague Castle
had to be hastily removed from the city and were transported to Vienna and later to Ceske Budijovice (Budweis).19
Documentation exists for some of the works sent to Vienna,
but unfortunately the Feastof theRose Garlandsdoes not figure
on the list of items of which the imperial custodian Karl Hans
Konig took possession there.2"If it was indeed taken away,
then we may conclude, as most scholars have, that it was in
all probability damaged during its hurried transportation.
The part of the Castle collection that was removed was
returned to Prague most probably in 1633, but once again
there is no reference in the known sources to the painting
in question." Its subsequent fate is also obscure. Joseph
Neuwirth and other scholars apparently reliant on his work
TheComplete
'4W.L.
Direr,II, 1500-09, New York[1974],
Drawings
ofAlbrecht
STRAUSS:
pp.914-44.
B. HEIMBERG:
'Zur MaltechnikAlbrechtDiirers',in G. GOLDBERG,
B. HEIMBERG,
M.
Die Gemiilde
Munich [1998], pp.36-42.
derAlten
Pinakothek,
SCHAWEetal.:AlbrechtDiirer.
U
andj. KOLLER:
'Die Bindemittelauf Dirers Tafelgemalden',
I. FIEDLER
U. BAUMER,
in GOLDBERG,
etal., op.cit.at note 15 above,pp.102-19.
SCHAWE
HEIMBERG,
1HAMSiK, loc. cit. at note 4 above, p. 128.
"SeeH. ZIMMERMANN:
'Das Inventarder PragerSchatz-und Kunstkammervom 6.
in Wien',Jahrbuch
der
Dezember 1621 nach Aktendes k. und k. Reichsfinanzarchivs
desAllerhochsten
kunsthistorischen
XXV/2 [1905], reg. 19421,
Kaiserhauses,
Sammlungen
wie sie kaisernMaximiliano
Primoeinen
p.XXXIX, no.863: 'Eingar schonMarienbild,
mitvielandernbildern
undengelnvomAlbrecht
rosenkranz
aufsetz,undsanctDominicus
Diirrer,
stuckh.(Orig.).'
einfurnehmes
j
derallerhiichsten
Kunsthistorische
Kaiserhauses.
E.R. VONENGERTH:
Sammlungen
Gemiilde.
BeschreibendesVerzeichniss.
L Band. Italienische,spanischeundfranzdsischeSchulen,Vienna
Vienna [1886], pp.259-74. The
Schulen,
[1882], pp.XVII-XVIII; III. Band.Deutsche
author here refers to archival documents at that time in the Kaiserlich Koniglichen
Statthalterei-Archiv, Prague, today the State Central Archives in Prague (Stitni
2istredni archiv, Prague). At the present time, however, no sources relating to this
event are stored there, according to VEra Berinkovd of the State Central Archives see SM file, S 21. The event is similarly described in other literature; see esp. j. NEUWIRTH: AlbrechtDiirersRosenkranzfest,
Leipzig and Prague [1885], p.25, cited by later
authors as their source.
loc. cit. at note 18 above, reg. 19429, pp.LIII-LIV
2"ZIMMERMANN,
I, p.XVIII; NEUWIRTH,p.25 (both cited at note 19 above). According
2'VONENGERTH,
to ANZELEWSKY
(op. cit. at note 11 above, p. 194) the paintings did not return until
1635. On the sources, see ZIMMERMANN,
loc. cit. at note 18 above, reg. 19431,
pp.LV-LVI.
5
DiRER'
S 'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
claim that inventoriesdrawnup in 1635 and 1644 recorded
that Dtirer'spaintingwas alreadydamaged.22However,it is
not clearwhat inventoriesNeuwirthwas referringto and the
listingsin question have never subsequentlybeen identified
at all
(see the Appendixbelow).The FeastoftheRoseGarlands,
events,survivedthe plunderingof the PragueCastle art collection by marauding Swedish troops in 1648. The reason
why the Swedesdid not carryoff the famousjewel of the collection may,as is often stated,havebeen the panel'sbad state,
or alternativelythe paintingmay have been hidden.23Be that
as it may,it is not demonstrablyrecordedagain in the Prague
Castle gallery until 1650 - and the brief entry in the 'Specification' of that year makes no mention of its state of preservation.24
The first reference to what may be restoration of Dtirer's
painting dates from 1663. This is in a letter from the painter
Karel Skreta requesting that the imperial chamber pay his
fee of fifty thaler for restoring two paintings, one by Direr
and the other by Tintoretto;25 they had apparently been
'greatly violated by the joiners' in 1661.26 The sum was fairly
considerable: Skreta, the most prominent Prague painter of
the period, could charge about two thaler for a day's work at
this time. It is unfortunately impossible to ascertain exactly
what Skreta did to Direr's painting at this time. (In point of
fact it is not completely certain - although probable - that the
painting referred to is the Feast of the Rose Garlandssince,
according to the inventory of 1685, Prague Castle possessed
three other paintings thought to be by Direr.)27 In 1839
Johann Gruss detected traces of an older, well-executed
restoration, but to identify this with Skreta's work would be
rash, to say the least.
The FeastoftheRoseGarlandsis not clearly identifiable in the
inventory of 1685,28 but it does figure in those of 1718, 1737,
1763 and 1782 - all of which carry more or less the same
This is further supported
comment, that it is 'soganz ruinirt'.29
minimal
the
the
fetched
when the remnants
by
price
painting
of the Rudolfine gallery were auctioned off on 13th May
1782: the Dtirer was sold to Franz Lothar Ehemant for one
florin and eighteen kreutzers.3"In the same year the painting
was acquired by Philipp Fillbaum, whose heirs sold it in 1793
to the Premonstratensian monastery at Strahov, Prague: the
painting fetched twenty-two ducats and the frame (apparently not the original) was acquired later for one hundred Rhenish florins, an approximately equivalent sum.31
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.24 (andsee the Appendixbelow).The author
concedes that the identificationis only probable;nonethelessthe assertionthat the
in 1635 and 1644 continuesrepeatedlyto
Durer paintingwas describedas 'ruinirt'
'Dtirerova"Ri•encova slavnost"
appearin the literature;see, interalia,C.A.STRAKA:
na StrahovC',Tjn, II [1918], p.247; A.J. MARTIN:
'Der Erwerbvon AlbrechtDurers
RosenkranzfestdurchRudolfII', Umini,XLVI [1998], pp.175-88: '. .. dassernicht
BlatausderKirche
worden.'
bisihmsolches
nachgelassen,
verwilligt
23Thepoor conditionof the paintingis cited by most researchersas the main reason
why it was not looted by the Swedesin Prague;see esp. NEUWIRTH,
op.cit.at note 19
above,p.25; ANZELEWSKY,
op.cit.at note 11 above,p. 194.
24'Specification
Derienigen Sachen, welche bey der, auf der L6bl. B6hm. Camer
beschehenegnedigeVerordnung,den 29.July Anno 1650 gehaltenInventur,in der
Kaysl. Schatz-undKunst-Camer,befunden, und wie hernach folget beschrieben
worden':'1 AltesBildtaufHolzgemahlt,
wievnser
See VON
Fraw,Roszen-Krdnz
ausztheilet.'
'UrkunENGERTH,
I, p.XXIII;NEUWIRTH,
p.25 (bothcited at note 19 above);K.KOPL:
den, Acten und Regesten und Inventare aus dem K. K. Statthalterei-Archivin
derkunsthistorischen
desAllerhdchsten
X [1889],
Prag',Jahrbuch
Kaiserhauses,
Sammlungen
reg. 6231, p.CXXXI.
25Prague,Stdtni listredniarchiv,Stardmanipulace,S 21/7/1663, box 2109. This
documentis often referredto, but neverquoted,and is thereforetranscribedhere in
full:Milostivy
kterak
pdn,pdn, Vas'Excelenci
[?] a Milostipokorniphpomindm,
p'ednetterm
Ferdinanda
mesicem
rdicili
latzmistra
skrzepana
Misironajste
pi mnenajidti,abychdvakusymaDureraa druhjod Tentoreta,
ktereodtruhldiMj
velice
malifeAlbrechta
lovdni,
jedenodvznes'endho
naporuceniVahi
zasek svemuzpi~sobupfivedla spravil.Coz'jsem
byly,abychtakovJ
zhanobend
Excelence
a tydvakusymalovdni
dob'espravene
[?] a Milostia vedlemeimoznosti
zasek
vykonal
rukdm
dodala odvedl.
a Milosti
s'atzmistra
prdcipadesitetolaruod VasiExcelence
Za kteroulto
a zaplatiti,poroucen'
a pokorn
kter' e mneracteporu"iti,
vidddm,
vydatiti
eprosima z~itdvdm,
a Milosti.[.. .] KarelSkrita.(My graciouslord, my lord, I humbly
Vas~i
[?] Excelenci
remind your Excellency [?] and your Grace, that some months past, through the
lord treasurerFerdinandMisironi,you deigned to engage me to repairand restore
to theirformerstatetwo paintings,the firstby the noble painterAlbrechtDurerand
the secondby Tintoretto,which had been greatlyviolatedbyjoiners.This I did duly
perform on the ordersof your Excellencyand Grace and in accordancewith my
capabilities,and I deli vered these two paintings,well repaired,into the treasurer's
hands. For said work I requestand humblybeseech your Excellencyand Grace to
deign to order,disburseand pay to me the sum of fiftythalers,and I remain,your
Excellencyand Grace [. . .] Karel Skr6ta.)Notes attachedto Skr6ta'sreminderindicate that in the end he was paid 25 thaler for his work. I thank Vit Vlnas of the
Archivesof the National Galleryin Praguefor drawingmy attentionto this source,
and I thankVira Vaivroviof the PragueCastleArchivesfor assistingin the archive.
26Thisevent was discussedrecentlyby E. FU•iKOVA:'Zur Geschichteder Gemaldeetal.:Meisterwerke
derPrager
exh.
galerieaufder PragerBurg',in K.sCHUrTZ
Burggalerie,
cat., KunsthistorischesMuseum, Vienna and Milan [1996], p.15. See also NEUWIRTH,
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.25.
DerRom.Kayserl
27PragueCastle Archive,inv. no.95, Inventarium
Maytt.Mahlerey
auff
demkiningl.PragerSchlo/3,
Ao. 1685, no.49: 'Albrecht
einescardinals';
Eincontrafect
Diirrer:
no.145: 'Albertus
Einesaltenmanskopf; no.300: 'Alb.Diirrer,
NB, org.Einerk6nigin
Diirrer:
aussPortugal.'
This inventoryis being transcribedforpublicationby VWra
eincontrafect
VtAvrovi,to whom I am gratefulfor makingthe inventoryavailableto me and for
providingme with a transcription.
28Seeabove. It is certainlynot listedin the inventoryunder Dtirer'sauthorship,but
it is not impossiblethat the paintingis 'hiding'in an anonymousentry- such as that
under no.343: 'unserlieberfirau
sambtdemkindlundanderenfiguren',
or no.363: 'unserliebe
frausambtdenkindlundanderen
heiligen.'
29K6PL, loc. cit. at note 24 above, pp.LXIII-CC: Inventory of 1718 (reg. 6232,
Durero:UnserLiebeFrausambtdemkindlein
p.CXXXVI, no.300): 'Alberto
Jesu,sitzend,
sambtvielen
undweltlichen
geistlichen
knieendenfiguren.
Inventoryof
Orig.,soganzverdorben';
1737 (reg.6234, p.CL, no.220): 'UnserLiebeFrausambtdemkindlJesu,
sitzend,mitvielen
undweltlichen
soganzruinirt.2 Elen18 Zollhoch,3 Elen6 Zoll
geistlichen
kniendenfiguren,
breit;Ramen:Braun,Materi:Holz; Orig.,AlbertDiirer';the same wordingis repeatedin
the inventoriesof 1763 (reg.6235, p.CLXXIV,no.84) and 1782 (reg.6238, p.CXC,
no.84).
3oPragueCastle Archive, Castle Inspection, inv. no.107, Inventarium
iiberdie in allk. u. k. Schatzkammer
Maschinen
undEffekten,
welcheaufallerhiesieger
voq'indigen
Figuren,
h6chsten
K u. K. Befehlden13. Monatstag
armen
May 1782 zum bestendesallhiesiegen
licitando
worden.
Diirer'spainting is listed under no.84: 'Unser
Besorgung-Stift
veriiussert
liebeFrausambtdemKindlJesu, sitzend,mit vielengeistlichen
undweltlichen
Figuren,
ganz
2 Ehlen18 Zollhoch,3 Ehlen6 ZollbreitaufHolzvonAlbrecht
ruiniert,
Diirer,Schdtzungspreis
Professor
ifl, geldstift. 18 Kr.'.The identity of the purchaseris added: 'Ehemann'.
Franz Lothar Ehemant was first identifiedin J. MORAVEK:
SbirkyRudolfaII. Pokuso
exh. cat., Museumhlavnihomesta Prahy,Prague [1937], p.12.
jedichidentifikaci,
3See esp. NEUWIRTH,
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.29. The frameappearsto have beeh
a non-originalframe,brown in colour,which came from the castle collection;it is
listedin the inventoriesof 1737 and 1763 (seenote 29 above).At presentthe painting has a nineteenth-centurygilded frame probablymade when the paintingwas
restoredin 1839-41. There is no survivingdocumentationregardingthe appearance of the originalframe;its possibleappearanceis discussedin HUMFREY,
loC.cit.at
note 12 above,pp.29-32.
~~s~'
2.
Reverse
Fig.
1.
of
_14
. . ....
....
22NEUWIRTH,
6
DURER'S
'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
3. Infra-redreflectogramshowingthe face of AlbrechtDurer in Fig.1.
4. Infra-redreflectogramshowingthe face of the man holdingthe set-square
(Hieronymusof Augsburg?)in Fig.1.
5. Infra-redreflectogramshowingthe face of the man holdingthe rosary(a member of the Fuggerfamily?)in Fig.1.
6. Infra-redreflectogramshowingthe face of the man standingnear the left edge
of the painting(a dignitaryof S. Bartolomeo?)in Fig.1.
remainedat Strahovfor 141
The Feastof theRoseGarlands
years, during which time it underwent a thorough-going
restorationin 1839-41 and acquired substantiallythe appearanceit has today.ThankslargelytoJosephNeuwirthand
the monasterylibrarianCyril Strakawho both had accessto
archivematerialwhich is now either lost or unavailable,we
are able to reconstruct,partiallyat least, the unhappyfate of
this one-timeVenetianjewel.32
At Strahovthe painting was initiallyall but hidden from
A renewal of interest in it
view in the abbot's chambers.33
in the early nineteenth century is attested by a drawing
by Viclav Mines from 1823 (Fig.7;Akademie vitvarneho
and severalprintsof 1835-36, includingan
umeni, Prague)34
engravingof 1835,35and a lithographreversingthis fromthe
same year." Of these, the most faithfulreproductionis the
Mines drawing,which has gone completelyunmentionedin
the Darer literature;the prints are more informativeabout
contemporaryperception of Dtirer'swork than about the
paintingitself.Viclav Mines (1793-1858) was a member of
a well-knownfamily of Czech painterswho was notable for
his diligence ratherthan for outstandingindividualtalent,37
and his drawingis admirablypreciseand faithfulto the Durer
original,accuratelyrenderingthe figures'faces and clothing,
as well as the master'ssignature.He also transcribedDuirer's
celebrated trompel'ceilfly on the Madonna's knee (Fig.8),
which is absentin the prints,either owing to the bad state of
the original or to over-zealousacademicism on the printmakers'part.38The fly was also suppressedbyJohann Gruss,
when he repaintedthe figureof the Madonnain the 1839-41
restoration,but it is presentin all the paintedcopies thatwere
32NEUWIRTH(op.cit.at note 19 above,pp.29-38) describesthe acquisitionof the paint-
36Drawnby LeopoldAugustFriese,lithographedby KarelAugustHenning, 27.6 by
33.4 cm. (NationalGalleryin Prague,inv.no.R 88639). Anotherlithographof 1836
(drawnby SimonJakubArkoles,lithographedby KarelAugustHenning)is of little
significanceas close comparisonrevealsthat it was made from the precedingone,
not from the painting.
et al.: Encyklopedie
37SeeE. REITHAROVA",
in E. POCHE
ceskihovjtvarniho
umeni,Prague
II, Prague
[1975], p.288; P. TOMAN:
tvarnjchume7ci',
Novj slovnikceskoslovenskjch
Lexikon
and vF.BECKER:
Allgemeines
[1950], p.84. Forbasic information,see u. THIEME
vonderAntikebisGegenwarth,
derbildenden
XXIV, Leipzig [1922], p.6.
Kiinstler
et al.: Diirer.Schriftlicher
3"Onthe fly on Mary's knee, see H. RUPPRICH
Nachlass,III,
Berlin [1969], p.461; and recentlyHUMFREY,
loc.cit.at note 12 above,pp.27, 33, note
22, with furtherliterature.
ing and what happened to it while in the StrahovMonastery collection;see also
loc.cit.at note 22 above,pp.248-49 and 328-32.
STRAKA,
ibid.,p.249.
33STRAKa,
of Arts,Prague,inv.no.206. My attentionwas kindlydrawnto this draw34Academy
ing by Roman Prahl of the Instituteof Art History at the PhilosophicalFacultyof
Akademie
kresbou.
CharlesUniversityin Prague.See alsoR. PRAHLetal.:Posedlost
Pocdtky
umnziv Praze.1800-1835, Prague [1998], pp.30, 114 and 129.
35Drawnby Leopold August Friese,engravedbyJoseph Battmann, 16.7 by 20 cm.
(NationalGalleryin Prague,inv. no.DR 1207). This steel engravingis often mentioned in the literature;see, e.g., NEUWIRTH,
op.cit.at note 19 above,pp.31 and 74,
ill.
7
DURER'S
'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
7. TheFeastoftheRose
Garlands,
byVaclavManes
afterAlbrechtDuirer.1823.
Pen and blackink, 59.8 by
69.4 cm. (Academyof Arts,
Prague).
8. Detail of Fig.7, showing
the Madonna. I
made of the Feastof theRoseGarlandsin the seventeenth century - it appears, for instance, in both copies in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna,39in the painting in the Mus&edes
Beaux-Arts, Lyon,40as well as in the copy that was recorded
in Richmond.41 As will be evident from the text below, however, Gruss did not know a single one of these copies. A comparison with Diirer's preparatory drawing in Berlin42shows
that Mines's drawing quite faithfully reproduces the physiognomy of the Pope, which was substantially altered during
restoration. Thanks to the fidelity with which Mines reproduced the original, it is possible to be sure that the prerestoration wording of Diirer's signature on the card that he
himself holds in the painting corresponded with what is there
now: 'Exegitquinque/mestrispatioAlbertus/DurerGermanus/
MDVI/ AD' (Figs.9 and 10).4
In the 1830s the painting must have been in a very poor
state of preservation, although this is not evident from any
of the reproductions mentioned above. Fortunately, its state
was recorded in 1837 in a sketch with a detailed description
made by the director of the Gemaldegalerie Berlin, Gustav
Friedrich Waagen, during talks (held in 1836-37) on the possibility of purchasing the work for the Berlin museums. When
working on his sketch, Waagen made use of the steel engraving of 1835. Waagen's sketch and description, as well as
highly important correspondence containing exceptionally
interesting facts concerning the history of the painting were
all published in 1937 by P.O. Rave.4 Waagen's position was
not entirely impartial, because he was disinclined to buy a
painting in such a poor state of repair at the high price asked
by the monastery (16,000 florins); the museum followed
his advice to decline the purchase.45According to Waagen,
approximately one half of the work had been overpainted,
and
39Canvas,160 by 193 cm.; on the copy, inv. no.1900, see LIBBEKE, in AIKEMA
in K.SCHiTrzet
BROWN,op.cit.at note 2 above,pp.306-09, cat. no.57, ill.; K.SCHTITZ,
al.: Albrecht
Diirerim Kunsthistorischen
Museum,exh. cat., KunsthistorischesMuseum,
Vienna and Milan [1994], p.130, cat. no.39, ill. On the free copy, inv. no.5808
(canvas,164 by 142 cm.), see scHtirz,ibid.,p.132, no.40, ill.
4oANZELEWSKY,
op.cit.at note 11 above,p.202, ill.; M.VINCENT:'Une Copie de La Fete
etMonuments
du Rosaired'AlbertDirer au Musee des Beaux-Arts',BulletindesMus&es
IV [1969], pp.165-70, ill.
Lyonnais,
41Recentlymentionedin MARTIN,
loc.cit.at note 22 above,pp.182-83, 187, note 66,
ill.
4"See,for instance,STRAUSS,
op.cit.at note 14 above,pp.942-43, ill.
this opinion is not held by,for instance,LUiBBEKE,in AIKEMAand BROWN,
43However,
8
the greatestdamagebeing to the centralpart of the painting
showingthe Madonna and the InfantChrist,the head of the
Pope (whomWaagentook to be a bishop)and an angel playing a lute. In this part of the picture,he reported,it was difficult to detect originalpainting,and in many places (suchas
the Child's head) even the ground was missing.Unprofessional restorationwas responsiblein his view for the monstrousappearanceof the Child'srightleg. Other figureswere
considerablydamagedtoo, whereasthe landscapeand backgroundwere betterpreserved.46
Waagen's report establishes one more important fact:
there had been a recent extreme deteriorationin the painting'sconditionsince he had last seen the workfouryearsearlier,in 1833, at which time its stateof repairhad not been so
It appearsthat in around 1836, Abbot Hieronymus
critical.47
to Count
Joseph Zeidlerhad lent the FeastoftheRoseGarlands
FranzSternbergwho wanted to have a copy of it made. The
original was hung on a damp wall, with the result that in
places the paint layer and ground fell off. Before being
returned to Strahov, the painting was repaired by an
unknown painter of questionable competence, who was
apparently responsible for the repaintings mentioned by
Waagen.48
After the talkswith the Berlinmuseum,the abbot, acting
on the advice of the newly instituted director of the
monastery'sgallery,RudolfBurde,decidedto have the painting restored,even though many in Praguebelievedit would
be best to leave it untouched and lying horizontallyso that
no morepaintwould dropoff.49In the end the abbotengaged
as the restorera former fellow-studentof philosophy and
theology -Johann Gruss (1790-1855) of north Bohemia, a
painterof merelylocal significance,who was to be assistedby
op.cit. at note 2 above, pp.308-09, no.57. The author points out that the text of
Direr's signaturemight be inspiredby Horace (Odes,III, 30). I am gratefulto Rudi
T. van der Paardt(Universityof Leiden)for helpingwith the analysisof this ode.
RAVE: 'Dtirer'sRosenkranzbildund die BerlinerMuseen 1836/1837', Jahrbuch
44P.O.
LVIII [1937], pp.267-83; Waagen'ssketchis reproderPreussischen
Kunstsammlungen,
duced on p.281.
45Ibid.,
p.283.
46Ibid.,
pp.271, 280 and 282-83.
47Ibid.,
p.282.
loc.cit.at note
48Ibid.,
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.32; STRAKA,
p.282; see also NEUWIRTH,
22 above,p.249.
49NEUWIRTH,ibid.,
p.33.
DURER'S
'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
his son, also namedJohann (1820-1901).'oGruss'srestoration was so extensivethat one might almost describehim as
co-authorof the paintingin its presentform.
Verylittle has been publishedonJohann Grussthe elder,51
and there is virtuallyno photographicdocumentationof his
work. An unpublishedseminar thesis by Marie Kalparovai
reportsthat Grussabandonedhis studiesof theologyand philosophy at Litomifice (Leitmeritz)in 1806 in order to study
paintingat the Academyof Artsin Prague.He then returned
to north Bohemia and lived in Vansdorfand Litomeice,
wherehe held a teachingpost at the art school;he died in the
latter city in 1855 in the cholera epidemic.52At the Prague
Academyhe had studiedunderJosefBergler,but artistically
was more influencedby FrantilekTkadlik(whowas director
of the Academyin the years 1836-40, when Grusswas workand Josef Ftihrich.He
ing on the Feastof theRoseGarlands)
shared with these artists a strong religious feeling, and
through them became acquainted with the art of the
Nazarenes, although he never travelledto Rome, or visited
Italy.Indeed, thereis no survivingevidenceto suggestthathe
undertooka studyjourney: we know only that he exhibited
his picturesin Dresdenin 1828. Gruss'sstudyof theologyand
his profound Catholic faith, reflected in his activity as a
painter of altar-piecesfor churchesin northern Bohemia,53
were no doubt furtherinducementsfor the abbot of Strahov
to give him what was undoubtedlyhis most importantcommission- to restorethe most famousand valuablepaintingin
the monasterycollection.An illustrationof Gruss'sown style
is affordedby his Headof Christ(Fig.11; Severocesk~galerie
Restorationconstituted a
vvtvarn6houmeni Litomehfice).54
not inconsiderablepart of his practiceand he restoredother
worksfor StrahovMonasteryat the same time as the Feastof
theRoseGarlands."a
In the 1840she was engagedby the bishop
of Litom~fice Augustin Bartolomej Hille to restore some
paintings by Karel Skreta from the cathedralchurch of St
Stephen, for which he also painted four not particularlysuccessfulpanels of the four Evangelists,stillin place today.5"
No restorationreportsor study materialby Grussfor his
restorationof the FeastoftheRoseGarlands
appearto have surThe
broad
outlines
of
the
restoration
vived.57
process were
Neuwirth
and
Straka.
Neuwirth
recorded, however, by
obtained some of his information about the restoration
directly from Johann Gruss the younger, then working as
imperialconservatorin Vienna;Strakaenrichedhis account
with information from the monastery records.58From these
accounts we learn that Gruss (assisted by his son) started work
on the painting on 23rdJuly 1839. He noted at the outset two
instances of repair already undertaken: one that was fairly
appropriate, and another that was completely inappropriate
(possibly made by the forgotten painter of questionable
competence mentioned by Waagen), which Gruss removed.
basic informationon Gruss,see THIEME
and BECKER,
XV, p.153; TOMAN,p.278
50For
(both cited at note 37 above); see also 0. DOSKOCIL:
Krajina
Malii Litomfiicka.
a Ceskdho
Litomfiicka
v promindch
19. a 20. stoleti,Litomifice
stfedohoi~i
slohOi
malifskjch
[2000], pp.22-23.
"A shortromanticisingarticlein the contemporarypressfocusedchieflyon a fireat
the artist'shouse in Vansdorf,north Bohemia (Unterhaltungsbliitter,
no.29 [10th April
1829], pp.1-2).
Malif Jan Gruss starsi,unpublished seminar thesis, Masarykova
52M.KAiPAROVA:
Universita,Brno, s. a. Forhis death, see Litomei'iceRegionalStateArchives,burials
register,1855. I thankOldfich Doskocilof the Litomifice DistrictHistoryMuseum
for makingthe paper availableto me and for providingvaluableinformationabout
Johann Gruss the elder.An exhibition about the Grussfamily of paintersmay be
held in Litomifice soon.
the above details,see KsiPAROvk, MS cited at note 52 above.
53For
9. Detail of Fig.7,
showingthe signature of Albrecht
Duirer.
10. Detail of Fig.1,
showing the signature of Albrecht
SDirer.
During the restorationhe made an exact drawingindicating
where the paint had fallenoff which unfortunatelyis lost."5A
second, surviving,drawingrecordsthe state afterrestoration
5"Inv.
no.0-1417.
55STRAKA,loc.cit.at note 22
above,p.333.
MS cited at note 52 above.
56"KiPARovA,
57PavelR. Pokornyof the PremonstratensianMonasteryat Strahovinformedme in
1999 that no documents were to be found in the monastery archivesrelatingto
Gruss'srestoration.
58NEUWIRTH,
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.35; STRAKA,loc.cit.at note 22 above,pp.248
and 333 (drawingalso on Neuwirth).
"Forthe above details,see NEUWIRTH,
ibid.,pp.35-36; sTRAKA,ibid.,pp.332-33. The
Albrecht
Diirer,RifZencovd
drawingwas alreadymissing in the 1930s; see v. KRAM~iA:
praci,exh. cat, ObrazarnaSpoleEnostivlasteneckfchpfftel
slavnosta soubor
grafickjch
umeni, Prague[1935], p.12;RAVE,
loc.cit.at note 44 above,pp.35-36, note 2. It is not
clear fromNeuwirth'stext whetherhe had actuallyseen Gruss'sdrawinghimself.
9
DURER'S
'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
11. TheHeadof
Christ,byJohann
Gruss. 16 by 14
cm. (NorthBohemian
Galleryof Fine
Arts,Litomifice).
(Albertina, Vienna),60as does a painted copy Gruss made at
this time, 1840-41 (Strahovski obrazirna, Prague).61Gruss
pasted over the damaged areas - amounting to nearly one
quarter of the surface of the painting - with filling and left it
to dry. According to Neuwirth and Straka, the abbot wanted
to speed up the restoration process so that the monastery
gallery could be opened as quickly as possible, and he reportedly instructed Gruss to start painting in the missing sections
even though the filling remained damp.62We should be wary
of the veracity of this information, and yet if it is only partly
true it might help to explain why the sections repainted by
Gruss are slightly elevated, forming a relief surface (Figs.12
and 13).
In his restoration of the principal figures - in particular the
Madonna, the Christ Child, the Pope's face and most of the
figure of the angel playing the lute (Fig.14)63 - Gruss remained
true to his Nazarene allegiance. He also added the right eye
of the old man behind the man presumed to be Antonio Soriano, the left cheek of the S. Bartolomeo dignitary, a thin strip
on the face and trunk of the figure believed:to be Duke Erich
of Brunswick; furthermore, he made additions to the figures
60Inv.no.17674, pencil on paper, 160 by 108 cm. I am gratefulto FritzKoreny of
the Albertinafor informationon this drawing.Opinions differ on its attribution:
Neuwirthattributedit toJohann Grussthe younger,while in the Albertinait is given
to Grussthe elder.In addition,as Vincenc KramaIpointed out, the drawingbears
The initialsevidentlydo not denote
a strangesignature:'1840/J. TK./Prag/Strahow'.
either Gruss,poreorfils, nor even FrantilekTkadlik,who was present during the
restoration- and who anywaydied on 16thJanuary1840 (seethe estateof Vincenc
Kramdr',Instituteof Art History at the Academy of Sciences, Prague,documentation department,K VII/10).
Odgotikyk romantismu,
obrazdrna.
Prague
61I. KYZOUROVAand P. KALINA: Strahovskd
[1993], pp.104-06, ill.
cit.at note 22 above, p.333.
62NEUWIRTH, op.cit.at note 19 above, p.34; STRAKA, 10C.
63Forthe extent of damage, see Fig.18 and the X-radiographin Fig.15. In Mojmir
Hamsik'sview (seehis restorationreportof 14thApril 1965 in the restorers'archives
of the National Gallery in Prague),the unevennessof the surfacemay have been
causedby the use of too much glue by Grusswhen fixing.
64Foran exact descriptionof the damaged sections,see also o. BENESCH:'Zu Diirers
IX [1930], pp.81-85. On the identificationof the figures,
Rosekranzfest',Belvedere,
see note 11 above.
65NEUWRTmm,
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.35; STRAKA,loc.cit.at note 22 above,p.333.
10
of the angels in the background and in a number of other
minor areas.64
The restored painting and Gruss's copy were placed on
show to the public on 31st October 1841 for ten days.65Gruss
was criticised for not using the Vienna copy which would
have helped him reconstruct the original (Fig.16).66The question remains whether Gruss actually knew of the existence of
the copy. Members of the Berlin purchasing committee
certainly did,67and Waagen cited it as a possible source for
completing missing sections of the painting,68but there is no
evidence to indicate that he informed Abbot Zeidler about it,
or, if he did, that Zeidler took any interest. Neuwirth and
Straka write that Waagen followed the course of the restoration and that he even spoke to Gruss; apparently he raised
no objections to the restoration procedure.69However, Neuwirth's information came from the restorer's son and was
therefore not impartial. Certainly Gruss cannot be blamed
for not knowing Dtirer's Madonnaof the Siskin,70also painted
in Venice in 1506 and now in the Berlin gallery, which was
acquired only in 1892, having been in private collections
throughout the nineteenth century. Another work that might
have been of some help in the restoration was Mines's drawing of 1823, but even though this was kept in the Prague
Academy of Arts, Gruss did not know of its existence.
Straka strongly objected that the restored Madonna
(Fig.17) was not in Darer's style and claimed that Gruss had
been inspired less by Darer than by his own daughter.7' Here
the Strahov librarian was evidently straying into the realms of
gossip, since Gruss is recorded as having had two sons, but no
daughter (or at least no legitimate one).72Inspection of the
parts painted in by Gruss - chiefly the faces of the Madonna
and Child - reveals that he made no attempt to draw inspiration from Darer's art (e.g. his prints) or from renaissance
sources. In repainting the missing parts he followed his own
aesthetic, which was conditioned by the time, by his somewhat provincial milieu, his own artistic training and modest
talent. According to surviving documentation he consulted
the director of the Prague Academy, Frantilek Tkadlik,73
about methods of repair and repainting, but the whole undertaking seems to have been compromised by lack of time, and
Gruss apparently did not make thorough preparations.
Although the abbot, as we learn from surviving letters, was in
a position to contact experts and have access to specialist
information, he regrettably failed to make use of these opportunities.
Gruss's restoration has always been controversial, and was
already described in Neuwirth's account as 'einesdertraurigsten
ibid.,
p.334.
66STRAKA,
67Seethejudgmentof the Berlinpurchasingcommittee(signedby Waagen)in RAVE,
loc.cit.at note 44 above, p.271, and Waagen'sletter of 1837 to Count Brtihl,ibid.,
p.280. In the correspondencegatheredby Rave there are severalreferencesto the
Vienna copy (ibid.,pp.274 and 276).
68Thismay be inferredprimarilyfrom a lettersent to the abbot by a memberof the
Strahovchapter,P.Theodor Quadtrat,on 1stJune 1836; see STRnKA,
loc.cit.at note
22 above,pp.329-30; see also RAVE,
loc.cit.at note 44 above,p.273.
69NEUWIRTH,op.cit. at note 19 above, pp.36-37; STRAKA, loc.cit.at note 22 above,
p.333.
op.
7oPoplar
panel, 91 by 76 cm.; GemaldegalerieBerlin,inv.557F; see ANZELEWSKY,
cit.at note 11 above,Textband,pp.202-03, no.94, Tafelband,figs.110-13.
71•TRAKA,loc.cit.at note 22 above,p.334. This is cautiouslynoted in NEUWRTH also,
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.37, note 1.
registerof Vansdorf,anno 1820, 1826. I am gratefulto Oldfich Doskocil
72Baptism
of the LitomeificeDistrictHistory Museum for makingthis source availableto me.
MS cited at note 52 above,pp. 1 and 30, note 2.
See also KASPAROVdA,
loc.cit.at note 22 above,
73NEUWIRTH,op.cit. at note 19 above, pp.36-37; STRAKA,
p.333. On Tkadlik,see E.PETROVA:Frantiksek
7kadlik,Prague [1960].
DURER'S
'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
12. Detail of Fig.1, showingthe Madonna. Photographedin rakinglight.
13. Detail of Fig.1, showingthe Pope. Photographedin rakinglight.
vonVerwiistung
diejeein WerkdesGeniusdurch
hingestellt,
Beispiele
und
erlitten
The prevailingopinion
Sorglosigkeit Unfadhigkeit hat'."7
in this, as in subsequentpublications,is that the work had
been made illegiblethroughoverpainting.75"
was lent to the monoWhen the Feastof theRoseGarlands
Durer
in
on
exhibition
Nurembergin 1928,76there
graphic
was once again discussionabout sellingit to a Germanmuseum, this time Nuremberg'sGermanischesMuseum.77Nothing came of the plan, but the loan of the paintingmeant that
it was seen and studiedby a largenumberof renownedscholars. It was widely felt that the repaintinghad been aestheti-
State Collectionof Old Masters;today the National Gallery
in Prague),opposed the sale of the Darer to a foreignbuyer
in 1928, and now attemptedto persuade the Czechoslovak
Stateto purchaseit.80He held thatit was not adequateforthis
greatworkto hang in a male monasterywhich women were
not permitted to enter;81Strahov had refused to lend the
painting to the Picture Gallery in Prague.82Finally, after
was purlengthy negotiations,the Feastof theRoseGarlands
chased by the state in 1934.83The followingyear Kramti
declaredthat he wanted to restoreit to an 'honourablecondition'- by which he meant reversingwhat he referredto as
the 'not very satisfactorywork of nineteenth-centuryrestorers'.84His radical stance was immediately criticisedin art
historyjournalsand in the end, as a resultof eitherdisagreement among specialists,85or the approach of the Second
World War, or because Kramti's position graduallyweakened, nothing came of the proposal.Nevertheless,Kramaif's
preparatory efforts were admirable. He corresponded in
depth with the Dutch art historian Frances van den
OudendijkPieterse,author a few years later of a respected
cally naive, if well executed on the technical side;"8the relief
characterof the painting'ssurfacenoted abovewas observed.
Opinionsof the restorerand of the generalstateof the painting were overwhelminglycritical,but it still attractedmore
attentionthan any other work shown at the exhibition:'trotz
Kostbarkeiten
derNiirnes alleanderen
seinesZustandes
iiberstrahlte
berger
Ausstellung.'79
the directorof whatwas then the Picture
VincencKramadr,
of
the
Gallery
Societyof PatrioticFriendsof the Arts(laterthe
74NEUWIRTH,op.cit.at note 19 above,p.37.
75E.g.H. KNACKFUss:Diirer,3rd ed., Bielefeldand Leipzig [1895], pp.47-48.
Critical
views were voiced, of course,in virtuallyeverypublicationon Darer.
imGermanischen
76Albrecht
Museum,exh. cat., GermanischesMuseum,
Ausstellung
Diirer.
Nuremberg[1928], pp.53-54, cat. no.55.
'"Der Kampf um Durers Rosenkrazfest"im Jahr 1928', Bulletinof the
77v. VLNAs:
in Prague,II [1992], pp. 111-19.
NationalGallery
'Die Gemalde Durers auf der NtlrnbergerAusstellung',in G.
78M.J. FRIEDLANDER:
BIERMANN
derInternationalen
et al.:Albrecht
Leipzig and
Diirer,Festchrift
Diirer-Forschung,
Berlin [1928], p. 10.
79BENEsCH, op.cit.at note 64 above,p.85.
V. LAHODA
etal.:
8"OnKramia, who was directorfrom 1919 to 1939, see o. UHROVA,
k Picassovi,
exh. cat., NArodnigaleriev Praze,Prague
Kramdf.
Odstarjchmistriu
Vincenc
'KodchoduVincence Kramiae ze StAtnisbirkystarehoummni
[2000]; L. SLAVICEK:
v r. 1939', Umini,XLVII [2000], pp.78-81.
"8Seeinterviewwith Kramai in the newspaperLidovenoviny[24th October 1928];
interviewin Lidovjdenik[5th April 1928]; and the text of an unpublishedarticleby
V. KRAMAi:'Bude se vfibec stavit statni galerie?' ['Will a state gallery be built?'],
Prague, Art History Instituteof the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic,
documentationdepartment,estateof Vincenc Kramaf, K IV/1, K 111/3, KV/ 1. I
am gratefulto PavlaSadilkovAof the Art HistoryInstitutearchivefor her kind assistance in the archive.
82KRAMAR,unpublishedarticlecitedabove.
8VLNAS, op.cit.at note 77 above,p. 117.
4KRAMARi,
op.cit.at note 59 above,pp.11 and 13.
F. •AKAVEC: 'Vystava Durerovy "Rfikencov6slavnosti"', Umini, VIII [1935],
pp.414-15.
11
DiJRER'S
CFEAST OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
16. TheFeastoftheRoseGarlands,
by an anonymouspainterafterAlbrechtDuirer.
c. 1600. 160 by 193 cm. (Kunsthistorisches
Museum,Vienna).
14. Detail of Fig.1, showingthe Pope.
Letters kept in
monograph on the Feastof theRose Garlands.86
the National Gallery archive show that in 1935 Van den
Oudendijk Pieterse sent Kramir a sketch that highlighted
damage to the painting." Kramat thought the sketch to be
only partly accurate and recommended she make another,
which Pieterse said she did not have the time to do:88the
sketch published in her book is usually described as reliable
in the literature,89but does not correspond to the X-ray picture (Fig.15), although it gives a general idea of the damage.
(Hamsik has produced a diagram of the Madonna [Fig.18],
which records patches of the original painting, Gruss's con-
tours, and the situation on the Vienna copy.)90In order to
analyse the Feastof theRose GarlandsKramai acquired an Xray machine for the gallery in 1935.91 The same year, he
organised a small exhibition around the work, for which he
borrowed the Vienna copy and several facsimiles of the
preparatory drawings, displaying photographs of the other
copies.92He did all of this with one aim in mind: to gather
comparative material prior to undertaking a new restoration.
No such major restoration has been effected; in 1965 and
1971, however, the painting was fixed, the sections of raised
filling were reduced by grinding, and darkened retouchings
were removed. Restorers' reports typically conclude by stating that the painting needs to be attended to in the future,93
and so the problem has been passed on from one generation
to the next. The problem of the painting's gradually worsening condition was once more thrust into the foreground by
the exhibition RenaissanceVeniceand theNorth,and there have
been further calls for its restoration. The question is: should
the Madonnaof theRoseGarlandssimply be conserved as it is, or
should it undergo radical restoration - meaning, most probably, the removal of Gruss's 161-year-old overpainting? The
latter opinion, which Krami? held in the 1930s, appears to
be out of favour now - partly because of the historical status
of Gruss's repainting, and partly because the repaints constitute virtually the entire central section of the panel, and form
86F.H.A. VANDENOUDENDIJK
PIETERSE:
en de ikonografie
derDuitse
DiirersRosenkranZfest
van de XVe en het beginderXVIe eeuw,Amsterdamand Antwerp
Rozenkransgroepen
[1939]. Forthe correspondence,see the Archivesof the NationalGalleryin Prague,
SVPU files,book-labelAA2013-2014.
87Letterfrom E van den Oudendijk Pieterse to V Kram~f, 15th March 1935
(Archivesof the National Galleryin Prague,SVPU files,AA 2013).
88Letterfrom V Kramit to E van den OudendijkPieterse,25th April 1935 (ibid.);
E van den OudendijkPieterseto V Kramif, 15thApril 1935 (ibid.).
89OUDENDIJKPIETERSE, op.cit.at note 86 above, fig.3; the sketchis also publishedin
ANZELEWSKY,
op. cit. at note 11 above, p. 192, fig.74; D. KUTsCHBACH,
op.cit. at note 11
above, p. 159, note 328, and recently MARTIN,
loc.cit. at note 22 above, p. 185, note 22.
9"The drawing is in the archive of the restorers' department of the National Gallery
in Prague.I am gratefulto Zora Grohmanovaof this departmentfor making this
materialavailableto me.
91KRAMA,op.cit.at note 59 above,p. 10;Archivesof the National Galleryin Prague,
SVPU files,AA 2014.
KRAMA,
15. CompositeX-radiographof Fig.1.
12
ibid., pp. 10-21.
93SeeM. Hamsik'srestorationreportof 14thApril 1965, in the restorers'archivesof
the National Gallery in Prague; HAMsiK,loc. cit. at note 4 above, p. 129.
DUiRER'S
'FEAST
OF THE ROSE GARLANDS'
ji
`
/j??i
d;t
.
18. Diagram of the Madonna in Fig.1, by MojmirHamsik.The diagramreproduces:a) what remainsof the originalpainting(hatching);b) the contoursof
Gruss'spainting(red);and c) the contoursof the Madonna on the Vienna copy
(green).
17. Detail of Fig.1, showingthe Madonna.
The vexed questionof
an integralpart of the composition.94
whatto do with the paintingderives,of course,fromthe great
technical difficultyof the availableoptions, and hence procrastination has always seemed the preferable course of
action. The history of the restoration of the painting in
1839-41 demonstratesvery clearly how essential it is to
consult expertsabout any action on this highly problematic
painting. The procedure for any such repair or restoration
work shouldbe selected,in our view, by an interdisciplinary
colloquiumor committee,in orderto ensurethat it is undertaken at the highest possible technical standardthat can be
achievedtoday.The fate of this sorelytriedmasterpiecerests
in our hands.
in Prague
NationalGallery
Appendix
The 1635 and 1644 inventories
Joseph Neuwirthand other scholarsapparentlyrelianton his workstatethat inventoriesdrawnup in 1635 and 1644 recordthat the Durerpaintingwas alreadydamaged (see note 22 above).The confusionsurroundingthese two sourceswas already
noted in 1882 by EduardR. von Engerth:accordingto him, ordersfor the drawing
up of an inventorywere indeed issuedon 14thApril 1635 by EmperorFerdinandII
and on 16thJune 1644 by EmperorFerdinandIII, but it is not clear if these inventorieswere actuallymade or survived,or what kind of inventoriesthey might have
been (VON
ENGERTH,
op.cit.at note 19 above,I, pp.XVIII-XX). It is possiblethat the
inventoryof 1635 is identicalto the appendixto the inventoryof 1621, which was
drawnup between 16th and 26th April 1635 (ZIMMERMANN,
loc.cit.at note 18 above,
reg. 19437,pp.LVIII-LXVI).This appendix,however,containsonly itemsthatwere
thereforedoes not
not included on the list of 1621 and the Feastof theRoseGarlands
figurein it. Von Engerthsuggestedthat the lists of 1635 and 1644 might have been
the inventoriesfromSkoklostercastle,whichwere publishedin 1867 by Beda Dudik
der
'Die rudolphinischeKunst-und Raritatenkammerin Prag',Mitteilungen
(B.DUDiK:
XII [1867],
derBaudenkmale,
undErhaltung
k. k. Central-Commission
zur Erforschung
cannot be identifiedwith any
pp.XXXIII-XLIV). But the Feastof theRoseGarlands
certaintyin these inventories.The inventoryDudiknamed 'A (drawnup in the years
1647-48) does mention a numberof paintingsof the Virgin,but it does not give any
descriptionof them, or indeed any informationabout authorshipor stateof repair.
The only workthat correspondsroughlyto the paintingin questionis the painting
listed as no.77: 'Mariamit demKindl,darbeyvielEngel'(see DUDiK,loc. cit. above,
was identifiedwith this entry by
p.XXXVIII, no.77. The Feastof theRoseGarlands
NEUWIRTH,
op.cit.at note 19 above,p.24). Nonetheless,no conclusionscan be based
on this record,not even with regardto the identificationof the item, and the listing
makes no mention of condition. The inventoriesof 1635 and 1644 are identified
with Dudik's'A inventoryby M. Kotrbova,among others(seeM.KOTRBOVA.'Obraz
XIX [1971], pp.594 and 597, note
Rfiiencov6 slavnostiAlbrechtaDtirera', Ume'ni,
30). The authorrefersto p.XXXV of the Dudik inventory,but this page lists items
of applied art: Kotrbovdevidently mistook the painting for a rosary garland,i.e.
which is listed among the small items of applied art inventorisedin the
Rosenkrdinz,
bottom shelfof cabinetno.6. Thus, althoughit may well be the case that the Feastof
was alreadydamagedin the 1630s,documentarysupportfor this in
theRoseGarlands
the inventorieshas not yet been found, contraryto what is often statedin the literature.
94HAMSiK,
ibid.,p. 129, believesthat any futurerestorationshouldbe limitedto remov-
ing the most disturbingdefects; whereas the restorer Zora Grohmanovaof the
National Galleryin Pragueinclinesto Kramif's opinion. The latterproposal,however, has been rejected during subsequentdiscussionat the National Gallery in
Prague.
13