History of the First Parents

Jagiellonian tapestry “Paradise Bliss” of the “History of the First Parents” series
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Author cartoon attributed to Michiel Coxie Performed by Jan de Kempeneer’s workshop Date of production ca. 1550 Place of creation Brussels Dimensions length: 854 cm, width: 480 cm Author's designation weaver’s mark in the bottom right corner ID no. ZKWawel 1 Museum Wawel Royal Castle – State Art Collection Availability in stock Subjects authority, daily life, religion, body Technique weaving Material wool, silk, silver thread Collector collection of King Sigismund Augustus Acquired date reclaimed before 1 September 1922 •
•
•
•
Object copyright Wawel Royal Castle – State Art Collection Digital images copyright public domain Digitalisation RDW MIC, 2014 Tags Wawel, dwór, renesans, tkanina, Biblia, 3D plus, król, zwierzęta, rośliny, 2D The Jagiellonian tapestry Paradise Bliss is the first fabric of the History of the First Parents series, commissioned by Sigismund II Augustus and created in Brussels during the years 1550–1560. It depicts events of the beginning of the Biblical Book of Genesis (Gen 2.8.–3.20).
The scenes are set on the left­hand side. In the background, the Creation of Adam, and Creation of Eve, as well as the scene God the Father Introduces the First Parents to Each Other is shown. In the main scene Prohibition Against Eating the Fruit, God, pointing at the tree of knowledge of good and evil, warns the first people against eating fruit of this tree. However, they do not listen – on the right one can see Original Sin, and then Exile from Eden as its consequence. The Biblical events take place in a forest landscape, where European and exotic animals and birds can be seen. One of them is the dodo (Raphus cucullatus), an extinct flightless bird that originally lived on the island of Mauritius, which can be seen on the right side. The bordure is filled with a Flemish grotesque with figures of putti, nymphs, and satyrs. In the lower bordure, near the left edge, one can see a chariot with Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom, and on the opposite side – Neptune, the Roman god of the sea. In the upper bordure, a light blue cartouche is placed with a Latin inscription that in translation reads as follows: “God instructed Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of life, and as they disobeyed, they were exiled from Eden.”
The tapestry suffered the same fate as the entire collection. On 30 July 1553, it decorated the Wawel Castle interiors on the occasion of the wedding of Sigismund Augustus and Catherine of Austria. In 1572, the king willed the entire collection of the Jagiellonian tapestries to his sisters: Sophie, Catherine and Anna in perpetuity. After their deaths, it was to become the property of the Republic of Poland. The tapestry, along with the whole Story of the First Parents series, was sent to Stockholm in 1578, to one of the heirs, Catherine, Queen of Sweden. It came back to Poland in 1587 or 1591. It was used to decorate the Warsaw Castle on the occasion of the wedding of Władysław IV and Cecilia Renata of Austria in September 1637. During the Swedish Deluge, in the years 1655–1657, it was taken away, along with the whole collection, to an unknown place. In 1666, the collection was deposited by John Casimir at Franciszek Gratta in Gdańsk. Two year later, in February 1671, tapestries borrowed from the collection decorated the Pauline Church and Monastery at Jasna Góra on the occasion of the wedding of Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki and Eleanor Maria Josefa of Austria. In 1724, they were pawned back and entrusted to the Carmelite Order in Warsaw for safekeeping. In the years 1764–1768, after the coronation of Stanisław August Poniatowski, they decorated the Royal Castle in Warsaw. In 1785, they were taken from the Carmelite convent to the Palace of the Commonwealth, and there they were plundered by the Russians and taken to Saint Petersburg. Possession of the fabric was regained from the Soviet Union on 1 September 1922, and it was placed at Wawel on 28 September 1922. The collection was taken out of Poland in September 1939. It was evacuated through Romania, France, and England, and it reached Canada on 13 July 1940. It came back to Wawel in February 1961.
Elaborated by Magdalena Ozga (Wawel Royal Castle), editorial team of Małopolska’s Virtual Museums, © all rights reserved
Historia kolekcji arrasów Zygmunta Augusta
Zygmunt August zamówił część tkanin prawdopodobnie około 1548 roku. Według Wychwalnika weselnego Stanisława Orzechowskiego (Panagyricus Nuptiarum Sigimundi Augusti Poloniae Regis, wyd. 1553) trzy serie tapiserii (Dzieje pierwszych rodziców, Dzieje Mojżesza i Dzieje Noego) już 30 lipca 1553 roku zdobiły wnętrza zamku wawelskiego z okazji uroczystości weselnych Zygmunta Augusta i Katarzyny Habsburżanki. Przyjmuje się, że po tym roku król zamówił kolejne grupy tkanin, a około 1560 roku cała kolekcja znajdowała się już w jego posiadaniu.
W testamencie z 1571 roku bezpotomny Zygmunt August zapisał kolekcję arrasów swoim trzem siostrom: Zofii – księżnej brunszwickiej, Katarzynie – królowej szwedzkiej i Annie – przyszłej królowej Polski. Według woli króla, po ich śmierci kolekcja miała przejść na własność Rzeczypospolitej. Jeszcze w 1572 roku arrasy złożono w zamku królewskim w Tykocinie, następnie zaś rozdzielono między królewskie rezydencje (Kraków, Niepołomice, Grodno, Warszawa). W 1578 roku Anna przekazała część tego zbioru do Sztokholmu jednej ze spadkobierczyń – Katarzynie, natomiast zrządzeniem losu powrócił on do Polski w 1587 lub 1591 roku razem z synem tej ostatniej – Zygmuntem III Wazą.
Tradycyjnie tapiserie stanowiły oprawę artystyczną najważniejszych królewskich uroczystości, również po śmierci Zygmunta Augusta. Towarzyszyły jego ceremonii pogrzebowej w 1572 roku, a także koronacji Henryka Walezego w 1574 roku. Po tych wydarzeniach wróciły do swojej funkcji dopiero w 1592 roku, kiedy ozdobiły komnaty wawelskie podczas pierwszego wesela Zygmunta III Wazy z Anną Austriaczką, jak również drugiego – z jej siostrą Konstancją w 1605 roku. Zygmuntowskie arrasy stanowiły też dekorację kolegiaty św. Jana i zamku królewskiego w Warszawie podczas ślubu Władysława IV z Cecylią Renatą we wrześniu 1637 roku.
W czasie potopu szwedzkiego (1655–1657), kolekcję asekuracyjnie wywieziono w nieznane miejsce. Wbrew woli Zygmunta Augusta, arrasy traktowane przez ówczesnego króla Jana Kazimierza jak własność prywatna, stały się przedmiotem rozgrywek abdykującego władcy. Ekskról wziął pożyczkę pod zastaw „Opon Potopowych” (jak określano wówczas zbiorczo tapiserie), która została przekazana Franciszkowi Grattcie, gdańskiemu bankierowi i kupcowi. Następnie Jan Kazimierz w 1669 roku, aby zapewnić sobie zagwarantowaną mu prowizje pieniężną i ją regulować, polecił Grattcie ukryć arrasy. Mimo tej prywaty, w lutym 1670 roku kolekcja została wypożyczona z „tajemniczego” miejsca przechowywania w celu ozdobienia klasztoru i kościoła oo. Paulinów na Jasnej Górze z okazji ślubu Michała Korybuta Wiśniowieckiego z Eleonorą Habsburżanką oraz dla dekoracji kolegiaty św. Jana w Warszawie podczas koronacji Eleonory. Śmierć Jana Kazimierza nie rozwiązała sprawy, gdyż do będących wciąż w zastawie arrasów roszczenia mieli następnie spadkobierca ekskróla i Rzeczypospolita. W 1673 roku uchwalono Deklarację o Potopie, zgodnie z którą do kolekcji arrasów pretensje mogła mieć wyłącznie Rzeczpospolita i ona jedyna mogła je wykupić, co też się stało, ale dopiero w 1724 roku. Odzyskaną kolekcję tkanin złożono w klasztorze oo. Karmelitów Bosych w Warszawie. Od tej pory arrasy należały do Skarbu Koronnego, którym zajmowali się kolejni podskarbiowie. Były używane między innymi podczas świąt Bożego Ciała, a także do dekoracji kolegiaty św. Jana i zamku warszawskiego z okazji koronacji Stanisława Augusta Poniatowskiego w 1768 roku.
Od 1785 roku kolekcję przechowywano w Pałacu Rzeczypospolitej pełniącym funkcję archiwum państwowego. Dziesięć lat później, w listopadzie 1795 roku, podczas oblężenia Warszawy przez wojska zaborcy, z rozkazu Katarzyny II tkaniny zostały zrabowane i wywiezione do magazynów Pałacu Taurydzkiego w Petersburgu. Po 1860 roku rozdzielono kolekcję arrasów, której część wykorzystano do dekoracji Pałacu Zimowego w Petersburgu i carskich rezydencji w Gatczynie i Liwadii na Krymie, natomiast kolejne części przekazano do Muzeum Stajni Dworskich, zbiorów Akademii Sztuk Pięknych i Dyrekcji Teatrów. Dopiero po stu dwudziestu sześciu latach, na mocy postanowień traktatu ryskiego z 1921 roku rewindykowano większą część dawnej kolekcji arrasów ze Związku Radzieckiego, której zwrot realizowany partiami trwał do 1928 roku.
W momencie wybuchu II wojny światowej, we wrześniu 1939 roku, podjęto decyzję o wywiezieniu z Polski arrasów wraz z innymi dziełami ze skarbca wawelskiego. Zabytki ewakuowano przez Rumunię do Francji, gdzie w ośrodku tkackim w Aubusson poddane zostały reperacji. Jednak z czasem po złamaniu oporu francuskiego, w obliczu zagrożenia skarby przetransportowano drogą morską do Anglii. Ta ostatnia również okazała się niebezpiecznym miejscem z powodu rozpoczynającej się bitwy o Anglię. Wobec tej sytuacji dzieła przewieziono na polskim statku Batorym do Kanady, gdzie przebywały w bardzo dobrych warunkach. Po zakończeniu wojny władze tego państwa zwlekały z oddaniem depozytu w związku z zagrożeniami wynikającymi ze zmian ustroju i władzy w Polsce po 1945 roku. Szczególny opór w sprawie zwrotu arrasów stawiał ich ówczesny opiekun w Quebec – Maurice Duplessis. Zagrożenie przywłaszczenia arrasów przez rząd kanadyjski wywołało ogromny skandal i burzę zarówno w kraju, jak i wśród polskich władz emigracyjnych. Dopiero po śmierci Duplessisa w 1959 roku, dzięki licznym interwencjom i wielkiemu staraniu wybitnych polskich osobistości odzyskano arrasy, które wróciły na Wawel w lutym 1961 roku.
Dwie spośród rozpoznanych tapiserii z dawnej kolekcji Zygmunta Augusta znajdują się poza Wawelem. Pierwsza tkanina – Upadek moralny ludzkości z serii Dzieje Noego, odnaleziona na Kremlu, powróciła do Polski dopiero w 1977 roku jako dar władz radzieckich dla odbudowywanego wówczas zamku warszawskiego, w którym się dziś znajduje. Natomiast druga – jedyny zachowany w całości arras nadokienny – dostał się z Rosji niewiadomą drogą na rynek antykwaryczny. Zakupiony przez Rijksmuseum w Amsterdamie, od 1952 roku stanowi część jego zbiorów. Opracowanie: Magdalena Ozga (Zamek Królewski na Wawelu), Redakcja WMM, © wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone
Tags: World War II, fabric, Renaissance, manor house, ceremony, Russia, Wawel, event, King Michiel Coxcie in the Netherlandish Romanesque Circle
In the 16th century, Rome attracted artists from the North with a series of discoveries of ancient works, as well as with works of the Renaissance masters – Raphael, Michelangelo and Leonardo. This fascination brought a trend in paintings known as the Netherlandish Romanesque. Its sources were of two kinds.
The first source was the migration of artists from the North to the Eternal City: “(...) because he who has not used up a thousand quills and paints, has not painted over a thousand boards in this school [in Rome – ed.] is not worthy of the honourable title of a true artist”, Jan van Scorel is believed to have said. Many years of studies resulted in artists assimilating the Italian repertoire. This allowed them to achieve the high style based on a study of works of antiquity which, combined with the tradition of realistic paintings of the Netherlands, created a specific variant of northern Mannerism. A pioneer of those artistic pilgrimages to Rome was Jan Gossaert, known as Mabuse, who came to the Eternal City with Philip of Burgundy in 1508. Others followed his example, including Jan van Scorel, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Jan Sanders van Hemessen, Michiel Coxcie and many others.
Italian patterns spread to the Netherlands also in another way: through copies of works from Italy, drawings and engravings. The best example of this kind of impact was given by works of Bernard van Orley, who had never been to Italy, yet his works revealed the influence of the Italian masters. For this reason, he was also categorised as belonging to the group of Netherlandish Romanist artists. Van Orley was an artist promoting the Italianising style in paintings; he also worked as the main cartoon designer of tapestries workshops in Brussels. His knowledge of Raphael’s works had local sources. Van Orley came across cartoons made by Raphael for a series of tapestries intended for the Sistine Chapel, which Pope Leo X had commissioned in the Brussels workshops (Acts of the Apostles series, 1515–1516).
Raphael (pr Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino), Miraculous catch of fish, a cartoon to the series of tapestries Acts of the Apostles, 1515, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, source: Wikimedia Commons, public domain
Works of Michiel Coxcie can be in a way located at an intersection of these two sources of inspiration. He was born in Mechelen in 1499, and he learnt in the workshop of Bernard van Orley. Therefore, during the first period of his art education he was instilled with principles of the Italianising school, which at that time was based on mediated knowledge of Italian formulas, including Raphael’s cartoons, popular in Brussels. Michiel Coxcie complemented his studies with a journey to Rome, where he stayed during the years 1530­1539. In the Eternal City, he had an opportunity to familiarise himself in situ with works of the masters of the Italian Renaissance and assimilate the entire repertoire of formulas applied at that time with respect to composition, arrangement of figures and studies on the human body. Well­known Italian works of this artist include, for example, the frescoes in the chapel of Saint Barbara in the Church of Santa Maria dell’Anima, made in the years 1532–1534, commissioned by his countryman, Cardinal Willem Enckevoirt, or strongly Raphaelising engravings with the story of Cupid and Psyche.
Michiel Coxcie was called “Flemish Raphael” by his contemporaries. In his paintings, he used numerous references to Roman works, due to which he acquired a reputation as an excellent compiler of Italian patterns, although his works were not devoid of a strong creative initiative of the artist himself. Aside from inspiration by Raphael, his works show noticeable strong references to such artists as Perino del Vaga and Baldassare Peruzzi, as well as to works of Leonardo and Sebastiano del Piombo, but primarily to his teacher – Bernard van Orley. Having returned to the Netherlands, Coxcie was very active in his professional life – after the death of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, he became the main cartoon designer of the tapestries workshops in Brussels. In Poland, he is mainly known as a supposed (and most likely) author of cartoons to three series of tapestries with scenes from the Book of Genesis from the collection of tapestries of Sigismund Augustus, which are a part of the collection of Wawel Royal Castle.
Elaborated by Paulina Kluz (Editorial Team of Małopolska's Virtual Museums), CC­BY 3.0 PL
Bibliography:
Hanna Bensz, Niderlandzcy romaniści: Antwerpia, Bruksela, Haarlem (Romanists of the Netherlands: Antwerp, Brussels, Haarlem) [in:] Transalpinum. Od Giorgiona i Dürera do Tycjana i Rubensa (Transalpinum. From Giorgione and Dürer to Titian and Rubens), Dorota Folga­Januszewska, Antoni Ziemba (eds.), Warsaw 2004;
Ryszard Szmydki, Elementy batalistyczne w twórczości Michiela Coxcie z lat 1549–1550 (Battle elements in works of Michiel Coxcie of the period 1549–1550), [in:] Amicissima. Studia Magdalenae Piwocka oblata, Krakow 2010, pp. 153–158;
Id., Pierwsza wystawa monograficzna Michiela Coxcie (1499–1592) (The first monographic exhibition of Michiel Coxcie (1499–1592)), ”Biuletyn Historii Sztuki”, 76 (2014), no 1, pp. 165–170.
Tags: fabric, Renaissance, Wawel, painting, Rome From Ornament of Late Antiquity to Netherlandish Grotesque
On one of the seven hills of Rome – the Esquiline Hill – caves full of ancient paintings were excavated around 1480 under the foundations of medieval buildings. Their walls were decorated with fantastic, light and symmetrical structures created of figural, animal and floral motifs. La grotte, or caves, were in fact ruins of the villa of the Emperor Nero. It was called Domus Aurea because of the extraordinarily rich decoration of the walls and the inner part of the dome, which were covered with gold and paintings. They were created between A.D. 54 and 68 and related to the turn of the Third Style and Fourth Style of Pompeian painting.
The term grotesque (grottesche) was derived from the name of the finding (la grotte). The way the ornament is called can also be translated as “weird, weirdness.” In its form, grotesque resembled ornaments of ancient origin popular in the Renaissance, namely arabesque or Islamic moresque. However, they both assumed the shape of a more or less stylised braided plants; on the other hand, grotesque was enriched with numerous additional motifs, and it created a fantastic structure. Formally, the latter was also close to its predecessor – the late medieval braided plants – since characters and animals were entwined in it in the same way. However, in medieval ornament it had an apotropaic or allegorical function.
Renaissance ornamentation was immensely influenced by the discovery of Domus Aurea. The finding was the main source of inspiration for artists, even though at that time there were known examples of other ancient grotesques decorating, for instance, the Colosseum and Hadrian's villa in Tivoli. The popularity and strengthening of the fashion for Renaissance grotesque was primarily an effect of the influence of works by artists from the early sixteenth century, which were travesty of ancient paintings. The most important works of art in this field were paintings of the Vatican loggias, the Villa Madama and Palazzo Baldassini – the works of Raphael and his apprentice Giovanni da Udine. They were almost a total novelty in the field of decoration and this contributed to their extraordinary Grotesque, Raphael Santi, decoration of the Vatican loggias, 1518, source: Wikipedia, public domain
popularity among contemporary artists. Grotesque became a decoration type widely known and used in the first half of the sixteenth century (especially after 1520) thanks to the Italian works mentioned above, as well as widely accessible patterns created by ornamentalists.
Through numerous imitations of ancient grotesque in various art centres, this ornament gained its local variants. Netherlandish grotesque, even though based on the same formula as the Italian one, had a slightly different structure and elements. It gained extraordinary popularity thanks to replicated in graphic arts designs of Cornelis Floris or Cornelis Bos (e.g. The Book of Moresque of 1554), ornamentalists unequalled in their skill and imagination.
Initially, Netherlandish grotesque included mostly floral motifs but in time, because of oriental inspirations, exotic animals and fantastic creatures appeared, as well. The following mythological motifs were depicted particularly frequently: pairs of deities, their frolics, Bacchic processions, and various fantastic creatures or hybrids of human, animals and plants. In their details, depictions of an allegorical nature and even allusions to the exoticism of the New World (e.g. figures of Indians) can be noticed.
Netherlandish grotesque seemed to be, above all, more filled up than the Italian one. It had a much richer repertoire of motifs, and its spaces, separated in a certain way by the structure (scaffolding), were almost entirely filled with ripe fruit garlands and putti, as well as exotic plants and animals. However, horror vacui did not disturb the sense of order, which was controlled by the symmetry of the arrangement of all elements of the decoration. Interestingly, in its expanded form, the scaffolding structure, on which individual elements were based, was similar to metal fittings and fragments of rolled metal sheet, heralding the ferrule ornament that appeared in the art of the Netherlands in the mid­sixteenth century.
The specificity of Netherlandish grotesque was its characteristic dualism manifested in the almost encyclopaedic realism of some depictions of plants and animals (species of which we are able to recognise), as well as fantasy affecting construction of its form, typical of this ornament.
See also:
Borders of tapestries of the Story of the First Parents, Story of Noah and Story of the Tower of Babel series;
Grotesque tapestries of monogram, heraldic and under­window types
Grotesque decoration of a pharmaceutical mortar
Elaborated by Paulina Kluz (Editorial Team of Małopolska's Virtual Museums), CC­BY 3.0 PL
Bibliography:
Aleksandra Bernatowicz, Niepodobne do rzeczywistości. Malowana groteska w rezydencjach Warszawy i Mazowsza 1777–1821 (Unlike reality. Painted grotesque in residences of Warsaw and Mazovia), Warszawa 2006;
Magdalena Piwocka, Arrasy z groteskami (Tapestries with grotesques), [in:] Arrasy wawelskie (Wawel Tapestries), edited by Jerzy Szablowski, Anna Misiąg­Bocheńska, Maria Hennel­Bernasikowa, Magdalena Piwocka, Warszawa 1994, pp. 271–348;
Słownik terminologiczny sztuk pięknych (Terminological Dictionary of Fine Arts), Krystyna Kubalska­
Sulkiewicz, Warszawa 2007.
Tags: Renaissance, plants, ornament, excavations, animals, Rome Sixteenth­century reception of the tapestry “Paradise Bliss”
A piece of art comprises a good deal of information, which reflects the culture of the circle in which the work was created, as well as the individual intentions of the artist. It can also communicate a great amount of content completely not intended by its author, but actively complemented by the viewer. “Participation of the watcher” consists of their personal emotional and intellectual perception, contributing new contexts, beliefs and assumptions to the work[1]. Thus, it can be said that it is formed due to a collaboration of the artist and the viewer. Since every work also exists in relation to the time at which it is “read”, it actively changes depending on the circumstances. Therefore, a modern reception of a former work differs from its reception by the audience of the time of its creation.
Due to a preserved text of 1553 written by Stanisław Orzechowski (Panagyricus nuptiarum Sigismundi Augusti Poloniae Regis), in the case of the collection of tapestries of King Sigismund Augustus, we can take a look at their first presentation to a wide audience and get to know the impressions accompanying this event. In the panegyric of Orzechowski, describing events of the wedding ceremony of Sigismund Augustus and Catherine of Austria, an ekphrasis was preserved which illustrates the tapestries of biblical themes, including Paradise Bliss from the series The History of the First Parents[2]. This text is valuable inasmuch as it includes the first information that ever appeared on the tapestries, helpful in dating the commissioned series. It is also, or perhaps above all, a record of impressions and reactions of the contemporary audience, constituting in some way a commentary of their worldview. In a very interesting way, the manner of viewing a piece of work and its reception emerge, emphasising the qualities to which particular attention was paid in the age of its creation and which today do not provoke any deeper reflection. Therefore, let us take a closer look at this description.
On the day of the wedding ceremony, the tapestries hung in the king’s bedchamber, which “(...) shone with the unusual splendour, reportedly not seen elsewhere, of the king’s tapestries [opona][3]. Therein, Adam and Eve, both our first parents and the originators of our misery, stand very lifelike, painted with the art of weaving, both interwoven with gold in all the tapestries. (...)
In the first tapestry, at the head of the marriage bed, an image of happiness of our first parents could be seen, presented in the textile, in which, as they were happy, they were not ashamed of their nakedness. Meanwhile, the nudity of them both had such an effect on the viewers that men smiled at Eve, and frivolous girls smiled at Adam as soon as they had entered the chamber. This was because his exposed privates showed masculinity and hers femininity in full bloom.
The second tapestry depicted the fruit of the tree and the instigation of the serpent with such artistry that the very tapestry spoke about both the serpent’s deception and Eve’s greediness, as well as about Adam’s sin.
In the third one, this exile of ours, miserable and hapless, was presented. Here, you could be gripped with fear at the sight of Adam’s flight, Eve’s tremble and God, the angry judge, so that, when looking at it, you would say that you are also condemned and a judgement has been passed against you; so vividly the tapestry depicted the sin of Adam and the wrath of God in all its contours and details”[4].
The first issue which comes to mind when reading this text is the use of the verb “painted” by Orzechowski – tapestries “painted with the art of weaving.” It is interesting inasmuch as the tapestry was perceived as a work of painting art, with the use of the corresponding nomenclature. Drawing, plasticity, composition, depth, and colours – all these elements have their place here. Undoubtedly, it has its sources in the process of tapestry preparation. It was modelled on a cartoon drawn probably by the painter Michael Coxcie (an analogous situation occurs in the art of stained glass); whereas determining the designer’s attribution, the textile was compared with his works of painting in search of common formal features and hallmarks of his style. At the same time, engravings were a source of inspiration for many details of the presentation, serving as technical help, just as in the case of paintings. Therefore, it is not surprising that works of this kind were called acupictura, which means “needle painting.” It also proves the perfection of the mastered weaving skills, allowing the weavers to achieve these kinds of painterly effects and, not without reason, name the Brussels as the best centre of that time.
According to the readers­response theory, a work assumes the existence of a specific viewer with whom it tries to evoke certain visual and intellectual experiences[5]. One may guess that in this case, the supposed (ideal) viewer was an educated sixteenth­century watcher, in accordance with the full understanding of the content assumed at that time by the creators.
On the aesthetic level, the visual effect reflects the Renaissance ideal of the imitation of nature – so­
called mimesis. Thorough observation and documentation of the surrounding world was accompanied by the contemporary reverence for humanity and nature, combining a passion for research with sensitivity to beauty. The subject matter of the tapestry provided an excellent opportunity for a study of a naked human body presenting the contemporary ideal of beauty, modelled on antiquity. At the same time, the precision in the capturing of every element of flora and fauna (due to which we are able to recognise individual types and species of plants, insects and animals) is a result of using various compendia of nature. All this results in the viewers of that time feeling that Adam and Eve “stood lifelike” in front of them. The audience's response to the nudity of the figures, which evoked a kind of indignation, only proves the impression of physicality, tangibility or even a feeling of the presence of these two.
However, with time, in accordance with the principles of Counter­Reformation, the contemporary freedom in presentations of nudity (even dictated by the subject!) was stigmatised, and works previously created were adapted to the new guidelines. The discussed tapestry was not spared the mark of that time, as well. The “indecent” nudity of the figures of the first parents was covered with plant twigs additionally woven in the part of their hips. Non­invasive interference (?), which, however, destroys the original assumptions of the creators and impressions of the audience, who had seen "an image of happiness of our first parents, in which, as they were happy, they were not ashamed of their nakedness”.
People of that time were taught and accustomed to emblematic thinking. Thus, the language of religious and mythological symbols they used was rather clear. The tradition derived from antiquity and medieval bestiaries had absorbed various myths and legends, resulting in the compendia and atlases acting as a handbook of symbols, aside from being a pattern. The tapestry under discussion was also composed with the objective of conveying some metaphorical content hidden in the form of animals and plants accompanying first parents, which added meaning to the entire narrative, clear at that time.
The audience’s attitude to the presentation was not passive, as through their own emotions, they actively contributed to the story, which is particularly noticeable in Orzechowski’s description. The work of art involves the viewer, as a book involves its reader. There was a gradual build­up of tenseness in the story – from the right to the left side (heraldically). The participant follows the narrative – from the happiness and serenity of paradise to successive misadventures generating suspense (temptation, breaking the ban and its consequence), which enhances the overtone of the left part of the textile, aimed at inducing feelings of “fear” and “tremor”.
Orzechowski’s ekphrasis uses a great deal of means deepening the impression of the reception in the readers of the panegyric. He conveys well the empathetic nature of the contact with the work, based on the viewer’s own experience – “so that, when looking at it, you would say that you are also condemned and a judgement has been passed against you.” As a priest, Orzechowski also uses the image as an interpretation of the moralistic content, deepened with such phrases as "this exile of ours, miserable and hapless", through which he involves the viewer/reader and makes the content of the presentation more active (which is happening) to give them a lesson.
The tapestry Paradise Bliss has a narrative composition, but in Orzechowski’s description, it was divided into three pieces – three major scenes. Perhaps, this is a mistake of the author himself, though it seems that it reflects his way of “reading” the presentation by way of separating, and thus highlighting the motifs of the composition.
Therefore, Paradise Bliss constituted an interpretation of the meanings, as well as providing a great deal of aesthetic experience to the contemporary audience. This only attests (continuously) to the exceptional nature and level of the work. In such cases, reception theory is an even more interesting tool, which creates an opportunity to go back in time, allowing one to enter into that age and a different way of feeling, as well as to bring closer an individual perspective other than ours.
Elaborated by Paulina Kluz (Editorial Team of Małopolska's Virtual Museums), CC­BY 3.0 PL
Bibliography:
Arrasy wawelskie [Wawel Tapestries], Jerzy Szablowski, Anna Misiąg­Bocheńska, Maria Hennel­
Bernasikowa, Magdalena Piwocka (aut.), Warsaw 1994;
Anne D’Alleva, Metody i teorie historii sztuki [Methods and theories of the history of art], Krakow 2005;
Historia doktryn artystycznych [The history of art doctrines], Part 1: Myśliciele, kronikarze i artyści o sztuce: od starożytności do 1500 r. [Thinkers, chroniclers and artists about art: from antiquity to 1500], Jan Białostocki (ed.), Warsaw 1988;
Magdalena Piwocka, Arrasy króla Zygmunta Augusta: zwierzęta [The Tapestries of King Sigismund Augustus: Animals, Part. 1, Krakow 2009;
Magdalena Piwocka, Arrasy króla Zygmunta Augusta: rośliny [The Tapestries of King Sigismund Augustus: Plants], Kraków 2010.
[1] The term “participation of the watcher’” was created by Ernst Gombrich.
[2] Ekphrasis, Greek: ékphrasis, is “a verbal piece precisely describing an object, as if placing it before one’s eyes," which is a detailed description of a work of art, being a fragment or the whole of a literary work; it is both a description and interpretation; it has emerged as a literary genre (see also: hypotyposis); as cited in: Myśliciele, kronikarze i artyści o sztuce: od starożytności do 1500 r. [Thinkers, chroniclers and artists about art: from antiquity to 1500], J. Białostocki (ed.), Warsaw 1988, p. 131.
[3] Opona – a term used in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th to the 18th century to describe decorative textiles adorning walls (arrases/ tapestries, gobelins and carpets) and fabric coverings of walls; as cited in: Słownik terminologiczny sztuk pięknych (Terminological Dictionary of Fine Arts), K. Kubalska­Sulkiewicz (ed.), Warsaw 1996, p. 289.
[4] As cited in: Arrasy wawelskie [Wawel Tapestries], collective work, Warsaw 1994, pp. 45–46.
[5] Even at the beginning of the 20th century, art historians became interested in the reception of works of art. However, the readers­response theory crystallised within the theory of literature in the second half of the 20th century. Studies on active participation of the reader were initiated by Roman Ingarden and further developed by Wolfgang Iser (“presumed reader“), and then by Hans Robert Jaus (context of cultural meanings and active text transformation in relation to historical circumstances), Stanley Fish (happening of the text, literary means evoking certain feelings with the reader), and Roland Barthes (game of signs, capturing of the meaning). All these theories have been transferred to the history of art and used for interpretation works of art, which in theory is called by Wolfgang Kemp the aesthetics of reception. They have rejected the assumption that the main intention of the viewer is to recreate the artist's concept (see also: “death of the author“); Anne D’Alleva, Metody i teorie historii sztuki [Methods and theories of the history of art], Kraków 2005, pp. 128–143.
Tags: fabric, Bible, Renaissance, manor house, Wawel, plants, animals, King