In the Footsteps of a Gothic Painter.

slovak national gallery bratislava 2017 the master of okoličné and the art of the spiš (zips) around 1500 dušan buran (ed.) M in the footsteps of a gothic painter dušan buran 1. introduction: the master of okoličné and his advocates — The artistic identity of the painter, known by necessity as the Master of Okoličné a#er his most significant work, is basically unknown to the public. He was a contemporary – and colleague – of Master Paul of Levoča, it is possible to a%ribute a series of exceptional paintings to him, and still he fell almost into oblivion. The central altarpiece of the Observant Franciscan friary in Okoličné (Hung.: Okolicsnó) was already dismantled and replaced by the 18th century. But even then it probably would not score highly in the still so popular (and so meaningless) ‘hit-parade’ of the highest, most expensive and most beautiful altarpieces in the world. And so its individual panels are now sca%ered around various collections at home and abroad, some are missing entirely, and of course we do not even know the artist’s name. Studying the oeuvre of a painter and his workshop in such unfavourable conditions assumes the existence of a solid number of artworks with an inherently consistent style. In addition to formal similarities that allow making mutual connections, the evaluation of technologies should also assist in comparative work. And even all this would not suffice to reconstruct the identity of the artist, were it not for a single criterion which the Master of Okoličné did a#er all exceed and at the same time co-form in the standard of Spiš painting around the year 1500, and this was – quality. cat. 6 – Detail — Scholarly literature was aware of it over a hundred years ago. Since then, generations of art historians, especially those from Hungary and Slovakia, studied the work of this artist.1 It was not overlooked in general overviews or exhibition catalogues, and one may predict that it will continue to be a firm part of the as yet imaginary corpus of Gothic panel painting in Slovakia. The interest of scholars in the Master of Okoličné accelerated a#er 1989, in other words when the borders opened, which included the borders of humanities. His works began to be exhibited far more frequently, and more detailed contributions of researches into Gothic art in Slovakia were published in the wider central European context. Last but not least, a#er 1990 the panels from the Master of Okoličné’s circle also began to be more intensively studied technically, which was related to their gradual restoration. The Altarpiece of the Coronation of the Virgin in the Cathedral of Spišská Kapitula (Spišské Podhradie, Germ.: Kirchdrauf / Zipser Kapitel, Hung.: Szepeshely) underwent comprehensive restorations between 1976 and 1977, but a detailed documentation of this was only published as a book in 1997.2 The triptych of St Anne from Smrečany (Hung.: Szmrecsán) was restored in 2009. In 2010, thanks to the financial support of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic, the Slovak National Gallery was able to purchase for its collections the Crucifixion panel from Okoličné, hidden for decades; now its restoration has become the occasion for this exhibition. The Altarpiece of the Virgin Mary and St Erasmus in Bardejov (Germ.: Bartfeld, Hung.: Bártfa) was restored in 2013 – 2014; the Altarpiece of the Visitation of the Virgin in Košice (Germ.: Kaschau, Hung.: Kassa) was restored in the years 2010 – 2013, and the two panel paintings in the Eastern Slovakian Museum were restored in 2013.3 Shortly before this exhibition, the second Smrečany triptych dedicated to Sts Martin and Nicholas was also finally restored. 23 — Some time before this, Anton C. Glatz dedicated an unusually large space to this painter in the exhibition catalogue Gothic Art from Košice Collections.4 Apart from a critical overview of the existing literature, he also contributed with the first relatively reliable chronology of the artist’s oeuvre. Simultaneously he a%empted to uncover certain myths from older literature, including those connected to the founding of the friary itself. The meticulous analyses of Glatz were taken up by Jiří Fajt in the collective publication from the edition History of Slovak Fine Art – Gothic.5 He placed the Master of Okoličné – along with Master Martin, the Master of the Legend of St Anthony (according to Fajt identical with Hans T.), and the Monogrammist LA – with the most important personalities of Spiš painting a#er 1500, and he reinforced Glatz’s thesis about the donating activities of the Zápolya family with new arguments. The Zápolya also served him with the ‘missing link’ to the art of the royal court,6 and despite the death of Ma%hias Corvinus (d. 1490) the court inspiration construed in this way for the altarpiece from Okoličné (between 1505 – 1510) must remain as more or less an abstraction.7 2. the artistic origin of the master of okoličné and chronology of his work — A#er the death of his brother Emeric († 1487), the Hungarian Palatine Stephen Zápolya (Zápoľský, Szapolyai) decided to build a chapel dedicated to the Virgin (as well as the Corpus Christi a#er 1510) in the priory church of St Martin of Tours at Spišská Kapitula, which from the start he intended to serve as his family necropolis. The chapel fulfilled this goal in 1499, when Stephen died and was buried in it. His wife, Hedwig of Cieszyn, followed him into the 24 a#erlife in 1521. The tombstones of both the Zápolya brothers decorate the chapel interior to this day, even though they have been misplaced from their original positions.8 Apart from the building itself, ambitious for its time,9 Stephen also intended to erect a retable dedicated to the Coronation of the Virgin. Its paintings show for the first time the fundamental elements of a style that was later developed in the high altarpiece in Okoličné. — As with the parish churches in Levoča (Germ.: Leutschau, Hung.: Lőcse) and Kežmarok (Germ.: Käsmark, Hung.: Késmárk), the priory Church of St Martin in the Spišská Kapitula was also a building whose furnishings, a#er the mid-15th century, were no longer appropriate for its importance and artistic demands – on the one hand a civic patriciate growing in confidence, and on the other the chief ecclesiastical centre in the Spiš.10 And so, hand in hand with the extensive re-buildings of these churches (in Kežmarok and Spišská Kapitula), individual spaces were endowed with new altarpieces, additional sculptures, paintings, and furnishings in wood and cloth. A#er a celebratory consecration in 1478 the priory church – which only recently gained the privileges to use bishop’s insignia (1472), even though de iure it was not a diocesan church 11 – could have been enriched by a new central winged altarpiece, along with at least three others, whose decoration carried strong progressive elements of Netherlandish painting.12 — This kind of environment quickly made it possible for a workshop to form – perhaps an ad hoc organised group of painters – which won the altarpiece commission from the Palatine Stephen Zápolya. Apart from the Altarpiece of the Coronation of the Virgin, we are not aware of another work whose style would either precede or succeed it. All considered, therefore, it does not appear to have been a workshop of much longevity, and we soon find the individual painters from this collective working by themselves: apart from the Master of Okoličné this included the Master of Hrabušice, whom Glatz identified in several other commissions at the beginning of the 16th century (cat. 18 and 19) – including, for instance, the wings of the Altarpiece of the Annunciation in Chyžné (Hung.: Hizsnyó, 1508) and the Altarpiece of St Lawrence in Hrabušice (Germ.: Kabsdorf, Hung.: Káposztfalva, 1510 – 1515).13 The original workshop of the Altarpiece of the Coronation of the Virgin in the Zápolya chapel probably also included the Master of the Altarpiece of St Anthony in Spišská Sobota (Germ.: Georgenberg, Hung.: Szepesszombat, 1503) – later one of the most progressive painters in the Spiš – as well as the main master of the local Altarpiece of St Anne (Holy Kinship, 1508?). A whole series of other artists may have collaborated with the workshop responsible for the chapter altarpiece and, later – depending on the number of other commissions – migrated between the workshops of these leading personalities of Spiš painting a#er 1500. In the nexus that was formed in altarpiece art in the Spiš between 1480 and 1520, there was no shortage of commissions, funds, and clearly none in the growing competition. — The tendency of modern art history, with its interest in the most accurate identification of the individual author (behind which looms the Renaissance myth of the ‘artistic genius’),14 however silent the sources are on this point, is to a large extent in opposition to the collective character of the way in which Late Gothic altarpieces were made. This incongruity creates fertile ground for scholarly disputes accompanied by an effort towards a minute ‘division of labour’ and the construction of the artistic identity of anonymous authors on the basis of a%ributions related to altarpiece cycles, paintings or even just sections of individual works. The end result is either a muddle of opaque a%ributions and connections, where the self-serving effort to discern the share of this or that artist on this or that panel, and the subsequent combinations with two or three other authors in several other altarpieces and paintings, o#en dims rather than illuminates our understanding of art. The other risk, by contrast, is a simplification which a%ributes a number of incompatible phenomena to a single artist or an imaginary ‘chief master of a workshop’. In terms of Spiš art, a prominent victim of this tendency has traditionally been Master Paul of Levoča. — And so, if I operate with the term ‘Master of Okoličné’ in the following chronology, by that I mean a workshop unit rather than a specific artist, a unit primarily responsible for the paintings of the main altarpiece in the Okoličné friary church (cat. 1 – 12). Like other central European painters and sculptors around the year 1500, he also did not maintain a long-term static studio with full-time colleagues (not only other painters but also carpenters, gilders and so on). He did not hesitate to adapt his team ad hoc corresponding to the size of the commission, and he probably entered other teams in other workshops in a similar way. The basic a%ributes of the workshop’s style may already be uncovered in the already discussed Altarpiece of the Coronation in the Spišská Kapitula. Shortly a#er, it is also discernible in other altarpieces and paintings across a wide geographical spectrum. — The Altarpiece of the Virgin Mary, St Nicholas and St Erasmus in Bardejov (cat. 16) is considered to be the first to demonstrate the art of the Master of 25 Okoličné. Though its date of 1505 is authenticated at once with three existing inscriptions, one of them (re)discovered during the most recent restoration on the back side of the retable, a direct connection between his paintings and this year remains slightly in question. We meet the Master of Okoličné here in the company of at least one other artist, whose immediately earlier work we can identify elsewhere (Altarpiece of St Nicholas from Veľký Slavkov, Germ.: Gross Schlagendorf, Hung.: Nagyszalók, 1503).15 In view of his specific figural style, particularly the diagonally elongated faces in three-quarter views, with their ‘fleshy’ modelling of lips and cheeks, we may identify him with a painter later called the Master of Hrabušice. On the vertical panels of the Lent side of the Bardejov altarpiece, he rather successfully tackled the narrative scenes from the lives of Saints Nicholas, Erasmus and Lawrence. At least in the case of the so popular Saint Nicholas, he had recourse to pre-formulated compositional solutions. This is demonstrated not only in the mentioned altarpiece of this saint in Veľký Slavkov, but also the later paintings of the Altarpiece of Saint Nicholas in Mlynica (Germ.: Mühlenbach, Hung.: Malompatak).16 Compared with the panels of the Okoličné altarpiece, these Bardejov paintings depict really very vibrant and visually contrasting scenes, which at the same time provide the distinguishing features between two artistic temperaments, ones soon to work themselves out in individual workshops. — But the festal side of the Bardejov retable is of a different appearance. It depicts the cycle of the Death of the Virgin,17 extremely rare in our region, and even just the surrendering of the painted surface to the gilded brocading seems to require a different figural style. The figures, particularly their faces, 26 are more meticulously painted, and they are marked not only by more concentrated gazes but also by the greater number of light, carefully modelled flesh tones (Mary and John). These elements began to be more and more favoured by the painters in the Master of Okoličné’s workshop. When (for the time being) we leave aside the altarpiece of the Okoličné Franciscans, the flesh tones are very close to those of both altarpiece triptychs in Smrečany (1510, cat. 13 and 14). Here also we can clearly see more hands at work, but no longer those of the Master of Hrabušice. — The altar retable in Okoličné (cat. 1 – 12) was probably our painter’s first truly independent commission, which however required him to gather several colleagues from other cra#s. We know that these included Master Paul of Levoča, the leading figure of Late Gothic Spiš sculpture, who in approximately the same period (between 1505 and 1510) was finishing work on two truly large altarpieces – the central Altarpiece of St James for the Levoča parish church (carving completed in 1508)18 and the Altarpiece of St Barbara for the eponymous chapel in the parish church of Banská Bystrica (Germ.: Neusohl, Hung.: Bestercebánya). The la%er was dated on the occasion of its final completion, including paintings, in 1509.19 — In terms of chronology, the Okoličné altarpiece could have just been an episode for Master Paul, and indeed his workshop was able to deliver only the central sculpture of the Virgin Mary and the four female saints in the corpus (we do not know the contents of the crowning). And yet Paul the carver appears to have been more engaged. This is supported by the brocading pa%erns which – in three different variants – are visible on the backgrounds of the Okoličné panel paintings. Identical ornamental solutions were used by the burnishers and gilders of Paul’s altarpieces, including that of the main altar in Levoča.20 And so, if we take into account the normal technical procedure of brocading and gilding being applied at the very beginning of work, immediately a#er the gesso priming layer, it logically follows that the ‘management’ of the work on the Okoličné altarpiece was not in the hands of the painter, but more likely the sculptor who co-ordinated several professions – including carpenters, painters, but also burnishers and gilders – and these specialists were picked from his own circle of colleagues. This co-ordinator could evidently only be Master Paul of Levoča, as the Master of Okoličné – judging by his previous works (Spišská Kapitula and Bardejov) – had no such circle as yet. — Speaking of chronology, scholarly literature agrees on the assumption that the Okoličné altarpiece, though explicitly undated, was made between approximately 1500 and 1510.21 The recent dendrochronological dating of the beams above the church sacristy (1499)22 on the one hand (and so, soon a#er the friary church really had to be consecrated and presumably fi%ed with a new altarpiece), and two dated triptychs from a neighbouring village – Smrečany (1510) on the other, appear to confirm the verity of this time span. In addition to the dates, the Smrečany altarpieces also contain another important indication in the direction of the donor. Both their predellas depict the same coat of arms, which may be confidently a%ributed to Christopher of Smrečany.23 Although we do not know the details of the commission, one thing is clear: Christopher of Smrečany is so far the only person who embodies immediately several indications of a link between the Observant Franciscans from Liptov, and the painter Master of Okoličné from the Spiš. — As a fairly typical familiaris of the Zápolyas, Christopher of Smrečany made an almost stellar career towards the end of the 15th century: in their services he became the castellan of Spiš castle as well as the vice-comes of the Spiš, and from 1499 until his death in 1518 he was a lector and canon of the Spišská Kapitula, as well as a papal notary.24 Did not this originally Liptov landowner then represent the central connecting link between the Franciscans of Okoličné and the Spiš Zápolyas? The Zápolyas who, by 1499 at the latest, prided themselves with the magnificent chapel in the priory church of the Spišská Kapitula, together with an altarpiece that was co-painted by the artist, later known as the Master of Okoličné? — For some time a#er 1510, traces of him disappear. Perhaps he collaborated on smaller commissions, or perhaps it is simply a case of the altarpieces produced by his workshop not surviving to the present day. Only in 1516 does he reappear with certainty, when he dated one painting on the movable wing of the Altarpiece of the Visitation in Košice (cat. 15). It was probably donated by the Košice merchant Michael Günthert,25 and it documents our painter by now as a relatively mobile workshop, working both for church as well as secular patrons. Although I remain sceptical towards Anton Glatz’s a%ribution, which also ascribes the panel of Bartholomew Czo%mann in Košice to the painter,26 a number of other works from the area of this eastern Slovakian town supports the idea that he se%led here for a considerable time towards the end of his career. One of his colleagues is the author of a panel, painted on both sides, with scenes from the life of John the Baptist and John the Evangelist (cat. 17), while another – known under the initials LA – made the famous image of 27 the so-called Rožňava Me$erza for the eponymous and adjacent mining town in 1513.27 A comparison of the Virgin Mary’s face from this panel with a few female faces from the workshop of the Master of Okoličné leaves one in no doubt as to the provenance of the artist. — While in Okoličné and Smrečany the female figures were subjected to marked idealisation and a certain type-casting, and by contrast the men were o#en distinguished by an almost portrait-like naturalism, the style of the charming ladies’ faces is refined only in the later, “Košice” phase of the Master of Okoličné’s work. As with other artists from the beginning of the 16th century, his disappearance a#er his last dated work in 1516 will remain a mystery. Whether in the Spiš or the environs of Košice, Bardejov or Prešov, the surroundings of wealthy eastern Slovakian towns offered sufficient opportunities for at least another decade. Even with the assumed loss of a great number of altarpieces, not to mention secular paintings, it is nevertheless odd that the Master of Okoličné was active on the scene with his workshop (or workshops?) for only a li%le over ten documented years. 3. the figure, print models and the painter’s lego — The scene of the Crowning with Thorns and Mocking (cat. 5) does not belong, within the Passion cycle of the Okoličné altarpiece, to the most convincing of compositions nor to the most accomplished paintings technically. The space is reduced to a rather sterile interior, the Christ sits on a blocky stone chest reminiscent of His tomb, with further three figures moving about Him in an uncoordinated way – two henchmen place the crown of thorns on His head, a third squats before Him and accompanied by the mocking fig-hand he gives 28 Him a ‘sceptre’ – a stick. And while the static figure of the Christ is naturally accorded more a%ention – His bright and precisely modelled flesh tones and the contrast of blood drops across His entire body revealed before the red cover is testament to the highest quality of this workshop – the three assisting figures may be more dynamic, but they are also painted more superficially. The henchman on the far le# adopts a pose known from Schongauer’s and Meckenem’s prints (cat. 31 and 40), and these artists’ copper engravings also contain models for the man captured in profile and squa%ing before Christ (cat. 30 and 38). And though a similar equivalent cannot be found for the third guard, his rather awkward ‘dash’ into the space of the scene implies an origin in an entirely different context from the Coronation with Thorns. The suggestions of shadows thrown by the figures onto the floor – in the end we also see them in the ‘interior’ images of the Presentation at the Temple or the Flagellation (cat. 2 and 4) – appear only as a#erthoughts added to feign a natural disposition of figures in the pictorial space. — The painting of the Coronation with Thorns eloquently illustrates the principle with which the painters of the Okoličné altarpiece produced (or adapted) their figural compositions. It was in the first place an additive amalgam of motifs ‘li#ed’ from a different context and more or (more likely) less organically adjusted to the new scene. And so the figure of Mary before the altar in the Presentation at the Temple, for instance – a complex motif of a kneeling, cloaked figure depicted from behind – shows echoes of the figure of Saint John the Evangelist from the Entombment by Martin Schongauer (a#er 1471) and/or Mary from Schäufelein’s print of the Ascension of Christ (1507). The Mary Magdalene clasping the foot of the Cross is borrowed from Schongauer (cat. 32). Even the much-liked figures busy preparing some instrument of torture for Christ, kneeling in the foreground of the Scourging and Resurrection (cat. 4 and 8), are inspired by the copperplate engravings of Israhel van Meckenem (cat. 37). And so we could go on. — Late 15th century prints served as an almost unquenchable source of copying. The borrowing of entire scenes was not uncommon. Well-known examples of this kind of inspiration include the panels of the Altarpiece of the Nativity of Jesus in Bardejov or the Passion cycle of the high Altarpiece of St James in Levoča, which in either case copy the compositions of Martin Schongauer (or Lucas Cranach) almost to the dot.28 But the panel paintings of wealthy Spiš towns (but also those from Silesia, Lesser Poland or Transylvania) were even more frequently assisted by ‘partial’ passages in the woodcuts and copper engravings of German printmakers, as we can also see in Okoličné. This approach, of course, has li%le to do with expectation, or even the understanding, of the idea of ‘originality’ which art history enforces upon later periods, beginning with the Renaissance and reaching its apogee in the art of classic Modernism.29 — This process, which concurrently also contributed to the first true globalization of style in European art around the year 1500, has several explanations at whose base may be discerned a powerful social and economic determination. The economic conjuncture30 of these areas allowed for an unprecedented growth of altarpiece commissions, and with a limited number of painting and sculpture workshops, there was no other way but to incessantly ‘economise’ in efforts to produce always larger and technically more sophisticated altarpieces. The borrowing of accomplished solutions from prints also became more and more accessible thanks to easy transportation as well as storage of the increasingly cheaper paper medium. It noticeably accelerated the process of composing ‘new’ paintings. It is needless to emphasize that this also affected workshop practice, since not only a single altarpiece, but even an individual painting could be worked on by several different painters in succession. The workshop of the Master of Okoličné represents an excellent example of this group collaboration. The recycling of original figural motifs was, however, equally a part of workshop processes. The figures of the Virgin Mary in the Crucifixion, the Lamentation and those on the predella of the Okoličné altarpiece are thus not only the results of an effort to make the same character recognisable. The same faces veiled in white are almost stereotypically repeated, even in the depictions of other Marys (Lamentation – cat. 7). This type can already be discerned in the Bardejov cycle of the Death of the Virgin, and can also be seen in the Altarpiece of St Anne in Smrečany (cat. 13). Only later, in work on the Altarpiece of the Visitation (cat. 15), do we find a greater differentiation and an apparently more careful building up of the flesh tones. In the sad gaze of Our Lady of Sorrows from the retable predella, fixed on the viewer, we are able to identify the artist responsible for the faces in the Presentation at the Temple (cat. 2). But in 1516 Mary’s face no longer repeats as a type, it also composes an emotionally far more convincing (half-)figure. The figures of Saint John the Evangelist from both the altarpieces discussed above may be compared with the same conclusions. While the motif of the yellow bound pocket-book (German Beutelbuch) is repeatedly in his hand, the emotive force is achieved with different means. This is suggested on the Okoličné panel by 29 the furrowed brows and the hand gesture supporting the head, while the painter of the Košice predella satisfied himself with a calm facial expression and a melancholy gaze that hypnotises the viewer. — The underdrawing comes through in several areas of the Coronation with Thorns panel, with which we introduced this chapter. The already long, crossed poles were even longer in the originally intended concept, as can be seen behind the figure of the right-hand henchman. Smaller authorial corrections, when compared to the underdrawing, can also be seen on the legs of the kneeling man, the landing of Christ’s ‘throne’, as well as the background windows. The underdrawing of the Master of Okoličné is relatively bold, and o#en its visibility to the naked eyes is exaggerated by the relatively careless painting of the flat background, especially in Smrečany – surely the work of one of the workshop assistants. But thanks to him we can estimate the procedural frequency of individual phases, and evaluate the functions played by the underdrawing.31 So, for instance, the appearance of the compositionally relatively simple figures of Saints Augustine and Ambrose on the closed wings of the Altarpiece of Sts Martin and Nicholas in Smrečany (cat. 14) was modified during the painting process – the halos are larger in the underdrawing, and the Bishop’s staffs placed at different angles, and in the definitive version the two trees on either side of the figures were also ‘felled’. — At the same time, it is important to add that similar self-corrections were common practice in medieval painting, and with the Master of Okoličné, too, the primary version of the composition or motif was only seldom very different from the final image. But we also know the following: for instance the 30 cup in the hand of the apostle in the upper right of the Last Supper scene (cat. 3) was originally intended more towards the centre of the painting. Equally, it could have been a misunderstanding of the proposed right hand sleeve by another painter, who in the end placed it in a higher spot.32 — The fact that individual paintings ‘made their rounds’ between several painters in the workshop is also confirmed by the existence of le%ers; usually in drapery areas, they indicated the (future) colours in the underdrawing. Gyöngyi Török gave them particular a%ention in relation to her study of the Lamentation of Christ in Budapest (cat. 7).33 Infrared reflectography was able to confirm the same process in the case of the Crucifixion in the Slovak National Gallery (cat. 6), as well as at the panels in the collections of Košice and Dolný Kubín museums.34 The principle of such ‘memos’ for colleagues is, it follows, another corroboration of the thesis positing the relatively rational running of the workshop. Work on individual panels was carried out simultaneously, and a#er the brocade gilding, they immediately changed hands among several different painters and their assistants; which in the end explains the relatively large differences in style between certain figures or the measure of their technical accomplishment. — But let us also return to the print models from another, chronological perspective. The workshop of the Master of Okoličné principally made use of the copperplate engravings of Israhel van Meckenem and Martin Schongauer, and to a lesser extent also those of the Master E. S. and perhaps woodcuts of Hans Schäufelein, too. The dating of these models can be confined to the period approximately between 1470 and 1507. This does not necessarily bode anything odd, indeed the reference to Schäufelein’s Passion cycle (1507) shows that the models may have been rather up-to-date. And yet one circumstance is conspicuous: the Master of Okoličné was not interested even in a Lucas Cranach, a#er whose Passions (1509) his erstwhile colleagues painted the Lent side of the Levoča high altarpiece.35 But what appears even more unusual from the perspective of later painting developments, he was also u%erly indifferent to the art of Albrecht Dürer, at a time when this artist’s work was widely accessible for artists in the Spiš and Šariš regions as well as the central Slovak mining towns at the beginning of the 16th century.36 In view of these factors, then, the chief master of this workshop appears as a relatively conservative painter. As such, the Altarpiece of the Visitation of the Virgin in Košice, dated by inscription to 1516, may have been his last work a#er all. Judging by the altarpiece paintings, he does indeed fit be%er with the last of the Gothic than the early Renaissance. — This conclusion, of course, is made on the basis of the works still extant, and it is surely no accident that they are all in churches. The secular cultural sphere of late medieval painting in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary remains uncovered and – perhaps with the exception of a few fragmentary remains of wall painting – there is in effect no evidence. In relation to the Master of Okoličné we would focus on the so-called crypto-portraits37 – Biblical figures onto whom are projected the features of living persons from the period of the painting work (cf. cat. 2). A part of the same concern also includes the naturalism in the faces of male figures (cat. 8, 14, 17) and in any case the tendency – however selective it may be – towards individualism, which raises the possibility that the Master of Okoličné (by whom I now mean the workshop’s chief master) was a skilled portrait painter. At this time we have no other arguments (not to mention actual works) to support this claim. 4. environment – space, architecture, landscape — Similarly to the figural areas, the painters of the Master of Okoličné’s workshop also enjoyed experimenting with the background compositions, and they did not hesitate to revise their plans mid-process, sometimes radically so. The miracle with the Cross on the closed Altarpiece of St Anne in Smrečany was originally composed as a scene by a bed with a high baldachin. And even more obviously: the scene of Saint Elizabeth healing the lepers was initially staged before an interior and architectural backdrop, and the compositional underdrawing on both panels can be seen even with the naked eye. Only towards the end was the plan changed (perhaps for lack of time or according to the donor’s wishes) and the scene gained a flat blue background without further articulation. — The interior scenes of the Okoličné altarpiece are staged in a pared-down, ‘boxy’ space, whose function was primarily to deepen the view, even if the perspective is markedly imperfect and misunderstood, since it was only formally ‘copied’ (especially with the figures seemingly ‘levitating’ in the air). The almost theatrical aims of these compositions are exposed by small details, like the much-preferred front strip of a ‘stage’ down on the periphery of the image, or the use of simple, not even really coloured, unarticulated cubes for furniture (Last Supper, Coronation with Thorns). It is a pragmatic architecture: without a trace of contemporary form, it exists beyond time. — At the same time, it is noteworthy that the Master of Okoličné did not borrow the 31 composing of ‘secondary’ spaces from the workshop of the Altarpiece of the Coronation of the Virgin – chapels, corridors or niches o#en sprawling over a quarter of the background and filled with additional narratives. Furthermore, this kind of structuring of space and its use to build a thematic hierarchy is present in earlier printmaking, from which he took inspiration (Israhel van Meckenem, cf. cat. 35 – 40). In this regard the Okoličné painters were a li%le too laconic, and they did not use architecture to develop the story. In their eyes, architecture concentrated and enclosed the scene, with no side narratives. But their interest in landscape is of a wholly different nature. — Comparing the workshop’s individual altarpieces, it is evident that the vertical formats of the triptych wings in Smrečany or the Virgin altarpiece in Bardejov did not offer sufficient space for the artists’ intentions. The reduction of the landscape backdrop is apparent in the wings of the Altarpiece of Sts Nicholas and Martin in Smrečany (cat. 14), where the landscape can nevertheless be seen, in the form of typical brown-ochre knolls. At best on the festal side, on the central panel of the Church Fathers Sts Gregory and Jerome, the artists continued to develop it with modest vegetation and some small buildings; for the Master of Okoličné and his team needed space for their landscape. — The background of the Passion scenes on the main altarpiece of the Liptov friary offered them far more space. They used it to build more complicated open planes, sometimes subordinated by and at the same time filled with narrative (Mount of Olives and Resurrection), at others used simply to broaden the Biblical scene (Crucifixion, Lamentation). But, characteristically, they needed no narrative to truly develop their 32 landscapes. This is best demonstrated by the backgrounds of four paintings with saints, on the Lent sides of the Altarpiece of the Visitation in Košice: both primary elements – the wild nature with rocky massifs and vegetation starkly contrasting with the ‘cultured landscape’ with castles, towns and smaller homesteads – begin to come together in balance and stabilise the horizon around the middle of the image surface, while the light blue sky, illuminated towards the horizon, also allow for the refinement of atmospheric perspective. Solitary trees are captured with an effort towards botanical differentiation and the bands of forest also appear more convincing. — The motifs of architecture in landscape, or the manner of its integration into the scene, also initially betray the borrowing of ideas from German printmaking of the late 15th century. Perhaps a li%le surprisingly, the painters in Okoličné used printed sources to build their landscape backgrounds in a similar way to their figural work. They progressed in the same way: the initial selection was followed by an isolation of the motif and its incorporation into a new context. For instance, the landscape in the background of the Resurrection scene (cat. 8) may raise a suspicion that the author of its le# and right parts was not the same artist. But it may also be explained by the possibility that both parts were produced by joining two disparate models (or perhaps one model combined with the painter’s imagination). These kinds of models – apart from Schongauer’s prints (cat. 29 and 32) – may have also included illustrations from popular books such as the Peregrinatio in Terram Sanctam of Bernhard von Breitenbach or Hartman Schedel’s Weltchronik (cat. 44). — The followers of the Master of Okoličné in Košice (cat. 17) and Rožňava are already able to integrate figures and landscape into a more convincing whole. While in Okoličné the la%er formed a backdrop behind the scene, in Košice the scene is set in an almost autonomous landscape. The landscape gains another function in Rožňava – it forms the basic structure organising an entire system of smaller mining scenes.38 5. the master of okoličné: constants and experiments in marian iconography As it happens, both the Liptov churches which were the direct beneficiaries of the paintings of the Master of Okoličné, were under the patronage of the Virgin. While the church of the Franciscan Observants was originally dedicated to the Virgin as the Queen of Angels (specifically S. Maria de Angelis seu de Paradiso), later in the 18th century and in connection with the return of the Franciscans a#er the Reformation, as well as the new refurbishment of the interior, it was dedicated to the Franciscan Baroque saint Peter of Alcantara.39 The current dedication of the Smrečany church to the Purification of the Virgin Mary is likewise evidence of Baroque piety; but we have no doubts about the Gothic patronage of Mary, if only for the consecration of the original high altarpiece from the period around 1480, but also older wall paintings.40 Inside we find the figure of the Virgin Mary as Protector, with a Madonna Enthroned with donors on the tympanum of the south portal. And although church patronage forced the Marian theme only in these two instances, an iconographic study of the workshop production of the Master of Okoličné makes it evident that this subject ma%er forms a marked majority of his (known) altarpieces. — Already the oldest retable of our master’s original workshop, namely the Altarpiece of the Coronation of the Virgin Mary in the Spišská Kapitula, depicts on its festal open wings four scenes from the life of the Mother of God: above le# the Annunciation, the Visitation on the right, below le# the Nativity and the Adoration of the Magi on the right. Furthermore, these four images show the greatest input from the painter whom we later follow as the independent leading painter of the Okoličné workshop. The simple compositional plans or ‘hierarchic’ motifs offer proof, as do the types of seemingly dreamy female faces with light flesh tones, in contrast with the naturalistic male faces (Saint Joseph, the Magi). — The figure of Mary is captured almost minimalistically: in each instance wearing a red dress (in the Nativity and Adoration scenes with a golden brooch on her chest), and in a dark cloak. In place of an obvious golden nimbus, her head is encircled only by the delicate rays of a halo. But apart from a few details, the Marian iconography of the Kapitula altarpiece does not introduce many aspects that we would not recognize from before. The plainly conceived scenes cannot compete with the lavish painting of the contemporary Altarpiece of Our Lady of the Snows in Levoča (1496),41 even if the configuration of the four-painting cycle, as well as certain individual compositions are identical. Perhaps precisely this comparison may be relevant for the art of the Master of Okoličné: the Zápolya, as the foremost magnate family, had reason to a%empt to equal – if not exceed – the ‘royal’ tone of the Levoča altarpiece with an even more elaborate commission. In the end this did not happen, and they ordered an altarpiece in a more modest style for their newly built chapel, and may have been the result of an artistic conception which was to a significant extent influenced by the Master of Okoličné. Whether already in that period, 33 the 1490s, the artist and donor could have in some way reflected ideas from the reformed environment of Observant friars – later partners on the Okoličné project – remains to be assessed in the conclusion. — While the Kapitula altarpiece employed conventional solutions in terms of subject ma%er, the combination of Marian scenes in the Altarpiece of the Virgin Mary and Sts Erasmus and Nicholas in Bardejov is unprecedented in the fund of Slovak Late Gothic painting: it is the oldest work made by an independent Master of Okoličné in 1505. The paintings on the festal side of the altarpiece depict innovative scenes linked entirely to the death of the Virgin. Today’s appearance of the retable in the side nave of the Church of St Giles in Bardejov immediately raises several questions (cf. cat. 16). In view of the iconography, the festal side of its original shrine should have more probably contained a relief of the Death of the Virgin, which would also make the content of the four Marian paintings more organic within the altarpiece programme. The painting of the Italian trecento (Duccio) has made us familiar with the scenes of the Announcement of the Death of the Virgin, the Giving of the Palm to St John, Carrying the Body of Mary to the Tomb (including the incident with the archpriest Jechonias), as well as the Entombment of Mary. Although they were not entirely without precedent in the West, none of the Bardejov scenes seems to have had a model, whether in German (including Silesian and Transylvanian) or Bohemian (including Moravian or Lesser Polish) painting. — With the greatest likelihood, therefore, the painter worked with a theological advisor to conceive his imagery. This programme ‘conceptor’ probably drew from a text of one of the apocryphal writings dedicated to the Death of the Virgin: this 34 was apparently the Word of John the Theologian (John of Thessaloniki) concerning the death of the Mother of God – in literary tradition, for simplicity, made part of the group ‘Branch of the Tree of Life’ – precisely because of the motif of the palm branch present in the Bardejov cycle.42 Whether the ‘conceptor’ of the altarpiece programme was a learned theologian, or whether the artist put it together himself from the patron’s instructions (the Bardejov parish or town council), already at this early stage he proves to be a bold experimenter and – in high probability – a pious devotee of the Virgin Mary.43 This is also demonstrated by another iconography which was, in contrast to scenes from the Death of the Virgin, generally widespread. — The theme of the Holy Kinship – the (fictive) genealogy of Jesus in the maternal line, was a new but simultaneously exceptionally popular subject in the Spiš painting of around 1500.44 It would be odd had this evaded the Master of Okoličné, a painter with such interest in Marian piety. Not only did he not miss it: on the contrary, he brought several innovations into this topic. Before we embark on these, the wandering symbolism of the theme surely deserves a more detailed exploration.45 — The most influential collection of lives of saints in the late Middle Ages, the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus da Varagine, introduced the idea of the wider kinship of Jesus in a chapter on the Birth of the Virgin Mary. It identifies not only Mary’s mother – Saint Anne – but also various members of the family in several generations, and describes their relatively complicated connections.46 There are also mentions here and there of Jesus’ brothers in the canonical books of the New Testament,47 and so we already see in the early Middle Ages efforts to un- derstand the wider relationships of Jesus’ family within a certain system. Without the character of Saint Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary, the non-Biblical but so beloved hagiographic construction could not have been created. — Although we encounter paintings and sculptures of the Anna Selbdri$ and her family from earlier times, the rapid flourishing of Anne’s iconography towards the end of the 15th century – in the end similarly to the majority of all fundamental shi#s in medieval iconography – was due to the efforts of the Church to implement and then propagate a certain theological idea. In this case this was the teaching about the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Council of Basel already a%empted to establish it as dogma in 1438, but it did not yet gain official sanction. But this was set off by the mass – and constantly growing – interest in the cult of Jesus’ grandmother towards the end of the Middle Ages shown by broad layers of society. The popularisation of this teaching (accepted as dogma only in 1854) was surely also due to the mutual conflict between the most influential orders: the Dominicans, and the Franciscans represented by Pope Sixtus IV, who in 1481 established the Feast of St Anne in the official Roman calendar. In 1556 Pope Pius V, a Dominican incumbent, rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception and struck off the feast from the calendar.48 — The leitmotif of this doctrine – analogous to the life of Christ – was the notion of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary whose visual equivalents were the Annunciation to Joachim, the Annunciation to Anne and their Meeting at the Golden Gate, again to parallel the Christological cycle. But there was a caveat: not only these scenes, but the figure of Saint Anne herself are not directly mentioned in the text of the New Testament. It is therefore not surprising that in terms of artistic articulation, these scenes had to lean on more frequent pictorial types protected by Biblical iconography. The approach was the same with the individual figures of Saint Anne together with Mary and Jesus. The Holy Trinity type had huge influence in this regard; it is necessary only to compare paintings or sculpture groups from whatever period of Gothic or early modern art with contemporary Trinitarian depictions. — The opponents of the cult of Saint Anne towards the end of the Middle Ages were particularly scornful of the idea of the socalled trinubium, which was indeed sternly rejected by the later Council of Trent (1545 – 1563). According to this idea Anna married again twice a#er the death of Joachim, her first husband and the father of Mary – to Cleophas and then Salomas. With each husband she had a daughter named Mary (so the Virgin Mary, Mary Cleophas and Mary Salome). This legend, by itself controversial enough, formed the groundwork for perhaps the richest genealogical fantasy of all of medieval Christendom. The primary motivation behind it was the elimination of any suspicion surrounding the ‘brothers’ of Jesus, mentioned in several places in the New Testament, and simultaneously strengthening the doctrine about the Virgin Mary’s unique motherhood. With the help of literary tradition, but also more frequently its visual formulations, members of Christ’s kinship mediated through Anne became reconstructed as such significant characters as the apostles Jude Thaddaeus, James the Elder and Saint John the Evangelist. — In Saxony, northern Bohemia, Silesia as well as the Spiš – so it appears from the surviving works mentioned above – the cult of Saint Anne culminated around or immediately a#er 1500. In fact it is likely that entire 35 workshops existed here which specialised (at least temporarily) in altarpiece retables dedicated to it. The exceptional artistic quality of the altarpieces of St Anne in Spišská Sobota, Ľubica near Kežmarok, and in Levoča are proof that the cult of Saint Anne, in the environs of Late Gothic Spiš, was spread principally in the financially secure burgher class. — In their individual paintings, the altarpiece wings weave family relations between the lines of the Virgin Mary’s (half) sisters. While in Smrečany the families of Mary Salome and Mary Cleophas are each ‘compressed’ on individual side wing of the triptych, the chronologically near Altarpiece of St Anne in Spišská Sobota (1508?) generously develops the panorama of Jesus’ kinship in eight paintings on the Lent side, including the parents of Saint Anne (Stolanus and Emerentia) and her sister with husband (Esmeria and Ephraim), whose descendants, for instance, include Saint John the Baptist in the third generation or Saint Servatius the Bishop in the fi#h.49 The Smrečany triptych, with its pendant on the opposite side of the chancel arch, documents the practice of dividing men and women in late medieval churches.50 Saint Anne was therefore above all the addressee of the female part of the community. — However, other forms of depicting Christ’s kinship were also widespread in the immediate circle of the Master of Okoličné. The most frequent depicted all (or at least the necessary majority of) family members within one composition, together with a more or less successful effort to lay out correct mutual relations through differentiating particular generations by age. One of the most beautiful such paintings is the panel of the Holy Kinship from the Master of the High Altarpiece of Hrabušice (cat. 18). A no less outstanding work, albeit reduced to the 36 three central figures, is by another colleague of the Master of Okoličné – the o#-quoted Rožňava Me$erza (1513).51 — Anton Glatz a%ributed another work with the Anna Selbdri$ theme directly to the Master of Okoličné – a votive panel of the pharmacist Bartholomew Czotmann from Košice and dated to 1516.52 And although the exceptionally bad condition of the painting hinders us from directly a%ributing it to our artist, its content and composition nevertheless play an important role for our understanding of the complexity of Saint Anne’s iconography. In contra-distinction to the Smrečany triptych, we are not given a direct iconography of the Holy Kinship. Saint Anne is placed here into a different context which relates to the particular ex voto function of the painting. The idea of the saint’s exceptional importance is made visible by a tree crown, on whose axis are depicted the figures of St Anna Selbdri$ (with Mary and Child) at the bo%om; above her stands the Madonna on a sickle moon with a golden rayed aureole behind her. Individual branches then grow towards the figures of other male and female saints. A pair of donors kneels beneath the tree, and can be identified by their coats of arms. It is almost impossible that the compositional model of this panel could have been anything other than a schematic image (perhaps a print or drawing) on the subject of the Holy Kinship.53 — Though the naturalistic Košice version of the tree may draw from Netherlandish art of the second half of the 15th century, above all from the renowned Madonna by Petrus Christus from 1465,54 we know of earlier trees of Saint Anne in Germany. The pictorial idea of Christ’s kinship in the form of a tree – the genealogical symbol par excellence – was therefore no great innovation in central European painting of around 1500. We find it in a version of around 1417 which includes the trinubium (the three husbands of Saint Anne, including daughters and their husbands) and an explanatory legend directly in the image. The author of the codex Libellus dicitur Mons quatuor fluvialum arborum is Winand von Steeg, a courtier of Sigismund of Luxembourg.55 — Before we conclude the panorama of Marian iconography in his circle, we should mention the Master of Okoličné’s final work, the Altarpiece of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary (1516, cat. 15) in Košice. As with the discussed Bardejov altarpiece, it is a retable which was presumably composed into its current form only in the 19th century, using original Gothic sculpture and painting. The sculpture group in the corpus is still from the late 15th century,56 but the predella as well as the wing paintings are the work of the Master of Okoličné.57 Due to the secondary manipulations, it is impossible to confidently reconstruct the original narrative sequence of Marian scenes on the open wings.58 The Annunciation scene is now placed towards the bo%om of the le# wing, the bo%om right wing shows the Nativity; the story continues in the upper le# with the Adoration of the Magi and ends – unusually – with the Flight into Egypt above right. The most widespread combination of the four scenes, as we can remember it for instance from the Altarpiece of the Coronation of the Virgin in the Spišská Kapitula, was in no way canonical. The Okoličné altarpiece also, for instance, focused on the scenes of the Annunciation, Nativity, Adoration of the Magi and Presentation at the Temple (according to our proposed scheme). The finial crowning of the retable also deserves a%ention in the given context, since it contains a sculpture group cycle of the Holy Kinship, relatively unusual in Slovak art. Beholden to the central Annunciation group, scholars gave li%le a%ention to it, but stylistic features show that it is later, and so apparently was made in parallel with the altarpiece paintings in 1516. The sculpture cycle, clearly intended primarily for the crowning, once more opens a window for speculation about the content of the altarpiece corpus, which was the principal area of work for the Master of Okoličné. None of the iconography in the paintings, crowning sculptures nor the corpus structure contradict the hypothesis that the altarpiece may have been originally dedicated to Saint Anne.59 6. conclusion. chapter, friary, town: on the social background of the work of the master of okoličné — One factor surprises us when studying the literature on the Master of Okoličné: while interpretations of the architecture of the Okoličné church turn around the context of mendicant architecture, only few authors even notice that in the case of the panel paintings we are dealing with an altarpiece for a friary church. Using the dominant research methods – origins of styles and socio-historical analyses – they concentrated their a%ention on the place of the artist and his workshop in the context of the rich Spiš painting of around 1500, and on the potential circle of his patrons in centres such as Levoča, Kežmarok or the Spišská Kapitula. Even the context of the royal court was given a say. Their ‘Franciscan tone’ or ‘spirituality’ was only marginally mentioned. Is it at all possible that the Okoličné Franciscans had such li%le influence over the programme of their own high altarpiece? — Although the Franciscan Province of Hungary was dedicated to the Virgin Mary only in 1517, this year should be seen rather as a culmination of long-term tendencies 37 linked particularly with the repeated union of the (Observant) Franciscans and the (reformed) Friars Minor. The Okoličné friary was built for Observants and so – as far as the owning of possessions is concerned – for the stricter and more ascetic branch.60 It was therefore reliant on gi#s and alms and did not own any lands or buildings from which would flow rents. On the contrary, the Observants sought a return to the original ideals of their order, and they also tried to bu%ress their teachings with theological writings.61 — As such, we cannot exclude the possibility that our workshop was influenced by Franciscan tracts and sermons in their favouring of Marian themes – perhaps even by the contemporary work of Pelbart of Temesvár (d. 1504), a teacher at the Buda order’s studium generale. The Stellarium (The Starry Crown of the Holy Virgin) and Pomerium (Fruit Garden) were published in his lifetime between 1496 and 1504,62 and they were immediately distributed at least within the network of Franciscan friaries. We already mentioned successes of the Franciscan Pope Sixtus IV in propagating the cult of Saint Anne towards the end of the 15th century. — At first sight, the Okoličné altarpiece retable itself does not provide much evidence for its intrinsic affinity with the spirituality of Observant Franciscans. It is possible to speculate – and indeed it already has – about its formal reduction, and indeed this aspect is strikingly clear when compared with the almost hedonistic colour and thematic richness of the Košice Altarpiece of the Nativity (cat. 15). But the reduction of the number of figures and focus on the most important characters is also plain when compared with the Altarpiece of Saint Anne for the manorial church in Smrečany (cat. 13) or with the narrative cycles on 38 the Lent side of the Bardejov altarpiece (cat. 16). At the same time it is well not to forget that only one panel has survived from the festal side in Okoličné (cat. 2), and a fragment of another one (cat. 1). What if, a#er all, the ‘earthy’ tone of the other paintings and their formal reduction was simply the result of an intentional stylisation of the quotidian side of the altarpiece, rather than a reflection of Franciscan ideology? — A#er detailed study, however, this Lent side does in fact contain several uncommon motifs that would have a deeper meaning in the context of the emotive sermons of the Franciscans. Behind the decision to depict the Crucifixion with Mary Magdalene at the foot of the Cross (cat. 6) may for instance lie an effort to emphasise the Wounds, and so a visual reference to the stigmata of Saint Francis, the order’s founder. We also discussed the melancholy tone which accompanies the figure of Christ in all the known paintings. It seems almost wrenched from the intrinsic relations between it and the surrounding events, though it does search for eye contact with the viewer in a single scene – the Flagellation (cat. 5). Saint John or the Mother of God directly usually assume this role (cat. 6 and 2). Nevertheless, the stylisation of the figure of Jesus appears open to dialogue with the (praying) audience. The following of Christ, literally ‘appearing like Christ’ – the christiformitas – represented a key aspect of Franciscan spirituality from the order’s very beginnings.63 It is, of course, only with difficulty that we can reconstruct the direct relation of Franciscan iconography to an object which survives only as parts from the original high altarpiece. Until the 18th century, we do not even have wri%en evidence of the other components.64 — At the same time, it is clear that the Master of Okoličné was not simply a case of a monastic artist. The span of his works, especially his ‘debut’ in Bardejov and his ‘finale’ in Košice, is too noticeably framed by the urban environment. Was he then a typical town artist, a painter with a stable and prospering workshop in the Spišská Kapitula or Kežmarok? Both Vladimír Wagner and Anton Glatz connected the chief work of the Master of Okoličné with the patronage activity of the Zápolya family,65 and Jiří Fajt refined this linkage with the wider context of courtly expectations.66 But can the Corvinian arms of the vaulting in the Okoličné church and/or the royal ambitions of young John – son of Hedwig of Cieszyn and Stephen of Zápolya, the probable donors of the Master of Okoličné’s altarpiece – be taken as a%ributes of the church and its most important furnishings as reflecting the context of court art? If it was a natural aim of wealthy aristocratic and magnate families to imitate the cultural pa%erns of royal and archiepiscopal courts,67 would it also automatically mean its indiscriminate distribution without regard to the demands of its audience in an u%erly different socio-economic situation, and furthermore in remote areas such as the Spiš and Transylvania? — The reduction of the role of Spiš painting from around 1500 to a reflection of court art, which forms the basis of the most recent interpretations so far,68 does not capture its complexity and nature in its entirety. Apart from the more problematic analogies – exactly with which Buda works can Spiš 15th/16th century painting be compared, in formal terms? – overvaluing the importance of court art lies in the overestimation of heraldic motifs on several altarpieces. This also includes the building of the Church of the Virgin Mary in Okoličné, above whose chancel arch we can still see the arms of Ma%hias Corvinus and his wife Beatrix of Aragon (overpainted several times in the 19th and 20th centuries). I do not wish to revive the protracted arguments in relation to the functions of these heraldic representations, but the notion that the Hungarian ruler was able to support the production of so many altarpiece structures, particularly with the unhappy financial state of the Jagiellon court,70 is illusory. Furthermore, in most cases we are dealing with the arms of the realm, not of the person of the monarch. The intention behind their presence on a building or an altarpiece predella was more an expression of prestige and loyalty,71 the will of the free royal town or donor in question to load ‘art in public space’ with the highest possible allusions, however symbolic. — The Master of Okoličné represents a typical protagonist of this period: he capitalised on the relatively rich market with commissions, whether they were from a magnate family (the Zápolya), a monastic community (Observant Franciscans) or from urban elites (Michael Günthert in Košice). Judging from surviving works he does appear tied to the church environment, but their character implies that what survived was only due to be%er conditions of preservation, at least in comparison with secular painting. The activities of Spiš painters in the field of profane art cannot be appraised, since it is lost. — The royal courts in Buda or Krakow can only claim vicarious merit for this process. We have no space for a discussion around the centre and periphery – whether we understand it globally (e.g. Nuremberg vs. Krakow; Buda vs. Levoča) or locally (Levoča vs. Mlynica; Kežmarok vs. Okoličné), one thing becomes increasingly clear from the ‘map’ of Spiš painting workshops. The sculpture and particularly the painting from the Spiš around 1500 and its environs exhibit a phe39 nomenon well-known from other important areas or periods of art history: the economic rise of Spiš towns and their topographic as well as geopolitical openness72 had a decisive influence on the growing volume of commissions, which in turn employed an increasingly larger number of artists, the refinement of their skills, use of more expensive technologies and so on. This state of affairs of factors mostly unrelated to art resulted in the regional cultural hegemony of the Spiš, and the creations of Spiš painting and sculpture workshops soon began to fill the churches of adjacent Abov, Šariš or Liptov counties too. — The situation stimulated the growth of well-funded ‘laboratories’ with rationalised workshop practices, which nevertheless liked to experiment and were simultaneously interconnected by the migration of individual artists and the dissemination and borrowing of new ideas from outside, particularly from the area of Netherlandish and German painting and printmaking. The dynamic workshop of the anonymous artist, known out of necessity as the Master of Okoličné, was also anchored in this environment. 1 A critical overview of the literature is offered by glatz 1995, 64-68. I will not therefore repeatedly outline these authors bis dato and will focus only on commentary of works published since. The opinions of the relevant authors – whether in agreement or in polemic – I refer to in the relevant place in the notes. 2 spoločníková 1997, 56-62. 3 The basic information on the restoration work of individual paintings is set out in the title captions of the catalogue. 4 glatz 1995, 62-70 5 fajt 2003. The chapter, with small modifications, was immediately also republished in German: fajt 2004. 6 Ibidem; also see fajt 2007 for the immediately preceding period. 40 7 Cf. cat. 1 – 12 for hypotheses in relation to patrons; for regional and historical context, as well as architecture of the friary church in Okoličné cf. the essays by Radoslav Ragač and Bibiana Pomfyová in this catalogue. 8 Generally for the chapel construction (1488 – 1493) cf. novotná 2009, 108-109. Emeric was originally buried before the church choir; we do not know the exact burial place of Stephen of Zápolya. While the burial of Princess Hedwig is described in detail in the Sperfogl Chronicle of Levoča (cf. kucharská 2014), her epitaph has not survived. Both sepulchral monuments of the Zápolya brothers are carved from precious red marble, cf. dsvu – Gotika 2003, 667-668 (Viera Luxová); Exh. Cat. Ma$hias Corvinus 2008, 269-270 (Richard Horváth), 276-277 (Lívia Varga). 9 Out of the considerable literature, cf. janovská 2009 (with older studies) for current building and historical research. 10 The reconstruction of the priory church was initiated by Provost John Stock. Details in olejník 2009, 49-50; janovská 2009, 90-92 and novotná 2009, 107-115 (in each case together with reference to sources, building and historical studies and earlier literature). 11 olejník 2009, 50. Exh. cat. Terra Scepusiensis 2009, 182-183 (František Žifčák). 12 novotná 2009, 107-108 (but the author does not differentiate between the consecration of the altars, documented in sources, and implicitly assumes their oneness with the altarpiece retables). On the Altarpiece of St Michael, Altarpiece of the Death of the Virgin Mary and the Altarpiece of the Adoration of the Magi, please see further török 2000; végh 2003 and végh 2010; on the central altarpiece see fajt 2003, 400-402; fajt 2007 (in each case with references to earlier literature). For the Netherlandish influences in Central Europe in general hörsch 2014. 13 glatz 1987, 58, 61, 85-86; glatz 1995, 71-72; dsvu – Gotika 2003, 751-755 (Jiří Fajt) – with alternative views on questions of artistic identity and collaboration between individual painters. 14 For basic orientation: krieger 2007 (with further lit.). On the creation of a cult a#er the example of Albrecht Dürer cf. rebel 2003. A collective production of late Gothic altarpiece-makers was well pointed out by labuda 1985. 15 Magyar Nemzeti Galéria Budapest, inv. nr. 53.541/111. Cf. endrődi 2002. 16 dsvu – Gotika 2003, 752-753 (Jiří Fajt) – with earlier literature. 17 On Marian iconography cf. text below. 18 There is no space here for a detailed discussion on the precise dating of the Levoča high altarpiece. For an overview cf. fajt – roller 2003. From earlier literature above all chalupecký 1969; chalupecký 1978 and homolka et al. 1961. 19 dsvu – Gotika 2003, 746-747 (Martin Šugár). 20 Apart from Levoča (completed around 1514) this included Banská Bystrica (1509), Chyžné (1508), Spišská Sobota (1516) and Mlynica (1515 – 1520). See more detailed analysis in cat. 1 – 12. 21 radocsay 1955: 1500 – 1510; glatz 1987: 1506 – 1509; glatz 1995: 1506 – 1509; fajt 2003: 1500 – 1510. 22 ďurian et al. 2012. 23 glatz 1987, 66-67; glatz 1995, 68; dsvu – Gotika 2003, 740-742 (Jiří Fajt). Cf. also chapter by Radoslav Ragač in this catalogue. 24 We shall mention only marginally his other offices outside of Liptov and the Spiš: the vice-comes of Gemer; castellan of Muráň castle, prefect of Regéc, Tállya and Tokaj castles. Cf. survey in kucharská 2014, 141-142 (with references to sources and literature). 25 wick 1936, 226-228; glatz 1995, 69. 26 glatz 1987, 68-69. See also the informative article a#er the recent restoration in ridilla 2016. The several past repaintings of the panel, in my opinion, basically prevent a reliable identification of the author. 27 glatz 1987, 70-71, 74; svetková – togner 1993, 77-79; dsvu – Gotika 2003, 763 (Martin Šugár); Exh. cat. Paris 2010, 69 (Dušan Buran); Exh. cat. Roma 2016, 60-65 (Mária Novotná). 28 Cf. spoločníková 1986; labuda 1991; glatz 2001 and dsvu – Gotika 2003, 719-720 (János Végh) and 747749 (Stefan Roller – Jiří Fajt). 29 On the contrary – we would find many similarities between postmodern eclecticism and the practices of medieval workshops. Furthermore, if we had ‘Lego’ in the previous subheading as shorthand for the jigsaw principle, its opposite could be regarded as the ‘ego’ – the concentrated self-confidence of an artist. This category was however foreign to the Gothic painter – cra#sman. 30 suchý 1974; Historia Scepusii I 2009, 286-332 (Henryk Ruciński, with references to further literature). 31 On the function of underdrawing in Gothic paintings of around 1500 see currently: dietz 2015, 121-170 (with further lit). Also cf. suckale 2009, 302-307 and Coll. cat. Dürer 1998, 120-125 (further in catalogue). 32 The Last Supper is in either case one of the paintings whose underdrawing is, to a large extent, visible to the naked eye. 33 török 1999. 34 With appropriate light conditions some of these le%ers are visible by naked eye too. Very o#en, the p (presilgen or prawn, alternatively) marks the brown, purple or wine-dark-red colour, e.g. on the elbow of the Virgin at the Crucifixion (cat. 6, ill. on the p. 66) or on the back of the le# man at the panel with Crowning with Thorns (cat. 4, ill. on the pp. 72 and 83). An equally frequent pair of le%ers cp stands for cup, ill. p. rum – green, e.g. on the collar of the kneeling man le# to the Christ in the Resurrection scene (cat. 8, ill. p. 83) or on the tabard of the right catchpoll in the Flagellation (cat. 5) or on the hat and coat of the kneeling purler in the Coronation (cat. 4). The future yellow colour is marked by the g – as for gelb: on the costume of the le# soldier or on the collar of the right man in the Flagellation (cat. 5) or on the coat of the apostle upper le# in the scene of the Last Supper (cat. 3, ill. pp. 68, 83) and on many other places. Less frequent appears an f, e.g. on the brown-greyish coat of Christ on the pavement of the Flagellation scene or of some apostles in the Last Supper. Its interpretation is more difficult since we do not find any analogies for this le%er in other painters’ works. It may indicate an abbreviation for broken dark-brown colour (falbig or fawn in archaic German) or more general finster for dark. For terminology cf. jervis jones, William: Historisches Lexikon deutscher Farbbezeichnungen. Berlin 2013, vol. I, 12, 901, 1049 and 1070. As for the author’s own corrections (pentimenti), he (or they) fundamentally corrected only marginal details such as a dagger of a purse on 41 the belt (Coronation – cat. 4, ill. p. 83). The faces, beards or hair were only simplified at the final stage of painting. However, a tendency towards the so#ening of originally perhaps too expressive faces is obvious too (c. the Flagellation scene). The infra-red-reflectography (IRR) pictures were provided by Stanislava Trgiňová (cat. 3, 4, 5 and 8) and Bedrich Hoffstädter (cat. 6). Beside them, I am grateful to Veronika Gabčová for assistance in managing this research. 35 glatz 2001. 36 On Dürer’s reception in central Europe cf. generally chipps smith 2009; buran 2017 (on Master M. S. in Banská Štiavnica – with earlier lit.) 37 poleross 1988 (with earlier lit.). 38 svetková – togner 1993; dsvu – Gotika 2003, 762763 (Martin Šugár); Exh. cat. Europa Jagellonica 2012, 195-196. 39 On the friary history cf. húščava 1941; on St Peter of Alcantara LCI 8, 174-175 (Pater Gerlach – Oktavian Schmucki). 40 On Smrečany generally biathová 1983, 204-207. 41 ora 2000; dsvu – Gotika 2003, 724-725 (János Végh). 42 On their structure and mutual relations cf. Novozákonné apokryfy II, 447-464. 43 We could, at least in theory, accept the possibility that the Master of Okoličné may have been female. Gender studies in central European Gothic art are basically confined to women’s convents (out of all cf. exh. cat. Krone und Schleier 2005 – with detailed bibliography). But we also have cases where a workshop was taken over and led by the widow of a deceased artist. But this argumentation reveals its weak side the moment we conflate the workshop ‘manager’ with its active artist. 44 In contrast to the well-known iconography of the Tree of Jesse, it showed Christ’s lineage in the female line. See oros – šišmiš 2004, 57-67. In a span of approx. 15 – 20 years, several altarpieces were produced in the Spiš, mostly dedicated to Saint Anne, including the painted cycles of Christ’s kin: Spišská Sobota (1508?), Ľubica (before 1520), Levoča (1520), Strážky (around 1520). A free standing painting, apart from the mentioned panel in the nm Ljubljana (cat. 18), is 42 known from Dúbravica. On these works see dsvu – Gotika 2003, 734-735, 765 (Dušan Buran, Martin Šugár); dsvu – Renesancia 2009, 832-833 (Dušan Buran); on iconography gerát 2001, 141-146. 45 I have discussed the iconography of Saint Anne and the Holy Kinship before, cf.: buran 2009a, also buran 2010. 46 Legenda aurea [1955], 732-734. 47 Mt, 12, 46; 13, 55; Mk 3, 31; Joh 2, 12; 7, 3 u. 5; Gal 1, 19 [LCI 4, 163 (Martin Lechner)]. 48 Cf. Immaculata Conceptio. In: LCI 2, 338-344 (Jean Fournée); Anna. Mu%er Mariens. In: LCI 5, 168-184 (Martin Lechner) and: Anna Selbdri%. In: LCI 5, 185-190 (Johannes H. Emminghaus); for historical and hagiographic context see ashley – sheingorn 1990 (with earlier lit.). 49 glatz 2001b, 34-39; dsvu – Gotika 2003, 734-735 (Dušan Buran). 50 But the similar arrangements in Spišská Sobota result from modern manipulation of church furnishings. Their Altarpiece of the Holy Kinship originally stood in the adjacent Chapel of St Anne – cf. glatz 2001b, 34-35. 51 dsvu – Gotika 2003, 762-763 (Martin Šugár) and exh. cat. Europa Jagellonica 2012, 195-196 – in the context of mining iconography. 52 glatz 1987, 68-69; glatz 1995, 69; berkovits 1942; ridilla 2016. 53 Apart from the discussed panel paintings, a diagram with the Holy Kinship tree was also included in the woodcuts of Schedel’s Weltchronik, Bl. xcv. cf. here cat. 44. 54 Museo Thyssen Bornemisza Madrid. ridilla 2016, 42 raised another analogy: Gerard David’s painting (Musée des Beaux Arts, Lyon) from about 1490 – 1500. 55 Bibliotheca Palatina, Heidelberg, cod. Pal. lat. 411, fol. 36v. This and another analogical miniature with the tree of Saint Elizabeth were added to the manuscript from other sources. They are probably from Heidelberg, even if not chronologically very distant from the body of the manuscript weiss 1986, vol. 1, 190-191; vol. 2, 139, fig. E 1.2; also cf. buran 2010. 56 dsvu – Gotika 2003, 743-744 (Kaliopi Chamonikola). 57 In the case of the Košice retable, Jiří Fajt assumes the contributions of at least three painters, but none of whom he explicitly identifies with the Master of Okoličné: dsvu – Gotika 2003, 742-743 (Jiří Fajt). Contrastingly, Anton Glatz has no doubt that the entire altarpiece is the work of the Master of Okoličné: glatz 1995, 69. 58 The back sides depict individual saints, so the epic aspect of the cycle can’t be reconstructed on their basis. 59 The Altarpiece of St Anne is genuinely documented in the church, but as early as 1473 (wick 1936, 225), which is too early for the sculptures. 60 On the main personalities in the 15th century Observant movement, Saints Bernardine of Siena and John Capistrano, their preaching and possible impact for central European art see onorati 1982, hundsbichler 1982; kostowski 1995; madej-anderson 2004; chlíbec 2009; šimůnek 2011 and bartlová 2015, 258-272. (I wish to thank Milena Bartlová for valuable remarks to the earlier version of this essay.) The situation of the medieval Hungarian kingdom has not been studied from this perspective, cf. current overview kapisztrán varga 2008. 61 On Franciscan history in Hungary cf. karácsónyi 1922 – 1924; briefly also hervay 1982, here 315 – 316; on the Okoličné friary húščava 1940/41 (with a critical overview of sources) and papp 2006. 62 hervay 1982, 316. 63 On early period rave 1984, 193-223 a thomas 1989. 64 Late Gothic wall paintings were discovered on the nave vault in the Okoličné friary during most recent (2017) restoration work and building-historical studies of the interior. At the moment we can identify the wings of an angel (cherub?). For information and images I thank Jozef Tomaga, custodian of the Liptovský Mikuláš – Okoličné parish. 65 wagner 1972, 72; glatz 1999, 69-70. 66 fajt 2003 a fajt 2004. – For a more detailed discussion cf. cat. 1 – 12. 67 On the social status of court artists and the ambivalent relationships between court and town, see the methodically still relevant warnke 1985. An overview of influences in various strata and periods in the central European area is provided in da costa kaufmann 1995. 68 fajt 2003 and fajt 2004. 69 Levoča: Altarpiece of the Man of Sorrows (Vir Dolorum), around 1480; Altarpiece of Our Lady of the Snows, 1496; Sabinov: High Altarpiece of St John the Baptist, 1496 – 1516. 70 macek 1992, 226-291 (interpreted from a ‘Czech’ perspective, but within necessary international context). 71 Cf. thoughts of marosi 2008, 120-124. 72 Marked by connections of international trade routes on the one hand, on the other – thanks to the loan of 13 Spiš towns to the Polish king – a combined administration by both royal crowns. Most recently števík 2012; cf. chalupecký 1963; suchý 1974b; Historia Scepusii I 2009, 286-332 (Henryk Ruciński). 43 catalogue high altar of the virgin mary in the friary church in okoličné the master of okoličné and his workshop (paintings) & master paul of levoča (sculptures) spiš region, ca. 1500 – 1510 — The late-Gothic altar in the Observant Franciscan friary church in Okoličné (originally the Church of the Virgin Mary – Queen of Heaven) was replaced in 1747 by today’s Baroque altar. Some sculptures and panel paintings of its predecessor made their way to other church owners and public collections in the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century. Other pieces such as the central sculpture of Madonna and the fourth, smaller sculpture from the set of accompanying figures of the arch are still missing. It seems that the painting of the Adoration of the Magi (Epiphany) comprised the back part of the Crucifixion (cat. 6) before the panel was sawed apart; Glatz (1995, 64) states that the Epiphany was in an anonymous private collection in Bratislava. The iconographic sequel of existing paintings was most recently reconstructed by Fajt (2003) and Kresánek (2009); the situation regarding the reconstruction of the themes of the lost panels remains more complicated, as several key themes are still missing (Nativity? Visitation? / Christ before Pilate? Christ before Annas?). Only fragments were preserved from the predella (Virgin Mary and St. John the Evangelist), but they already allow us to establish with certainty the figure of the Tormented Jesus in the “vir dolorum” type (semi-figure of Christ in the Tomb) in the center – compare for example the predella of the Altar of the Visitation in Košice (cat. 15). cat. 10 – detail — Some of the details of the panel paintings include a gilded brocading, which is not only part of the festal side, but also appears in modified pa%erns on the Lent side in the background of the Passion scenes. The only difference lies in the fact that the upper section of the festal paintings was originally covered by a relief tracery. The silhoue%e above the gilding was preserved in the only painting that was preserved in its entirety from the Marian cycle (The Presentation in the Temple – cat. 2). The precedent for the brocaded gilding of both sides of the altar wings can be found in the Altar of the Coronation of the Virgin Mary (around 1490), in whose workshop our master was trained, or the Altar of Our Lady of the Snows in Levoča (1496). — We still have no idea of what the pinnacle shield of the altar of Okoličné looked like. Probably it was also complemented by a series of sculptures. Because of the monumental dimensions of the monastery church chancel and compared to the contemporary altarpieces of the Spiš region, we presume that it could have been a relatively tall structure of columns, pinnacles and baldachins. In the 1970s, the statue of St. John the Evangelist from the village of Liptovský Ján and the circle of Master Paul of Levoča was documented at the P. M. Bohúň Gallery in Liptovský Mikuláš. It could be part of the shield set. However, the statue itself is also missing. — This altar represented the “Viereraltar” type, in which the statue of Madonna in the arch was accompanied by four smaller female saints situated on the sides in pairs one above the another. To date, they are the only evidence that documents the collaboration of the Master of Okoličné with an equally significant sculptor – Master Paul of Levoča. Based on the dimensions of the largest preserved panels (and their original 45 frames, cf. cat. 5 and 8), its central arch could originally have had the dimensions of approx. 280 × 230 cm (see Cidlinská 1986). As a result, the width of the open altar would have been 460 cm, and the height of the arch together with the predella would have been approx. 340 cm. The reconstruction offered here (see visualization) is based on the dimensions of individually preserved panels as well as comparisons with other significant altars from the Spiš region from around 1500. The Altar of Our Lady of the Snows in the parish Church of St. Jacob in Levoča (1496) served primarily as a “referential type.” Its corpus – considering the size of the panels from the Levoča altar (115 × 89 cm) – is only slightly smaller than that of the altar arch in Okoličné. 46 panels — 1a) annunciation (fragment) 1b) prayer at the mount of olives (fragment) Fragment of the panel decorated from both sides of the movable wing Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 61.4 × 43.7 cm Restoration: Mária Spoločníková, 1970’ – 1980’ (?) Liptovský Mikuláš – Okoličné, Roman Catholic Church of St. Peter of Alcantara (Museum of Ladislav Ma$yasovszky) — 2) presentation in the temple The festal side of the panel of the movable wing sawed apart (the Lamentation of Christ was originally on the Lent side, this was sawed into two panels in 1959) Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 133 × 99 cm (including frame: 146.5 × 113.5 × 5 cm) Restoration: Pécsy Albertné, 1960 1873: part of the estate of B. Majláth in Liptovský Ondrej; 1888 SzM Budapest; 1973: administrative transfer in the Hungarian National Gallery Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum / Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, Régi Magyar Gyüjtemény, 184.a — 3) the last supper Panel from the le# stationary altar wing Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 129 × 96.5 cm (including frame 143.5 × 111.5 cm, the bo%om frame bar is secondary) Restoration: Mária Spoločníková 1968, 1971 – 1972 and Ľubomír Cáp 2012 Up to 1873, the painting was still documented in Okoličné (Hýroš 1873); at the end of the 19th century it was transferred to Spišská Kapitula – the seat of the Episcopate. Before 1910 it was sold to the Eastern Slovak Museum Košice, Eastern Slovak Museum, S 349 — 4) crowning with thorns and the mocking of christ Panel from the le# stationary altar wing Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 130.6 × 97.5 cm (including the frame 144 × 111.8 cm, both horizontal frame bars are secondary) Restoration: an unknown conservator in the 1st Half of the 20th century, Mária Spoločníková 1968, 1971 – 1972 and Ľubomír Cáp 2012 Up to 1873, the painting was still documented in Okoličné (Hýroš 1873); at the end of the 19th century it was transferred to Spišská Kapitula – the seat of the Episcopate. Before 1910 it was sold to the Eastern Slovak Museum Košice, Eastern Slovak Museum, S 128 — 5) flagellation of christ Panel from the right stationary altar wing Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 128 × 105 cm (including frame 145 × 115 cm, the bo%om frame bar is secondary) Restoration: Svetlana Ilavská, 1993 – 1994 Štefan Nikolaj Hýroš saw the panel in Okoličné before 1873, and Wagner noted that it was still there in 1936. The restorer Peter Július Kern acquired it from there shortly a#erwards, and it was bought by the Orava Regional Gallery from his estate in 1980. Dolný Kubín, Orava Gallery, O 1182 (property of the Žilina Self-Governing Region) 6) crucifixion Panel from the Lent side of the movable altar wing that was sawn apart Wood. Painting: 129 × 98 cm (including a new frame 142.4 × 112.5 cm) Restoration: unidentified restorer perhaps in the 1st half of the 20th century (re-gilding of the brocaded background, local retouching); Petra Dostálová Hoffstädterová, 2011 – 2017. The wooden medium was considerably damaged by timber boring insects and the paintings had to be transferred to a new wooden panel (bio-board) during the most recent restoration. Until 1871, the panel was documented in Okoličné. In the 1940s it became part of a private collection in Martin before its purchase by the Slovak National Gallery in 2010 Bratislava, Slovak National Gallery, O 6951 — 7) lamentation (the mourning of christ) Lent side of the panel from the movable altar wing, sawn apart in 1959 (The Presentation at the Temple on the festal side of the wing) Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 133 × 99 cm (incl. frame: 147.5 × 113.5 × 4 cm) Restoration: Pécsy Albertné, 1960 1873 in the estate of B. Majláth in Liptovský Ondrej; 1888 SzM Budapest; 1973 administrative transfer to the Hungarian National Gallery Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum / Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, Régi Magyar Gyüjtemény, 184.b — 8) resurrection of christ Panel from the right stationary altar wing Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 128 × 105 cm (including original frame 149 × 115 cm) Restoration: Vladimír Plekanec, 1993 – 1994 47 cat. 1a, 1b cat. 2 48 cat. 4 cat. 5 cat. 6 cat. 7 cat. 3 49 cat. 8 cat. 10 cat. 11 cat. 12 cat. 9a, 9b 50 51 Štefan Nikolaj Hýroš saw the panel in Okoličné before 1873 and Wagner noted that it was still there in 1936. The restorer Peter Július Kern acquired it shortly a#erwards and it was bought by the Orava Regional Gallery from his estate in 1980. Dolný Kubín, Orava Gallery, O 1181 (property of the Žilina Self-Governing Region) — 9a) fragment of the predella: our lady of sorrows 9b) fragment of the predella: st. john the evangelist Wood (conifer – spruce), tempera on limestone base, gilding 52 × 23 cm (9a), resp. 52 × 29.5 cm (9b) Restoration: In the past (before 1938?) fragments in the form of silhoue%es were permanently inserted in the wooden parquet panels. Klára Nemessány, 1992 – 1993; Ferenc Magyari, Béla Dabronáki, Katalin Szutor 2017 (exemption from secondary panels, consolidation of original wood) 1891 Spišská Kapitula – Episcopal Palace; 1891 Keresztény Múzeum Esztergom; 1938 SzM Budapest; 1973 administrative transfer to the Hungarian National Gallery Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum / Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, Régi Magyar Gyüjtemény, 52.643 (9a) and 52.644 (9b) 52 sculptures — 10) st. barbara Master Paul of Levoča Before 1510 Limewood, polychromy, gilding Height 76 cm Restoration: Mária Spoločníková 1970’ – 1980’ Liptovský Mikuláš – Okoličné, Roman Catholic Church of St. Peter of Alcantara (Museum of Ladislav Ma$yasovszky) — 11) st. catherine Master Paul of Levoča Before 1510 Limewood, polychromy, gilding Height 76 cm Restoration: Mária Spoločníková, 1970’ – 1980’ Liptovský Mikuláš – Okoličné, Roman Catholic Church of St. Peter of Alcantara (Museum of Ladislav Ma$yasovszky) — 12) st. marguerite Master Paul of Levoča Before 1510 Limewood, polychromy not preserved Height 76 cm Restoration: In MN Wroclaw not restored Acquired from the property of the former Kunstgewerbemuseum in Breslau in 1942 Wroclaw – Muzeum Narodowe, XI – 129 altar painting style, main figural motifs and picture’s periphery In terms of the composition of the individual paintings in Okoličné and their spatial concept, two principles can be identified. Certain scenes are set in a simple, almost schematically constructed interiors; others are landscape scenes. Although our limited knowledge hinders our reconstruction of the paintings on the festal side of the altar wings (the Presentation at the Temple is the only fully preserved painting). The two aforementioned principles are not rigorously applied to the Lent side of the altar wings. The “architecturally” articulated Last Supper was followed by the “landscape” Prayer at the Mount of Olives; the next panel (Christ before Pilate) could again be an interior painting, similar to the following scenes of the Flagellation in the upper registry and the Crowning with Thorns in the bo%om registry. The remaining three Passion scenes take place against a landscape background. — For each of them, the architectural space constitutes a “box-like” enclosed stage, whose rear and side walls have windows with a view of a brocaded gilding. The scene itself, with only a few protagonists, takes place on a pink marble floor, whose vanishing point gives a hint of a lapidary perspective; yet its development is not thorough and in essence it was not intended. The scenes of the Flagellation and Crowning with Thorns are characterized by rational choreography: Christ is placed within them to ensure that nothing obstructs him, three guards are always placed around him without any extra effort for spatial stringency – they seem to float in the air as if each exists for himself. This is connected with the use of figural motifs from various sources and their additive “incorporation” in the painting. — Although “windows” are present in these rooms, we do not see any view of the landscape outside, only decorative motifs of a brocaded gilding. The function of these ornaments in the panel painting and particularly in the altar painting had enjoyed a tradition of several centuries dating back to 1500, and its primary intent was to allow the entirety of the gilded altar structure to have the impact of a precious item of a liturgical goldsmith – but in a monumental scale (for a comparison of various functions of golden surfaces in Gothic painting see Wendelhorm 2005, as well as Exh. Cat, Gold 2012). The brocade decorations of the altar from Okoličné feature three definitively distinguishable pa%erns: 1) The Mount of Olives, the Crucifixion and the Lamentation of Christ in the background feature a brocade with bended branches with an artichoke flower at the end – a pa%ern frequently used in period textiles; 2) the Last Supper, the Flagellation, the Crowning with Thorns and Resurrection (i.e., all paintings of the Passion cycle on stationary wings) apply more abstract “tapestry-like” themes with leaf cartouches, while 3) the Annunciation and the Presentation at the Temple (i.e., paintings from the festal side of the altar wings) are the richest in terms of motifs: the central motif of a pineapple accompanied by bowls of pomegranates is found in their background. — As far as I know, these ornaments have not been analyzed in greater detail by any of the involved authors, but they play a more significant role in understanding the progress of the work on the altar as well as in following connections among various workshops than at first sight seemed likely. For example, the background of the arch of the High Altar of St. Jacob by Master Paul of Levoča (1508 – 1514/1516) is also decorated by a pa%ern that is identical to 53 the Passion decorations of Okoličné (pa%ern 1). Note that this carver also contributed sculpture decorations to the Liptov altarpiece (cat. 10 – 12). The same brocade can be identified in the background of the arch of his Altar of St. Barbara in Banská Bystrica (1509). The “tapestry-like” ornament of the Passion paintings (pa%ern 2) has its parallel in the background of the arch of the Altar of the Annunciation in Chyžné (1508), which is also from the circle of Master Paul of Levoča and the cooperating studio of the Master of Hrabušice (cf. cat. 18 and 19). And finally, a brocade with pineapple and pomegranate motifs (pa%ern 3) can be found in the background of the shrine of the Altar of St. George at Spišská Sobota (1516). These technological similarities allow us to hypothesize that the concept of the entire Okoličné altar (structure and décor), including the brocaded backgrounds of the panel paintings, was directed by the workshop of Master Paul of Levoča, who always arranged various studios for the paintings of his commissions which progressed simultaneously. Thus, he established such “intermedia” cooperation ad hoc so to speak. Considering the dating of the altars from the circle of Master Paul of Levoča, from 1500 to 1520 (in this time, at least 9 large and medium-sized retables are directly related to his workshop), the volume of work and such “economizing” of workshop operations was in fact the only possible strategy for maintaining his dominant position and high quality standards over time. — But let’s return to the second principle of the Okoličné altar painting composition, namely the “application” of the gospel theme against a landscape scenery, in particular in the closing of the Passion cycle. It is obvious that this is not a convincing integration of the plot into the landscape. Furthermore, we 54 cannot speak about a continuous horizon which would connect the three paintings in the bo%om row in an imaginary common scene. On the contrary, the landscape is constructed separately for each painting, and in each case as if independent of the events taking place in front of it. It consists of hills of various heights with an earthy pale%e of colors (pink-brown, ocher up to grey and black) occasionally complemented on the horizon by airier sky-blue and turquois tops which are transformed into bodies of water and sky (Crucifixion and Lamentation). Trees with tall thin trunks rise from the hills in certain places, while more lush vegetation appears only in the third plane. The use of structural elements is obvious in all three “landscape” paintings: in the Crucifixion, it is a small town with a winding road running from its gate, in the Lamentation it is a splendid castle with two chapels at its foot and in the Resurrection it is a city with two knights standing before its walls. The main scene of this painting is also enriched by another motif: the three Marys in the background approaching the tomb which they find empty. An angel pulls from the tomb the sheet in which Jesus was wrapped. — Most authors interpreted the hilly landscape as the most progressive element of the Master of Okoličné and his workshop. We could also look for several clues within the graphic models which served with borrowed figural motifs. We have repeatedly suggested the role of period graphic art for the paintings of the Master of Okoličné and we will return to them later in more specific terms. Within the framework of the “landscape” inspirations, we turn to the popular and o#-published illustrated traveling books such as Peregrinatio in terram sanctam by Bernhard Breitenbach (a#er 1486, with illustra- tions by Erhard Reuwich) and the Chronicle of the World by Hartman Schedel (a#er 1493 – cf. cat. 44). Similar print collections circulated in the late 15th century in Europe massively and therefore they could have become a relatively accessible source of motifs for the painting workshops in the Spiš region. But it is questionable if the artist who created these landscapes could have composed them in a purely painting manner based on this graphic work (with wood stains, transitions of tones in an “aerial” perspective, contrasting combinations of vegetation and naked hills with fog enshrouded buildings), without knowledge of the trends in Western European and particularly Netherlandish painting. By no means are we suggesting that the Master of Okoličné must have traveled to Brussels or Bruges. It is more about the type of paintings he could have encountered in his vicinity. Spiš region paintings did not make use of landscapes until the late 15th century. On the contrary, based on the concept of the paintings from the Altar of St. Barbara in Wroclaw (1447) and later from the Dominican altar in Krakow (1465) and the Marian scenes from the Košice Altar of St. Elizabeth (1473 – 1477), the Spiš region and the neighboring Lesser Poland became a genuine laboratory of early landscape painting in Central Europe (for more information, see the essay of the author in this catalogue). The concept of landscape in Netherlandish painting comparable with Okoličné is represented by the work of Rogier van der Weyden (Triptych at Abegg-Sti#ung Riggisberg, 1445) and Hans Memling (Adriaan Reins’ Triptych at Sint Janshospitaal in Brugges, 1480). However, we can find much closer analogies in the Frankish painting – e.g. in Hans Pleydenwurf’s circle – or in nearby Vienna in the Passion scenes of the altar from the Monastery of Sco%ish Monks (Johannes Siebenbürger, the so called “Scho%enaltar”, 1469) and its circle (Triptych in St. Florian, around 1480). — One of the basic principles of the figural compositions of the Okoličné altar is the contrast in several regards: the static main character (first of all Christ, if possible captured in whole, without any obstruction by other figures) who is surrounded by dynamic supporting characters depicted in various positions in motion. In the “interior” scenes, these figures frequently cast visible shadows, but the source of the light is on the right, beyond the image (in the Flagellation, Crowning with Thorns, partially the Presentation at the Temple). In virtually all of the paintings, the artists combine personalized and standardized faces, with a strong tendency to apply emotional expression (especially weeping and melancholy gazes that frequently fixate the eyes of spectators – for example St. John the Evangelist in the Crucifixion). En face, three-quarter profile, profile, and even lost profile are among the common approaches of the studio which contribute to deepening of spatial plans (Presentation at the Temple, Resurrection). The differentiation based on gender is obvious at first sight: the faces of the female figures are idealized, while the male faces are realistic, even naturalistic. Some show almost individualized features, possible even with the function of identification portraits (the assisting priest without a halo behind Simeon in the scene of the Presentation at the Temple, the kneeling soldier in the foreground on the right of the Resurrection). On the contrary, the gestures and motions of the figures in the Okoličné altar are mostly borrowed from graphic models and seem to be disengaged. In 2003, Jiří Fajt aptly described their form as if “cut out” of various graphic models and more or less organically, however still 55 only additively included in the compositions of individual scenes. Indeed, for example, the figure of Mary Magdalene from the Crucifixion scene is a partial allusion to the graphic work of Martin Schongauer (cat. 32 – 1475). The figure of the villain on the le# captured from behind in the Crowning with Thorns has its prototype in Schongauer’s copper engraving of Christ before Pilate (cat. 31), a frequently borrowed motif in the context of graphic works of that period. In general, the popularity of similar “repoussoire” figures, kneeling servants and extremely active assistants in altar paintings would be unexplainable without a selective reception of the graphic production of the time. The guards in the Flagellation and the Crowning with Thorns are based on a less rigid inspiration, for example in similar sheets of the cycle of the Great Passions by Israhel van Meckenem (G 76, G 84, G 90 – around 1480). It seems that Israhel van Meckenem (cat. 42) was also the mediator of the “Netherlandish” motif of Christ’s body in repose for the Lamentation (cat. 7). Johannes Siebenbürger(?) was earlier inspired by a similar source at the Scho$enaltar in Vienna (1469). — As we can see, the peculiar style of the Okoličné altar is a synthesis of inspiration from several sources (Israhel van Meckenem, Martin Schongauer, Hans Memling, Johannes Siebenbürger), but still transformed in a more or less consistent style. But “more or less” means that even within the framework of his studio we can notice some differences, which in some cases arise from the theme or function of the specific painting, and in others from the temperament of the specific artist. 56 the workshop and its artists In the case of the Okoličné altar, we are dealing with a collective work, as acknowledged by almost all of the art historians who have studied it. Some tried to define more precisely the contribution of each artist in the altar as a whole (Wagner 1936; Glatz 1987, Glatz 1995; Fajt 2003, Fajt 2006) and to follow his/their artistic paths separately, which eventually resulted in the relatively unclear constructs of the far reaching branches of the “Spiš region painting school” around 1500. Naturally, the panels of the Okoličné altar show obvious differences in painting style (but also differences determined by their restoration in various periods of times and institutions). The Festive side of the altar wings (Annunciation, Presentation at the Temple) seems to be adapted more carefully – as far as the individual figures and their incarnates are concerned – than the paintings on the Lent side of the altar. We could also set a similar caesura regarding the question of a more narrative unfolding of the construction; another one depending on the arrangement of a scene – if it takes place before the landscape scenery on one hand and the scenes in the interior on the other. However, are not these the aspects which in some cases arise from a different intent, i.e., a style differentiation between individual sections of the altar (open – closed), in other cases from an intentionally different staging of plot accents (interior – landscape)? Furthermore, the additive manner of the “cu%ing” and subsequent “pasting” of individual figural motifs that originated from various models, furthermore “citations” of own figural solutions from workshop drawings in the paintings also contributed to the heterogenous nature of individual scenes. — In 1999, Gyöngyi Török published the results of the infrared reflectography (IRR) analysis of the panels from Budapest. The discovery of marks – le%ers corresponding with individual colors in several places of the artist’s underdrawing for the be%er orientation of their colleagues – was a source of valuable information. When we speak about the distribution of labor in the studio of the Master of Okoličné, is this not further proof of the fact that several painters at the workshop worked consecutively and simultaneously? Do the diverse pa%erns of gilded brocade in the background of the paintings also call into question our ideas regarding a consistent workshop style as a quality criterion? — In the case of the High altar of the Church of the Virgin Mary of Okoličné, it is possible to hypothetically highlight two or three prominent painters from its heretofore vaguely definable studio: the first was the creator of the elaborated female figures (or faces only?) through the careful modelling of alabaster white incarnate, best documented in the Lamentation, and partially in the Presentation at the Temple and on predella. The figures of Christ reveal a second, slightly different temperament: as opposed to the Marian figures, his incarnate is set against a darker background (compare the Crowning with Thorns, Crucifixion, and Resurrection). Moreover, as opposed to the female saints veiled in cloaks or historically topical costumes (Mary Magdalene), this artist also had to cope with a more anatomically accurate depiction of the entire male body (Flagellation, Resurrection). We cannot rule out the possibility that he was the same artist to whom we can ascribe the figures with “crypto-portrait” features: the man behind Simeon in the scene of the Presentation at the Temple and the kneeling soldier in the Resurrection. Thus, both faces of Mary Magdalene (Crucifixion, Lamenta- tion), which were most probably not finished by the chief artist of the Marian scenes are much more routine – up to robust. — We could continue in this vein, but each “division of hands” brings with it the risk that the imaginary painting workshop will “fall apart” in the sum of unorganized, more or less skilled individuals. However, such process would be in direct conflict with what we know about the organization of such workshops today. As a result, the method of the “division of hands (labor)” implicitly mirrors the tradition of the myth of the “artistic genius” of Modern Times – the original creator, individuality. But the collective nature of late medieval painting – and the Okoličné altarpiece is a product of such a collective collaboration – contravenes this myth. — The creators of the paintings of the Altarpiece of Okoličné were one of the most noteworthy of the late Gothic artists in Central Europe. Their origin can be relatively reliably a%ributed to the Spiš region (Altar of the Zápoľský [Zápolya, Szapolyai] family chapel in Spišská Kapitula, a#er 1490), but soon they were working elsewhere (Spiš region – Šariš region – Liptov region – city of Košice). The same studio created two other altars near Okoličné for the Church of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin in Smrečany, 1510 (cat. 13 and 14), while in the east of the country we can recognize some of them on the wings and predella of the Altar of the Visitation in Košice, 1516 (cat. 15). Despite the abundant a%ributions and knowledge acquired from the analysis of style, we know relatively li%le about the patrons of these altars; this particularly applies to the altar which was given the name of the anonymous artist – the Master of Okoličné. 57 situation in the church – main altar and the question of patron There are practically no wri%en sources concerning the church from the period of its building. Thus, most authors use more recent sources, partially Historia domus (1716 – 1920), as far as facts are concerned not very reliable (Húščava 1941, Žažová 2015). Information concerning the foundation of the monastery in 1476 also comes from a modern copy of the missing deed granting privileges in the Franciscan register in Sárospatak, Hungary: Ite[m] Anno d[o]m[ini] 1476 posita su[n]t fundam[en]ta huius claustri lyptovien[sis] ad honor[em] Marie de angelis sive de p[ar]adiso (cit. according to Papp 2006, 389). Not long ago, Szilárd Papp (2003, 2006) considered Ma%häus Čečej, known as “Small” (Kiss-Czeczei, †1490) to be the patron of this church. In the 1480s and 1490s, he was the guardian of the illegitimate son of Matthias Corvinus, Prince of Liptov. However, skepticism prevails regarding this claim. The present research (compare the chapter by Bibiana Pomfyová) dates the completion of the church in the late 1400s. Information from the beams of the original roof truss confirmed by dendro-chronologic analyses provides the following dates: nave: 1488/1489 and 1489/1490; chapel: 1488/1489 and sanctuary: 1499/1500 (Ďurian et al. 2012). Current construction-historical research also confirms the older analyses, namely that the “addition” of the chapel was built at the same time as the church – thus, there is no reason for dating it differently than the main building. Underlined and summarized: the completion of the main altar between 1505 and 1510 represents the organic completion of the construction and furnishing of the church. Thus, the altar arch by Master of Okoličné was the first extension of the High altar mensa. 58 — However, the identity of its patron is less clear. Vladimír Wagner (1936), Anton Glatz (1995) and Jiří Fajt (2003, 2007) presented a number of arguments pointing to the House of Zápoľský in its heyday as responsible for financing the construction of the altar, and (according to Glatz) the completion of the church of the Franciscan-Observants in its final stage. Chronologically speaking, the only members of the Zápoľský House who could be taken into consideration are Štefan Zápoľský (István Zápolya, Szapolyai, †1499), Spiš district administrator and Palatine of the Kingdom of Hungary, but especially his widow Hedviga Těšínska (Hedwig of Cieszyn, *1469/1470 †1521) and their son Ján Zápoľský (János Szapolyai, Johannes Zápolya, *1487/1489 †1540). Despite the relatively abundant sources for the House of Zápoľský, their direct activity as patrons has not been proven expressis verbis in the case of Okoličné. Imrich (Emeric) and Štefan (István) generously contributed to the reconstruction (and apparently furnishing) of the Church of the Holy Cross in Kežmarok. A#er Imrich’s death in 1487, his brother built the Chapel of the Assumption by the priory Church of St. Martin at Spišská Kapitula. It also served as a memorial where he was buried a#er his death. Hedviga was also laid there to her eternal rest. According to the chronicle recordings of Konrad Sperfogel, her funeral was a%ended by more than 400 priests and church dignitaries who must have had specific reasons for being there. She generously supported Hungarian monasteries, especially the Pauline ones as well as smaller churches. She was referred to as the “magna benefactrix” of Hungarian convents by Grand Chartreuse, the general chapter of Carthusian monasteries. An anonymous chronicler of the Carthusian monastery Lapis Refugii near Letanovce (Kláštoris- ko) even celebrates her as “mater nostra et fundatrix monasterii.” However, the sources are suspiciously silent about the support of the Franciscans in Okoličné. — On the other hand, no later than a#er the death of Imrich Zápoľský, his brother Štefan Zápoľský built the chapel at Spišská Kapitula and the Altar of the Crowning of Our Lady in it, and research has reliably identified the Master of Okoličné in its workshop (Wagner 1936, Glatz 1975). Zápoľský who was at the center of the religious and secular administration of the Spiš region, obviously had patronage rights at that time which authorized him to generously fund the construction of the family funeral chapel, but also to appoint high church dignitaries, including the Prior himself. The Widow Hedviga also exercised this right at least three times, the last time in 1511, when Archbishop Thomas Bakócz of Esztergom confirmed the appointment of her nominee Johannes Horváth to this post. From 1499 to 1518, Christopher of Smrečany served as the Spiš canon and lecturer of Spišská Kapitula. He protected the interests of the House of Zápoľský as their loyal “familiaris” also in the position of the Spiš and Gemer deputy district administrator and castellan of the Muráň and Spiš castles. Could he have been the “spiritus movens” of promoting the Spiš painting studio for Okoličné and subsequently also the patron of the church in Smrečany? (Especially when Hedviga and her sons did not reside in the Spiš region any more – except for the years 1506, 1510 and 1511 – not to mention the Liptov region, and when the castle of Trenčín became their residence.) As the patron of the triptych in Smrečany, Christopher became immortalized in the form of a family coat of arms on both their predellas (see cat. 13 and 14). Unfortunately, only fragments of the predella of Okoličné were preserved (cat. 9a and 9b) – we do not know anything about possible heraldic decorations. — Another supporting argument for the connection between the construction (at least in its final stage) and the primary furnishing of the church of Okoličné and the house of Zápoľský and the circle of their supporters is the link between the construction of churches in Kežmarok (the family domain of Zápoľský) and Okoličné, which was traced by Bibiana Pomfyová (Pomfyová 2014, Pomfyová 2017; also compare the essay of this author in this catalogue). The crucifix from the former Calvary group in the triumph arch in Okoličné (cat. 20) continues to be the most closely related in terms of style with a similar cross, which seems to have once constituted part of the main altar in Kežmarok, but today is situated in one of the chapels of the parish church in Kežmarok. Although we have no further information on the circumstances concerning the patrons of the main altar in the Franciscan church in Okoličné, the hypothesis pointing to the involvement of the Zápoľský family continues to be the most probable. As opposed to local nobility, Štefan Zápoľský, the Palatine and Spiš district administrator and newly appointed Prince of Liptov (1490) and then his widow Hedviga, had patronage rights, the necessary funds and the background of Spiš foundation and artistic campaigns (Kežmarok, Spišská Kapitula, later Hrabušice, Mlynica). This is why their protagonists also created the artwork for the largest late-Gothic church in the Liptov region around 1500. db 59 The view into the exhibition (cat. 1 – 12) bibliography to the catalogue 1 – 12: Hýroš 1873, 57; Divald 1912, 657-658; Wagner 1936; Schürer – Wiese 1938, 226-227; Wagner 1940, 209-213; Wagner 1942, 31-32; Cidlinská 1965, 103-107; Glatz 1975, 45; Biathová 1983, 49, 52, 94-95, 108-113, 196-198; Glatz 1987, 66-73; Glatz 1995, 62-70 (with a detailed list of older literature); Török 1999; Török 2000; Gotika 2003, 739-740 (J. Fajt); Fajt 2004; Kresánek 2009, 674-676; Exhibition catalogue. Paris 2010, 64-67 (D. Buran); Pomfyová (ed.) 2015, 402-416. Regarding the Zápoľský (Zápolya, Szapolyai) family and the patronage activities of Hedviga Tešínska, compare the easily accessible current publications: Sroka 1998; Chalupecký 2005; Kucharská 2006; Horváth 2012 and Kucharská 2014 (each time with references to older literature and sources). This volume provides English translations of the key essays and catalogue entries of the Slovak exhibition catalogue The Master of Okoličné and the Art of the Spiš (Zips) around 1500. Ed. Dušan Buran. Slovak National Gallery Bratislava, 2017. The full version of the catalogue texts in English will be available to download at www.sng.mzo.sk. The Master of Okoličné and the Art of the Spiš (Zips) around 1500 Slovak National Gallery Bratislava 2017 7 th September 2017 — 3rd December 2017 Esterházy palais, 2nd floor, Bratislava Curator Dušan Buran Published by the Slovak National Gallery, Bratislava 2017 Director General of the SNG Alexandra Kusá Texts Dušan Buran, Martin Čičo, Alexandra Kusá, Bibiana Pomfyová, Radoslav Ragač Translation Miroslav Pomichal (essays), Elena & Paul McCullough (cat. entries), Project Assistant Barbora Mistríková Editorial Support Irena Kucharová Pre-press Vratko Tóth Photographs and Digital Reproductions SNG, Digital Technologies Section, and Martin Deko Graphic Design and Layout Marcel Benčík All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmi%ed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, for any purpose, without the express prior wri%en permission of the copyright owners. Copyright © Slovak National Gallery, Bratislava 2017 Texts © Dušan Buran, Alexandra Kusá, Bibiana Pomfyová, Radoslav Ragač 2017 Translation © Elena & Paul McCullough, Miroslav Pomichal, 2017 Photographs © Photographs and Digital Reproductions from Slovak National Gallery Bratislava; Museum of Fine Arts – Hungarian National Gallery Budapest; Jozef Tomaga 2017 Graphic design © Marcel Benčík 2017 Print Dolis, a.s., Bratislava 2017 ISBN 978-80-8059-207-3 62 63