Mikó Árpád szerk.: "Magnificat anima mea Dominum" M S Mester vizitáció-képe és egykori selmecbányai főoltára (A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiadványai 1997/1)

TANULMÁNYOK / ESSAYS - MENRÁTH PÉTER-HERNÁDY SZILVIA: M S mester Vizitáció-képének restaurálása

The largest size of the Resurrection panel is: 158 x 80.5 centimetres. However, the bottom width is only 79 centimetres. The width of the boards on the picture side: I. II. III. IV V top 7 24 25,5 24 The narrow board on the far right of the Resurrection panel is missing. On the rear side, along the edge adjacent to the altarcase, both fixed wings have a regular, approximately 4 centimetres wide groove. The thickness of both panels is between 2.5 and 2.8 centimetres. The panel depicting the Mount of Olives is somewhat thinner in the middle. In addition to the similarities of the panels belonging to the moveable and the fixed wings, special attention should be paid to those differences, which the panels of different functions reveal, such as the brush drawing and the incisions made in preparation for the painting. The firmly drawn incisions separating the landscape background from the gilding are present in all five pictures. The incisions, marking the position of the ornamental carving applied to the panel, are visible on both sides, with the gilding reaching only to these markings. By contrast, the fixed wings show no sign of such markings, not even in the undamaged parts adjacent to the casing of the altarpiece. In the Visitation, and especially in the upper third part of the painting, in the gilded area, but also on the two sides and at the middle of the two figures, crosses (markings, reference points [?]) are scratched into the surface, while the other panels show no sign of such crosses. We have, of course, no way of knowing whether the Nativity of Hontszentantal, a painting still not subjected to a close examination, has such markings, although the damage there mostly affected the gilded parts and, therefore, such a comparison can hardly be carried out. In the panel Visitation some of the markings could be interpreted as reference points. This is the case with the markings found near the head dresses of Mary and Elizabeth, where there are two pairs of crosses arranged one under the other. It seems probable that the master shifted the composition in the vertical direction, which could explain the positioning of the crosses. The possibility of these markings bearing witness to some deliberate act of vandalism was considered. In this case, however, it would be difficult to explain why most of these crosses are confined to the less important areas of the painting - the motifs of trees and hills -, or in some cases even to areas underneath the ornamental carving applied to the panel. With regard to similarities and differences, the ground of the panels also reveals some important information. In comparison to the moveable wings, the ground on the fixed wings was smoothed less carefully. In this way we notice that „combs" were used to spread the gesso over the surface. The parallel scratches left behind by the various combs, which had their teeth set at different intervals, are visible underneath the gilding. The underdrawing of the panels reveal similarly fine differences. The underdrawing on the fixed wings was done using brush strokes which were a great deal rougher, thicker and broader. In certain parts even the shading was marked, for example on Christ's shoulders. Such detail can not be found in the case of the moveable wings. Theoretical Reconstruction The starting point in designing and building Mediaeval winged altars was invariably the size of the altar shrine. The size of the moveable wings was adjusted to this measurement. Naturally when closed, the moveable wings, with their often rather broad frames cover the shrine. Therefore, knowing the dimensions of the painted wings surviving in their original frames, one could accurately reconstruct the shrine of the altarpiece. As to the predella and the pediment, we are able guess their dimensions from the known size and shape of the wings only when the altarpiece can unequivocally can be linked to a place, a function, a master or a workshop. The original frames for the moveable and fixed wings of Master M S's panels have all been destroyed, and we have no written records or description to give us any idea about their size and shape. In their present condition the panels are mutilated. The theoretical reconstruction of the altarpiece (which, judging from its dimensions, most probably formed part of a high altar) must, therefore, begin with a reasonably accurate estimation of the panels' original sizes. To start with, we have to convert the span, the usual measure of the period into centimetres. Basing our calculations on the width of the Visitation (the panel surviving in the most complete condition in this dimension), which is 94.5 centimetres, and bearing in mind the individual width of the eight boards making up the panel, we can define the span as 24 centimetres. From the assumption that the masters worked using whole units, the width of the Visitation panel comes to four spans, or 96 centimetres. Continuing with the same assumption, i.e. that the masters worked in whole units, it follows that the width of the frame was also a whole unit, 12 centimetres on each side, or one span all in all. In the case of the vertical measurement, the height of the tallest moveable wing, that of Carrying of the Cross (147.5 centimetres), should serve as our starting point. The original height of the panel was in all probablity greater than it is now. In calculating the height of the wing, we have to add to the combined height of the two