Museum vs. Original Context.

Refining the Knowledge of Medieval Art Works by

Restoring their Initial Setting.
Case study: the altarpieces of the parish church in Sibiu / Hermannstadt

I would like to start saying that I am an art historian not institutionally linked with a
museum, but in my research I largely use museum objects. Thus, it is vital for me to have
access to these objects and reliable information provided by museum records. In
exchange, I submit my own contribution to the knowledge of artifacts, resulted from
extensive research. Sometimes such conclusions might change the actual labeling of
artworks. The following paper will give some examples. I hope it will be not too “art
historical” for the conference.

The museums, as well as the new techniques of multiplication and mass communication
actuated a specific kind of interaction between art works and public. This interaction is
very direct or it allows the viewer to conduct a close and detailed examination of objects
and to become familiar with their finest details, with their “beauty”.

The contact between what we call today “art” and public was very different in earlier
periods and this is especially true for the Middle Ages, when a large part of oeuvres was
conceived to decorate a specific environment, namely the church. The approach to art
works in Christian temples had other regulation, demanded a specific behavior and was
mediated by ritual.

Recent studies on medieval ecclesiastic ritual or liturgy argued that it had a significant
sensorial dimension in which images played a pivotal role. It was also demonstrated that
much of both the form and content of medieval imagery was determined by this close
proximity to ritual. The altarpiece, one of the most pervasive forms of medieval art was
especially adapted to incorporate liturgical references.

We shall discuss here briefly one example. In St Laurence church, Nuremberg, attached
to the eastern wall of the choir, one can notice a medieval altarpiece. The object is known
as Iodocus Krell’s altarpiece, after the name of its donor, and it decorates an altar
dedicated to Apostle Bartholomew.

The iconography of the altarpiece is peculiar. On the central panel, is represented Virgin
Mary with the Child, flanked to the right by St. Bartholomew, the titular of the altar, and
St. Barbara to the left. At their feet t kneels Iodocus Krell, member of the elite of
Nuremberg, founder of the altar and donor of the altarpiece. On the right wing is depicted
St. Iodocus, the saint patron of the donor, and on the opposite wing is St Helene. If
closed, the altarpiece displays the iconic figures of the same saints: Iodocus,
Bartholomew, Barbara, Helene. The predella exhibit 8 half-length figures: St. Laurence,
St. Steven, St. Vincent, St. Sebastian, St. Agnes, St. Dorothy, St. Lucy and St. Odilia.

Naturally, we would believe that such a heterogeneous program was the result of the
idiosyncratic will of the founder. In fact, an unique set of records regarding the altar into

1
discussion leads us to another conclusion. Medieval documents preserved in the archives
of the church prove that every single piece of the iconography had a liturgical support or
a correspondence in ritual. Firstly, we know that the complete dedication of the altar was:
St. Bartholomew, St. Iodocus, St. Lucy, St. Odilia, St. Barbara, and St. Helene. From
another source we find out the list of all relics included into the altar’s niche. And finally,
the verger’s duty book indicates precisely at what moment of the liturgical year the
altarpiece must be ritually opened and its central image displayed to the public. Those
specific feasts were:

These evidences fully explain the iconographic program. In the core of the altarpiece is
the Virgin Mary with the Child, not only because it was a common feature of altarpieces
to represent the Queen of Heaven flanked by titular saint but also because of the Marian
and Christological relics included (of her tomb, of the Holy Sepulcher, of Golgotha). At
her right, in the place of honor, stand St Bartholomew, the patron of the altar. Very
probably, the choice of this specific saint was related to the most important relic the
founder could provide, the only preserved in a golden reliquary. St. Barbara, at the left of
the Virgin, had also a piece of her saintly body hidden in the altar, but in the same time
the image made a reference to the patron. Iodocus Krell was not only the founder of the
altar, but also its first chaplain all his lifelong. The attribute of the saint, the chalice,
conspicuously represented, made a transparent reference to the office of the founder. St.
Helen was also depicted with her attribute, the True Cross, of which a fragment was
equally deposed in the confession. The presence of St. Iodocus was obviously related
with the name of the founder.
The first image on predella is that of St. Laurence, the patron saint of the entire church.
We know that at his day the altarpiece was opened. His associate was St Steven, another
martyr deacon, who had also a relic in the altar. St. Vincent, St. Sebastian, St. Agnes and
St Dorothy are represented only because of the relics. Neither the dedication nor the
festive openings of the altarpiece indicate their co-patronage. Finally, the presence of St.
Lucy and St. Odilia is explained only by a liturgical coincidence: their festivity is on the
same day as St. Iodocus’, the 13th of December.

I opened this discussion aiming to emphasize the idea that medieval imagery and
especially altarpieces must be considered in their liturgical original context. Much of the
art works preserved in museums is very partially understood out of this milieu. Of 65
medieval Transylvanian altarpieces, entirely or fragmentary survived, a consistent part
has almost no documentation of function or provenance. Further on, I shall attempt to
restitute fragments of the original medieval endowment of the parish church here in
Sibiu.

A brief sketch of history of the town, institution, and building is needed. Sibiu /
Hermanstadt / Cibinium was one of the main urban centers in Transylvania. It was
founded in the 12th century by German speaker colonists settled here on the base of
privileges granted by Hungarian kings. The locality grew rapidly and it became the
political capital of Saxon settlers, later in the 15th century known as the University of
Saxons. An active economy, based on manufactured production, crafts and trade, as well
as advantages given by its political status ensured the development of the town. Three

2
ever larger fortifications surrounded the locality including a population reaching about
7.000 at the end of the Middle Ages.

The parish church, now Lutheran cathedral was once dedicated to the Virgin Mary. It is
placed in the core of the oldest precincts and represents one of the most important urban
ecclesiastical monuments in Transylvania. The institution was also the seat of the deanery
of the province (decanatus Cibiniensis) later accumulating the possessions and goods of a
provostship (praepositura Sancti Ladislai), and of a Cistercian monastery, both donations
of Hungarian kings. Several independent chapels surrounded the church (St. Ladislas
chapel, St. James Chapel, St. John chapel, St. Nicolas Chapel) but all disappeared in time.
An author, towards the middle of the 16th century asserted that, with its 24 altars and
numerous priests the church was worthy of a bishop. And indeed, in late 15th and early
16th century it received a series of privileges granted by the pope, archbishops and
bishops. The main priest, plebanus, had the right to wear miter, staff and ring, as a
bishop, at certain festivities.

The monument, as we see it now, is the result of a long building site, begun about 1350
and finished around 1520. I shall not describe the architectural development of the
building, sketched in the plan, but I shall insist on the medieval accumulation of ritual.
The Reformation, adopted in the town around 1545, put an end to the increasing
agglomeration of mass, divine office, altars and decoration. Afterwards, the church was
cleansed and adapted to serve the new confession. Successive restorations radically
changed the medieval interior arrangement, which is now very difficult to reconstruct.

A cited source specified that, just before the Reformation the church was adorned with 24
altars. These altars, the divine services and the offices related to them were founded in
time by guilds, corporations, devotional confraternities or private individuals, often
supported by the municipality. Only a part of the altars are known from sources. The list
shows the attested altars with their dedication.
Beside these known dedications, there is no much other information available. But, as the
example in Nuremberg indicated, it is important to take into consideration the
suggestions of the liturgy. So, we know 15 dedications out of 24, it is also possible to
map a part of the altars, and we assume that some altars were decorated with altarpieces.

The only altarpiece still extant in the church, but now dismembered and scattered in
different sites of the building is one showing the Passion of Christ when closed. It was
realized in 1519 by one of the main painters of the town (I argued that he was Simon the
Painter, the leader of the corporation in 1520) following graphic models created by
Duerer, but also by Altdorfer. One of the two donors of the altarpiece was Johannes
Lullay, a leading personality of the Saxon University in his time. He held different
functions and accumulated a considerable wealth. His urban residence, known as the
Altemberger Palace after its prime owner, is now the Historical Museum of Sibiu. In
1545, at the moment when the Reformation was adopted by the town, the altarpiece was
transformed. The central panel, representing the Crucified Christ surrounded by saints,
was over painted in the lower side, and a Biblical inscription was inserted. This
represents one of the most coherent adaptations of medieval imagery to Lutheran

3
exigencies to be found in Transylvania. It was commanded by Mathias, the first
Evangelical priest and executed by Benedictus Painter /Moler, as the initials suggest.

Because of its impressive dimensions and due to its preservation into the church, the
altarpiece is traditionally considered to belong to the main altar. In fact, there is no
support for such an opinion. The main altarpiece had to contain a straightforward Marian
iconography, should be older than 16th century and probably should have a sculpted
shrine. The preserved altarpiece stood, in my opinion, on the most exposed altar of the
church, namely the altar of the Holy Cross. There was a common liturgical feature of the
time, and especially in the German cultural area, to have an altar with that specific
dedication in the space of the crossing, where the nave connected the transept. Because
the main altar was usually hidden by the rood screen – situation existing also in Sibiu –
the Holy Cross altar became the altar of the lay people, facing the congregation
assembled for the High Mass. The chief personality of the time, commanding such a
work, was certainly eager to display his coat of arms in front of the fellow citizens.

Except the presented item, no other Transylvanian altarpiece is explicitly connected with
the parish church of Sibiu. However, a series of artworks, preserved in Brukenthal
museum, but not only, could be integrated in the above described liturgical matrix of
Saint Mary church.

Before proceeding, it is worth to specify that, from the point of view of the medieval
imagery and compared with other Transylvanian bigger towns, Sibiu had one of the least
troubled transitions to Reformation. This is suggested by several evidences. In the town’s
book of accounts there are a few headings recording payments made for dismembering
images. For example, in 1549, a certain sum was paid to Benedictus Pictor and to
Servatius Sculptor in order to disassemble an image from the Dominican nunnery. The
association of the two specialists suggests that it was an altarpiece. The fact that
municipality paid trained workers to remove images demonstrates a certain care, and not
a casual iconoclasm. We are dealing with the same Benedictus, responsible also for the
transformation of the Holy Cross altarpiece. On the other hand, Sibiu still preserves a
certain number of medieval altarpieces, in opposition with Brasov, Bistrita or Cluj, where
nothing left.

Coming back to the discussion

A central panel exposed in Brukenthal Museum displays an impressive Vir dolorum,
nude, supported by angels. Christ holds in his wounded hand the disk of a host. At his
feet is a chalice near a red carnation. The painting could be dated around 1515 and could
be attributed to Vincentius Pictor, one of the most active painters of the region. This
image, one of the most eloquent Eucharistic representations in the entire area, is mostly
appropriate to “label” a Corpus Christi altar. In St Mary church, the Corpus Christi altar
was founded in 1372 by the confraternity with the same name. It was installed on the
existing rood screen. The devotion towards Corpus Christi became very successful in the
town in 15th century, and this specific altar was granted with a number of indulgences and
privileges. This altar constituted the most probable location of the preserved image.

4
The next piece, exhibited in the Hungarian National Gallery, Budapest, was never before
connected with Sibiu. It was acquired for the Gallery from a noble family living in a
castle in northern Transylvania. Only two panels of an altarpiece were preserved, but they
display a very unusual iconography: The Transfiguration of the Lord, and The Vision of
John the Evangelist in Patmos. The later is drawn after a woodcut by Duerer, from the
Apocalypse cycle. Investigating these panels I was struck by their resemblance with other
works made by Vincentius Pictor from Sibiu. This attribution was confirmed later by
other specialists. The questions was why were them so faraway from Sibiu. The answer
came documenting the owners. The castle pertained to a family which gave a governor of
Transylvania in the very moment of integration of the province in the Habsburg empire.
Sigismundus Kornis, governor at the beginning of the 18th century, was a intensely
devoted catholic which attempted by all means to reinforce Catholic faith in
Transylvania. He was renowned for collecting sacred images all over the country. For
example he forced the Lutheran community of Sebes to give him the statue of Virgin
Mary from their medieval altarpiece. He took the image and built a chapel for it in one of
his residences. When the community complained to the emperor, a baroque copy was
ordered. Both statues survived. This was not unique; there are several documented
carryings away. It is highly possible that Kornis took these images from Lutheran
Saxons.
The most striking aspect is the iconography of the altarpiece: Transfiguration of the Lord.
I found a single correspondent dedication of altar, and this was located in St Mary Church
in Sibiu. I demonstrated that in the northern arm of the transept was built a private chapel
having an altar dedicated to the Transfiguration of Lord and to Our Lady. There are too
many correspondences between the painted panels and this sacred place, which I don’t
have the time to present extensively; therefore I consider them to be originally intended
for this specific liturgical place.

An excellent late gothic work, representing the martyrization of St Barbara is exhibited in

Brukenthal Museum. There are very few data about its provenance. However, some
information could suggest that it belonged to an altar dedicated to All Saints. The patron
of the altar was the corporation of goldsmiths, one of the most powerful and rich in the
town. The corporation commissioned an altarpiece soon after 1481 for its altar in the
church. Not only the dating corresponds with the preserved artwork, but also the
conspicuous representation of the chalice could hint towards this patronage. Recently, a
colleague of mine discovered in a private collection a pendant image of St. Barbara,
namely a Martyrdom of Saint Ursula. This reinforces the All Saint dedication suggested
before.

In the same exhibition from Brukenthal Museum is preserved a statue of St James the
Great. It certainly belonged to an altarpiece located in the chapel with the same
dedication nearby the church.

There are also some other fragments possible to link with the parish church in Sibiu, but I
shall not insist here. Roughly about 10 altarpieces more or less entirely preserved could
be integrated within the liturgical matrix of the edifice. Some of the restitutions are, of
course, hypothetical. Such a research might change sometimes considerably the actual

5
labeling or recording in museums, bringing new information about dating, attribution,
and especially provenance, all basic data for an object in the museum records. In the
same time it cannot be carried out inside the institution itself. This presentation aimed to
underline the importance of collaboration in the documentation of collections in the spirit
of CIDOC ideals. Collections without adequate documentation are not true "museum"
collections.