kunsttexte.de/ostblick 3/2016 - 1 @asza Sitek 'ans )on *ulmbach in !olandB =n the &ritin of the story 1 In the mid-19th century a certain case of artistic mobil- ity in the early Renaissance entered the a enda of !olish, and subse#uently $erman anti#uarianism and art history. %he artist in #uestion &as Hans (uess )on *ulmbach +d. 1522)" a .eer of /lbrecht 0ürer and one of Nurember 3s leading sup.liers of .anel .aintings and designs for altarpieces and stained lass. In the 1840s *ulmbach’s name &as linked to a collection of hi h-quality &orks .reserved in t&o churches in Cra- co&. At the same time" a controversy erupted over the sup.osition that the !olish city &as not only the des- tination of these reco nized masterpieces, but also their .lace of creation. In the face of scarce and in- conclusive evidence" answers to the #uestion as to &hether *ulmbach actually resided in Craco& have .roven closely de.endent on changing methodolo ic- al .rinciples develo.ed in specific .olitical situations. %his .a.er aims to retrace the fashioning of the re- search .roblem conventionally referred to as the 8*ul- mbach and Poland9 issue. :ho3s afraid of *ulturträ er< =ne underlying commitment of both !olish and $er- man studies on Kulmbach was ex.ressly articulated in an essay published in 1924 in a Craco& daily ne&spa- .er.1 %his .assionate .eroration aimed to convince readers that 8the comic figure of !oland3s *ulturtr; er >italics ? @(A Hans (uess from *ulmbach” had been fabricated half a century .reviously.2 %he architects of this delusion &ere unmasked in the very title of the articleB Hans (uess )on *ulmbach. @alarz 7luto&any 7 oszust&a niemieckie o i naiwności nas7eD >/ .ainter soldered from $erman .erfidy and our naivetyA. %he author of the .iece" Lud&ik (tasiak +1858-1924)" &as a .rolific art critic speciali7ing in 8reclaiming !olish .ro.erty9" such as the oeuvre of Feit (toss.3 In *ul- mbach’s case" (tasiak rectified the situation in his usual &ay. %hus, it &as untrue" he claimed" that a Nurember er by the name of Hans von Kulmbach had Ii . 1 'ans (uess von *ulmbach; 0isputation of (t 6atherine of /lex- andria &ith .a an .hiloso.hersB detailG 1514/1515; fat tem.era &ith moved to !oland and &orked thereG the truth &as that oil la7es on limeG c. 118 x 62 cm.G *rako&" /rchi.resbyter3s 6hurch of =ur Eady of the /ssum.tion one 8Hahannes !olonus9 had tra)elled to 2uremberg @asza (itek 'ans von *ulmbach in !oland. =n the &riting of the story kunsttexte.de/ostblick 3/2016 - 2 Ii . 2 'ans (uess von *ulmbach; 6ycle of (t Hohn the K)angelistG 1516; fat tem.era &ith oil la7es on limeB Last (up.er +/-" @artyrdom in a cauldron of a boiling oil +M-" (t Hohn the Kvangelist on !atmos +6-" %est of a .oisoned cup +0-G c. 230 x 70 cm +not ori inal-G lost during the :orld :ar II. +Romano&ska-NadroOna and NadroOny 2000, (traty &oDenne" .. 215-218, no. 122-125)G (elf-burial of (t Hohn the Kvangelist +K-G c. 45 x 144 cm +not ori inal-G 6raco&" /rchi.resbyter3s 6hurch of =ur Lady of the /ssum.tion in the com.any of numerous other !olish artists and Habsbur rule. Let the /ustrians &ere by no means been active as an “a.ostle of Polish art9 there.4 the sole ex.onents of this 8chauvinist cupidity and %he !olish advocates of the 8mendacious” version $erman .lunder9.5 (tasiak ex.licitly associated the of events &ere denigrated as 8/ustro-Polish9" that is, a..ro.riation of !olish herita e &ith &hat he termed allied &ith the Austrian invader in the time of the parti- the “Mismarckian research model”.6 tions of !oland. Im.ortantly, (tasiak3s research activ- %he 8/ustro-Polish” handling of the grand narrative ity encom.assed the years before and after his coun- of a cultural ulf bet&een :estern and Eastern try re ained inde.endence in 1918. Irom 1795 until Euro.e +:est-Ost *ultur ef;lle- can be illustrated by that year the former !olish-Lithuanian 6ommonwealth an elaboration from 1903.7 %his concerned" in .articu- had been divided bet&een the three neighbourin lar" the only 6raco& family to be justifiably counted .o&ers, the other t&o being the Russian Km.ire and among *ulmbach’s clients. %he Moners, $erman the Kingdom of !russia. Craco& had fallen under ne&comers &ho had earned a fabulous fortune and @asza (itek 'ans von *ulmbach in !oland. =n the &riting of the story kunsttexte.de/ostblick 3/2016 - 3 Ii . 3 'ans (uess von *ulmbach; 6ycle of (t 6atherine of /lexandriaG 1514-1515; fat tem.era &ith oil la7es on limeG c. 118 x 62 cmB 6onversion of (t 6atherine +/-" 0is.utation &ith .a an .hiloso.hers +M-" Burning of the converted .hiloso.hers +6-" @iracle of the &heel +K-" Meheading of Km.ress Iaustina +I-" Miraculous translation of (t 6atherine3s body to Mount (inai +'-G 6raco&" /rchi.resbyter3s 6hurch of =ur Eady of the /s- sum.tion .olitical im.ortance at the !olish royal court" had *ul- %he &hole truth about the $erman .erfidy mbach de.ict their coat of arms in his 0isputation of (tasiak3s e.onymous 8$erman .erfidy” &as .ro)oked (t. 6atherine +Ii . 1 and 3). The .anel is .art of one of and longin ly &elcomed by his 8/ustro-Polish” .eers. t&o ha io ra.hic cycles destined for Craco&" each of 8It is in Craco&" and only in Craco&" that this ne& &hich, in all likelihood" ori inally spanned the closed $erman star &as born, from Craco& it marched tri- &ings of an altar.iece +Ii . 2-3). %he Moners joined um.hantly to $ermany and into the Euro.ean literat- Craco&3s elites, alon &ith a substantial roup of oth- ure.910 Here (tasiak a..roximates the real events inas- er immigrants from :eissenbur and Landau in the much as he .oints to the critical significance of in- late 15th and early 16th centuries. Reco nizing their scriptions in t&o of the aforementioned .aintings +Ii . cultural role" the art historian Ieliks *o.era +1871- 4-7). %heir uniqueness lies in the fact that they com- 1952) remained com.liant &ith his .redecessors’ lan- bine the mono ram '* &ith the full signature 8Hans ua e .ractice and called this movement a 8colonisa- (ues9.11 :hen deci.hering the mono ram" !olish art tion”.8 Mut he clarified right a&ay: 8Had !oles occu- &riters of the 1840s had dra&n on $erman and .ied $erman territory, and $ermans that of !oles, the Irench handbooks and dictionaries, &hich had lon o..osite &ould have been true re arding the influ- included 8Hans von *ulmbach/Kulenbach”.12 %he re- ence of the one culture on the other.99 spective entries .rovided no elucidation of the name @asza (itek 'ans von *ulmbach in !oland. =n the &riting of the story kunsttexte.de/ostblick 3/2016 - 5 8(ues9" ho&ever. %he baffled inter.reters concen- trated their endeavours on collecting material for an alternative bio ra.hy to be associated &ith the latter name.13 Unlike Hans von *ulmbach, they speculated" this 8other Hans” had relocated his atelier from Nurember to Craco&. /s such, the .hantom do..el- ;n er &as listed in the 1850s amon artists &ho either had !olish origin or had ained !olishness by &orking in !oland.14 %he idea of Hans (ues the @i- rant &as soon ado.ted by $eor K. Na ler +1801– 1866) and /ugust Essenwein +1831–1892)" director of the $ermanisches @useum in Nurember +1866– 1891).15 In 1867 Essenwein &as the contact .erson for HQ7ef Łe.ko&ski +1826–1894)" nota bene a research fello& of the $ermanisches @useum. Łe.ko&ski, &ho had just been a&arded the first .rofessorship in ar- chaeolo y at the Ha iellonian University in Craco&" &as to assist in 1873 at the birth of the Commission on /rt History of the /cademy of /rts and (ciences +6/' //(-.16 My .roviding Łe.ko&ski &ith the archive records he re#uested" Essen&ein contributed to the Ii . 5 'ans (uess von *ulmbach; Miraculous translation of (t 6ath- milestone discovery of a note &hich documents the erine3s body to Mount (inaiG 1514/1515; fat tem.era &ith oil la7es on limeG c. 118 x 62 cmG 6raco&" /rchi.resbyter3s 6hurch of =ur com.ound name 8Hanns (uess )on Culmbach”.17 Lady of the /ssum.tion Łe.ko&ski3s international #uery &as mentioned by his continuators, who" ho&ever" confused Essenwein with another ex.ert on Nurember sources, Rudolf Mer au +1836–1905).18 %his mistake enabled (tasiak to libel Mer au as the for er &ho slip.ed in the 8false9 evid- ence.19 Mut it &as not Łe.ko&ski &ho sealed the +re-uni- fication of a sin le artistic .ersonality identical &ith the mono rammist HK. He seems to have differenti- ated bet&een the famous 8Han *ulmbach” and his com.atriot 8Han (ues9 from *ulmbach.20 /lthough the im.ending conclusion had been antici.ated much earlier" it &as not academically a..roved until around 1880.21 %he final reassurance came &ith the .ublica- tion of a mono ra.hic article by @arian (około&ski +1839–1911).22 (okoSo&ski, re.uted for having .ro- .ounded 8the first fully matured art history” in !oland" &as the first .rofessor of this discipline at the Ha iel- lonian University +1882–1911-" as &ell as a .rominent member of the 6/' //(" eventually elected its !res- Ii .