Feature

Four lost panels from the Romanesque glazing of St Patrokli in Soest, Westphalia

Michael Burger, Corpus Vitrearum Deutschland

Fig. 1: Article by Wolfgang Fritz Volbach on four panels from the Patroklidom in Soest, 1922 (Reproduction).

Fig. 1: Article by Wolfgang Fritz Volbach on four panels from the Patroklidom in Soest, 1922 (Reproduction).

In January 1922, Wolfgang Fritz Volbach published an article about four glass paintings from St Patrokli’s Church in Soest, Westphalia, which a collector from Münster had acquired in Soest a few years earlier. They had subsequently ended up in unknown private ownership via the art trade (Fig. 1).1 Their whereabouts were unclear at the time and remain so to this day, even after the panels were scientifically examined and their origin and age confirmed in Ulf-Dietrich Korn’s 1967 dissertation on the Romanesque glazing of St. Patrokli in Soest on the basis of Volbach’s illustrations.2 The “Böhler re:search” project of the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte in Munich, which made accessible and digitally available the index cards of the Julius Böhler art dealership from 1903 to 1993, is now providing new insights into the path of the stained glass.3 The trail leads to America, as will be shown.

 

 

The four glass panels at Volbach and Böhler (1920s)

Volbach presents four stained-glass panels, each about 1 m high according to his information, in reality measuring just under 80 x 45 cm:4 1. an angel with an empty banner in a semi-circular medallion (Fig. 2), 2. a depiction of St Christopher with the Christ Child on his shoulder, accompanied by a framing ornamental border, which initially runs straight, then curves inwards in the upper part (Fig. 3), as well as two indeterminate scenes of saints: 3. a scenic depiction with a saint turning towards a group of people with his hands raised, accompanied by another small figure behind him, above a bush (Fig. 4) and 4. a reclining saint, above and at the foot of which are two further figures facing each other (Fig. 5). The latter two scenes are framed at the top and bottom by borders, followed by further marginal glass, which turns the panes into upright rectangular fields and thus the same size as the first two fields, which were also decorated in the spandrels beyond the arched frames. These observations alone point to extensive interventions and restoration measures in the individual fields for art market purposes.

Fig. 2: Angel panel from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924. The panel photographed by Böhler on the reverse has been mirrored here in order to reproduce the correct arrangement of the composition (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

Fig. 2: Angel panel from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924. The panel photographed by Böhler on the reverse has been mirrored here in order to reproduce the correct arrangement of the composition (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

Fig. 3: Panel with St. Christopher from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924 (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

Fig. 3: Panel with St. Christopher from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924 (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

Fig. 4: Panel with a hagiographic scene from scene from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924. The panel photographed by Böhler on the reverse has been mirrored here (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

Fig. 4: Panel with a hagiographic scene from scene from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924. The panel photographed by Böhler on the reverse has been mirrored here (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

Fig. 5: "Marientod" (Death of Mary) panel from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924. The panel photographed by Böhler on the reverse was mirrored here (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

Fig. 5: “Marientod” (Death of Mary) panel from St. Patrokli, Soest. Photograph: Kunsthandlung Böhler, 1924. The panel photographed by Böhler on the reverse was mirrored here (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

In fact, more detailed information on this can be found in the files of the Böhler art dealership that have now come to light. The index cards K 157/25, K 158/25, K 159/25 and K 160/255 of the Lucerne branch of the Munich art dealership include photographic images, some of which show the stained glass opposite Volbach mirror-inverted (Figs. 2‒5). On closer inspection, however, it can be seen that the reverse side of the panels was photographed: the painting of the faces and folds of the robes is on the other side of the glass and thus appears blurred in the photographs. In the case of the panel with the saint and the group of people, the painting of the heads is on both the inside and the outside: the saint’s face appears sharp, while the painting of the small figure behind him is on the reverse. This is evidence of the compilation of various medieval glass fragments, which were reassembled according to the overall composition and the individual viewing directions, regardless of their painted front and back sides.6 This naturally also has consequences for the iconographic determination of the depicted content.

The index cards also contain duplicates of the photographs with cross markings, with annotatations on the reverse of the photograph with the angel panel: Die mit x bezeichneten Gläser sind neue Ergänzungen. Diese Scheibe lieferte das Motif für die Friesergänzungen der übrigen Scheiben. Diese Friesergänzungen, wie auch der grössere Teil der mit x bezeichneten Ersatze sind sowohl in Farbe, als Zeichnung & Technik gut gelungen. Luzern, den 13. August 1924 Eduard Renggli, Glasmaler (The glasses marked x are new additions. This panel provided the motif for the frieze additions to the other panels. These frieze additions, as well as the majority of the replacements marked x, are well done in terms of colour, drawing and technique. Lucerne, August 13, 1924 Eduard Renggli, glass painter). Renggli, himself a painter and graphic artist, could not have restored the panels himself, as these measures had already been carried out when Volbach’s article was published in 1922. Renggli rather seems to have examined them for the Lucerne branch.

In support of the provenance of the four panes from the Patrokli Cathedral in Soest, Volbach cites the oral tradition of the unknown owners on the one hand, and stylistic references to the stained glass still preserved in St. Patrokli on the other. Volbach was probably not familiar with the latter from his own experience, but from Oidtmann’s 1912 publication on Rhenish stained glass.7 He quotes from it in abbreviated form and not without errors, but his stylistic observations, particularly about the ornamental framing of the pictorial scenes, are entirely accurate.

The four glass panels during the restoration of the Romanesque glazing of St. Patrokli in Soest (1870s)

The origin of the four panels from the Patrokli church in Soest is also confirmed by the records preserved in the parish archive. The medieval stained glass windows were extensively restored and supplemented in the 1870s, these measures having been preceded by an intensive discussion about the reconstruction of the original design, which has been preserved in the form of minutes and letters.8 It should be emphasized that the late Romanesque stained glass windows of St. Patrokli in Soest are among the oldest narrative stained glass windows that have survived in Germany.9 What is remarkable is not only their great age ‒ they are dated to around the consecration of the choir of St. Patroclus Cathedral in 1166 ‒ but also their extraordinarily large size: in addition to depictions from a Christ cycle in the main apse and a Jesse window in the choir of St Mary, there are numerous other individual panels, including the remains of a cycle of the church patron Patroclus. These, however, were already scattered in the transept windows of St. Patroclus Cathedral in the 19th century ‒ no longer in their original location. In total, the Romanesque panels from the choir and transept probably still comprised around 30-35 panels around 1870.10

Fig. 6: Three apse windows of St. Patrokli, Soest, with reconstruction of the medieval glazing by Joseph Osterrath, 1878 (Photo: CVMA Deutschland, Andrea Gössel).

Fig. 6: Three apse windows of St. Patrokli, Soest, with reconstruction of the medieval glazing by Joseph Osterrath, 1878 (Photo: CVMA Deutschland, Andrea Gössel).

The historical and artistic value of the stained glass was already recognized by the Prussian conservator Ferdinand von Quast (1807‒1877), who suggested the “restoration” of the Patrokli glazing in the 1870s. He was of the opinion that it would be possible to reconstruct the three apse windows (Fig. 6), taking into account all the surviving fields, by determining their old position and supplementing the theological program accordingly. Quast had also taken stained glass with him to Berlin for his own studies: On 16 November 1874, the provost of Soest, Nübel, wrote in the minutes of a conversation that he had lent two of the old window sashes […] to Geheimrath und Conservator v. Quast in order to copy them.11 After a reminder letter to Quast, he replied on 13 January 1875 that he had only received one of the desired panels, namely the one with the angel (from the eastern clerestory window of the north transept). This panel is now enclosed in a box […]. Unfortunately, a number of glass panels [i.e. pieces of glass] were already missing when it arrived here; however, as they only concern secondary matters, they can easily be replaced according to the pattern of the existing one. Only the piece in the letter band is more regrettable, but I found just the one piece that had fallen out.12

It is reasonable to assume that this panel is the angel panel from the Böhler art dealership, as the entire inscription has been lost (Fig. 2). A second, oppositely arranged angel with inscription band, on the other hand, has survived in Soest (Figs. 7‒8) ‒ this is what Quast meant when he wrote that the lost parts could be replaced according to the pattern of the existing one. It can be assumed that Ferdinand von Quast actually drew the panel, but unfortunately his graphic estate was burned during the Second World War.13 Both angels are likely to have framed a scene, as indicated by the semi-circular frames, but it remains unclear which one. The glass painter Joseph Osterrath, from Tilff near Liège, who ultimately restored the Patrokli glazing, reconstructed it in 1876 to include the Ascension scene ‒ albeit with restrictions: I have not been able to determine with certainty whether the sayings held by the angels fit the Ascension; if not, however, others referring to it could be added.14 In an addendum, however, he corrected himself, because he had succeeded in identifying the quotation on the banners of the two angels from the sacristy, it was Isaiah 63: Qui est iste qui venit de Edom ‒ tinctis vestibus de Bosra. ((“Who is he who comes from Edom with reddish garments from Bozrah”. The passage deals with God’s judgment on Edom and therefore has eschatological significance. The assumption of Volbach, ‘Vier Scheiben’, p. 49, that the angel belongs to an annunciation scene is therefore refuted by the identification of the lost inscription.)) It is therefore certain that not only do these two angels belong together, but that they also belong to the resurrection […].15 Since the angel that still exists today in the Dommuseum actually bears the second part of the inscription (Fig. 8), Osterrath probably still saw remnants of the inscription on the other angel. One fragment of this inscription (DE·EDO) was still present in 1967 (now lost)16,another (I·VENI) was captured in a drawing by Heinrich Joseph Aldenkirchen in 1875 (Fig. 9, right).17

Osterrath changes his reconstructions twice more, however. On 3 January 1878, he wrote that the Christ with the banner (Fig. 10) and the two angels with the letter bands (Quis est iste qui venit de Edom ‒ tinctis vestibus de Bosra) must not represent the Savior enthroned in his glory, but the Ascension […],18 and on 23 July 1878: In the execution of the uppermost group of the central window, I have new doubts about the affiliation of the two angels […] and the upper part of the figure of the Saviour. The reservations are based on essential differences in the colouring; so that in order to make a group out of both, it would be necessary to change the old colouring in essential parts. This seems to me […] dangerous and such a forced procedure unwise. ‒ Since the two angels already stand out from the Ascension scene in a somewhat conspicuous way because of their banner itself, […] I suggest preserving them for the patroclus window to be restored sooner or later and introducing Elijah and Enoch […] in this group instead of them […].19 In fact, only the figure of Christ was subsequently placed in the central apse window; the two angels were packed up with all the other unused stained glass in February 1879 and sent back to Soest.20

Fig. 7: Angel panel from St. Patrokli, Soest, condition 1901/02 (Photo: LWL Denkmalpflege, Landschafts- und Baukultur in Westfalen, Albert Ludorff).

Fig. 7: Angel panel from St. Patrokli, Soest, condition 1901/02 (Photo: LWL Denkmalpflege, Landschafts- und Baukultur in Westfalen, Albert Ludorff).

Fig. 8: Angel panel from St. Patrokli, Soest, today's condition (Photo: CVMA Deutschland, Andrea Gössel).

Fig. 8: Angel panel from St. Patrokli, Soest, today’s condition (Photo: CVMA Deutschland, Andrea Gössel).

Fig. 9: Three fragments of inscriptions from St. Patrokli, Soest. Printing 1875 (Reproduction).

Fig. 9: Three fragments of inscriptions from St. Patrokli, Soest. Printing 1875 (Reproduction).

Fig. 10: Ascension of Christ from St. Patrokli, Soest, copy of the medieval original (Photo: CVMA Deutschland, Andrea Gössel).

Fig. 10: Ascension of Christ from St. Patrokli, Soest, copy of the medieval original (Photo: CVMA Deutschland, Andrea Gössel).

Aldenkirchen, who drew the one fragment of the inscription, writes the following in his essay: [There] is also a fragment in the left side window of the main choir, apparently depicting the death of Mary. The Madonna appears in a reclining position, Christ with the green nimbus of the cross receives her departing soul, which is depicted as a small human figure […].21 This description fits well with Volbach’s fourth panel (Fig. 5). Korn does not believe that the scene of Mary’s death described by Aldenkirchen is identical to this one, since in his opinion the Volbach panel does not depict a death scene, but rather Mary from a Nativity, which was compiled with the other two figures.22 However, two things must be considered: firstly, that the Volbach panel was probably restored twice more after 1875,23 whereby the cross nimbus described by Aldenkirchen may have been removed; secondly, that the panel was moved before 1870 and its iconographic depiction may have already been altered at that time, which makes it even more difficult to identify the scene. In any case, none of the other 30 or so surviving stained glass panels comes as close to the description of Aldenkirchen as this panel.

Aldenkirchen’s Marientod also repeatedly plays a role in the discussions about the restoration of the apse glazing. Osterrath believes that the scene once belonged to a Marian cycle that had been in the neighboring choir of St Mary and had been forgotten during the restoration of the window there [in 1864 by Friedrich Baudri].24 This is also Ferdinand von Quast’s view, although he does not rule out another possibility: On the other hand, I believe that the upper round medallion with the depiction of the death of Mary does not belong here [meaning in the main apse], but in the St. Mary’s choir or possibly in the southern window of the main apse, if, as I assume, the youthful life of Christ and perhaps in connection with it that of Mary was depicted here.25However, as the death of the Virgin Mary did not really fit in with a Christological cycle, the panel was ultimately not used in the restoration either.

 

The same applies to the other two panels in Volbach’s article. Among the numerous Old Testament figures, St. Christopher did not seem to fit into the picture at all.26 In his first design from 1876, Osterrath tried to place St Christopher next to a Passion scene: Carrying of the Cross; Abraham and Christophorus on either side. (This somewhat bold leap into the New Testament may be forgiven in the interest of using the old depiction)27 which adhered entirely to Ferdinand von Quast’s instructions that the greatest possible care should be taken in the re-erection to keep everything old intact, even small splinters, to join them with glass putty if necessary, and only not to throw away anything old.28 In fact, however, this approach was reversed in the course of the discussions and work: of the 30 or so panels, only eleven medieval panels were ultimately inserted into the restored apse windows (Fig. 6); all the others were, as already mentioned, sent back and kept individually in adjacent rooms (sacristy, chapter house) as a kind of museum.

The journey of the stained glass from Soest to New York

These objects, henceforth referred to as “individual panels” in art historical literature, thus lost their function as window closures and became mobile objects that could easily change location in the following period. As early as 1879, two glass paintings (each 70 h 50 b. Saint and angel. Old technique. After 1166) from St. Patrokli were shown in an exhibition in Münster,29 and in 1899, 14 panels were included in an exhibition in Paderborn.30 The Soest exhibition of ecclesiastical art in 1907 also included “remnants of a larger window […] from St. Patroklimünster-Soest”.31 Whether the four Volbach panels were also shown in one of these exhibitions remains uncertain due to the imprecise information, but it is quite conceivable that they were among the 14 panels in the Paderborn exhibition, of which only ten may have returned to Soest. When the panels were consigned to the Böhler art dealership in 1920, their provenance was initially stated as Paderborn.32

And there is actually one person who could have been responsible for the panes coming into private ownership: the Paderborn cathedral and diocesan master builder Arnold Güldenpfennig (1830‒1908). On the one hand, he was a member of the expert commission for the restoration of the Patrokli glazing during the 1870s,33 and on the other hand, he had also demonstrably owned other medieval stained glass from Soest.34 The suspicion now arises that Güldenpfennig also appropriated the four panels from St Patrokli, but unfortunately there is no written legacy of the diocesan master builder that could verify this assumption. It is possible that after Güldenpfennig’s death the panels went first to Münster35 and then to Munich36; in any case, by 1920 they were the property of Hans Fritz Fankhauser from Basel,37 who placed them on commission with Kunsthandel AG in Lucerne in August 1921.38 In August 1923 they were acquired by the Swiss art dealer Hans Wendland,39 who offered them again on commission on the same day.40 With the publication of Volbach’s article, their provenance from Soest was now recognized (Fig. 11). On 1 August 1925, all four panels were finally sold to Henry Schniewind in New York, probably via the Munich branch of Julius Böhler.41

The journey of the stained glass from Soest to New York

These objects, henceforth referred to as “individual panels” in art historical literature, thus lost their function as window closures and became mobile objects that could easily change location in the following period. As early as 1879, two glass paintings (each 70 h 50 b. Saint and angel. Old technique. After 1166) from St. Patrokli were shown in an exhibition in Münster,29 and in 1899, 14 panels were included in an exhibition in Paderborn.30 The Soest exhibition of ecclesiastical art in 1907 also included “remnants of a larger window […] from St. Patroklimünster-Soest”.31 Whether the four Volbach panels were also shown in one of these exhibitions remains uncertain due to the imprecise information, but it is quite conceivable that they were among the 14 panels in the Paderborn exhibition, of which only ten may have returned to Soest. When the panels were consigned to the Böhler art dealership in 1920, their provenance was initially stated as Paderborn.32

And there is actually one person who could have been responsible for the panes coming into private ownership: the Paderborn cathedral and diocesan master builder Arnold Güldenpfennig (1830‒1908). On the one hand, he was a member of the expert commission for the restoration of the Patrokli glazing during the 1870s,33 and on the other hand, he had also demonstrably owned other medieval stained glass from Soest.34 The suspicion now arises that Güldenpfennig also appropriated the four panels from St Patrokli, but unfortunately there is no written legacy of the diocesan master builder that could verify this assumption. It is possible that after Güldenpfennig’s death the panels went first to Münster35 and then to Munich42;

Fig. 11: Index card L_04400 from the Böhler art dealership dated 17.8.1923 (Photo: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, München, Böhler re:search project).

in any case, by 1920 they were the property of Hans Fritz Fankhauser from Basel,37 who placed them on commission with Kunsthandel AG in Lucerne in August 1921.38 In August 1923 they were acquired by the Swiss art dealer Hans Wendland,39 who offered them again on commission on the same day.40 With the publication of Volbach’s article, their provenance from Soest was now recognized (Fig. 11). On 1 August 1925, all four panels were finally sold to Henry Schniewind in New York, probably via the Munich branch of Julius Böhler.41

At this point any further trace of the panels is lost. Henry E. Schniewind owned a Renaissance-style house built in 1909 near Central Park in New York (8 East 79th Street), which he furnished with an extensive collection of antique furniture, valuable paintings and other works of art: it was said that “a tour through the house was like a visit to a museum”.43 In 1936, the Schniewind couple moved away from New York and sold the house and interior, which was auctioned off on 19 September 1936 in “one of the most interesting auction sales ever conducted in New York”. Further details about the auction and the identity of the buyers are just as unknown as the answer to the question of whether the four panels from Soest were among the items sold. To this day, the panels have not been recovered. The inventory of European stained glass in the United States, which was carried out in the 1980s by the Corpus Vitrearum of the U.S.A., does not list them either.44 However, there is still hope that the four Soest stained glass windows still exist, as they would be among the oldest stained glass windows in Germany.45

 

Authors contact: Dr. Michael Burger, Corpus Vitrearum Deutschland, Research Center for Medieval Stained Glass, Lugostr. 13, D-79100 Freiburg i. Br., Germany

Tel.: +49 761 755 02

Email: burger@cvma-freiburg.de

Web: www.cvma-freiburg.de

  1. W. F. Volbach, ‘Vier Scheiben aus dem Patroklidom in Soest’, in: Der Sammler 91, 1922, no. 4, pp. 49‒50. []
  2. U.-D. Korn, Die romanische Farbverglasung von St. Patrokli in Soest (Westfalen, 17. Sonderheft), Münster 1967, esp. pp. 32‒33, 40‒44. []
  3. URL: boehler.zikg.eu, accessed 24 January 2024. []
  4. Details on the index cards of the Kunsthandlung Böhler: K_157_25 („Engel“ [angel], fig. 2): 78 x 44 cm (URL: http://boehler.zikg.eu/wisski/navigate/172964/view, accessed 24 January 2024), K_158_25 („Männl. Figur, oben Heilige in Halbfigur“ [Male figure, above saint in half-length figure], fig. 3): 79,5 x 44,5 cm (URL: http://boehler.zikg.eu/wisski/navigate/172982/view, accessed 24 January 2024), K_159_25 („Tod einer Heiligen u. 2 Figuren“ [Death of a saint and 2 figures], fig. 5): 79,5 x 44,5 cm (URL: http://boehler.zikg.eu/wisski/navigate/172990/view, accessed 24 January 2024) and K_160_25 („3 Figuren, Begegnung“ [3 figures, encounter], fig. 4): 79 x 44 cm (URL: http://boehler.zikg.eu/wisski/navigate/172996/view, accessed 24 January 2024) . []
  5. See previous note. []
  6. This type of compilation most probably goes back to the glass painter Joseph Osterrath from Tilff near Liège, who restored the stained glass windows of St. Patrokli in the 1870s. In the stained glass preserved in Soest, it was also possible to observe that the front and back sides of the painted glass were ignored during compilation. []
  7. H. Oidtmann, Die rheinischen Glasmalereien vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, Düsseldorf 1912, pp. 88‒89. []
  8. Germany, Soest, Parish archive St. Patrokli, File volume 12/2, in the following after Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, pp. 13‒20. []
  9. Cf. in future: M. Burger, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien in Soest (CVMA Deutschland VI,2), in preparation. []
  10. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, pp. 22‒23. []
  11. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 14: „…zwei der alten Fenster-Flügel […] dem Geheimrath und Conservator v. Quast geliehen, um selbe abzuzeichnen“. []
  12. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, pp. 15f.: „…die mit dem Engel. Diese Tafel erfolgt nun beifolgend in einer Kiste […]. Leider fehlten schon als dieselbe hier anlangte, eine Menge Glastafeln; doch sind sie, da sie nur Nebensachen betreffen, leicht nach dem Muster des vorhandenen zu ersetzen. Nur das Stück im Schriftbande ist bedauerlicher, doch fand ich hirzu grade noch das eine ausgefallene Stück“. []
  13. Cf. E. Fitz, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien im Halberstädter Dom (CVMA Deutschland XVII), Berlin 2003, p. 454, note 1691. []
  14. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 17: „Ich habe zwar nicht mit Gewißheit ermitteln können, ob die von den Engeln gehaltenen Sprüche auf die Himmelfahrt passen; wenn nicht, so könnten indeß andere, darauf Bezug habende, angebracht werden“. []
  15. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 17: „…daß nicht nur diese beiden Engel zueinander gehören, sondern diese auch mit der Auferstehung […]“. []
  16. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 103, no. 59 and fig. 64. This “collection panel” was broken up in 1968, individual fragments ended up in the fields of the Dommuseum, but the whereabouts of the other pieces are unknown. []
  17. H. J. Aldenkirchen, Die mittelalterliche Kunst in Soest. Ein Beitrag zur rheinisch-westfälischen Kunstgeschichte, Bonn 1875, p. 19. []
  18. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 20: „(Quis est iste qui venit de Edom ‒ tinctis vestibus de Bosra) nicht den in seiner Herrlichkeit thronenden Heiland, sondern die Himmelfahrt vorstellen müssen […]“. []
  19. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 20: „Bei der Ausführung der obersten Gruppe des Mittelfensters stoßen mir neue Bedenken auf über die Zusammengehörigkeit der beiden Engel […] und den oberen Teil der Heilandsfigur. Die Bedenken beruhen auf wesentlichen Verschiedenheiten des Colorits; so daß, um aus beiden eine Gruppe zu machen, es nöthig wäre die alte Coloration in wesentlichen Theilen zu verändern. Das scheint mir […] gefährlich und ein so zwangsweises Verfahren unklug. – Da nun ohnehin die beiden Engel schon durch ihr Spruchband selbst dann aber auch weil sie sich von der Himmelfahrtsscene in etwas auffallender Weise detaschieren, […] so schlage ich vor, diesselben für das früher oder später zu restaurierende Patroklusfenster zu bewahren und statt ihrer Elias und Henoch […] in dieser Gruppe einzuführen […]“. []
  20. Cf. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 20. []
  21. Aldenkirchen, ’mittelalterliche Kunst in Soest’, p. 18: „[Es] findet sich auch im linken Seitenfenster des Hauptchores ein Bruchstück, allem Anscheine nach den Tod Mariens darstellend. Die Madonna erscheint in liegender Stellung, Christus mit grünem Kreuznimbus nimmt deren abscheidende Seele, die als kleine menschliche Figur dargestellt ist, in Empfang, […]“. []
  22. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, pp. 24 and 40. Assuming that this is a window depicting the youth of Christ, Korn wants to see in this scene a montage of a depiction of the Nativity (Mary lying down) and an adoration of the Magi (kneeling man). []
  23. 1878 by Joseph Osterrath and presumably in the 1910s for the art trade (border extensions). []
  24. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 16: „bei der Restauration des dortigen Fensters vergessen worden“. On the restoration of the windows of the Marienchörchen, see ibid., p. 21. []
  25. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 18: „Dagegen glaube ich, daß das obere runde Medaillon mit der Darstellung des Todes Mariae nicht hierher, sondern in das Marienchörchen gehört oder evtl. in das südliche Fenster der großen Apsis, wenn hier, wie ich annehme, das Jugendleben Christi und damit vielleicht in Verbindung das der Maria dargestellt war.“ []
  26. Hans Wentzel also considered the panel to be a montage of two figures that did not belong together (H. Wentzel, ‘Zur Bestandsaufnahme der romanischen Chorfenster von St. Patroklus in Soest’, in: Westfalen 37, 1959, pp. 92-103, here p. 100, note 20), and Ulf-Dietrich Korn saw in it St. Joseph with the Christ Child on his shoulder (Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, pp. 41‒43). []
  27. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, p. 17: „Kreuztragung; zu beiden Seiten Abraham und Christophorus. (Dieser etwas kühne Sprung in’s Neue Testament möchte im Interesse der Benützung der alten Darstellung verzeihlich sein)“. []
  28. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, pp. 15‒16: „… daß bei der Wiederaufstellung die möglichste Sorgfalt angewendet werde, um alles Alte intakt zu erhalten, selbst kleinere Splitter, diese allenfalls durch Glaskitt zu verbinden, und nur nichts altes wegzuwerfen.“ []
  29. Katalog zur Ausstellung westfälischer Alterthümer und Kunsterzeugnisse vom Vereine für Geschichte und Alterthumskunde Westfalens im Juni 1879 zu Münster i.W., Münster 1879, p. 117, no. 1547: „je 70 h 50 b. Heiliger u. Engel. Alte Technik. Nach 1166“. It is possible that the “two old glass paintings in the old technique (12th century?), depicting a saint and two angels” („zwei alte Glasgemälde in alter Technik (12. Jahrhundert?), einen Heiligen und zwei Engel darstellend“), which are mentioned two years later as being in the Provinzial-Blinden-Anstalt in Soest (C. M. C. Memminger, Die Kunstdenkmäler des Kreises Soest, Essen 1881, p. 14), are the same panels. [] []
  30. Ausstellung des Vereins für Geschichte und Altertumskunde Westfalens (Abteilung Paderborn) zur Feier seines 75jährigen Bestehens, Paderborn im Juni 1899, p. 41, no. 457: „14 Tafeln Glasmalerei in Bleifassung. ‒ Patroklikirche in Soest“. [] []
  31. Katalog der Ausstellung für Kirchliche Kunst zu Soest vom 11. August bis 1. September 1907, p. 86, no. 38: „Reste eines größeren Fensters […] aus St. Patroklimünster-Soest“. [] []
  32. Index card L_00147 from 10.1.1920: „4 Romanesque glass panels from Paderborn Cathedral“ (4 romanische Glasscheiben aus dem Dom von Paderborn; URL: http://boehler.zikg.eu/wisski/navigate/198978/view, accessed 24 January 2024), also index card L_02693 from 30.8.1921 (http://boehler.zikg.eu/wisski/navigate/248984/view, accessed 24 January 2024) and index card L_04400 from 17.8.1923 (http://boehler.zikg.eu/wisski/navigate/172969/view, accessed 24 January 2024, here Fig. 11). [] []
  33. Korn, ‘romanische Farbverglasung’, pp. 14‒17. [] []
  34. See: M. Burger, ‘Die Sammlung mittelalterlicher Glasmalereien auf Burg Altena. Genese der Burgkapellenverglasung‘, Der Märker (in print). [] []
  35. Volbach, ‘Vier Scheiben’, p. 49: “… a few years ago in private ownership in Münster” („… vor einigen Jahren in Münsteraner Privatbesitz“). When asked by Ulf-Dietrich Korn in February 1965, Volbach replied that his records had been burned during the war and that he no longer remembered the names of the owners and buyers of the panels, “only that the antiques dealer was a well-known Münster lawyer in his main profession” („nur daß der Antiquitätenhändler im Hauptberuf ein bekannter Münsterscher Rechtsanwalt gewesen sei“; letter from Ulf-Dietrich Korn to Hans Wentzel dated 21.3.1965). Korn then identified the Münster lawyer Koch as the previous owner of the panels (letter from Ulf-Dietrich Korn to Hans Wentzel dated 17.6.1966; Germany, Freiburg i.Br., Archive of the CVMA Germany, Wentzel estate, correspondence). [] []
  36. Index card L_04400 (see above, note 33): “The Berlin Museum of Decorative Arts wanted to acquire it at the time, but was outbid by Julius Drey” („Das Berliner Kunstgewerbe Museum wollte sie seinerzeit erwerben, wurde aber v. Julius Drey dem Käufer überboten“). According to “Böhler re:search”, Julius Drey was an antiquarian in Munich. []
  37. Index card L_00147 (see above, note 33). There it is mentioned that the panels “never arrived” and are “currently in the Basel Museum”. [] []
  38. Index card L_02693 (see above, note 33). [] []
  39. Ibid. [] []
  40. Index card L_04400 (see above, note 33). [] []
  41. Index cards K_157_25, K_158_25, K_159_25 and K_160_25 (see above, note 4). [] []
  42. Index card L_04400 (see above, note 33): “The Berlin Museum of Decorative Arts wanted to acquire it at the time, but was outbid by Julius Drey” („Das Berliner Kunstgewerbe Museum wollte sie seinerzeit erwerben, wurde aber v. Julius Drey dem Käufer überboten“). According to “Böhler re:search”, Julius Drey was an antiquarian in Munich. []
  43. Here and in the following: T., ‘The Henry E. Schniewind, Jr. House – 8 East 79th Street‘, in: Daytonian in Manhattan, 22.6.2019, URL: http://daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-henry-e-schniewind-jr-house-8-east.html, accessed 24 January 2024. []
  44. Stained Glass before 1700 in American Collections (Corpus Vitrearum U.S.A., Checklist Series), 4 vol., Washington 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1991. []
  45. An abridged version of this article in German appears in: Die Kunsthandlung Julius Böhler in Relation zu Museen und Sammlungen, Conference proceedings München 2024. I would like to thank Dr. Stephan Klingen and Lena Schneider most sincerely for their help with this research! []

Comments are closed.