Summary: Part 4 of 7 about why the painting in Tallinn is not a remnant of Lübeck's original painting from 1463.
This is one of Heise's smaller omissions, but mention it we must.
In 1937, when Heise wrote his article, it was still possible under the "new" painting from 1701 to find remains of the old painting from 1463. Apparently the original wooden frame had been re-used when the painting was replaced, and near the top were remnants of canvas - proving that the old painting had been cut out when it was replaced.
Heise quotes (page 191) Wilhelm Mantels, who had had an opportunity to feel the old remnants of canvas from 1463 with his own hands. Mantels wrote in Anzeiger für Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit p. 158: »Ich fand nämlich unter der von oben her das Bild in seinem ganzen Umlauf begrenzenden, wulstartigen Holzbekrönung alte Leinwandreste hervorragend, welche namentlich an der Westseite ununterbrochen fortlaufen, Farbenspuren tragen und den deutlichen Beweis liefern, daß das vorige Leinwandbild herausgeschnitten ist, um es zu entfernen, und wohl auch, um vom Maler bequemer copiert werden zu können«.(1)
The last 11 words (marked with red) are not quoted by Heise. It's typical for his technique that he doesn't mind long quotes - as long as Mantels talks about canvas and cuts - but that Heise excises the end of the sentence - where Mantels talk about copying the painting and thus spoils Heise's nice little hypothesis.
Conclusion: Heise quotes very selectively.
The next section will show why was it so important to Heise that the painting had been cut out.
Next section: A wild claim about the height of the painting