Heise ignores counter arguments
Summary: Part 6 of 7 about why the painting in
Tallinn is not a remnant of Lübeck's original painting from 1463.
Lübeck. King and bishop are separated by the corner.
Tallinn, The canvasses are joined before the king
A responsible scholar is obliged to point out himself
any weaknesses that his arguments may have.
Here are two arguments that were well known in Heise's time and that Heise neglected:
- In Lübeck the Death following the king
doesn't touch the bishop to the right.
This is because another canvas was used for the northern wall
- the two canvasses are joined in the corner so that the seams wouldn't show.
Presumably the same thing was true for the original painting since it was mounted in the same frame.
In Tallinn however, the split is before the king.
It's very easy to see where the piece with the king was joined with the other piece of canvas.
Thus it cannot be the same painting.
- Heise's claim that half the painting in Lübeck was missing for
113 years is provably false - since
a source from 1697 tells us that the dance of death went all the way around in the chapel:
»In dieser kleinen Orgel Capell ist rund herumb der Todten-Tantz gar alt, aber wolgethan«
(Die Beglückte und Geschmückte Stadt Lübeck, by Johann Gerhard Krüger - 1697, page 123).
Next section: Heise was finally disproved when the fragment in Tallinn was restored.