Heise ignores counter arguments

Summary: A false theory about the painting in Tallinn being a remnant of Lübeck's original painting from 1463.

A responsible scholar is obliged to point out himself any weaknesses that his arguments may have. Here follows 2 arguments that were well known in Heise's time and that Heise neglected:

The dance of death in Tallinn, part 3
Tallinn, The canvasses are joined before the king
  1. 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.

    Thus it cannot be the same painting.

  2. 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.(1)

Next section: Heise was finally disproved when the fragment in Tallinn was restored.

(1) Die Beglückte und Geschmückte Stadt Lübeck, page 123: »In dieser kleinen Orgelcapell ist rund-herum der Toten Tantz«.

Back to the height of the paintings Forward to the restoration of the fragment in Tallinn Up to Heise's theory

Dansk Select language Lübeck's dance of death Tallinn's dance of death A fragment Part 6