Summary: A false theory about the painting in
Tallinn being a remnant of Lübeck's original painting from 1463.
Heise was finally disproved when the fragment in Tallinn was restored
The painting in Tallinn was restored between 1962-1964. In the process, the rest
of Heise's claims were disproved:
Heise had claimed that Lübeck's painting had been so irreparable that half the painting had been
cut out and sold to Tallinn.
During the restoration it turned up that the fragment in Tallinn hadn't been in so bad a condition that it would
justify a paint-over - let alone being cut out. The paint-over was from the 19th century.
The restoration showed that there are no vertical seams (until the king) - in other words: If those 4 lines were
in Lübeck in 1701, the rest of the painting would also have been there.
The restoration showed that the top of the fragment is intact (see picture to the right) - so the fact
that there were pieces of canvas remaining in Lübeck actually proves
that we are dealing with two different paintings.
The languages in the 2 paintings are not the same.
In Lübeck's painting there are Middle Dutch words
(naer, klusenaer etc.) and French loan words (Conciencien, Temptacie) - whereas the text in Tallinn
is pure Low German.
Heise had tried to explain this away by claiming that the burghers of Tallinn had changed the text
by painting it over - because they did not understand the "foreign" words.
During the restoration the fragment was examined with X-rays and the unoriginal layers of paint and
varnish were removed. Thus it was proved that the text had never been altered.
Summary: It took time to disprove some of Heise's wild claims.
But disproved they were.
