Ladislaus II Jagiełło (1386–1434)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has the form (and length) of a journal article rather than a typical encyclopedia entry, but I assume this is in line with the specific format of the Encyclopedia of Medieval Royal Iconography.

In terms of content, the text is faultless. The author presents and carefully analyses all known medieval images of Ladislaus Jagiello. The author relies on adequate literature on the subject and clearly distinguishes among views that are commonly shared, issues that remain contentious, and bold theses that are widely rejected by contemporary scholars. It goes without saying, therefore, that the article provides complete and reliable knowledge.

The structure is clear and basically correct, although the author might wish to reconsider the conclusion. As it stands, the conclusion is much too long and, more importantly, it includes rather a recapitulation than concluding remarks. I do not think a recapitulation is necessary at all. In my opinion, it would be more valuable (and certainly of interest for the readers), to offer some insight into the later developments of Władysław Jagiełło's iconography. It seems, for instance, that the reception of the tombstone likeness remained rather limited in the early modern period, whereas the Lublin painting became a model for the king’s image in Tomasz Treter's Regum Poloniae Icones, which, in turn, became a model for Arnold Mylius' Principum Et Regum Polonorum Imagines – and thus became the most typical iconography of Ladislaus Jagiełło for a few centuries.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Thank you for all your insightful comments. I decided not to include issues concerning later development of Jagiełło's iconography because it would exceed the time-limits of the encyclopedia. 

Thank you once again for your comments.

With kind regards,

Mateusz

Reviewer 2 Report

The text succeeds in bringing together and interpret the preserved imagery of King Ladislaus II Jagiełło and offers a comprehensive and coherent view of it.

The structure of the text is correct and coherent, in general, by presenting the character under study in the introduction and drawing enriching conclusions based on the detailed study of the works.

However, it should be restructured the way in which the author approaches to the study of each of them. Since the text pays special attention to the iconographic aspects of the images, the way to do this would be to start with the style. Thus, for example, on page 10, the paragraph beginning at line 353: "It is worthy of note that the tomb of Ladislaus Jagiełło is striking not only by its innovative iconography but also its novel forms" should go before the iconographic interpretation of the tomb. Also, in the section dedicated to the triptych in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, on page 12, a sentence is inserted (line 398) on "The panel representing the Adoration of the Magi, along with other painted scenes on the triptych’s wings, was executed by a master trained in the local school of painting but with first-hand knowledge of Netherlandish art". This phrase makes sense when, at the end of the paragraph, the Flemish influence of the triptych is related to the portrait of the Duke of Burgundy, so the latter question should be moved above, after "It is worthy of note that the tomb of Ladislaus Jagiełło is striking not only by its in novative iconography but also its forms novel" and  before the rest of the paragraph about the portrait of Ladislaus II Jagiełło in the triptyc.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is how the bibliography (and figures 4 and 5) is quoted throughout the text. It should be done as follows:

• References should not be numbered.
• References should be arranged alphabetically.
• Citations in the text should have the following format: (surname, year: pages)

The other suggestions are of little importance, but they will contribute to the correction and clarification of the information contained in the text.

On page 3 (lines 106-108), the Latin text should be in italics.

In the last paragraph on page 3 (lines 118-130), there are some sentences with a smaller font size than the rest of the text.

On page 4 (line 132), the acronym AGAD should be indicated.

On page 4, the same image (figure 1) is repeated.

On page 7 (line 227), it is necessary to quote the study of Trajdos: year and page.

On page 9, Janicki (line 322) and "earlier scholarship" (line 326) are mentioned, but none is cited.

On page 10 (line 341), there is one space left at the end of the caption, before the dot.

On page 10 (line 347), the term theological is repeated.

On page 10 (line 369), a parenthesis remains or is missing: "and the output of Aegidius Guten stein from Wiener Neustadt, active in Padua in 1422-1438)"

Finally, with regard to the triptych in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, it would be good if the author could provide, as far as possible, a general photograph of the work in order to appreciate the other images referred to in the text: Man of Sorrows and the Sorrowful Virgin. The location of the images in the structure of an altarpiece can be fundamental to carry out a correct interpretation of them.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Thank you very much for all your insightful comments. Since the Encyclopedia focuses on iconography I decided not to restructure the composition of the text. I feel that my argument meet the general criteria of this project and further changes are not necessary.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

With king regards,

Mateusz

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-structured and clearly written survey of the portraits of Ladislaus II Jagiello. It gives a good overview of the personality and patronage of the ruler and discusses his portraits in sufficient detail.

I would only like to make some smaller comments regarding the essay and the iconography of Ladislaus II. In addition to the four images of Ladislaus II discussed, mention should be made of some historical images included in illustrated chronicles. Although not stemming from Jagiellonian patronage, it is interesting to see how Ladislaus II was depicted as a historical figure, in particular as a contemporary of Emperor Sigismund. I have in mind the Windecke Chronicle, which includes numerous images showing Sigismund and Ladislaus II Jagiello together on various occasions (at the time of their various meetings). The Vienna copy of the Windecke Chronicle (ÖNB Cod. 13.975.) includes the meeting of Sigismund with Ladislaus II in 1419 (f. 44r); Sigismund and Ladislaus fishing on the river Vág in 1412, next to it originally a scene of the royal hunt (f. 110); the meeting in 1423 (f.181r), etc. Ladislaus II is identified on the images with his Lithuanian coat of arms (Pogon), in addition to the captions. The leaf with the royal hunt was separated from the Vienna manuscript and today can be found in Essen, in the collection of Gallinat Bank (see Sigismundus Rex et Imperator exh. catalogue, Mainz, 2006). Similar images can also be found in the other illustrated copy of Windecke's chronicle, now in private hands, see: https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2009/western-manuscripts-and-miniatures-and-the-korner-sale-l09740/lot.26.html

Regarding the Great Seal of Ladislaus II, I find it interesting that it is a one-side seal - contemporary Hungarian and Bohemian great seals (for example the Great Seal of Louis the Great or of Queen Mary of Hungary) were double-sided. Is there a precedent for this solution among Polish seals?

Concerning the royal chapel of Lublin, a comment would be needed on the accessibility of the chapel and consequently, the visibility of these images.

Minor comments: 

There seems to be a mistake in numbering parts of the essay: after the Introduction (1.), the Great Seal should be number 3 and not 2.

Line 198: features of the king

Line 468-469: Casimir IV was not the direct successor of Ladislaus II - perhaps rephrase to 'second successor'

Bibliography no. 29.: The initial of the author (M.) is missing

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Thank you very much for all your insightful comments. The idea of adding to the argument illustrations from Windecke's chronicle is absolutely right and justified. I decided not to include it only because this would require from me more in-depth research, and for the purpose of this entry (which already is long enough) I prefer rather to limit the argument to portraits commissioned by Jagiellonians themselves.  

Thank you once again for all the comments.

With best regards,

Mateusz 

Reviewer 4 Report

The entry is scientifically sound and well-grounded. This is a valuable work, which provides an in-depth understanding of the topic.

Improvements are nevertheless required. They concern both the lenght of the text and its English style and syntax.

First, I suggest to shorten some parts of the text, which should be less detailed, more concise and also more didascalic. In its present form, it seems to be more an article than an entry.  

Secondly, English language has to be revised.  Though the entry has been written in good English and is understandable in all its parts, a linguistic revision of the text is highly recommended. Some sentences are too clearly written by a non-native English writer and the use of parenthetical clauses has to be limited. Here I attach a file in which I have provided a few examples on how the text might be improved but please note that these suggestions refer only to the first six pages. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Thank you for all your comments and corrections. I did my best to correct the entry according to your suggestions. I also consulted the text once again with my translator.

Thank you once again for the comments.

With kind regards,

Mateusz

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I see why the author does not wish to follow my suggestion and to elaborate on the reception of Jagiello's medieval portraits. That is OK, as there are several ways to make a fine conclusion section - e.g., a single synthetic wrap-up paragraph. The author, however, chose not to address the general point of my comment on the paper's Conclusion. Thus, as it stands, the last section remains a series of paragraphs that recapitulate the article's particular sections instead of being a proper conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Because the most important aspect of the works is the iconographic, I had suggested to pose the formal aspects at the beginning of the commentary of each work, to focus later on the iconographic and iconological ones. But it’s just a suggestion.

Regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has amelioreted the text, which is nevertheless still very (too?) long. The language and style could have been further improved, particularly by avoiding an extensive use of hypotaxis, as it is unusual in English.