Menu
Medieval murals have been preserved in the Romanesque chancel. The painted areas include the barrel vault and the upper halves of the northern, southern, and eastern walls. On the walls, the mural concludes at the height of the lower part of the window on the eastern wall. The paintings survive only in outlines and as larger colour surfaces without any details such as eyes, noses, mouths, or fingers. According to Marijan Zadnikar, the lower band on the walls was once undoubtedly decorated with a painted curtain.[1]
The vault’s apex is adorned with the image of Christ Pantocrator, also called Christ in Glory or Maiestas Domini. He is wearing a red garment, has an open book on his left knee, and is bestowing blessings with his right hand, which has been almost completely destroyed.[2] He sits on the Throne of Wisdom (Sedes Sapientiae) with a semi-circular backrest. The armrests on each side were terminated by a lion’s head, though neither of the two is recognisable any longer in the mural’s present state of preservation.[3] Although the lower half of the figure has been utterly destroyed, individual large colour surfaces on its upper half and the striped red details on the book cover have been preserved, together with the upper part of a large mandorla, indicated by a green outline. Within the field delimited by a red border, the vault mural continues on the northern and southern sides. Alongside Christ Pantocrator, the symbols of the evangelists are depicted here. St Matthew’s angel on the south-western side is in the worst condition, as only a circular yellow surface – either the saint’s hair or halo – and a longer white-coloured inscription band remain visible. St Mark’s slim lion in profile is depicted on the eastern part of the arch’s southern side, striding turned towards the angel. It is painted in ochre with a red outline and large paws, and there is a long inscription band running underneath. Its tail is raised high in the air, and its appearance is complemented by what are now poorly visible wings. The mural continues on the northern side of the vault, with St John’s eagle on the vault’s western part and St Luke’s ox on its eastern part facing each other. The eagle is painted with unusually large feet, holding the inscription ribbon in its swollen claws. Its tail and body are red, while its wings, beak, and legs have remained bright. The ox, standing astride, is also completely red. It has small hooves, a partially destroyed head, a downturned tail, and poorly preserved wings. Like other animals, it holds an inscription band in its hooves. Both the eagle and the ox only retain a larger white patch instead of their eyes, while the lion features a recognisable red eye outline. Only individual letters on the inscription bands can still be discerned.
Initially, the northern and southern walls of the chancel were painted in their entirety. However, only six painted architectural niches have been preserved on each wall.[4] The design of the separate arch terminations of the architectural niches varies or alternates. On the western part of the northern and southern walls, a niche or a baldachin has been added on each side that differs from the others in terms of its architectural conclusion.[5] The niches on the eastern part of both the southern and northern walls begin with a trefoil arch and then alternate with triangular heads. A grey-green crenellated wall with small windows was added to the top of the niches with a trefoil, while a similarly designed red-coloured wall was added to the triangular heads.[6] All the heads share a white line outlining the abovementioned wall, merlons, and windows, and all of them are also adorned with a white decoration in the form of a series of spiralling lines (the so-called “dog’s jump”).[7] On the original mural, the niches used to contain apostles, of which only the outline of St Paul can still be identified today. He is depicted on the southern wall under the first arch from the left, holding a sword with the blade pointing upwards in his right hand and a book in his left.[8] The two niches on the western end of the southern and northern walls are concluded with double trefoil arches. Here, a single saint used to be painted on each side.[9]
The best-preserved part of the original chancel mural remains on the eastern wall. Because of the window, it is divided into two parts,[10] both designed in the same manner, as a mirror composition with a full-length image of one of the church’s two patron saints and their beheading painted on each side.[11] Both sides of the wall next to the window feature a richly decorated architectural niche in the form of a baldachin with a triangular head, supported by slender pillars and concluded at the bottom with an arch in the form of a trefoil. The edges of the niches are decorated with palmette leaves, while each of their tops concludes with three spear-shaped leaves.[12] The niches contain saints – a slightly more poorly preserved St Fortunatus in a deacon’s outfit on the northern side of the wall and, on the southern side, St Hermagoras in his bishop’s garment painted in red, green, and yellow, wearing a mitre and carrying a pastoral staff in his right hand and a book in his left, with a hairstyle concluding in a circle at ear level and a green halo.[13] The remaining surface of the wall, restricted by the height of the window and the vaulting arch, shows the saints’ beheading, in both cases topped by an angel wearing a red garment with his feet obscured by clouds. The angels are carrying away the souls of the deceased saints wrapped in an ochre-coloured cloth,[14] in both cases shaped like a miniature of the deceased – i.e., in the case of St Hermagoras, with a bishop’s mitre, while St Fortunatus is without a headdress and with the top of his head shaved (the so-called tonsure).[15] Both compositions also include a seated judge, recognisable from his crossed legs.[16] According to Rok Poles, in the scene with St Fortunatus, the judge is sitting on a chest with a yellow top and a red side.[17] On the mural’s better-preserved half with St Hermagoras, the beheading scene includes two soldiers, while only a single soldier is portrayed in the scene of Fortunatus’ beheading.[18] In the St Hermagoras scene, the outlines of the second soldier are visible behind the one in the role of the executioner. His gaze is directed away from the beheading. In both scenes, the soldier who acts as the executioner has his right arm raised above his head and his left arm bent at the elbow, turned towards his body. While the sword in the executioner’s right hand has been preserved in the St Hermagoras scene, not even its outlines remain in the depiction of Fortunatus’ death. The state of preservation of the saints’ figures also varies: while in the case of St Fortunatus, only his back and the rear part of his head and halo are visible, the outlines of Hermagoras are visible in their entirety. Despite the poor preservation of the figure of St Fortunatus, it is still discernible that his pose is similar to that of St Hermagoras: he is kneeling, facing the window, with his hands folded in prayer and his head turned towards the ground. The two window splays are also painted, probably depicting a female saint under a Gothic canopy on the northern side and a male figure in priestly vestments on the southern side.[19] Both figures are impossible to identify due to their poor preservation.[20] On both the vault and the eastern wall, the scenes are outlined with a thicker red band, while a thinner ochre-coloured band was added in some places, including around the window.[21]
________________________________________
[1] Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, INDOK center, M. Zadnikar, Zapiski XXXVII, 9. 8. 1956, available at: https://situla.gov.si/SI_INDOK_ZAP_z002-1211.html (24 August 2022); POLES 1998, p. 378.
[2] POLES 1998, p. 379; HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[3] POLES 1998, p. 379.
[4] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[5] ZIMMERMANN 1996, p. 225.
[6] POLES 1998, p. 379; HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[7] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[8] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[9] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225. More information about the saints or scenes that could have been painted in these niches is presented in the Iconographic Analysis section.
[10] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[11] POLES 1998, p. 378; HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[12] POLES 1998, p. 378.
[13] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[14] POLES 1998, p. 378; HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[15] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[16] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225. While POLES 1998, pp. 378-379 (n. 7), states that only the judge in the composition of Fortunatus’ beheading has his legs crossed, a closer look at the mural reveals that this is true of both scenes of the saints’ deaths.
[17] POLES 1998, pp. 378–379 (n. 7).
[18] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[19] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225. Marijan Zadnikar was the first researcher to identify the mural in the old chancel’s window splay (Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, INDOK center, M. Zadnikar, Zapiski XXXVII, 9. 8. 1956, available at: https://situla.gov.si/SI_INDOK_ZAP_z002-1211.html). He wrote that the figure in the southern window splay was crowned and less recognisable, while the one in the northern window splay had been destroyed. He also recognised the two triangular architectural conclusions and coloured backgrounds.
[20] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[21] POLES 1998, pp. 378–379, 383.
The Gothic murals in the Šoštanj church are poorly preserved and nowadays only partially discernible.[1] In most cases, only the drawings without any details have been preserved, while of the colour surfaces, only individual red-coloured areas such as the thick outlines of the scenes, some of the animals, and the painted architecture are recognisable, as well as the yellow details such as Christ’s hair and St Mark’s lion on the chancel vault. Some green surfaces have also been preserved, including those on the figures’ clothing, but they are much more faded than the red and yellow ones. Of the four symbols of the evangelists, only Matthew’s angel has not survived on the vault, while the other three symbols, although thoroughly faded, are still recognisable. Except for a single example, all the apostles placed under the painted architecture on the northern and southern walls of the chancel have been destroyed.[2] To some extent, the mural was damaged already during the Baroque period, when it was scraped off the wall to ensure the durability of the new mural, as indicated by several visible parallel gouges on the wall.[3] The mural on the southern wall was additionally damaged by a new doorway, constructed in the 18th century, while a small section of the western part of the mural, on the sides, was covered by the partition wall separating the old chancel from the nave.[4] The lower band of the mural on all three walls has been damaged by moisture.[5]
________________________________________
[1] KOMELJ 1966, p. 68; RAVNIKAR 2011 b, pp. 93–94.
[2] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[3] ZADNIKAR 1958, p. 118.
[4] POLES 1998, p. 387.
[5] Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, INDOK center, Zapiski Marijana Zadnikarja, Šoštanj, 1956, available at: https://situla.gov.si/SI_INDOK_ZAP_z002-1211.html (24 August 2022).
The original chancel mural was painted in the so-called High Gothic drawing style,[1] characterised by thicker lines outlining the figures and larger colour surfaces without any shading. Only the basic brown-coloured drawings[2] that the painter made on green-tinted plaster[3] and the individual larger red, yellow, and grey-green colour surfaces have been preserved. White and blue colours are also visible.[4] Marijan Zadnikar assessed the colour scale used for the mural as modest, just like the colours of the mural in the cloister of the Stična Cistercian monastery.[5] He also underlined the alternation of light and dark colour contrast.[6] Marijan Zadnikar also determined that the stylistic origins of the Šoštanj murals came from Carinthian art, which he explained with the fact that when the murals were created, Šoštanj was the property of the Carinthian Counts of Heunburg.[7] Carinthian models were also decisive for the murals in the succursal church of St John the Baptist in Lower Muta, created around 1330–1340.[8] Marijan Zadnikar referred to the scene of St John the Baptist’s martyrdom in the parish church of St Margaret in Lieding as an example that was stylistically and iconographically related to the one in Šoštanj.[9] The scenes are linked by fluid brown drawing, monumental figures, and their postures.[10] When comparing the stated Carinthian martyrdom scene to the one in Šoštanj, it stands out that the type of the angel in the scene with St Hermagoras and the typology of the two executioners is almost identical to those in the church of St Margaret in Lieding.[11] Marijan Zadnikar also determined that both murals were painted using the same technique, with the basic drawing painted on wet plaster, while the rest of the mural was applied to wet limewash with the basic drawing showing through.[12]
________________________________________
[1] HÖFLER 2004, p. 226. According to France Stele, this drawing style belongs to the second stage of the development of medieval painting in the territory of today’s Slovenia, called the early Gothic linear-planar style (STELE 1969, p. 134; STELE 1972, pp. 9–10). HÖFLER 2004, p. 226, calls this the High Gothic linear style. ZIMMERMANN 1996, p. 144, defines the Šoštanj murals as an example of the transitional Early Gothic style or the Styrian version of the expressive zig-zag style (so-called “Zackenstil”), which Stele specifies as the initial developmental stage of painting in the Slovenian territory from the 13th century onwards (STELE 1972, p. 9).
[2] HÖFLER 2004, p. 226.
[3] POLES 1998, p. 378.
[4] ZIMMERMANN 1996, p. 225.
[5] ZADNIKAR 1970, p. 59.
[6] Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, INDOK center, M. Zadnikar, Zapiski XXXVII, 9. 8. 1956, available at: https://situla.gov.si/SI_INDOK_ZAP_z002-1211.html (24 August 2022); POLES 1998, p. 383.
[7] Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, INDOK center, M. Zadnikar, Zapiski XXXVII, 9. 8. 1956, available at: https://situla.gov.si/SI_INDOK_ZAP_z002-1211.html (24 August 2022).
[8] HÖFLER 2004, pp. 12–13.
[9] ZADNIKAR 1953, p. 28. A photo of the Lieding martyrdom is available at: https://onb.digital/result/10D78174 (24 August 2022). For more information about the iconographic similarities between the murals in Šoštanj and Lieding, see the Iconographic Analysis section.
[10] ZIMMERMANN 1996, p. 55.
[11] The angel in the martyrdom of St Hermagoras scene in Šoštanj is stylistically and typologically similar to the one in the slightly more recent martyrdom scene depicted on the nave part of the triumphal arch wall in the St. Cäcilia ob Murau church in Upper Styria, in which the saintly figure has already been beheaded. The two angels share not only the cloth in which they carry away the souls of the deceased but also the hairstyles, the arms outstretched downwards, and the clouds from behind which their upper bodies show.
[12] ZADNIKAR 1953, p. 28; POLES 1998, p. 378.
In a report published during the initial uncovering of the Šoštanj frescoes in 1953, Marijan Zadnikar assessed the time of the creation of what were then mostly still obscured frescoes for the first time, placing their origin in the first half of the 14th century.[1] Based on the crenellated walls and columns in perspective, the massive figurative elements, and the executioners’ tunics that reach to their thighs, Tanja Zimmermann placed the chancel mural to the period around 1340[2] – an assessment that also prevailed in the subsequent literature.[3]
________________________________________
[1] ZADNIKAR 1953, p. 28.
[2] ZIMMERMANN 1996, p. 55. The similarity of the paintings was already pointed out by ZADNIKAR 1953, p. 28; ZADNIKAR 1959, p. 217. The dating to around 1340 was also adopted by POLES 1998, p. 378, and HÖFLER 2004, pp. 13, 226.
[3] POLES 1998, p. 378 (n. 6); HÖFLER 2004, pp. 226, 264; JERAJ 2018, p. 3. In Tone Ravnikar’s texts, the dating remains generally confined to the beginning of the 14th century (RAVNIKAR 2005, s. p.) and the second quarter of the 14th century (RAVNIKAR 2011 b, p. 93; RAVNIKAR 2021, p. 418).
Already in his first published report on the uncovering of the frescoes in 1953, Marijan Zadnikar associated the Šoštanj church mural with Carinthian art.[1] According to Tanja Zimmermann, the mural was the work of a master from Carinthia.[2] Based on the surviving drawing and composition, Janez Höfler defined the mural as the work of a skilled and stylistically up-to-date painting workshop.[3]
________________________________________
[1] ZADNIKAR 1953, p. 28.
[2] ZIMMERMANN 1996, p. 54.
[3] HÖFLER 2004, p. 226.
The first researcher to write about the iconography of the Šoštanj murals was Marijan Zadnikar, first in his field notes and then in his reports to the Varstvo spomenikov journal.[1] He already pointed out the connection with Carinthian painting, especially John the Baptist’s martyrdom scene in the church of St Margaret in Lieding.[2] The motive of the angel carrying away the soul of the deceased wrapped in cloth stands out both in the mural in this Carinthian church and in the scenes of St Hermagoras and Fortunatus’ martyrdom. The imagery is related to the iconography of Abraham’s bosom: a motif in which Abraham holds before him a cloth on which the souls of the dead are painted. This is a reference to the quotation from the Gospel of Luke, presenting the parable of the wicked rich man who ends up in hell and the poor man whom the angels carry into Abraham’s bosom after his death.[3] In Slovenian medieval art, the motif of the angel delivering the soul into Abraham’s bosom has also been preserved in some 15th-century paintings, such as the one in the succursal church of St Ursula in Lanišče near Škofljica.[4] Marijan Zadnikar also stated that technically and iconographically, the mural “resembles St Paul of Carinthia”[5] – a remark that has not been adopted by the authors of the more recent relevant literature. The seated judge was included in both martyrdom scenes from Šoštanj. According to Janez Höfler, he can be recognised by his crossed legs, which, in the medieval context, underline the judicial function of the painted figure.[6]
The niches painted on the southern and northern walls of the chancel once contained the apostles, of whom only modest remains of St Paul, with a sword in his right hand and a book in his left, can nowadays be identified on the southern wall under the first arch from the left. The first eastern niche on the northern wall most probably housed St Peter.[7] In the painted niches, Rok Poles recognised a depiction of the walls of the New Jerusalem,[8] also called the Heavenly Jerusalem. In Christian iconography, this is a motif taken from the New Testament’s Book of Revelation.[9] On the western part of the southern and northern walls, each of the two niches is concluded with a double trefoil arch, under which a single saint was portrayed on each wall.[10] While Tanja Zimmermann assumes that the depictions could be Sts Hermagoras and Fortunatus,[11] Rok Poles, based on his identification of the painted scene, concludes that the Annunciation could have been initially portrayed there.[12] Like in many medieval murals, the scene could have been divided into two parts, with the Archangel Gabriel on the northern wall and the Virgin Mary on the southern wall of the chancel.[13]
________________________________________
[1] For more information about the iconographic identifications of the Šoštanj scenes in Marijan Zadnikar’s writings, see the State of Research and Bibliography section.
[2] ZADNIKAR 1953, p. 28; POLES 1998, p. 378.
[3] Lk 16,22–23; Luc MENAŠE, Abrahamovo naročje, Evropski umetnostnozgodovinski leksikon. Bibliografski, biografski, ikonografski, kronološki, realni, terminološki in topografski priročnik likovne umetnosti Zahoda v 9000 geslih, Ljubljana 1971, p. 8.
[4] For information about the entire mural, see Janez HÖFLER, Srednjeveške freske v Sloveniji. 3: Okolica Ljubljane z Notranjsko, Dolenjsko in Belo krajino, Ljubljana 2001, p. 110.
[5] Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije, INDOK center, M. Zadnikar. Zapiski XXXVII. 9. 8. 1956, available at: https://situla.gov.si/SI_INDOK_ZAP_z002-1211.html (24 August 2022). The location in question is Sankt Paul in the Lavant Valley.
[6] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[7] POLES 1998, p. 379; HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[8] POLES 1998, p. 379.
[9] Raz 21,10–27; Luc MENAŠE, Abrahamovo naročje, Evropski umetnostnozgodovinski leksikon. Bibliografski, biografski, ikonografski, kronološki, realni, terminološki in topografski priročnik likovne umetnosti Zahoda v 9000 geslih, Ljubljana 1971, p. 1456.
[10] HÖFLER 2004, p. 225.
[11] ZIMMERMANN 1996, p. 225.
[12] POLES 1998, p. 382.
[13] POLES 1998, p. 379. On the scheme showing the murals in the chancel of the Šoštanj church, POLES 1998, pp. 382–383, noted “Gabriel makes an announcement to Mary (?)” regarding the motif in the niche on the northern wall and “Annunciation of Mary (?)” about the motif in the niche on the southern wall.
Janez Höfler pointed out the remarkable inclusion of Christ Pantocrator in the design of the mural on the vault, as this motif was especially typical of the older pre-Romanesque and Romanesque murals.[1] In the territory of today’s Slovenia, the Pantocrator was completely replaced by Christ the Judge or the Saviour in the murals painted later than the one in Šoštanj.[2] The older Romanesque models in Šoštanj are also adhered to by the evangelists’ symbols on the vault and the painted architecture where the apostles were once depicted.[3] The painted architectural frame, including the decoration of the triangular heads with the so-called “dog’s jump”, continued to be used in the painting of the Alpine provinces throughout the 14th century.[4]
________________________________________
[1] HÖFLER 2004, p. 226.
[2] HÖFLER 2004, p. 226.
[3] HÖFLER 2004, p. 226.
[4] HÖFLER 2004, p. 226.
It is unknown who commissioned the Šoštanj mural. Tone Ravnikar ruled out the possibility that it could be financed by the local market town inhabitants. In his opinion, although the frescoes were painted in the period when the market town was also established, its inhabitants most probably did not have sufficient financial resources to finance the murals.[1]
________________________________________
[1] RAVNIKAR 2021, p. 418.
Pigments: white lime, yellow earth, red earth, green earth, malachite, azurite (?), carbon black, lead pigment (probably lead white)
Analytical techniques: OM, Raman, XRF
The plaster is made of lime and sand. The aggregate mainly consists of angular and predominantly translucent sand grains, some of which are also yellowish and reddish (Figs. 1–2); crushed sand was most likely used. XRD analyses have not yet been carried out. Giornate are visible between the mural on the vault and the walls. They are quite noticeable on the red bordure that separates the evangelists from the depictions of architecture below. The lower giornate were applied over the upper ones, so the painter first worked on the vault and then the walls.
The mural’s white, yellow, red, green, and black colours have been preserved. The red and the yellow are surprisingly intense: they have obviously persisted so well because they were applied to fresh plaster. They were also made of two pigments that are highly stable and suitable for the al fresco technique: yellow ochre and red earth. Both earth pigments – goethite and haematite (iron) – have been identified using the XRF and Raman techniques. The white colour is white lime (calcium), while the black pigment is carbon black (carbon). For some of the draperies, the painter also used a white colour that is not limewash, as might be assumed from the cross-section of one of the samples (Fig. 1). The green colour has mostly faded, which is usual and characteristic of green earth, but Raman spectroscopy has revealed that malachite was actually used. We cannot confirm the use of azurite, although it was probably used for the background, applied to the light grey underpainting (veneda) in accordance with the northern tradition of underpainting the two copper semi-precious pigments, and on some other elements, such as the book held by the bishop on the eastern wall. A tiny fragment of a blue pigment can be distinguished in the sample taken from the book (Fig. 3), but we were unable to identify it with chemical analyses. The painter’s palette also included some lead pigment, probably lead white, and the XRF analysis has detected the presence of lead in all samples. The use of this pigment is surprising, as its instability and degradation to dark brown or black was well known already in the Middle Ages, so it was not commonly used on murals. It is also possible that this pigment originated from the subsequent retouches from before the end of the 19th century when this toxic pigment was withdrawn from the market. The main binder for the white, yellow, red, and possibly also green colours was lime from the plaster or added as lime milk / lime water, while the lead pigment and the final colour layers had to be added using some organic binder, namely egg yolk, animal glue, or casein.
The underdrawing was applied al fresco, which is the main painting technique used for this mural (Figs. 1–3; the red and black colour layers). The painter combined it with dry painting, especially for the top colour layers, which have fallen off, and probably for the azurite as well (Fig. 3; the blue colour layer). In some places, it is visible even with the naked eye that the thick layers of white have been peeling off together with the subsequent modelling painted in yellow and red. This is white lime used on the garments and some architectural elements rather than an indication of the lime technique (Fig. 1).
As many colour layers have peeled off, the strong red underdrawing, made with firm strokes of a brush about half a centimetre thick, can be clearly seen. All the figures and architectural elements were drawn, and the areas delineated in this manner were subsequently filled with colours. There are no incisions or pouncings. A rope dipped in red paint was used to make the straight horizontal and vertical lines, as in some parts of the mural, we can see how the paint splattered when the rope hit the wall (Fig. 4). The figures have slender bodies in various poses but look clumsy, which is also true of the symbols of the four evangelists. This way of painting suggests that a simpler, probably local master was at work here. Most figures (except Christ on the arch, depicted en face) are portrayed in a three-quarter profile. The shape of the faces is round, while the shape of the eyes, noses, and mouths has not been preserved anywhere. Similarly, the garments lack virtually all of the modelling. The only thing that can be discerned is that broad brushes were used to apply the primary colour layers and some of the remaining folds. The lower layers are thicker, while the upper ones are thinner (Fig. 1). The architecture consists of turrets and trilobed niches under triangular endings, which, in some parts, still retain the white illumination of the inner edges, probably resulting from an attempt to create a three-dimensional effect.
According to some opinions, the Angel of the Annunciation in the upper band on the northern wall might have been painted subsequently. The red colour outlining the figure is slightly brighter than the colour used for the rest. The angel’s face is rounder and more graceful, though the facial features have not been preserved in this case, either. The angel’s figure is slimmer, leaning slightly backwards, while the architectural niche under which it stands is different from the other niches in the lower band of the mural: it is yellow with a crenellated wall modelled in red colour. These distinctive features suggest that the figure might have been painted by another painter (perhaps later). On the other hand, however, the capitals on the columns supporting this yellow architecture are identical to those in the lower band, while the design of the angel’s tunic with its red and yellow strokes on a white base is strongly reminiscent of the book held by God the Father on the vault or of the “swing” with the bishop, held by the angel in the south-western corner. There is also no clear boundary to the hypothetical newer plaster on which the Annunciation would have been painted, and the bordure around the preserved part of the scene is identical to the others. Therefore, this hypothesis calls for further investigation.
Šoštanj, Succursal church of St Hermagoras and Fortunatus, Stage 1 (Šoštanj), 2024 (last updated 18. 2. 2025). Corpus picturarum muralium medii aevi, https://corpuspicturarum.zrc-sazu.si/en/poslikava/phase-1-sostanj/ (11. 9. 2026).
Legal Terms of Use
© 2026 ZRC SAZU UIFS, Corpus picturarum muralium medii aevi
ZRC SAZU
France Stele Institute of Art History
Novi trg 2
1000 Ljubljana
Spodaj seznam podrobno opisuje piškotke, ki se uporabljajo na našem spletnem mestu.
| Cookie | Type | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| _ga | Non-Necessary | 2 years | This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, camapign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assigns a randoly generated number to identify unique visitors. |
| _gat | Non-Necessary | 1 minute | Google uses this cookie to distinguish users. |
| _gid | Non-Necessary | 1 day | This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | Necessary | 1 year | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-non-necessary | Necessary | 1 year | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Non Necessary". |
| CookieLawInfoConsent | Necessary | 1 year | The cookie is used to store the summary of the consent given for cookie usage. It does not store any personal data. |
| PHPSESSID | session | Time of session | Cookie stores information about the user's session and allow users to keep their entries during the time of visiting the website. |
| pll_language | Necessary | 1 year | This cookie is used to remember any selection a user has made about language. |
| show_preloader_once | Necessary | Session | With this cookie we remember the user's first visit. |
| viewed_cookie_policy | Necessary | 1 year | The cookie is used to store whether or not you have consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
