Talk:Stańczyk (painting)

Significance of Smolensk
Great article, but it would help if it explained why the fall of Smolensk is so troubling to the man. I gather from the article that they won a battle and are celebrating it, yet only the jester "sees the significance" of the fall of Smolensk. What is this "significance"? Is he sad just because it was a grand city and it fell, and no-one is mourning for it, or is there some greater impact he foresees, like this loss ultimately means that Poland will loose the war, and only the jester is wise enough to know this. This might be be obvious to a student of Polish history, but to me, it's just mystifying. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, especially in light of the fact that Stanczyk was Polish, and Smolensk was a Lithuanian city. The sentence "On the table lies a letter likely announcing that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has lost Smolensk (now in Russia) to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, causing Stańczyk's sorrow and reflection on his fatherland's fate" are puzzle.
 * Maybe they mean that Stanczyk knows that Poland relied on its alliance with Lithuania to defend them both from Russia. The Wikipedia page on Queen Bono says she was Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania, so I guess they were both her countries... but it's still very unclear what Stanczyk's view is. Philgoetz (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Philgoetz (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

"three stars of Orion's Belt seen above and to the left of the cathedral spire"?
Looking at the window portion of the painting close up, there isn't any three-star grouping visible there that even remotely resembles Orion's belt.

And I also can't seem to find any outside source for this claim. Which makes it look like "personal research" (and incorrect at that).

If this can't be verified, it should be removed. 2601:187:8080:83FB:80F:8B2B:1F8D:48AB (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you mean Original Research, but yes, there doesn't seem to be any source supporting that assertion. As a stopgap measure I've added a "citation needed" tag. Bus stop (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Glaring contradiction about the painting's reception
The article says, "Completed in 1862, when Matejko was twenty four years old, it is one of his most famous works and the one that launched him to fame. ... Upon its creation, the painting did not gather much attention... Upon Matejko's rise to fame, the painting was rediscovered and applauded as a masterpiece." If the painting was noticed only later, "upon Matejko's rise to fame", then it can in no way be said to be "the one that launched him to fame". Philgoetz (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)