the tomb of elector frederick the wise, and the rathaus railing

but the work of peter vischer the younger was not yet done. it remained, indeed, for him to perform some of his greatest achievements. certain documents quoted by baader[9] show that it was he who, in the beginning of the year 1527, completed the monument to the elector frederick the wise at wittenberg, of which lübke writes that it is “a classic work and through it the german art of that period is worthy to take rank with the italian.” the life-size figure of the great elector stands in strong relief upon a bronze plate within a frame of corinthian pillars, outside which, on either side, the sixteen coats of arms of the ancestors of the prince’s house are recorded, whilst his own arms form the central point of the arch above his head. above the latter coat-of-arms two sturdy angels, forming a central headpiece, hold a laurel wreath, and therewith the elector’s favourite text inscribed in latin: “the word of 102the lord endureth for ever.” the base on which the feet rest is richly decorated with forms of sea monsters and sporting children in the craftsman’s most joyous and luxuriant manner. frederick himself is draped boldly in the broad sweep of the electoral cloak, and in a cape of rich ermine. of ermine, too, is the elector’s hat, which rests upon a noble brow. but even beneath those heavy robes the vigour and spring of the man’s energetic form make themselves felt, nor can the gloved hands disguise the strength of his grasp upon the sword of the realm, which he holds aslant his shoulder. and the face is full of life and fire, quick with the keen gaze of a leader of men, and eloquently expressive of determination and strenuous endeavour. this is, without doubt, a noble portrait of princely faith and manly strength. “one can imagine,” says lübke, “no more beautiful picture of strength, nobility and immovable christian trust in god.” what then must have been the feelings of the craftsman when the guild of coppersmiths refused to recognize it as a “masterpiece,” as they had already refused to accept his tomb-plate of elector albrecht von mainz!

9. “beitr?ge zur kunstgeschichte nürnbergs.”

stein photo.] [schlosskirche, wittenberg

23. elector frederick the wise

assuredly it was not the meistersingers of nuremberg alone who failed to appreciate a real masterpiece when they saw one. for it is on record that this noble effigy was rejected by the incorporated guild of masters of rotschmiedhandwerk, when it was submitted to them by 104peter vischer the younger as the piece of work by which, for the second time, he claimed the rank of master among them. we do not know on what pettifogging grounds, whether of inaccuracy of detail or of personal spite, admission was refused him. (ill. 23.)

but it is clear that a considerable scandal was created by their refusal. for it is further on record that the council, moved perhaps by the influence of his father and his friends, took the step of interfering on behalf of the artist’s reputation. an appeal had been made from the decision of the guild, and the “members of the council,” we learn from baader, “to whom it was shown gave it their approval, and on may 22 (1527?) they commanded the masters of the guild of coppersmiths to accept this monument as a masterpiece, and to recognize the author of it as a master.” this, they explained out of deference to the feelings of the masters, was to be an exceptional case, and was not to be held to the prejudice of the guild and its rules. the sworn masters, however, protested against such a proceeding, and they did not obey the order of the council. the matter rested there for some time, but a few years after the death of the artist, in the interests, perhaps, of his posthumous renown, the council repeated their command (may 22, 1532), and added a rider to the effect that peter vischer was qualified as a master by the monument he had made even if he had not always 105executed his masterpieces in strict accordance with the prescribed rules. as to the artist himself, he was apparently disgusted by this second failure, and he gave up trying to become a master in this guild on the merits of his work. for we read that “peter vischer’s son of the same name was received as master of the guild of thimble-makers in the year 1527. this guild and that of the coppersmiths were at that period still united, though later they separated.”

but whether the monument won the young peter vischer the mastership or not, it is undoubtedly a masterpiece of german renaissance. it is by document and signature his as it is his in design and execution. there are, indeed, still a few traces of the earlier influences of his house visible. the background, for instance, is decorated in the gothic style, and the fantastic figures in the two corners formed by the arch remind us of those on the tomb-plate of the duchess helene von mecklenburg, for whose father. elector philip of the palatinate, his father had worked in heidelberg thirty-three years before. but in spite of the beauty of the rich details of the elaborate architecture, arms and pilasters, that form the setting of this work, it is the central commanding figure of the whole which rightly rivets our attention. in this strong and thoughtful man of action and man of mind, who is a christian and a fighter, a warrior, but none the less a theologian, whose watchword recorded on the monument was (in 106spite of all the popes and princes of europe), “the word of the lord endureth for ever,” peter vischer has proclaimed, so it has been suggested, the ideal kaiser for whom germany was looking in vain, the perfect emperor of the reformation movement. the power of portraiture which his practice as a maker of medallions had developed, has enabled him to lend to the bronze a wonderful force of expression, so that he may even challenge a comparison with dürer, who, thirty years previously, had portrayed the protector of luther.

the design of this monument was borrowed by hans vischer, who copied it in 1534 to serve as a memorial of prince john the stable, producing, however, but a feeble version of the original.

it may be supposed that the relations between peter vischer the younger and the guild of coppersmiths were somewhat strained by their treatment of him. for this reason, perhaps, and also for the reason that the new italian fashion of tombstones, had, by this time, injuriously affected the demand for bronze work, he seems to have thought seriously of leaving nuremberg in the year following the completion of the wittenberg monument. the quarrel with the house of fugger, which we shall presently relate, may likewise have conduced to make him entertain the proposal which came to him now from the agent of duke albrecht of prussia, or it may be that he approached the agent on his own initiative. that prince was, for reasons of his own with which 107we have no concern, anxious to secure the services of a cannon-founder. it was suggested that the young peter vischer should go to prussia to act in this capacity. but he was not destined to do so. the duke’s agent reports unfavourably. “he is too delicate a craftsman,” he says, “and has no experience in casting large pieces.” it would have made little difference, in fact, if he had gone, for he died in this same year—the year in which nuremberg lost also her prince of draughtsmen—albert dürer.

the documents which refer to this matter of the duke albrecht are to be found in the state archives at k?nigsberg, and were first quoted by d?bner,[10] who writes as follows:

“duke albrecht of prussia had corresponded in january, 1528, with a citizen of nuremberg named bastian startz, who was to procure a cannon-founder for him from that city.” startz wrote to him from there on may 30, 1528, in very illiterate german, to the effect that “jorg clingenbeck has had dealings with one who professes to be a puxsengeisser. clingenbeck and i could not subsequently discover that he had ever in his life cast any large pieces, but only monuments and statuettes, and on that account your highness is hereby advised that he is too delicate a craftsman. and this puxsenmeister is called by the name of petter vischer.”

10. “peter-vischer-studien.” a. w. d?bner.

108as early as march 8, in the same year, “pawl viescher, son of peter vischer, the copper worker at nuremberg,” had received the following letter from k?nigsberg:

“we have received your letter in which you say that we have it in mind to have several cannons cast, and that we shall require a master for that purpose, and further that you are inclined to visit this country and to see what is to be seen, and also that for the time being work with your father is slack, and so forth. these and other matters in your letter have been communicated to us. and on these points we give you to understand that we do have it in view to cast several cannon, and, seeing that we have heard favourable mention made of your father’s work, we think it likely that you have learnt much from this same father of yours, and we are therefore disposed to allow you to come here, and we will then inspect your work and speak with you and have you bargained with. this is the answer which we are graciously pleased to make to your letter, and we consent to express to you our gracious favour. given at k?nigsberg. (konigsperkuts.)”

stein photo.] [formerley at nürnberg

24. the rathaus railing

whether paul did avail himself of this princely permission to go to prussia and be bargained with we do not know. if he did, he did not stay there more than a year. for he was back in nuremberg in september, 1529, and in the following august he had sold the foundry which he had inherited to his brother hans, and was already 110settled at mainz. there he acquired the rights of a citizen, and died in december, 1531.

meantime the vischers, father and sons, were busy, and had at intervals long been busy, with the last supreme work of their foundry, the rathaus railing. the story of the chequered career of this beautiful work takes us back some years in the history of the house. at the same time as maximilian commissioned peter vischer to execute two bronze figures for his tomb, the great family of fugger ordered a railing to be made to shut off their family chapel, in st. anne’s church at augsburg. the design for this railing was completed by the old peter vischer. it was submitted to and received the approval of the patron. this was during the absence of hermann vischer in his journey to rome in 1514-15. but when he returned full of new ideas and laden with sketches of the beautiful things he had seen, his enthusiasm for the new style of the antique quickly imparted itself to his father and brothers. always eager to learn and ready to appreciate the best, father and brothers alike studied the sketches of hermann, and thus, after his early death, his influence asserted itself more strongly than ever before. the result was that the design for the railing no longer satisfied its author. it was overhauled, and soon revised and improved in many details suggested by the new-found inspiration of the later renaissance. (ill. 24 and 25.)

the alterations thus introduced by the vischer 111family can only have been improvements; improvements introduced by these craftsmen because anything below their best was intolerable to their artistic conscience. but it does not pay to be an artist when you work on commission. so dürer also had found. and the vischers in their turn suffered from their enthusiasm. the fuggers, who had given the commission and had expressed their approval of the original design, died. their heirs, noticing a difference between the approved sketch and the finished product, suspected a fraud, or, perhaps, seized the opportunity of avoiding the expense of this piece of ancestral extravagance. they therefore brought an action for breach of contract against the house of vischer. after several weary years of litigation—for the law’s delays stretched from 1522 to 1529—a decision was given. the fuggers were released from the responsibility of their ancestors’ commission, and the railing was thrown upon the hands of the heirs of peter vischer. for the verdict was not awarded till eight months after the old man’s death, which occurred on the 7th of january, 1529, when he was buried in the same grave as his two sons and three wives who had died before him. his heirs, then, the sons who survived him, were left to dispose of the railing as best they could, but they were not called upon to restore the money which had already been paid on account, and which amounted to some fourteen hundred odd gulden. they turned therefore to the nuremberg council 112and offered the railing to them to adorn the rathaus. on july 15, 1530, the council bought it as it was, paying six gulden per hundredweight for it.

the railing, still incomplete, was allowed to lie neglected in the cellars of the rathaus for some years. but at last it was finished and erected. for when the council heard on good authority that count otto heinrich of the palatinate was anxious to secure it in order to adorn his castle at neuburg therewith, they were afraid lest if they did not put it to some immediate use they might be forced into the position of having no excuse for not making a present of it to that powerful nobleman. they therefore hastily commissioned hans vischer, “the bronze-founder,” to complete the work—for a quarter of it still remained uncast—and to set it up in the rathaus. this, accordingly, he did, and erected it on the 19th of april, 1540, twenty-seven years after the fugger family had first ordered it for their chapel. it was used for the purpose of dividing the western portion of the great hall, where the court of justice held its sessions, from the rest of the room. the total cost of the work amounted to 2,796 gulden. but so admirable did the council find it that they actually made a present of one hundred and fifty gulden to the craftsman in addition to the price named, as a token of their pleasure and satisfaction.

stein photo.] [formerly at nürnberg

25. the rathaus railing

unfortunately, the history of the misadventures 114of this railing is not yet finished. it was removed in 1806 by the bavarian government, and, just for the mere value of the metal contained in it, sold to a merchant in fürth. from him it passed again into the possession of a nuremberger, and some years later found its way to the south of france. there all trace of this beautiful work of art has disappeared, and one is forced to the reluctant conclusion that it was melted down by the purchaser for the sake of the bronze of which it was composed. our knowledge of it at the present day is owing to a careful set of drawings which were made of it in 1806, and which have been reproduced excellently and in full detail by dr. lübke in the work to which we have so often referred.

the railing was of bronze throughout, wrought with equal care and finish on both sides, and composed of one hundred and fifty-eight separate pieces. in length it measured nearly forty feet, and stood sixteen feet high, rising at the highest point to twenty-five feet. the drawings which have come down to us show that the fertility of the artist’s invention did not interfere with his harmonious conception of the whole. for though there is a truly wonderful wealth of decorative detail, all in the style of the full renaissance, it is admirably arranged and subdued to its proper proportion.

eight corinthian pillars, with richly ornamented capitals, carried (i base this description on lübke’s 115work) a superstructure which terminated throughout in an entablature, frieze and dog-tooth cornice. of the seven bays comprehended by these columns, three, alternating with the grilles, formed the means of access to the other parts of the hall.

the principal entrance, in the centre, was ten feet high and was finished with a semi-circular arch formed by a moulded architrave. the spandrels of this arch were decorated with figures in relief, and these figures were supported on caps which surmounted decorative panels forming columns without bases. the two smaller and lower gates on either side had square heads with crowning pediments. all three entrances were still more distinctly set off in the composition of the whole, the centre one by means of a rectangular superstructure in the form of an ?dicule with a crowning pediment, the two side ones by a segmental pediment directly over the cornice, the upper members of which were the details of the pediment. the erection over the central gate, one may remark, is a blot in the composition: there is nothing to carry the eye up to this abrupt, unsupported rectangle, and it does not harmonize with the beautiful segmental pediments over the other two entrances.

such was the simple framework, which, says lübke, thanks to the perfection of its arrangement and the beauty of its proportions, proved so admirably effective. but the master contributed also to the decoration of every part of it 116all the wealth of his luxuriant imagination. and he made use of the patterns of the full renaissance, such as were to be met with in italy about the beginning of the sixteenth century, in the works of andrea sansovino.

the columns, with their varied capitals in the corinthian manner, exhibited a beautiful diversity of invention. every surface, too, was most richly decorated; every member daintily wrought; the pilasters, shafts of the columns, pedestals, borders and doorways, were embellished with exquisitely drawn foliage-work mingled with masks and fantastic beasts in ever fresh variations. especial mention must be made of the magnificent frieze of acanthus with figures of savage men interlaced in different moments of combat. other friezes showed garlands, wreaths, and festoons of fruit hanging from the horns of oxen, and, between them, winged angels’ heads and cornucopias overflowing with fruit and flowers.

the great bays or compartments arranged between the entrances were filled with open metal-work, the bars whereof at the points of intersection were embellished with ornaments of manifold devices. a marvellous wealth of figures in relief was to be found in every quarter—over the arch of the doorway; on the spandrels of the side gates as well as on both the crowning segmental pediments and the rectangular centre-piece. even the angles of the cornice were adorned with fantastic beings in whose manifold forms the humour 117of the master, known to us already from our study of the sebaldusgrab, was revealed in full play. everywhere, and on either side of the railing, the same wealth of fancy and freshness of invention is displayed in these ever varying, never repeated forms.

in the spandrels of the arch of the central door were, on the outside, struggling heroes, on the inside, figures of victory. on the two pediments of the side gates were the four cardinal virtues, surrounded by beasts and creations of the fancy. the curved pediments above them exhibited the battles of fantastic creatures of the sea, tritons and nereids, and between them, within and without, the arms of nuremberg. the great frieze showed us sporting children making music, and heroic scenes of the battle of the centaurs distinguished by a bold handling of movement and a masterly freedom of form. finally, in the pediment of the centre-piece, crowning the whole, the saviour was portrayed in the act of benediction, holding the globe of the earth and surrounded by angel children.

the whole of this work, so far as we can judge from the drawings, adds lübke, is full of the highest beauty and life, and of such richness in design and execution, that one is forced to reckon this noble creation as the third great masterpiece of vischer, after the monument at magdeburg and the tomb of st. sebald at nuremberg. in the general design, as well as in the details of the 118ornament, the complete triumph of the worship of the antique is evident. only the figures of the saviour and of the cardinal virtues are borrowed from the ideas of christian art. the rest is sheer paganism.

“without question vischer’s rathaus railing takes the first place among the masterpieces of the distinct and complete renaissance in germany.”