Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Historians of art and of German culture alike traditionally have interpreted the Reformation period as one of crisis and ultimate decline in the area of the visual arts. This view, while perhaps correct in broad outline, should be accepted only with certain qualifications. The German Reformers, and Luther in particular, were not as hostile to aesthetic expression as has sometimes been alleged. In Lutheran Nuernberg there occurred very little iconoclasm; in fact, Medieval and Renaissance art works were more fully preserved there than in many Catholic areas where they were later replaced by Baroque creations. It is true that, following the Reformation, few new commissions were given for works of ecclesiastical art. It is also no doubt true that the economic position of the artist was thereby gravely endangered, as examples cited later in this study will indicate. The evidence suggests, however, that the picture was not uniformly bleak.
1. See Dehio, Georg, “Die Krisis der deutschen Kunst im sechzehnten Jahrhundert,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, XII (1914), 1–16Google Scholar; Gombrich, E. H., The Story of Art (New York, 1953), p. 274Google Scholar and passim; Valentin, Veit, The German People (New York, 1946), p. 174.Google Scholar
2. See Campenhausen, Hans Frhr. v., “Die Bilderfrage in der Reformation,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXVIII (1957), 96–128Google Scholar and “Zwingli und Luther zur Bilderfrage,” Das Gottesbild im Abendland (Witten and Berlin, 1959), pp. 139–172Google Scholar; Lehfeldt, Paul, Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern (Berlin, 1892).Google Scholar
3. See, for example, the intemperate remarks of the noted British historian Taylor, A. J. P.: “He hated art, culture, intellect. … Luther set himself up against Michael Angelo and Raphael.” The Course of German History (London, 1945), p. 19.Google Scholar
4. As a general German Lutheran phenomenon this was pointed out by Dehio, p. 9. For Nuernberg, see Christensen, Carl C., “The Nuernberg City Council as a Patron of the Fine Arts, 1500–1550” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, The Ohio State Univelsity, 1965), pp. 178–191.Google Scholar
5. Christensen, , passim.Google Scholar The literature on municipal art patronage during the late Middle Ages and Renaissance is relatively meager. The following works contain useful information: Wieruszowski, Helene, “Art and the Commune in the Time of Dante,” Speculum, XIX (1944), 14–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Cities, Courts and Artists: Conference Report,” Past & Present, No. 19 (04, 1961), 19–25Google Scholar; Flanders in the Fifteenth Century: Art and Civilization (Catalogue of the Exhibition Masterpieces of Flemish Art: Van Eyck to Bosch. The Detroit Institute of Arts, 1960), esp. pp. 175ff.; Lederle, Ursula, Gerechtigkeitsdarstellungen in deutschen und niederländisohen Bathäusern (Philippsburg, 1937)Google Scholar. Despite the title, I did not find very useful the book by Brockhaus, Heinrich, Deutsche städtische Kunst und ihr Sinn (Leipzig, 1916).Google Scholar
6. Grimm, Harold J., “The Relations of Luther and Melanchthon with the Townsmen,” Luther and Melanchthon: In the History and Theology of the Reformation, ed. Vajta, Vilmos (Philadelphia, 1961), p. 37Google Scholar; Strauss, Gerald, Nuremberg in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1966), pp. 18, 27.Google Scholar
7. The original Gothic structure dates from 1332–1340.
8. “Sigmund Meisterlin's Chronik der Reichsstadt Nürnberg 1488,” Die Chroniken der deutschen Stãdte. Nürnberg. III (Leipzig, 1864), 154–155.Google Scholar
9. According to provisions of the Golden Bull of 1356 each newly-elected Emperor was to hold his first Reichstag in Nuernberg. Charles V, elected in 1519, chose to hold the assembly at Worms instead, due to an outbreak of the plague at Nuernberg.
10. Mummenhoff, Ernst, Das Rathaus in Nürnberg (Nuernberg, 1891), p. 90.Google Scholar
11. Hampe, Theodor (ed.), Nürnberger Ratsverlässe über Kunst und Künstler im Zeitaiter der Spätgotik und Renaissance (Vienna, 1904), No. 1319.Google Scholar
12. Printed in Mummenhoff, p. 322.
13. Staatsarchiv, Nuernberg. Stadtrechnungen No. 182, fol. 100b.
14. See Förster, Richard, “Die Verleumdung des Appelles in der Renaissance,” Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, VIII (1887), 29–56, 89–113; XV (1894), 27–40.Google Scholar
15. Panofsky, Erwin, Albrecht Dürer (3rd ed. rev.; Princeton, 1948), I, 175ffGoogle Scholar. From the point of view of subject matter, these murals provide an interesting contrast with the work being done by Holbein for the Basel officials at about this same time. The murals of the Basel City Hall contain much Biblical content and even some themes that have been interpreted as having explicit reference to the struggles of the Reformation period. See Schmid, Heinrich A., Hans Holbein der Jüngere (Basel, 1945–1948), I, 163ff. and II, 334ff.Google Scholar
16. Mununenhoff, Ernst, “Dürers Anteil an den Gemälden des grossen Rathaussaals and der Ratsstube,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, XVI (1904), 244–253Google Scholar; Lederle, pp. 15–17.
17. Kurzwelly, Albrecht, Forschungen Zu Georg Pencz (Leipzig, 1895)Google Scholar; see also the above-cited article by Mummenhoff.
18. Concerning the formation of a city art collection during this same period, see Schwemmer, Wilhelm, “Aus der Geschichte der Kunstsammlungen der Stadt Nürnberg,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, XL (1949), 97–206.Google Scholar
19. Staatsarchiv, Nuernberg. Stadtrechnungsbelege, No. 61; also printed in Gümbel, Albert, Neue archivalische Beiträge zur Nürnberger Kunstgeschichte (Nuernberg, 1919), p. 26.Google Scholar
20. Stadtrechnungsbelege, No. 124.
21. Bergau, Rudolf, “Der Merkelsche Tafelaufsatz,” Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, XIII (1878), 246.Google Scholar
22. Viewed in the simplest terms, the table setting may be considered a flower or fruit bowl mounted upon a high pedestal, tall enough to place the main mass of the work above the eye level of those seated at the table. It consists essentially of a base portion, simulating a rocky and vegetation-covered mound, upon which there stands a rather voluptuous feminine figure who in turn bears on her head the large basin or bowl. Capping the entire structure is a decorative vase filled with grasses and flowers.
23. Braun, Edmund, ” Nürnberger Gestalten aus neun Jahrhunderten (Nuernberg, 1950), p. 104Google Scholar; Bergau, p. 246.
24. See the interesting study by Kircher, Albrecht, Deutsche Kaiser in Nürnberg (Nuernberg, 1955).Google Scholar
25. Staatsarchiv, Nuernberg. Krönungsakten No. 1, fol. 135b.
26. For photographs, see the work by Kircher. There is also an interesting descriptive poem by Sachs, Hans, in von Keller, Adelbert (ed.), Hans Sachs, II (Stuttgart, 1870), 381–394.Google Scholar
27. Staatsarchiv, Nuernberg. Losungsamt, Akten No. 19, fol. 52b.
28. For the suggestion of this term I am indebted to Professor Franklin M. Ludden, School of Art, The Ohio State University.
29. Lieb, Norbert, Die Fugger und die Kunst im Zeitalter der Spätgotik und frühen Renaissance (Munich, 1952), pp. 135–136.Google Scholar
30. The contract is printed in Mummenhoff, , Das Rathaus …, pp. 251–252.Google Scholar
31. Hampe, Nos. 1752, 1762.
32. The relevant document is printed in Gümbel, p. 36.
33. See the document printed in Mummenhoff, , Das Rathaus …, pp. 252–253.Google Scholar
34. Stadtrechnungen No. 183, fol. 130a; Gümbel, pp. 41–45.
35. This problem is made immeasurably more complicated by the fact that only a small portion of the work remains in existence. The remainder was sold for scrap in the early part of the nineteenth century, by order of the Bavarian government, in order to help pay the city's debts. Four relief panels found their way into a private collection in France. Of the remaining we have only sketches and drawings. Lieb, p. 139.
36. The work is composed essentially of eight capital-topped columns supporting an architrave, frieze, and cornice; the whole unit broken by three doorways. For photographs, see Meller, Simon, Peter Vischer der Altere und seine Werkstatt (Leipzig, 1925)Google Scholar, and Stafski, Heinz, Der jüngere Peter Vischer (Nuernberg, 1962).Google Scholar
37. While the overall design stemmed from Hermann Vischer, the original decorative motifs apparently were the work of his brother Peter. Stafski, , pp. 47–48.Google Scholar
38. For the financial difficulties of the Vischers, see Stafski, , pp. 48ffGoogle Scholar.
39. Printed in Rupprich, Hans (ed.), Dürer, Schriftlicher Nachlass (Berlin, 1956), I, 117.Google Scholar
40. Staatsarchiv, Nuernberg. Ratsbuch No. 13, fol. 158a; Hampe, Nos. 1527, 1529.
41. Stadtrechnungen No. 182, fol. 203a.
42. Dürer's gesture has been construed as the first example north of the Alps of an artist dedicating his epitaph to the secular authorities rather than the Church. Imbued with the ideals of the humanists, the great master sought to insure the immortality of his name by arranging that one of his greatest works hang in a place of honor in the City Hall. See Grote, Ludwig, “Vom Handwerker zum Künstler. Das gesellschaftliche Ansehen Albrecht Dürers,” Erlanger Forschungen, Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften, XVI (1964), 41.Google Scholar
43. Winkler, Friedrich, Albrecht Dürer: Leben und Werk (Berlin, 1957), pp. 332ffGoogle Scholar; Panofsky, I, 233.
44. Rupprich, Hans, Dürers Stellung zu den agnoëtischen und kunstfeindlichen Strömungen seiner Zeit (Munich, 1959), p. 18.Google Scholar
45. Pfeiffer, Gerhard, “Die Vorbilder zu Albrecht Dürers ‘Vier Aposteln.’ Melanchthon und sein Nürnberger Freundeskreis,” Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Melanchthon-Gymnasiums 1959/1960 (Nuernberg, 1960).Google Scholar
46. Panofsky, I, 225ff. But for arguments and evidence damaging to Panofsky's case, see Martin, Kurt, Albrecht Dürer: Die Vier Apostel (Stuttgart, 1963), pp. 18–27.Google Scholar
47. “Lady Margaret in particular gave me nothing for what I made and presented to her.” Conway, William Martin (ed. and trans.), The Writings of Albrecht Dürer (New York, 1958), p. 123.Google Scholar
48. Stadtrechnungen No. 183, fol. 338a.
49. Grote, p. 42.
50. Ratsbuch No. 15, fol. 58a.
51. Ibid., fol. 105a; Hampe, No. 1768.
52. Ratsbuch No. 16, fol. 77a.
53. Stadtrechnungen No. 183, fol. 41b.
54. Hampe, No. 2225, 2237.
55. Stadtrechnungen No. 193, fol. 41b.
56. Hampe, No. 2588.
57. Ibid., No. 2626.
58. Ibid., Nos. 2722, 2723.
59. Ibid., Nos. 2768, 2769.
60. Spitz, Lewis W., Conrad Celtis: The German Arch-Humanist (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957), pp. 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldmann, Karlheinz, Geschichte der Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg (Nuernberg, 1957), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
61. Ratsbuch No. 15, fol. 43b.
62. Reference has been made to the fact that the presence of good friends within the council would have assured him of a good chance of payment. Pfeiffer, pp. 28–29.
63. Direct commissions include the famed double portraits of the Emperors Sigismund and Charlemagne; the City Hall mural designs; and the sketch for a portrait medallion of Charles V. Works purchased from Dürer include, aside from the “Four Apostles,” a painting given Vladislav, King of Bohemia and Hungary. (See Rupprich, , Schriftlicher Nachlass…, I, 245–246Google Scholar.) In several instances his advice upon artistic matters was asked by the council.
64. Hampe, No. 1544.
65. Frankenburger, Max (ed.), Beiträge zur Geschichte Wenzel Jamnitzers und seiner Familie (Strassburg, 1901), No. 10.Google Scholar
66. Hampe, Nos. 1872, 2979.
67. The employment contract with the council which Penz signed is printed in Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, VIII (1889), 246Google Scholar. See also Hampe, No. 1925.
68. The practice of granting court artists a moderate annual stipend plus payment for individual works completed was common among princely patrons of the time. See Redlich, Paul, Cardinal Albrecht von Brandenburg und das neue Stift zu Halle 1520–1541 (Mainz, 1900), p. 192Google Scholar; and Bruck, Robert, Friedrich der Weise als Förderer der Kunst (Strassburg, 1903), p. 179.Google Scholar
69. Hampe, No. 2398.
70. Barock, in Nürnberg, Anzeiger des Germanischen National-Museums 1962 (Nuernberg, 1962), p. 33.Google Scholar
71. This is openly acknowledged by the Nuernberg city authorities at the end of the century when they give preference to foreign artists over native craftsmen, in a new set of guild regulations.
72. Among these there must be mentioned the decline of the Greman cities. For Nuernberg, see Strauss, p. 282.
