DOI Artikel:
Kozieł, Andrzej: Michael Wilmann - i. e. David Heidenreich: the "Rudolphian" drawings by Michael Willmann
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18946#0069
account that the young artist “gained quite a lot from studying the Emperor’s
collection of paintings”4 attributed this Mannerist character to Willmann’s
stay in Prague5 amidst his travels around Poland and Germany. Thus the
late-Mannerist style of some of Willmann’s works became regarded as
characteristic of the artist’s early style (also in the realm of painting) which
was inspired by the famous collection of the Kunstkammer of Rudolph II.6
Willmann’s authorship of this “rudolphian” group of drawings was first
questioned only by Heinrich Geissler who recognised that the decidedly
Mannerist style of the works was not reconcilable with the typical baroque
character of the rest of Willmann’s drawings.7 It also seemed highly improbable
that Willmann, who was developing a study of 17th century Dutch paintings
in his early pictures simultaneously produced drawings in, the by then already
“archaic”, Mannerist style.8 These well-founded comments started a series of
attempts to ascribe individual works from the “rudolphian” group to artists
from the generation previous to Willmann’s who were connected in some way
with the Wroclaw or directly Prague art scenes. Geissler himself saw this
collection as “ein interessantes Reservoir ostdeutscher (?) Zeichnung des
Zeitraums 1610/30”, pointed to the Wroclaw painter, David Heidenreich as
one of the possible authors of the works. Other art historians who generally
supported Geissler’s hypothesis about Heidenreich9 with their own arguments
simultaneously suggested other candidates like an anonymous artist from the
circle of Bartholomaeus Spranger10, Jacob Walther11, Mathias Gundelach12 13,
and Andreas Riehl the Younger.1’ These varying suggestions only served to
confirm the hypothesis that WillmannYMannerist drawings were in fact done
by several different artists, each representing a different artistic circle.
Further studies of the late-Mannerist drawings bearing the same derivative
signature, however, lead to an opposing view: Willmann’s so-called “rudolphian”
drawings are in fact the works of one artist, most likely David Heidenreich,
which at one time are to have constituted a substantial part of his sketchbook.
Both the formal characteristics of the works in this collection as well as the
4 J. de Sandrart, Academia nobilissimae Artis Pictoriae [...], Noribergae 1683, Part II, Book III,
p. 393n.
5 Berlin 1966, no. 214 (H. Möhle) and 215 (H. Möhle). Pertains to works cat. nos. 5 and 11.
6 B. Steinborn 1970, p. 201, footnote 18. In reality, Willmann could not have seen the said
collection of Rudolph II because it left Prague before 1648; cf. J. Neumann, “Expresivni tendence
v ceské barokni malbë.”, 1, Gale'ria, III, 1975, p. 157.
Geissler 1979/1980, p. 169, no. O 27. Already E. Kloss raised doubts the authorship of
Willmann of several “rudolphian” works (cat. nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 17), claiming, however, that the
said works were completed in the artist’s studio (specific reference was made to J. Eybelweiser);
cf. Kloss 1934, pp. 187-188.
s Sumowski 1992, p. 5413.
9 Manuth 1994, pp. 145-146; Kozak 1995, pp. 37-39 (pertains to works cat. nos. 15 and 17);
Oszczanowski/Gromadzki 1995, pp. 10, 86, 114 (pertains to works cat. nos. 12 and 19v.).
10 Sumowski 1992, p. 5413; pertains to works cat. nos. 5 and 19.
11 Manuth 1994, p. 146.
12 Kozak 1995, p. 37; pertains to work cat. no. 16.
13 Oszczanowski/Gromadzki 1995, p. 70; pertains to work cat. no. 6.
67
collection of paintings”4 attributed this Mannerist character to Willmann’s
stay in Prague5 amidst his travels around Poland and Germany. Thus the
late-Mannerist style of some of Willmann’s works became regarded as
characteristic of the artist’s early style (also in the realm of painting) which
was inspired by the famous collection of the Kunstkammer of Rudolph II.6
Willmann’s authorship of this “rudolphian” group of drawings was first
questioned only by Heinrich Geissler who recognised that the decidedly
Mannerist style of the works was not reconcilable with the typical baroque
character of the rest of Willmann’s drawings.7 It also seemed highly improbable
that Willmann, who was developing a study of 17th century Dutch paintings
in his early pictures simultaneously produced drawings in, the by then already
“archaic”, Mannerist style.8 These well-founded comments started a series of
attempts to ascribe individual works from the “rudolphian” group to artists
from the generation previous to Willmann’s who were connected in some way
with the Wroclaw or directly Prague art scenes. Geissler himself saw this
collection as “ein interessantes Reservoir ostdeutscher (?) Zeichnung des
Zeitraums 1610/30”, pointed to the Wroclaw painter, David Heidenreich as
one of the possible authors of the works. Other art historians who generally
supported Geissler’s hypothesis about Heidenreich9 with their own arguments
simultaneously suggested other candidates like an anonymous artist from the
circle of Bartholomaeus Spranger10, Jacob Walther11, Mathias Gundelach12 13,
and Andreas Riehl the Younger.1’ These varying suggestions only served to
confirm the hypothesis that WillmannYMannerist drawings were in fact done
by several different artists, each representing a different artistic circle.
Further studies of the late-Mannerist drawings bearing the same derivative
signature, however, lead to an opposing view: Willmann’s so-called “rudolphian”
drawings are in fact the works of one artist, most likely David Heidenreich,
which at one time are to have constituted a substantial part of his sketchbook.
Both the formal characteristics of the works in this collection as well as the
4 J. de Sandrart, Academia nobilissimae Artis Pictoriae [...], Noribergae 1683, Part II, Book III,
p. 393n.
5 Berlin 1966, no. 214 (H. Möhle) and 215 (H. Möhle). Pertains to works cat. nos. 5 and 11.
6 B. Steinborn 1970, p. 201, footnote 18. In reality, Willmann could not have seen the said
collection of Rudolph II because it left Prague before 1648; cf. J. Neumann, “Expresivni tendence
v ceské barokni malbë.”, 1, Gale'ria, III, 1975, p. 157.
Geissler 1979/1980, p. 169, no. O 27. Already E. Kloss raised doubts the authorship of
Willmann of several “rudolphian” works (cat. nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 17), claiming, however, that the
said works were completed in the artist’s studio (specific reference was made to J. Eybelweiser);
cf. Kloss 1934, pp. 187-188.
s Sumowski 1992, p. 5413.
9 Manuth 1994, pp. 145-146; Kozak 1995, pp. 37-39 (pertains to works cat. nos. 15 and 17);
Oszczanowski/Gromadzki 1995, pp. 10, 86, 114 (pertains to works cat. nos. 12 and 19v.).
10 Sumowski 1992, p. 5413; pertains to works cat. nos. 5 and 19.
11 Manuth 1994, p. 146.
12 Kozak 1995, p. 37; pertains to work cat. no. 16.
13 Oszczanowski/Gromadzki 1995, p. 70; pertains to work cat. no. 6.
67