DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0351
Division A.—Sohool of Nuremberg.—Diirer.
317
V. Scherer. “Die Ornamentik bei A. Diirer,” 1902, 96-114.
K. Rapke. Die Perspektive und Architektur auf den ■ Diirer’sehen
Handzeichnungen, Holzschnitten, etc.,” 1902, 75-79.
C. Fischnaler. “ Jorg Ivolderer und die Ehrenpforte Kaiser Maxi-
milian’s” (Ferdinandeums-Zeitschrift, Innsbruck, 1902).
Dr. Carl Giehlow has kindly permitted me to use his valuable un-
published observations on the essay by Chmelarz on the Ehrenpforte.
The Puepose of the Akch.
The Triumpkal Arch forms the complement of the Triumphal Procession, with
whicli, in its origin, it was closely connected. The two works present a curious travesty
of a Eoman triumph, crowded with allegories and symbols of Christian, pagan, and e'ven
Egyptian origin. At the same time the arch resumes, in a single composition, the
coutents of all the other members of the series : the origin of the house ot' Habsburg, as
set forth in the Genealogy and the Austrian Saints; Maximilian’s chivalrous exploits
aud the wooing of Mary of Burguudy, narrated iu Freydal and Theuerdank; his
biography and the political events of his reign, described in the Weisskunig; and,
lastly, the aggrandisement of the house of Austria by war, diplomacy, and marriage,
illustrated, along with the pastimes and serious pursuits of Maximilian himself, in the
elaborate pomp of the Procession. It was Maximilian’s intention to have a second
triple arcli designed, to form a religious counterpart to the secular Triumphal Arcli, and
to be called “Die Andachtspforte.” This project was never carried out.
The Authoe and Designek.
The programme of the whole arch, the five sheets of prose commentary at the foot,
aud the other inscriptions, were composed by Stabius, under tlie direction of the Emperor
lrimself. The arms of Stabius are placed on a step at tlie foot of the arcli r. with
two other coats. The second of these has only recently been explaiued; the names
of Ghelidonius, Emser, and Eesch had beeu proposed, but proof was wanting in every
case. It is now certain tliat the arms are tliose of the Tyrolese architect and painter,
Jorg Kolderer,1 and that some share in the design of the arch must be attributed to
him. Documents of 30 March, 1507, aud 10 Jan. 1512, prove that Kolderer prepared
for Maximiiian several designs for his “ Triumphwagen,” an expression which may
include the arch (see p. 319). What we kuow of Kolderer, from 1497 to his deatli in
1540, proves him to have been pre-eminently an architect, though he also bore the title
of Hofmaler. The architectural structure of the arch may liave been his work, perhaps
also the heraldic emblems on the central tower, while Maximilian found in Diirer an
artist more fitted to the task of covering the vast surface with pictures and omaments.
The tliird coat is that of Diirer, who seems to have signified in this way that he was
generaUy responsible for the decoration of tlie arch, without certifying by liis monogram
that he had drawn tlie whole upon tlie blocks. The modest size of liis escutclieon also
suggests that he recognised the importance of Kdlderer’s first design.
Tliere is no documentary evidence for the participation of other artists besides Diirer
iu tlie work, but it is possible to distinguish, by differences in style, the work of Spring-
inklee and Traut in the historical subjects, while ten of the scenes in Maximilian’s life
on the two round towers, aud the decoration of their cupolas, are by Altdorfer, and Spring-
inklee had a large share in desiguing the remainder of the woodcuts, or in drawing on the
blocks portions of Durer’s composition. The share of these several artists will be described
below, in the discussion of the historical subjects, and more particularly in the sections
of the catalogue which deal with their own work. Tlie hand of Diirer himself can be
recognised with tolerable certainty in the following portions of the arch :—
(a) The clecorations of tlie principal gate (notably the angel with the
crown) and o£ the large columns that flank it. The harpies on the r.
column are markedly superior to those on the 1. ; a similar difference is
observable in several other parts o£ the arch (e.g. the children with
armour between the gates), and ib may be supposed that, in cases where
there were symmetrical groups of ornament, Diirer drew one side (the r.)
carefully on the block and left the execution o£ the other to a pupil. Dr.
1 See Kblderer’s seal, reproduced by Fischnaler, loc. cit. p. 6.
317
V. Scherer. “Die Ornamentik bei A. Diirer,” 1902, 96-114.
K. Rapke. Die Perspektive und Architektur auf den ■ Diirer’sehen
Handzeichnungen, Holzschnitten, etc.,” 1902, 75-79.
C. Fischnaler. “ Jorg Ivolderer und die Ehrenpforte Kaiser Maxi-
milian’s” (Ferdinandeums-Zeitschrift, Innsbruck, 1902).
Dr. Carl Giehlow has kindly permitted me to use his valuable un-
published observations on the essay by Chmelarz on the Ehrenpforte.
The Puepose of the Akch.
The Triumpkal Arch forms the complement of the Triumphal Procession, with
whicli, in its origin, it was closely connected. The two works present a curious travesty
of a Eoman triumph, crowded with allegories and symbols of Christian, pagan, and e'ven
Egyptian origin. At the same time the arch resumes, in a single composition, the
coutents of all the other members of the series : the origin of the house ot' Habsburg, as
set forth in the Genealogy and the Austrian Saints; Maximilian’s chivalrous exploits
aud the wooing of Mary of Burguudy, narrated iu Freydal and Theuerdank; his
biography and the political events of his reign, described in the Weisskunig; and,
lastly, the aggrandisement of the house of Austria by war, diplomacy, and marriage,
illustrated, along with the pastimes and serious pursuits of Maximilian himself, in the
elaborate pomp of the Procession. It was Maximilian’s intention to have a second
triple arcli designed, to form a religious counterpart to the secular Triumphal Arcli, and
to be called “Die Andachtspforte.” This project was never carried out.
The Authoe and Designek.
The programme of the whole arch, the five sheets of prose commentary at the foot,
aud the other inscriptions, were composed by Stabius, under tlie direction of the Emperor
lrimself. The arms of Stabius are placed on a step at tlie foot of the arcli r. with
two other coats. The second of these has only recently been explaiued; the names
of Ghelidonius, Emser, and Eesch had beeu proposed, but proof was wanting in every
case. It is now certain tliat the arms are tliose of the Tyrolese architect and painter,
Jorg Kolderer,1 and that some share in the design of the arch must be attributed to
him. Documents of 30 March, 1507, aud 10 Jan. 1512, prove that Kolderer prepared
for Maximiiian several designs for his “ Triumphwagen,” an expression which may
include the arch (see p. 319). What we kuow of Kolderer, from 1497 to his deatli in
1540, proves him to have been pre-eminently an architect, though he also bore the title
of Hofmaler. The architectural structure of the arch may liave been his work, perhaps
also the heraldic emblems on the central tower, while Maximilian found in Diirer an
artist more fitted to the task of covering the vast surface with pictures and omaments.
The tliird coat is that of Diirer, who seems to have signified in this way that he was
generaUy responsible for the decoration of tlie arch, without certifying by liis monogram
that he had drawn tlie whole upon tlie blocks. The modest size of liis escutclieon also
suggests that he recognised the importance of Kdlderer’s first design.
Tliere is no documentary evidence for the participation of other artists besides Diirer
iu tlie work, but it is possible to distinguish, by differences in style, the work of Spring-
inklee and Traut in the historical subjects, while ten of the scenes in Maximilian’s life
on the two round towers, aud the decoration of their cupolas, are by Altdorfer, and Spring-
inklee had a large share in desiguing the remainder of the woodcuts, or in drawing on the
blocks portions of Durer’s composition. The share of these several artists will be described
below, in the discussion of the historical subjects, and more particularly in the sections
of the catalogue which deal with their own work. Tlie hand of Diirer himself can be
recognised with tolerable certainty in the following portions of the arch :—
(a) The clecorations of tlie principal gate (notably the angel with the
crown) and o£ the large columns that flank it. The harpies on the r.
column are markedly superior to those on the 1. ; a similar difference is
observable in several other parts o£ the arch (e.g. the children with
armour between the gates), and ib may be supposed that, in cases where
there were symmetrical groups of ornament, Diirer drew one side (the r.)
carefully on the block and left the execution o£ the other to a pupil. Dr.
1 See Kblderer’s seal, reproduced by Fischnaler, loc. cit. p. 6.