DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0353
Bivision A.—School of Nuremberg.—Diirer.
319
memoninduui addressed to Cliristopli Kress on his departure from Nuremberg for Yienna
on 30 July, 1515, Diirer urges his friend to remind Stabius that he Inid beeu employed
for three years in making drawings for the Emperor; that, but for liis diligence, “ das
zierlich Werk ” would never have been completed; and that, in addition to the Triumph,
he had made many other designs for his Imperial Majesty.1 The Triumph or “ Tri-
umphwagen” was the original name for procession and arch combined, and though
from 1517 onwards the Emperor wished the expression “ Triumphpforte ” or “ Ehren-
pforte ” to be usedfor the arch, as distinct from the procession, the distinction was even
then not strictly observed. The year 1513 certainly marks a critioal period in the
evolution of the arch, for the Battle of the Spurs, fought ou August 16th in that year,
led to so many modifications in the design that it is impossible to suppose that Diirer
proceeded any eariier to draw out the whole in detail for transference to the blocks.
The date, 1515, which stands at the base of both the round towers that flank the arch
1. and r. is that of the completionof Diirer’s finished drawing for the whole work. That
drawing or miniature, which was painted in colours, probably in the style of the finished
drawing of 1518 for the chariot, had been sent by Maximilian to his daughter, the
Arckduchess Margaret, in the course of 1515, for in a letter written at Antwerp on
18 January, 1516,2 he repeats his request for lier opinion of the work, which he had
sent “ puis aucun temps.” But it is impossible to say precisely with wliat object the
date 1515 was inserted. In both places the piece of wood which contaius the date has
been let into the block, and we do not know the motive of this correction, nor what stood
previously iu the place. We may conjecture that tlie date of Kblderer’s original design,
1512, was preserved for a time. It may be observed that 1515 is the date of the
latest historical event commemorated in the original issue of the work, the congress of
princes held at Yienna from July 7th to August 2nd, 1515, whicb resulted in the double
mnrriage that secured the thrones of Hungary and Bohemia to the house of Habsburg.
Peogress op the Wokk,
We know from Maximilian’s correspondence with Stabius that tlie Arch was not
ready for issue till late in 1517, at earliest. On May 19th in tliat year he ordered
Stabius to finisli the work one way or anotlier; on June 5th he expressed his dis-
satisfaction with a copy which had been sent liim, and commanded Stabius to stop the
work until he had explained his wishes iu person ; on Juno 17th tlre explanatiou was not
yet completed; by September 1st matters were so far advanced that he could give direc-
tions for a copy, wheu printed, to be presented to Duke Frederick of Saxony,3 another to
be sent to Peutinger at Augsburg and a tliird to be kept by Stabius hirnself.4 Disputes
between Stabius and Mennel on the subject of the pedigree seem, however, to have
coutinued till quite late in 1517, and the final result, settled in part by the Emperor’s
instructions, in part by conference with Lang and other advisers, represents a com-
promise between the views of the two historians on Maximilian’s ancestry. The whole
lowest block, in which the oddly placed figures of Gelbo and Bezelinus stand at the
top, has obviously replaccd an earlier version of this part of the pedigree; while,
within this block itself, the eight closely packed figures from Clodoveus to Ethobertus
have been inserted by a still later correction, on a different piece of wood. The latest
correction of all, by which “Boizel der grossmutig” and “Guntram der dapft'er”—
personswho wouhl otherwise liave occurred twice over—were changed into “Wcrnherus
der guetig ” and “ Radepoto der standhafft,” while the former “ Kadepoto der stand-
liafft” became “ Otto der trostlich,” was only carried out in a provisional manner.
These new titles wTere cut, indeed, with others on a woodblock, but that block was
never divided, so that the correct titles could not be inserted in the places destined for
them on the blocks. They were only introduced at the last moment on the impressions,
in the form of slips of paper pasted over the incorrect titles which they superseded.
In the upper part of the pedigree the figure of the Archduehess Margaret underwent a
double conrection, in consequence, probably, of criticisms expressed by her to Maxirailian
during the latter’s residence in the Netherlands in 1517. The cominentary of Stabius
could not be completed while the question of the ancestors remained open, and the
length of time required for drawing and cutting this long composition on the blocks
1 Lanze and Fuhse, p. 60.
2 be Glay, “ Correspondance de Maximilien I*r et de Marguerite d’Autriche.” Paris,
J 839, :i. 341.
5 Vienna Jahrbuch, ii, 2, Regest 1270, 1274 ; i, 2, Regest 434, quoted Dy Ohmelarz,
pp. 310, 311; the letter of June 5th is published by Fischnaler, loc. cit. p. 3.
4 Ihid. ii, 2, Regest 1301-2.
319
memoninduui addressed to Cliristopli Kress on his departure from Nuremberg for Yienna
on 30 July, 1515, Diirer urges his friend to remind Stabius that he Inid beeu employed
for three years in making drawings for the Emperor; that, but for liis diligence, “ das
zierlich Werk ” would never have been completed; and that, in addition to the Triumph,
he had made many other designs for his Imperial Majesty.1 The Triumph or “ Tri-
umphwagen” was the original name for procession and arch combined, and though
from 1517 onwards the Emperor wished the expression “ Triumphpforte ” or “ Ehren-
pforte ” to be usedfor the arch, as distinct from the procession, the distinction was even
then not strictly observed. The year 1513 certainly marks a critioal period in the
evolution of the arch, for the Battle of the Spurs, fought ou August 16th in that year,
led to so many modifications in the design that it is impossible to suppose that Diirer
proceeded any eariier to draw out the whole in detail for transference to the blocks.
The date, 1515, which stands at the base of both the round towers that flank the arch
1. and r. is that of the completionof Diirer’s finished drawing for the whole work. That
drawing or miniature, which was painted in colours, probably in the style of the finished
drawing of 1518 for the chariot, had been sent by Maximilian to his daughter, the
Arckduchess Margaret, in the course of 1515, for in a letter written at Antwerp on
18 January, 1516,2 he repeats his request for lier opinion of the work, which he had
sent “ puis aucun temps.” But it is impossible to say precisely with wliat object the
date 1515 was inserted. In both places the piece of wood which contaius the date has
been let into the block, and we do not know the motive of this correction, nor what stood
previously iu the place. We may conjecture that tlie date of Kblderer’s original design,
1512, was preserved for a time. It may be observed that 1515 is the date of the
latest historical event commemorated in the original issue of the work, the congress of
princes held at Yienna from July 7th to August 2nd, 1515, whicb resulted in the double
mnrriage that secured the thrones of Hungary and Bohemia to the house of Habsburg.
Peogress op the Wokk,
We know from Maximilian’s correspondence with Stabius that tlie Arch was not
ready for issue till late in 1517, at earliest. On May 19th in tliat year he ordered
Stabius to finisli the work one way or anotlier; on June 5th he expressed his dis-
satisfaction with a copy which had been sent liim, and commanded Stabius to stop the
work until he had explained his wishes iu person ; on Juno 17th tlre explanatiou was not
yet completed; by September 1st matters were so far advanced that he could give direc-
tions for a copy, wheu printed, to be presented to Duke Frederick of Saxony,3 another to
be sent to Peutinger at Augsburg and a tliird to be kept by Stabius hirnself.4 Disputes
between Stabius and Mennel on the subject of the pedigree seem, however, to have
coutinued till quite late in 1517, and the final result, settled in part by the Emperor’s
instructions, in part by conference with Lang and other advisers, represents a com-
promise between the views of the two historians on Maximilian’s ancestry. The whole
lowest block, in which the oddly placed figures of Gelbo and Bezelinus stand at the
top, has obviously replaccd an earlier version of this part of the pedigree; while,
within this block itself, the eight closely packed figures from Clodoveus to Ethobertus
have been inserted by a still later correction, on a different piece of wood. The latest
correction of all, by which “Boizel der grossmutig” and “Guntram der dapft'er”—
personswho wouhl otherwise liave occurred twice over—were changed into “Wcrnherus
der guetig ” and “ Radepoto der standhafft,” while the former “ Kadepoto der stand-
liafft” became “ Otto der trostlich,” was only carried out in a provisional manner.
These new titles wTere cut, indeed, with others on a woodblock, but that block was
never divided, so that the correct titles could not be inserted in the places destined for
them on the blocks. They were only introduced at the last moment on the impressions,
in the form of slips of paper pasted over the incorrect titles which they superseded.
In the upper part of the pedigree the figure of the Archduehess Margaret underwent a
double conrection, in consequence, probably, of criticisms expressed by her to Maxirailian
during the latter’s residence in the Netherlands in 1517. The cominentary of Stabius
could not be completed while the question of the ancestors remained open, and the
length of time required for drawing and cutting this long composition on the blocks
1 Lanze and Fuhse, p. 60.
2 be Glay, “ Correspondance de Maximilien I*r et de Marguerite d’Autriche.” Paris,
J 839, :i. 341.
5 Vienna Jahrbuch, ii, 2, Regest 1270, 1274 ; i, 2, Regest 434, quoted Dy Ohmelarz,
pp. 310, 311; the letter of June 5th is published by Fischnaler, loc. cit. p. 3.
4 Ihid. ii, 2, Regest 1301-2.