DOI Artikel:
Nowacki, Dariusz: Recenzja: The Munich exhibition of Augsburg goldsmith's art
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20544#0157
After the enjoyment of viewing the buffet
brought from the Knight’s Hall of the Berlin castle
and the impressive though too formally arranged
assembly of silver furniture, the works of Johann
Andreas Thelot’s workshop, filling the tenth room,
gave the impression of a series of as it were
unfinished designs. There was a discordance
between the flrst, good, impression and the percep-
tion of defects in the workmanship of minor parts.
The opinions of the high artistic class of this
workshop must be slightly exaggerated, especially
when we compare, e.g., the level of chasing and the
skill in casting with the ąuality of the works of the
goldsmiths no morę than one generation older.
The direct examination of two most sumptuous
works by Thelot (Cat. no. 93 and 97) permits the
dispelling of any doubts about the autorship of the
unsigned household altar traditionally believed to
have belonged to King John III Sobieski’s family,
now kept in the Wawel Royal Castle (ill. 5)25. The
well-balanced architectural composition of the
Wawel altar is closer to the earlier works from
Thelot’s workshop, such as a pair of clocks com-
missioned about 1700 for the Munich Residence26,
and to other Augsburg clocks dating from the turn
of the 17th century27. Direct affinities link it with
25 Inv. no. 5288 — Collections of the Royal Castle..., p. 404,
fig. 186; S e 1 i n g 1994, p. 54, no. 1486*a* (dated too early, with
incorrectly given place of storage).
26 S e 1 i n g 1980, I, p. 349; II, figs. 1077 — 1078; Silber und
Gold..., II, pp. 388 — 392, no. 93.
27 K. Maurice, Die deutsche Raderuhr. Zur Kunst und
Technik des mechanischen Zeitmessers in deutschem Sprachraum,
II, Munchen 1976, pp. 87—88, figs. 704 — 720.
the altar at the Hermitage, dating from 1719 28, and
with a slightly smaller retable known from art
market29. The plaąue with a table of ancestors of
about 1726—1729 (Cat. no. 97) seems to be the
modified upper section of the Wawel altar but
inferior to it in respect of compositional merits;
worth noting is also the use of identical, diverse
materials: tortoiseshell, silver, carnelian, lapis lazuli,
mother-of-pearl, ivory, chalcedony, etc. The
above-adduced analogies permit the morę precise
dating of the Wawel object between about 1720 and
1725 and defining it as one of morę successful
products of Thelot’s workshop.
It is impossible to signalize in this short discus-
sion many other important ąuestions connected
with the accumulation at the Munich exhibition of
such a great number of outstanding works of art.
This event will undoubtedly contribute to an in-
crease in our knowledge of the intensified contacts
between the Polish royal court and Augsburg and of
scores of interesting gold and silver products which
still testify to large-scale imports from and the
inspiring role of this centre of goldsmitlTs art.
(June 1994)
Translated by Krystyna Malcharek
28 H. Prael-Himmer, Der Augsburger Goldschmied Jo-
hann Andreas Thelot, Munchen 1978, pp. 96, 98 — 99, no. 130,
figs. 116-117.
29 Christie’s South Kensington [Auction no. 4503]: Important
European Sculpture and Works of Art, London 1991, pp. 22 — 23,
no. 29 — I wish to thank Mr. Donald Johnston for making
a photograph of this work available to me.
brought from the Knight’s Hall of the Berlin castle
and the impressive though too formally arranged
assembly of silver furniture, the works of Johann
Andreas Thelot’s workshop, filling the tenth room,
gave the impression of a series of as it were
unfinished designs. There was a discordance
between the flrst, good, impression and the percep-
tion of defects in the workmanship of minor parts.
The opinions of the high artistic class of this
workshop must be slightly exaggerated, especially
when we compare, e.g., the level of chasing and the
skill in casting with the ąuality of the works of the
goldsmiths no morę than one generation older.
The direct examination of two most sumptuous
works by Thelot (Cat. no. 93 and 97) permits the
dispelling of any doubts about the autorship of the
unsigned household altar traditionally believed to
have belonged to King John III Sobieski’s family,
now kept in the Wawel Royal Castle (ill. 5)25. The
well-balanced architectural composition of the
Wawel altar is closer to the earlier works from
Thelot’s workshop, such as a pair of clocks com-
missioned about 1700 for the Munich Residence26,
and to other Augsburg clocks dating from the turn
of the 17th century27. Direct affinities link it with
25 Inv. no. 5288 — Collections of the Royal Castle..., p. 404,
fig. 186; S e 1 i n g 1994, p. 54, no. 1486*a* (dated too early, with
incorrectly given place of storage).
26 S e 1 i n g 1980, I, p. 349; II, figs. 1077 — 1078; Silber und
Gold..., II, pp. 388 — 392, no. 93.
27 K. Maurice, Die deutsche Raderuhr. Zur Kunst und
Technik des mechanischen Zeitmessers in deutschem Sprachraum,
II, Munchen 1976, pp. 87—88, figs. 704 — 720.
the altar at the Hermitage, dating from 1719 28, and
with a slightly smaller retable known from art
market29. The plaąue with a table of ancestors of
about 1726—1729 (Cat. no. 97) seems to be the
modified upper section of the Wawel altar but
inferior to it in respect of compositional merits;
worth noting is also the use of identical, diverse
materials: tortoiseshell, silver, carnelian, lapis lazuli,
mother-of-pearl, ivory, chalcedony, etc. The
above-adduced analogies permit the morę precise
dating of the Wawel object between about 1720 and
1725 and defining it as one of morę successful
products of Thelot’s workshop.
It is impossible to signalize in this short discus-
sion many other important ąuestions connected
with the accumulation at the Munich exhibition of
such a great number of outstanding works of art.
This event will undoubtedly contribute to an in-
crease in our knowledge of the intensified contacts
between the Polish royal court and Augsburg and of
scores of interesting gold and silver products which
still testify to large-scale imports from and the
inspiring role of this centre of goldsmitlTs art.
(June 1994)
Translated by Krystyna Malcharek
28 H. Prael-Himmer, Der Augsburger Goldschmied Jo-
hann Andreas Thelot, Munchen 1978, pp. 96, 98 — 99, no. 130,
figs. 116-117.
29 Christie’s South Kensington [Auction no. 4503]: Important
European Sculpture and Works of Art, London 1991, pp. 22 — 23,
no. 29 — I wish to thank Mr. Donald Johnston for making
a photograph of this work available to me.