THE TOMB OF ELECTOR FREDERICK THE WISE, AND THE RATHAUS RAILING

BUT the work of Peter Vischer the younger was not yet done. It remained, indeed, for him to perform some of his greatest achievements. Certain documents quoted by Baader[9] show that it was he who, in the beginning of the year 1527, completed the monument to the Elector Frederick the Wise at Wittenberg, of which Lübke writes that it is “a classic work and through it the German art of that period is worthy to take rank with the Italian.” The life-size figure of the great Elector stands in strong relief upon a bronze plate within a frame of Corinthian pillars, outside which, on either side, the sixteen coats of arms of the ancestors of the Prince’s house are recorded, whilst his own arms form the central point of the arch above his head. Above the latter coat-of-arms two sturdy angels, forming a central headpiece, hold a laurel wreath, and therewith the Elector’s favourite text inscribed in Latin: “The word of 102the Lord endureth for ever.” The base on which the feet rest is richly decorated with forms of sea monsters and sporting children in the craftsman’s most joyous and luxuriant manner. Frederick himself is draped boldly in the broad sweep of the Electoral cloak, and in a cape of rich ermine. Of ermine, too, is the Elector’s hat, which rests upon a noble brow. But even beneath those heavy robes the vigour and spring of the man’s energetic form make themselves felt, nor can the gloved hands disguise the strength of his grasp upon the Sword of the Realm, which he holds aslant his shoulder. And the face is full of life and fire, quick with the keen gaze of a leader of men, and eloquently expressive of determination and strenuous endeavour. This is, without doubt, a noble portrait of princely faith and manly strength. “One can imagine,” says Lübke, “no more beautiful picture of strength, nobility and immovable Christian trust in God.” What then must have been the feelings of the craftsman when the Guild of Coppersmiths refused to recognize it as a “Masterpiece,” as they had already refused to accept his tomb-plate of Elector Albrecht von Mainz!

9.  “Beitr?ge zur Kunstgeschichte Nürnbergs.”

STEIN PHOTO.] [SCHLOSSKIRCHE, WITTENBERG

23. ELECTOR FREDERICK THE WISE

Assuredly it was not the Meistersingers of Nuremberg alone who failed to appreciate a real masterpiece when they saw one. For it is on record that this noble effigy was rejected by the Incorporated Guild of Masters of Rotschmiedhandwerk, when it was submitted to them by 104Peter Vischer the younger as the piece of work by which, for the second time, he claimed the rank of master among them. We do not know on what pettifogging grounds, whether of inaccuracy of detail or of personal spite, admission was refused him. (Ill. 23.)

But it is clear that a considerable scandal was created by their refusal. For it is further on record that the Council, moved perhaps by the influence of his father and his friends, took the step of interfering on behalf of the artist’s reputation. An appeal had been made from the decision of the Guild, and the “Members of the Council,” we learn from Baader, “to whom it was shown gave it their approval, and on May 22 (1527?) they commanded the Masters of the Guild of Coppersmiths to accept this monument as a masterpiece, and to recognize the author of it as a Master.” This, they explained out of deference to the feelings of the Masters, was to be an exceptional case, and was not to be held to the prejudice of the Guild and its rules. The sworn Masters, however, protested against such a proceeding, and they did not obey the order of the Council. The matter rested there for some time, but a few years after the death of the artist, in the interests, perhaps, of his posthumous renown, the Council repeated their command (May 22, 1532), and added a rider to the effect that Peter Vischer was qualified as a Master by the monument he had made even if he had not always 105executed his masterpieces in strict accordance with the prescribed rules. As to the artist himself, he was apparently disgusted by this second failure, and he gave up trying to become a Master in this Guild on the merits of his work. For we read that “Peter Vischer’s son of the same name was received as Master of the Guild of Thimble-Makers in the year 1527. This Guild and that of the Coppersmiths were at that period still united, though later they separated.”

But whether the monument won the young Peter Vischer the Mastership or not, it is undoubtedly a masterpiece of German Renaissance. It is by document and signature his as it is his in design and execution. There are, indeed, still a few traces of the earlier influences of his house visible. The background, for instance, is decorated in the Gothic style, and the fantastic figures in the two corners formed by the arch remind us of those on the tomb-plate of the Duchess Helene von Mecklenburg, for whose father. Elector Philip of the Palatinate, his father had worked in Heidelberg thirty-three years before. But in spite of the beauty of the rich details of the elaborate architecture, arms and pilasters, that form the setting of this work, it is the central commanding figure of the whole which rightly rivets our attention. In this strong and thoughtful man of action and man of mind, who is a Christian and a fighter, a warrior, but none the less a theologian, whose watchword recorded on the monument was (in 106spite of all the Popes and princes of Europe), “The word of the Lord endureth for ever,” Peter Vischer has proclaimed, so it has been suggested, the ideal Kaiser for whom Germany was looking in vain, the perfect Emperor of the Reformation movement. The power of portraiture which his practice as a maker of medallions had developed, has enabled him to lend to the bronze a wonderful force of expression, so that he may even challenge a comparison with Dürer, who, thirty years previously, had portrayed the protector of Luther.

The design of this monument was borrowed by Hans Vischer, who copied it in 1534 to serve as a memorial of Prince John the Stable, producing, however, but a feeble version of the original.

It may be supposed that the relations between Peter Vischer the younger and the Guild of Coppersmiths were somewhat strained by their treatment of him. For this reason, perhaps, and also for the reason that the new Italian fashion of tombstones, had, by this time, injuriously affected the demand for bronze work, he seems to have thought seriously of leaving Nuremberg in the year following the completion of the Wittenberg monument. The quarrel with the House of Fugger, which we shall presently relate, may likewise have conduced to make him entertain the proposal which came to him now from the agent of Duke Albrecht of Prussia, or it may be that he approached the agent on his own initiative. That prince was, for reasons of his own with which 107we have no concern, anxious to secure the services of a cannon-founder. It was suggested that the young Peter Vischer should go to Prussia to act in this capacity. But he was not destined to do so. The Duke’s agent reports unfavourably. “He is too delicate a craftsman,” he says, “and has no experience in casting large pieces.” It would have made little difference, in fact, if he had gone, for he died in this same year—the year in which Nuremberg lost also her prince of draughtsmen—Albert Dürer.

The documents which refer to this matter of the Duke Albrecht are to be found in the State Archives at K?nigsberg, and were first quoted by D?bner,[10] who writes as follows:

“Duke Albrecht of Prussia had corresponded in January, 1528, with a citizen of Nuremberg named Bastian Startz, who was to procure a cannon-founder for him from that city.” Startz wrote to him from there on May 30, 1528, in very illiterate German, to the effect that “Jorg Clingenbeck has had dealings with one who professes to be a Puxsengeisser. Clingenbeck and I could not subsequently discover that he had ever in his life cast any large pieces, but only monuments and statuettes, and on that account your Highness is hereby advised that he is too delicate a craftsman. And this Puxsenmeister is called by the name of Petter Vischer.”

10.  “Peter-Vischer-Studien.” A. W. D?bner.

108As early as March 8, in the same year, “Pawl Viescher, son of Peter Vischer, the copper worker at Nuremberg,” had received the following letter from K?nigsberg:

“We have received your letter in which you say that we have it in mind to have several cannons cast, and that we shall require a Master for that purpose, and further that you are inclined to visit this country and to see what is to be seen, and also that for the time being work with your father is slack, and so forth. These and other matters in your letter have been communicated to us. And on these points we give you to understand that we do have it in view to cast several cannon, and, seeing that we have heard favourable mention made of your father’s work, we think it likely that you have learnt much from this same father of yours, and we are therefore disposed to allow you to come here, and we will then inspect your work and speak with you and have you bargained with. This is the answer which we are graciously pleased to make to your letter, and we consent to express to you our gracious favour. Given at K?nigsberg. (Konigsperkuts.)”

STEIN PHOTO.] [FORMERLEY AT NüRNBERG

24. THE RATHAUS RAILING

Whether Paul did avail himself of this princely permission to go to Prussia and be bargained with we do not know. If he did, he did not stay there more than a year. For he was back in Nuremberg in September, 1529, and in the following August he had sold the foundry which he had inherited to his brother Hans, and was already 110settled at Mainz. There he acquired the rights of a citizen, and died in December, 1531.

Meantime the Vischers, father and sons, were busy, and had at intervals long been busy, with the last supreme work of their foundry, the Rathaus Railing. The story of the chequered career of ............