NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

The Machinations of German Court Culture: Early Modern Automata

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

for the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Field of Art History

By

Jessica Keating

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS

December 2010

UMI Number: 3433589

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3433589

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

2

ABSTRACT

The Machinations of German Court Culture: Early Modern Automata

Jessica Keating

Although rarely studied by art historians today, automata, or self-propelled mimetic

objects, were among the most important art forms of the sixteenth century; created by artisans

and commissioned and collected by the most prominent patrons in early modern Europe. The

majority of these objects were collected by German princes who ruled the Holy Roman Empire.

Courts in the Holy Roman Empire were major centers of artistic patronage, particularly

associated by their contemporaries with expansive Kunstkammern, or cabinets of curiosity, and

the successful integration of art within the political sphere. Early modern automata are today

accessible to us through extant objects, verbal descriptions, and payment records. In the course

of four chapter-long case studies this dissertation analyzes in detail five automata: The London

Nef (a ship) (ca. 1586, The British Museum, London) and The Écouen Nef (also a ship) (ca.

1587, Musée de la Renaissance, Écouen); The Christmas Crib Automaton (ca. 1588,

Mathematische and Physicalische Salon, Dresden); The Verkehrte Welt Automaton (whose theme

is the world upside-down) (ca. 1560, Residenz Schatzkammer, Munich); and The Sultan on

Horseback (ca. 1580, Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna). These objects and the circumstances

of their collection, circulation, and display are used to uncover anxieties about the shifting

global, social, and religious landscape in the early modern period.

Based on this evidence, a new picture emerges of Renaissance artistic culture. This

dissertation makes clear that attention to political, familial, diplomatic, and religious discord was

central to fostering artistic and technological developments in the period and that automata were

3 integral to political theater and self-display. Moreover, the collection and circulation of

automata challenges modern assumptions about the nature of early modern mimesis, cross-

cultural exchange, communication, gift economies, and political ritual as well as the place of

time-based and performance media in the history of art.

Chapter one considers the London and Écouen Nefs and argues that Holy Roman

Emperor Rudolph II commissioned them to link his reign with his grandfather’s, Charles V.

Chapter two examines The Christmas Crib Automaton, and demonstrates that the object’s

temporal and ocular dynamic helped mediate a tense marriage between a crypto-Calvinist Elector

and his dogmatically Lutheran wife. Chapter three focuses on The Verkehrte Welt Automaton

and makes clear that it was displayed at the counterreformation court in Munich to mock the

Protestant belief that meaningful communication could occur between a Protestant minister and

his congregation. Chapter four considers The Sultan on Horseback and several other automata

that formed part of tribute payments from Holy Roman Emperors to Ottoman rulers. This

chapter argues that these objects were not merely luxury goods that helped maintain the status

quo, but agentive objects that redefined the diplomatic encounter between the Ottoman and Holy

Roman Empires.

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not be before you without the help of others. Most of all, I am

indebted to my dissertation advisor, Claudia Swan, who tended to this dissertation for seven

years. Her patience, and meticulous attention to my arguments and writing never failed to make

everything I produced simply better. I am also grateful to the four other members of my

dissertation committee, Christopher Pinney, Jesús Escobar, Ann Gunter, and David van Zanten.

I thank Chris Pinney for encouraging me to read scholarship in far-flung fields and for spending

countless hours discussing it with me. David van Zanten must be thanked for his undying

support and pointed questions. I thank Ann Gunter for her thoughtful responses to my ideas. I

am beholden to Jesús Escobar for sharing his boundless knowledge on early modern Spain and

the Hapsburgs with me, as well as his careful comments on the project. Rebecca Zorach was an

unofficial member of the committee. Rebecca’s fortitude and advice were crucial at all stages of

the project. I also greatly benefited from comments and criticism from other Northwestern

University faculty members, namely Hannah Feldman, Lawrence Lipking, and Marco Ruffini.

I wish to thank various institutions for their financial support. A Northwestern University

Fellowship allowed me to complete the writing of this dissertation in Cologne and Chicago. A

Samuel H. Kress Fellowship in the History of Art provided me with an incredible two-year

period of research and writing in Munich. A Graduate Research Grant from Northwestern

University helped finance research trips to Vienna, Innsbruck, and Dresden. The Shanley Travel

Fellowship from the Art History Department at Northwestern University funded my first short

research trip to Germany and Austria for this project. I am also grateful to the Art History

Department and the Graduate School at Northwestern for their aid over the years.

5 Thanks also go to the faculty and staff at the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte in

Munich. Dr. Iris Lauterbach helped acquaint me with the vibrant community of art historians in

Munich as well as provided daily encouragement. Special thanks goes to Peter and Dorothea

Diemer who taught me how to read early modern inventories, guided me through Altbayerische,

and introduced me to intimidating sixteenth-century German hands on Friday afternoons in the

Geheimes Hausarchiv. Kris Neville and Heidi Gearhart, my fellow Kress Stipendiaten, shared

insight, lunch, and tea with me everyday in Munich and made being far away from home

delightful.

I have profited from comments and criticism from many friends over the years. Keen

comments on various chapters came from Christina Normore and Lia Markey. Katie

Chenoweth’s careful reading of chapter three has proven invaluable. And a simple observation

from Torrey Shanks changed the direction of the project. Other friends in Chicago and New

York who provided unending moral support include, Mandy Gagel, Allison Hawkins, Laura

Reagan, Alison Fisher, Lily Woodruff, Julia Ng, Markus Hardtmann, Jason Leddington, Todd

Heddrick, Sebastian Rand, Jill Bugajski, Eve Straussman-Pflanzer, Maureen Warren, Rainbow

Porthé, Irene Backus, and Justin Steinberg.

Most importantly, I thank my family. I am thankful everyday for the love and support

that the Keatings, Freedmans, Fines, and Brauns have given me. I want to especially thank my

mother, Lisa Keating, for her friendship and undying advocacy throughout graduate school.

Last, but far from least, my gratitude must go to my husband, Helge Braun, whose enthusiasm

for my work never ceases. Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father,

Edward Keating.

6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ARCHIVES AND LIBRARIES HKA Hofkammerarchiv, Vienna HStA Sächsiches Hauptstaatarchiv, Dresden SLUB Sächsisches Landesbibliothek Staats- und Universitätbibliothek, Dresden BHStA Bayerisches Haupstaatarchiv, Munich GHA Geheimes Hausarchiv, Munich

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 13

I. SHIPS OF STATE: THE LONDON AND ÉCOUEN NEFS 22

II. THE GIFTS THAT KEEP ON GIVING: THE CHRISTMAS CRIB AUTOMATON AND THE LÜNEBURGER SPIEGEL 53 III. “VERBUM DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM:” THE VERKEHRTE WELT AUTOMATON 88 IV. HAPSBURG-OTTOMAN DIPLOMATIC MACHINERY: AUTOMATA AND THE TÜRKENVERERHRUNG 116 V. ILLUSTRATIONS 152 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 VII. APPENDIX: INVENTORY ENTRIES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF AUTOMATA IN PRINCELY KUNSTKAMMERN 238

8 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Hans Schlotheim, London Nef, The British Museum, London (Photo: Ces Curieux Navires) 2. Hans Schlotheim, Écouen Nef, Musée National de la Renaissance, Écouen (Photo: Ces Curieux Navires) 3. Hans Schlotheim, Christmas Crib Automaton. Formerly in the Mathematische- Physicalische Salon, Dresden (Photo: Royal Music Making Machines) 4. Hans Schlotheim, Christmas Crib Automaton. Formerly in the Mathematische and Physicalische Salon, Dresden (Photo: Royal Music Making Machines) 5. The Verkehrte Welt Automaton, Residenz Schatzkammer, Munich (Photo: Author) 6. Sultan on Horseback with Attendants, ca. 1590, Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum (Photo: Die Deutsche Räderuhr) 7. The Burghley Nef, The Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Photo: Medieval Silver Nefs) 8. Limbourg Brothers, January: New Years Reception of Duke Jean de Berry, Trés Riches Heures, Musée Condé, Chantilly, Ms. 65, Fol. 2 (detail), (Photo: Artstor) 9. London Nef (detail), The British Museum, London (Photo: Ces Curieuz Naivres) 10. Écouen Neff (detail), Musée National de la Renaissance, Écouen (Photo: Ces Curieuz Naivres)

11. London Nef (detail), The British Museum, London (Photo: Ces Curieux Naivres) 12. Hans Weiditz, Holzschnitt zu einer viersietigen Schrift über Einzug und Krönung Karls V. in Aachen 1520 mit Darstellung Karls V. und den drei geistlichen und vier weltlichen Kurfürsten mit Symbolen ihrer Krönungsämters, Aachen, Aachen Stadtarchiv (Photo: Krönungen. Könige in Aachen-Geschichte und Mythos) 13. Christusmantel, Weltliche Schatzkammer, Vienna (Photo: Die Schatzkammer in Wien) 14. Trumpeter Automaton. Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna (Photo: Royal Music Making Machines) 15. Wenzel Jamnitzer. Prunkkasette. Grünes Gewolbe, Dresden (Photo: Schatzkunst der Renaissance und des Barock: Das Grüne Gewölbe zu Dresden) 16. Luleff Meyer and Dirch Utermarke, The Lüneburger Spiegel, detail Grünes Gewolbe, Dresden (Photo: Dirch Utermarke ein Hamburger Goldschmied der Renaissance)

9 17. Map of Saxony. (Photo: Princely Splendor: The Dresden Court 1500-1620)

18. Ernestine and Albertine Lines of the House of Wetting. (Photo: Princely Splendor: The Dresden Court 1500-1620) 19. Hans Schlotheim. Christmas Crib Automaton, detail. Formerly in the Mathematische und Physicalische Salon, Dresden (Photo: Royal Music Making Machines) 20. Hans Schlotheim. Christmas Crib Automaton, detail. Formerly in the Mathematische und Physicalische Salon, Dresden (Photo: Royal Music Making Machines) 21. Hans Schlotheim. London Nef, detail. The British Museum, London (Photo: Royal Music Making Machines) 22. Kreibitz School. The Electors Tankard. Grünes Gewolbe, Dresden (Photo: Princely Splendor: The Dresden Court 1500-1620) 23. Persepolis, Eastern Stairway. (Photo: “Past Presents: New Year’s Gifts at the Valois Courts”) 24. Chronicle of John of Skylitzes. (Photo: “Constructing a Byzantine Augusta: A Greek Book for a French Bride”) 25. Presentation Scene with Duke Charles of Orléans, from Justinian, Institutions, BNF, Paris (Photo: “Past Schatzkunst der Renaissance und des Barock: Das Grüne Gewölbe zu Dresden) 26. Epitaph for Heinrich von Schönberg, in Gottfried Michaelis’s Dresdinisch Inscriptiones und Epitaphia, welche auf denen. . .in und außer der Kirche zu unser Lieben Frauen. . .zu finden, Kuperstich Kabinette, Dresden (Photo: “Epitaphe in der Alten Dresdner Frauenkirche: Eine Untersuchung nach Zeichnungen im Kupferstich-Kabinette der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen Dresden,”) 27. Luleff Meyer and Dirch Utermark, The Lüneburger Spiegel, detail, Grünes Gewolbe, Dresden (Photo: Res publica bene Ordinata, Regentenspiegle und Bilder vom guten Regiment: Rathausdekoration in der Frühen Neuzeit) 28. Anatomia Statuae Danielis, Frontispiece from Lorenz Faust’s Anatomia Statuae Danielis (Photo: Res publica bene Ordinata, Regentenspiegle und Bilder vom guten Regiment: Rathausdekoration in der Frühen Neuzeit) 29. Swiss Tapestry Cushion with Renart the Fox, Burrel Collection, Glasgow (Photo: Reynard, Renart, Reinaert and Other Foxes in Medieval England)

10 30. Pilgrim’s Badge of Renart the Fox, South Wiltshire Museum, Salisbury (Photo: Reynard, Renart, Reinaert and Other Foxes in Medieval England) 31. Grey-Fitzpayn Hours, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Photo: Images in the Margins of Gothic Manuscripts) 32. Minnekästchen, Munich, Bayerisches National Museum (Photo: Minnekästchen im Mittelalter) 33. Franco-Flemish Book of Hours, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, (Photo: Images in the Margins of Gothic Manuscripts) 34. Misericord of Farrier Shoeing a Goose, Hoogstraten Cathedral, Hoogstraten (Photo: The World Upside-Down: English Misericords) 35. Abraham Gessner, Verkehrte Welt Platter, Schweizertisches Landesmuseum, Zurich (Photo: Virtuoso Goldsmiths and Triumph of Mannerism) 36. Phyllis Riding Aristotle, Germanisches National Museum, Nuremburg (Photo: Die Welt des Hans Sachs) 37. Isreal van Meckenem, The Hares’ Revenge, Kupferstich Kabinett, Dresden (Photo: Israel van Meckenem) 38. Hares’ Revenge Fresco, Anisitz Thun-Martini, Revo (Photo: Tyrolian Schlosser) 39. Ewoüt Müller (publisher), Verkehrte Welt Broadsheet (Photo: “The World Upside Down: The Iconography of a European Broadsheet Type”) 40. Misericord of Horse Pulling a Horse, Beverly Minster, East Riding of Yorkshire (Photo: The World Upside-Down: English Misericords) 41. Lucas Cranach the Elder, Hallowed be thy Name, (Photo: The German Single Leaf Woodcut 1500-1550) 42. Lucas Cranach the Elder, The Third Commandment, (Photo: The German Single Leaf Woodcut 1500-1550) 43. Lucas Cranach the Elder, The Last Supper of Protestants and the Pope’s Descent to Hell, (Photo: The German Single Leaf Woodcut 1500-1550) 44. Georg Pencz, Content of Two Sermons, (Photo: The German Single Leaf Woodcut 1500-1550)

11 45. Pancratz Kemp, The Difference between the True Religion of Christ and the False Idolatrous Teachings of the Antichrist, (Photo: The German Single Leaf Woodcut 1500-1550) 46. Hans Brosamer, The Seven Heads of Martin Luther, (Photo: The Reformation of the Image) 47. The Turkish Automaton, ca. 1580-1590 Innsbruck-Ambras, Kunsthistorisches Museum Sammlungen Schloss Ambras (Photo: The Clockwork Universe) 48. Sultan on Horseback Automaton, ca. 1580, Dresden: Staatliche Mathematisch-Physicalischer Salon (Photo: Die Deutsche Räderuhr) 49. Sultan on Horseback, ca. 1580, Moskow: Staatliche Kremlin Museum (Photo: Die Deutsche Räderuhr) 50. Pashas on Horseback, ca. 1580-1590, Newark: Newark Museum of Art, (Photo: Die Deutsche Räderuhr) 51. Map of Europe ca. 1550, (Photo: Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503-1564: Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie) 52. Rechnungen von Wiener Hofzahlamt, 1556, Vienna: Hofkammer Archiv (Photo: Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503-1564: Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie) 53. Oswald Khayser, Pattern Drawing for Clock to be in Augsburg for Grand Vizier Mohammed Sokolly, 1576. Vienna, Hofkammerarchiv (Photo: The Clockwork Universe) 54. Pattern Drawing for Clock to be in Augsburg for Grand Vizier Mohammed Sokolly, 1576. Vienna, Hofkammerarchiv (Photo: The Clockwork Universe) 55. Pieter Cocke van Aelst, Süleyman I zu Pferd, Vienna: Graphische Sammlungen Albertina (Photo: Kaiser Ferdinand I, 1503-1564: Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie) 56. Jan Swart Groningen, Reiterporträt Süleimans des Grossen mit Gefolge, Vienna: Graphische Sammlungen Albertina (Photo: Kaiser Ferdinand I, 1503-1564: Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie) 57. “Murad III in a boat on the Bosphorus,” Lewenklau Album, ca. 1585, MS. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 8615. fol. 122, (Photo: Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries) 58. “Murad II in a boat along the Golden Horn,” Traveler’s Picture Book with Scenes of Life in Istanbul, 1588, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. Or. 430 fol. 2r (Photo: Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries)

12 59. Donatello, Equestrian Portrait of Galtamelata, Padua (Photo: Italian Renaissance Sculpture) 60. Tomb of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I. Innsbruck: Hofkirche (Photo: Forgery, Replica, Fiction) 61. The Last Supper. Sacro Monte: Varallo (Photo: Testori a Varallo) 62. Nicolas de Nicolay, Delly, London: British Library (Photo: The World in Venice) 63. Francesco Sansovino, Informatione, London: The British Library (Photo: The World inVenice) 64. Anonymous, Selim, London: British Library (Photo: The World in Venice) 65. Pietro Bertelli, Mahometto Imp. IX, London: British Library (Photo: The World in Venice) 66. Haidar Reiss Nigari, Portrait of Admiral Haireddin, Istanbul: Topkapi Sarayi Müsezi, (Photo: Venice and the Islamic World 828-1797) 67. Anonymous, Portrait of Sultan Ahmed I, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, (Photo: Google Images)

13

INTRODUCTION: EARLY MODERN AUTOMATA

In the middle of the sixteenth century German rulers began commissioning, collecting,

and gifting small clockwork automata. These golden, silver, enameled, and bejeweled self-

propelled mimetic objects were ingeniously crafted by clockmakers in the free imperial cities of

Augsburg and Nuremberg. Such “little engines,” as Robert Hooke (1635-1703) would later refer

to them, set a wide variety of figures and events in motion, from an emaciated Saint Jerome

beating his chest, the flagellation of Christ, and hares hunting dogs to Atlas bearing the weight of

the world on his shoulders and peacocks fanning tails of iridescent feathers.1 Over two hundred

such automata are recorded in inventories and other historical sources from the late Renaissance

period, but unfortunately the majority were lost or dispatched to the forge during the eighteenth

and nineteenth centuries.2 Once familiar to German courts and now exceptional, automata have

long occupied the margins of a traditional order of art and of conventional art historical exegesis.

This dissertation examines five major examples of sixteenth-century automata that

survive and that were displayed and/or gifted at pivotal political moments or on the occasion of

key cross-cultural encounters in the second half of the sixteenth century. The subjects of Chapter

1, the London Nef (fig. 1) and Écouen Nef (fig. 2), sizable and very complex figurations of ships

in gilded silver presumably commissioned by Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II (1552-1612),

depict the coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500-1558). The Christmas Crib

1Hooke quoted in Martin Kemp, “Taking it on Trust: Form and Meaning in Naturalistic Representation,”

Archives of Natural History, Vol. 17 No. 2 (Spring 1990), 132. 2For a discussion of the fate of several automata see, Peter Plaßmeyer, “Churfürst August zu Sachßen etc.

Seligen selbsten gemacht:” Weltmodelle und wisssenschaftliche Instrumente in der Kunstkammer der sächsischen Kurfürsten August und Christian I,” in Barbara Marx, ed., Kunst und Repräsentation am Dresdner Hof (Munich: Deutsche Kunstverlag, 2005), 156-159.

14 Automaton (fig. 3 and 4) that is the primary focus of Chapter 2 is an elaborate silver automaton

commissioned by Sophie of Brandenburg (1568-1622) for her husband, the Elector of Saxony,

Christian I (1560-1591) and placed in the Dresden Kunstkammer; it portrays the Magi and an

elctor of the Holy Roman Empire bestowing gifts on the Christ child. The Verkehrte Welt (fig.

5) (the world upside-down) Automaton, which was commissioned by the Bavarian Duke

Albrecht V (1528–1579) and displayed in the Kunstkammer at his Residence in Munich, features

a golden monkey preaching to a group of deer; it is analyzed in Chapter 3. Finally, in Chapter 4,

we turn to the Sultan on Horseback (fig.6), one of hundreds of automata commissioned by Holy

Roman Emperors Ferdinand I (1503-1564), Maximilian II (1527-1576), and Rudolph II that

served as part of an annual tribute payment to Ottoman Sultans from 1547 to 1593; this

mechanism figures an Ottoman sultan in ceremonial procession.

Automata are distinguished by their three-dimensionality, mechanical ability to alter and

fragment the point of view of the beholder, and their capacity to perform seamlessly multiple and

sequential moments in time. This unification of temporal process, spatial progress, and

lifelikeness amounts to a mimetic mode distinct from and in a sense more complete than that

proposed by early modern art theory and art historians who study the early modern period.

Rather than relying wholly on naturalism, descriptive specificity, or illusionism (as painting did),

or threatening to plunge into real time (as sculpture did), automata engaged the actual flow of

experienced time.3 The fluid action and mimetic potency of all five automata under discussion is

noteworthy: carefully simulated stately pomp, liturgical rites, biblical narratives, and gestures of

communication belie the material makeup of precious metals and enamel.

3On objects and their engagment with time in the German Renaissance, see Christopher S. Wood, Forgery,

Replica, Fiction: Temporalities in German Renaissance Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), passim.

15 Scholarship on early modern European mimetic representation remains preoccupied with

painting, sculpture, prints, and drawings. In analyzing such diverse media, scholars have focused

on shifts in standards of pictorial accuracy, new practices of firsthand observation of the world,

and the implications of artists’ claims of portraying the world ad vivum, or “from the life.”4 The

wide-ranging social, cultural, and scientific effects of an early modern interest in objectivity have

received much attention in recent decades, as have artists’ false claims of objectivity and the

fabrication of lifelikeness. In charting the emergence of pictorial techniques that created a

“reality effect” or “rhetoric of reality,” relevant studies have focused on an excess of information

in images and sculpture that attempts to persuade the viewer of the image’s analogic relationship

to its model—a model the artist may not have witnessed.5

Like most art objects, automata derived their significance from the imagery, composition,

and material makeup of preexisting visual and material culture—from monumental sculpture and

retable altarpieces to colossal prints, coins, jewelry, and printed broadsheets. Often, however,

the relationship between sixteenth-century automata and the objects that preceded them is

exceptionally close—so close that one could say that early modern automata are objects that

animate other objects. In other words, they are, to borrow George Kubler’s term, “meta-

objects.”6 This exceptional property of automata raises crucial questions about the relation of the

4The literature is vast. Several of the key texts are: E.H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion: a study in the

psychology of pictorial representation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), Lorraine Daston, “Marvelous Fact and Miraculous Evidence in early modern Europe,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 18 (1991), 93-124, Peter Parshall, “Imago Contrafacta: images and facts in the Northern Renaissance,” Art History Vol. 16 (December 1993), 554-79, and Claudia Swan, Ad vivum, near het leven, from the life: considerations on a mode of representation,” Word and Image Vol. 11 (October-December 1995), 353-372.

5Most notably, Alessandro Nova, “Popular Art in Renaissance Italy: Early Response to the Holy Mountain

at Varallo,” in Claire Farago, ed., Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America 1450-1650 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 113-126 and Wood (2008):109-184.

6George Kubler, The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962).

16 representation to its prototype. What do such objects really depict? One of the aims of this

dissertation is to show that early modern automata reveal a much more complex relationship

between mimetic objects and their referents than is usually credited to mimesis in the early

modern period.

In addition to shedding light on the ways automata betray a permeation of representations

and prototypes, this dissertation attends to the ways these objects blur the boundaries between

object and subject. To put it another way, it elucidates the contexts and circumstances under

which historical human actors and automata mutually controlled one another.7 It accomplishes

this in two ways. First, by way of extensive archival research, it charts the biographies of the

five automata, through their commission, collection, display, and circulation.8 Second, by way of

extended description of the works, it considers how these objects functioned for specific

7Although the foundational texts for art historians on the agentive properties of objects are David

Freedberg’s The Power of Images: Studies in the history theory of response (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) and Alfred Gell’s Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory (New York: Clarendon Press, 1998) this study looks to more recent scholarship on the turn toward things. See Bill Brown, “Thing Theory,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 28 No. 1 (2001), 1-22, B. Olsen, “Material Culture after Text: re-membering things,” Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 36 No. 3 (2003), 87-104, Alex Preda, “The Turn to Things: arguments for a sociological theory of things,” The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2 (1999), 347-366, Patricia Spyer, ed. Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces (New York: Routledge, 1998), and Christopher Pinney and Nicholas Thomas, Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment (Oxford: Berg, 2001).

8My analysis of the social lives of five automata under consideration is largely based on routinely generated courtly documents. These documents include Inventories (Inventare), of art collections (Kunstkammern) personal chambers (Schlaffkammern and Frauenzimmern), libraries (Bibliotheken), armor collections (Rustkammern), silver repositories (Silberkammern), and collections of Jewels and Treasure (Schatzkammern). Often these documents identify the location of the objects; the means by which the objects were acquired; and, at times, the objects' use and worth. In addition to these sources I have scrutinized Court Calendars (Hofkalendern) and Court Registers (Hofbücher). These annually produced documents account for all of the members at court, their positions, and their duties. Furthermore, these courtly compilations record courtly festivities, such as banquets, weddings, funerals and religious celebrations—events at which automata were seen and given as gifts. Finally, I have examined money ledgers (Rechnungen) and determined when payments for particular automata were made and compared the costs to other objects that were commissioned or purchased at the same time. The result of this archival work is not only a careful reconstruction of the context and circumstances of the acquisition, collection and use of early modern automata, but a discussion of the distinct and powerful status of these mechanical objects in early modern courtly society as well. On the importance of social lives of objects see, Arjun Appadurai, “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value,” in Arjun Appadurai ed., The Social Life of Things: commodities in cultural perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 3-63 and Igor Kopytoff, “The Cultural biography of things: commoditization as process,” ed., The Social Life of Things: commodities in cultural perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 64-94.

17 viewers.9 Thus, instead of attempting to explain what an automaton means, this dissertation

shows how an automaton, through its movement, repetition, and intrinsic engagement of time,

opens itself up to interpretation.10

This dissertation neither provides a catalogue of automata in sixteenth-century German

collections, nor does it endeavor to situate automata in relation to other forms of artistic

patronage and displays of magnificence at early modern courts. It addresses the question: why

were these objects deemed useful in political and cross-cultural encounters? Certainly the

automata commissioned and displayed at key political moments served specific functions. They

were actively sought after by German rulers who valued a type of object distinct from the

contents of their collections of painting and sculpture. In automata, this dissertation argues,

German rulers found objects capable of annulling the historical and cultural distance of the

represented event—such as the coronation of a deceased emperor or the procession of an

Ottoman Sultan. To be clear, this dissertation does not argue that automata are the same as

“real” processions or coronations in material terms. It is, however, arguing that, so far as their

intended audience was concerned, an equivalency between representation and event did pertain.

Until now, early modern automata have largely been studied by historians of science and

technology—who have tended to construe automata as manifestations of, or predecessors to,

early modern theories of a mechanistic universe. Examples of this sort of work include Silvio

9There is, of course, a gap that exists between the experience of the beholder and its mediation in text. And

the notion that a description, with an interpretive dimension, can divulge the viewing experience of a historical actor has not been adequately theorized. Perhaps, though, the study of automata is a starting point for such an endeavor. Because the temporal dimension of these objects, the programmed movement that takes place in a clearly defined span of time, is something experienced by everyone and is not dependent on a sophisticated form of visual literacy.

10For a discussion on how images enable certain interpretations of themselves see, Joseph Leo Koerner,

The Mortification of the Image: Death as a Hermeneutic in Hans Baldung Grien,” Representations, Vol. 10 (1985), 52-101.

18 Bedini’s “The Role of Automata in the History of Technology”; Derek de Solla Price’s

“Automata and the Origins of Mechanism and Mechanistic Philosophy”; Otto Mayr and Klaus

Maurice’s The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata 1550-1600; Peter Dear’s “A

Mechanical Microcosm: Bodily Passions, Good Manners, and Cartesian Mechanism”; and

Jessica Riskin’s “Machines in the Garden.”11 What these accounts occlude, though, and what this

project provides, is an analysis of the close relationship that holds between automata’s

production aesthetics and other contemporaneous artistic developments. This project is

motivated by the concern to introduce a more elastic understanding of these objects’ roles in

early modern Europe than has been put forth by the art historian Horst Bredekamp, who stresses

that automata were the crowning point of a universal history of matter which Kunstkammern

embodied.12 This dissertation focuses instead on how automata functioned within the broader

spectrum of court culture. In this way, my project is also partly informed by the work of

Christina Normore and Marina Berlozerskaya, who study the sumptuous works of art amassed at

fifteenth-century Burgundian courts.13 Normore and Berlozerskaya’s scholarship stresses the

intertwining of courtly artistic endeavors and the self-display of rulers. Insofar as this project

uncovers the role of automata at early modern German courts, it does not view them, as does

Alexander Marr, as evidence of a reassessment of curiosity, wonder, and the mechanical arts

11Silvio A. Bedini, “The Role of Automata in the History of Technology,” Technology and Culture, Vol. 5

(Winter, 1964), 24-42, Derek de Solla Price, “Automata and the Origins of Mechanism and Mechanistic Philosophy,” Technology and Culture, Vol. 5 (Winter, 1964), 9-23, Otto Mayr and Klaus Maurice, eds. The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata 1500=1600 (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, 1980), Peter Dear, “A Mechanical Microcosm: Bodily Passions, Good Manners, and Cartesian Mechanism,” in Science Incarnate, C. Lawrence and S. Shapin eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 51-82, and Jessica Riskin, “Machines in the Garden,” Chapter Two of Mind out of Matter (forthcoming). I would like to thank Professor Riskin for providing me with a draft of this chapter prior to its publication.

12Horst Bredekamp, The Lure of Antiquity and the Cult of the Machine: The Kunstkammer and the Evolution of Nature, Art and Technology, trans. Allison Brown (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).

13Marina Berlozerskaya, Rethinking the Renaissance: Burgundian Arts Across Europe (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2002) and Christina Normore, “Feasting the Eye in Valois Burgundy” (PhD diss, University of Chicago, 2008).

19 during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For Marr, sixteenth-century princely interest in

automata was only a product of popular intellectual currents.14 Throughout this dissertation I

question whether, when seen as part of the actual practices of German courts, what appear to

modern viewers to be “curiosities” can be said to embody consciously developed strategies of

persuasion and manipulation.

The five automata discussed here form a coherent group for several reasons. First, they

represent the finest and best-documented automata created during the second half of the

sixteenth century. Together they demonstrate how the pursuit of collecting was a multifaceted

endeavor. Certainly the formation of Kunstkammern was inextricable from the representation of

power, proof of the princely collector’s access to far-flung lands, and a means to portray

magnificence. Yet, as my reading of the London and Écouen Nefs suggests, collecting and

displaying automata was a means for Rudolph II to alter the foundation legend of his reign. For

Sophie of Brandenburg, the purchase and display of the Christmas Crib Automaton was tied to

the confessional tensions between herself, a dogmatic Lutheran, and Christian I, a crypto-

Calvinist. Albrecht V exhibited his automaton—the Verkehrte Welt Automaton, to denounce the

new practices of the reformed church in his territorial state of Bavaria. And in the case of the

Sultan on Horseback, its imagery signaled the Hapsburgs’ diplomatic ties to the Ottoman court.

In short, the examination of automata reveals that the practice of collecting in early modern

German-speaking lands was deeply connected to concrete domestic, dynastic, and international

political ambitions.

14Alexander Marr, “Gentille Curiosité: wonder-working and the culture of automata in the late

Renaissance,” in R.J.W. Evans and Alexander Marr eds., Curiosity and Wonder from the Renaissance to Enlightenment (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006) 149-170.

20 By pointing to these objects’ pervasiveness, their crucial role in the machinations of

early modern German court culture, their unique form of mimesis, and their function for

particular observers, this dissertation also engages ongoing debates about the status of sixteenth-

century German art after the Reformation. The notion of Lutherana tragoedia artis, which had

already been formulated by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) in the second quarter of the

sixteenth century, has plagued the German imagination and art historical scholarship.15 From

Ludwig Tieck (1773-1853) to Hans Belting, the Reformation has been construed as a religious,

social, and political movement that stifled artistic creativity and drained German painting and

sculpture of their visual seductiveness and emotional charge. No longer valued for its magical

efficacy, German art of the second half of the sixteenth century, according to such views, became

didactic or, worse yet, mundane.16

Several excellent studies have attempted to explain why the flowering of German art

around 1500, cultivated by the likes of Albrecht Dürer, Matthias Grünewald, Lucas Cranach,

Albrecht Altdorfer, Hans Baldung Grien, Hans Holbein, Tilman Riemenschneider, Veit Stoss,

and Hans Leinberger, did not continue into the second half of the century. In his excellent and

monumental study Die Kunst im heiligen römischen Reich deutscher Nation, Wolfgang

Braunfels looked to the political and social makeup of the Holy Roman Empire, rather than

exclusively to Luther, to understand why art after Dürer’s generation sparked, in the words of the

German expressionist poet Gottfried Benn, “a centuries-old German malaise.”17 Braunfels

15Alexander Rüstow, “Lutherana Tragoedia Artis,” Schweizer Monatshefte, Vol. 39 (1959), 891-906. 16On the notion of the Reformation’s negative effect on German art in art historical scholarship see, Joseph

Leo Koerner, “A Tragedy for Art,” in The Reformation of the Image (London: Reaktion Books, 2004), 27-37. 17 Gottfried Benn, Briefe an F.W. Oelze 1932-1945 (Wiesbaden: Limes-Verlag, 1977), 88 cited in Serguisz

Michalski, The Reformation and the Visual Arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1.

21 indicated a number of contributing factors: the decline of importance of landlocked urban artistic

centers, such as Augsburg and Nuremberg; the breakdown of the Reich into quasi-independent

territories that ignited a regionalism in German style; a marked lull in the patronage of the Latin

Church; and Rudolph II’s cosmopolitan court on the periphery of the Empire in Prague, where

painters and sculptors from Italy, Holland, and Spain were valued over those from German-

speaking lands.18

Alongside this shift in the production and function of German painting and sculpture,

however, there existed a confluence of artistic enterprise, technological development, and

princely patronage in what we now refer to as the “applied arts.” Up until now the literature on

the fate of sixteenth-century German art has failed to account sufficiently for how the restrictions

imposed on German artists and artisans after the Reformation fostered production in metalwork,

clockwork, glass, textiles, ceramics, and enamel and new artistic developments. To restrict our

understanding of late sixteenth-century German art production to works by Jost Amman (1539-

1591), Hans von Aachen (1552-1615), Dietrich Schro (1545-1568), and Benedikt Wurzelbauer

(1548-1628) would be to omit scores of objects commissioned and designed with concerns for

mimetic potency and religious, political, and social efficacy. We risk also bypassing the

opportunity to acknowledge how the study of objects such as automata can uncover alternative

histories of the development of realism, the codification of “Art,” patronage, collecting, cross-

cultural encounters, religious reform, and imperial politics, to name but a few. By focusing on

automata, then, this dissertation not only attempts to illuminate the role and function of a

heretofore unrecognized mode of mimetic representation; it is also a starting point to begin

18Wolfgang Braunfels, Die Kunst in heiligen römischen Reich deutscher Nation, Vol. 3 (München: C.H. Beck

1979-1989), 238-252.

22 charting a different history of German art—one that reformulates the status of objects and images

in the late German Renaissance.

SHIPS OF STATE: THE LONDON AND ÉCOUEN NEFS

The 1587 inventory of the Dresden Kunstkammer painstakingly describes over ten

thousand objects conspicuously exhibited in the Elector August I’s (1526-1586) “Art

Chamber.”19 Among lavishly ornamented mirrors, masterfully designed pietra dura table tops,

and the bones of a giant discovered outside Dresden, the chronicler lists a mechanized, gilded

silver ship. Its deck contained trumpeters heralding the Holy Roman Emperor, who was

enthroned, and surrounded by seven electors and heralds of empire processing in a circle. Each

of the three masts is described as supporting crows’ nests, in which sailors (Bußknechte) sounded

out the hours with small hammers.20 In 1593 the French traveler Jacques Esprinchard (1573-

19Joachim Menzhausen, “Kürfurst Augusts Kunstkammer Eine Analyse des Inventars von 1587,” Jahrbuch der

Stattlichen Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Vol. 17 (1985 ), 21-29. 20“Vorguldt kunstreich Schiff oder nave mit einer virtel und stunden schlagenden Uhr, welch alle 24 Stunden

muß aufgetzogen werden, oben mit dreyen mastbaumen, uf welchen die Bußknechte im Mastkörben umbgehen, und die Viertel und Stunden auf den glöcklein mit hammern schlagen. Inwendigk die Rom. Key. Mayt. auf den Keyserlichen stul sitzendt, und vor deselben die sieben Churfürsten und Herolden mit erzeigung ihrer Reverenz zu endtfalunge der lehen umgehendt, Deßgleichen zehen Trommeter und ein Heerpauker, die da Wechselweise zu tisch blasen, auch ein Drommelschleger und drey Trabandten sambt 16 kleinen stucklein, deren man II. Laden Khan, und von sich selbsten abgehen, darbey ein Futter, stehet auf einer grünen langen tafel mit tuch behengt. HStA Inventare Nr. 1, Folio 254r.

The 1595 Inventory of the collection lists the following: “Kunstlich mößen und vorguldt schieff oder Nave, mit einer virtel und stunden schlagen: den Uhr, welch alle 24. Stunden muß ufgezogen werden, oben mit drey mastbeument, auf welchen die Büßleuchte im Mast-Korben umbgehen, und die viertel und stunden uf den Glöcklein mit Hammern schlagen, Inwendigk die Rom. Key. Mayt: auf dem Keyserlichen stull sitzend und vor derselben die siben Churfürsten und Herolden mit erzeigung ihrer Reürentz zu entfahlunge der lehen umbgehendt, Deßgleichen 10 Trommetter und ein Heer: Bauker, auch ein Trommelschlager und sieben trabanten, samt 16. Kleinen stuckhen so

23 1604) encountered a similar object in a private collection in Augsburg.21 In this instance, the

“horologue,” whose inventor Georg Roll is identified by name and which is said to have been in

the works for sixteen years already, was not crafted from precious metal. Instead, it was

manufactured from exotic and costly ebony. Like the ship recorded in Dresden, the object in

Augsburg was propelled by a clockwork mechanism and functioned as a moving base for the

seated emperor and his electoral princes, described by Esprinchard as paying him a “grand

reverance.” In an inventory compiled three years later, in 1596, of the possessions of

Archduke Ferdinand II (1529-1595), yet another object was recorded that bears comparison to

the Dresden and Augsburg pieces. Notably, this automaton was a gift from the Bishop of

Augsburg, Otto von Truchseß (1514-1573), and it was stored in the Silberkammer (Silver

Chamber). According to the inventory the automaton adorned the lid of a silver vessel, on which

the seven electors of empire processed in a circle before the enthroned emperor, who was placed

beneath a baldachino.22 Despite their differences, all three automata featured the most powerful

man alle loßbrennen und abschließen kann, und von sich selbst loß gehen, Darzu ein futter gehörigk.” HStA Inventare Nr. 2, Folio 121r.

“Ain Schiff, so auf ainer tafel etliche bootsleuth darinnen forttreiben, wan es still stehet, aine thür sich aufthut, siben Churfursten des Reichs heraußgehen, Reverenz für Kaÿ. Maÿ bezeugen, Kaÿ. Maÿ. mit dem scepter und haupt gleichsam die lehen gibt, etlich trommeter wechselweisse blasen, ain heerpaucker auf den Kesselbauken schlegt in dem Mastbaum die Schlaguhren, und sonsten anderen bewegung vil zu sehen, vom Johann Schlothaimer zu Augsburg gemacht ist worden.” This is how Philip Hainhofer described the ship on his visit to the Dresden Kunstkammer in 1629. Oscar Doering, ed. “Des Augsburger Patricier Phillip Hainfhofer Reisen nach Innsbruck und Dresden,” in Quellenschrift fur Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalter und der Neuzeit (Wien: Verlag Von Carl Graser and Co., 1901), 168.

21 “…nous allasmes voir en la maison d’un particulier, un horologue admirablement beau, auquel on

travaille il I a desja seize ans […] Le maistre ouvrier inventeur d’iciuy, nommé Georg Roll, mourut il I a trois ans [en 1592], et i a maintenant un autre maistre qui le parachere. La boite de Cest horlogue est de beau bois d’ébaine, et est environ haute comme un picque, et I au bout d’icelle un coq. Que nous veismes chanter lors que l’heure sonnoit, i ayant au mesme instant un viellard fait de bronze, qui tourne un horologue […]. Entre plusieurs figures d’hommes qui jouent leur personage en sait ouvrage, par le moyen des rouses et des resorts, on i voit l’Empereur en une chaire qui baisse la teste, devant les sept electeurs, qui luy vienent faire une grand reverance.” Léopold Chatenay, Vie de Jacques Esprinchard, Rochelais, et Journal des ses voyages au XVI siècle (Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1957), 147-148.

24 political figures in the Heiliges römisches Reich deutscher Nation (Holy Roman Empire of the

German Nation)—the Emperor and his electoral princes (Kürfursten).23

These automata, as described by these late sixteenth-century accounts, correspond

significantly to the only two surviving mechanized table ships, or nefs, which display the

coronation of a Holy Roman Emperor. One, housed in the British Museum and believed to have

been crafted by the Augsburg clockmaker Hans Schlotheim, is commonly referred to as the

London Nef (fig.1) (ca. 1586 London, The British Museum). The second, also attributed to

Schlotheim, is housed in the Musée National de la Renaissance in Écouen and known as the

Écouen Nef (fig. 2) (ca. 1587 Écouen, Musée National de la Renaissance).24 Schlotheim, named

in an early description of the Dresden nef, is thought to have produced numerous such vessels.

22 “Ain hoches schönes alts gschirr, auf dem luckh siczt ain Kaiser in seinem tron under aim gwelb auf

seiln, darunder ain uhrwerch, unden herumb die siben curfürsten, so da, wann uhrwerck gericht ist, im cürcl umbgeen und sich vor dem Kaiser naigen, kombt her von Cardinal Otto von Augsburg, wigt 39 marckh 6 lot.” Inventar des Nachlass Erzherzog Ferdinand II. In Ruhelust, Innsbruck und Ambras vom 30 Mai 1596. in ed. Wendelin Boeheim, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Vol. 7, 1888 xci-ccxxvi.

23Until 1512 the Empire was referred to as the Sacrum Romanum Imperium. Craig Koslofsky, “Holy

Roman Empire,” in Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of Early Modern History, ed. Jonathon Dewald, Vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2004 ), 183.

24 London Nef, Location: The British Museum, London, Inv. N. 1866, 1030.1. Ëcouen Nef, Location:

Musée National de la Renaissance, Écouen, Inv. N. ECL 2739. Literature: J.J.L. Haspels, Royal Music Machines (Utrecht: National Museum from Musical Clock to Street Organ, 2006), 197-199, Julia Fritsch, “Histoire, destinée, signification,” in Julia Fritsch ed., Ces Curieux navires: Trois automates de la Renaissance (Paris: Réunion des Musée Nationaux, 2000), 1-34. J.H. Leopold, “La Construction des Nefs de Schlottheim,” in Ces Curieux navires: Trois automates de la Renaissance (Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1999), 61-74. Eric Rieth, “L’horloge automate dite Nef de Charles Qunit au regard de l’architecture navale du XVI siècle,” in Ces Curieux navires: Trois automates de la Renaissance (Paris: Réunion des Musée Nationaux, 2000 ), 99-111, Maximilian Bobinger, “Der Augsburger Uhrmacher Hans Schlothaim,” Schriften der “Freunde alter Uhren,” No. XI (1971-1972), 4-31, Klaus Maurice, Die Deutsche Räderuhr Vol. 2 (Munich: Beck, 1976), 229-230, Friedrich Streng, “Augsburger Meister der Schmiedgasse um 1600,” Blatter des Bayersischen Landesverein für Familienkunde, No. 1 (1963), 260-261. All two nefs are relatively the same size and made from gilded silver. Each has a clock mechanism that strikes on the hour and quarter hour. All three have a sizable spring mechanism that drove the wheel with the music program and the wind supply for the trumpeters. Each of the ships also has an independent apparatus that enabled the ship to move forward. And each features a representation of the emperor surrounded by the seven electors in addition to trumpeters and kettle drum players. An eighteenth-century source claims that Schlotheim also made a similar automaton for Sultan Sülyeman the Magnificent, but this has never been corroborated. See, Paul von Stetten d. J., Kunstgewerbe- und Handwerksgeschichte der Reichsstadt Augsburg (Augsburg, 1779), 184.

25 The function, movement and imagery of the surviving Schlotheim nefs, immodest in scale and

opulent, make clear the prominent roles the emperors and electors representations played at

feasts.

In an excellent exhibition catalogue, Ces Curieux Navires, Julia Fritsch has demonstrated

that the seated emperor on both the London Nef and the Écouen Nef is Charles V (1500-1558).25

In addition to deciphering the identity of the emperor, Ces Curieux Navires also examines the

complexities of the nefs’ mechanisms, their relationship to sixteenth-century nautical

engineering, and their evocation of New World exploration.26 Fritsch and her co-authors assess

these objects’ significance strictly in terms of Charles V’s expansion of the Holy Roman Empire

beyond the Straits of Gibraltar to Mexico and Peru.27 Although the growth of the empire was a

principal achievement of Charles V’s reign this account overlooks the ritual act these automata

animate: the coronation of Charles V. Additionally, the catalogue does not account for the fact

that they were crafted almost thirty years after Charles V’s death and very likely conceived under

the auspices of Charles V’s great-nephew/grandson, Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II (1552-

1612).

This chapter attempts to demonstrate that the iconography of the London and Écouen nefs

fulfilled a specific political and ideological function bearing on dynastic sucession.

Supplementing Fritsch’s thorough documentation, this chapter offers additional visual and

historical evidence and proposes a more motivated account of the nefs’ significance from an

imperial point of view. After discussing the patronage for the nefs and the objects’ imperial and

25 Fritsch (2000): 34. 26 Nadja Zweigler, “La Nef de Vienne,” in Ces Curieux navires: Trois automates de la Renaissance (Paris:

Réunion des Musée Nationaux, 2000), 43-59, Rieth (2000): 99-111. 27Fritsch (2000): 34-39.

26 dynastic message, I conclude with a discussion of how the animation of a ritual event increased

the objects’ potential to reconstruct and perpetuate a mythological past while enacting the

legitimacy and authority for Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II.

PREDECESSORS

The London and Écouen Nefs are unique surviving examples of festive, mechanical

objects that promoted an ideal of magnificence. Both automata are vestiges of a late-medieval

tradition of crafting nautical vessels to function as votive offerings, reliquaries, drinking vessels

and status symbols. In order fully to appreciate how Schlotheim transformed this tradition to

imbue these objects with majesty and a specific political and dynastic significance, it is useful to

examine earlier nefs, which were also commissioned and utilized by the highest echelons of

European nobility.

In the mid to late thirteenth century silver nefs were often given as votive offerings to

churches or saints. For instance, Queen Marguerite of Provence (1221-1295), the wife of King

Louis IX (later Saint Louis) (1214-1270), bequeathed a small silver nef to the Church of Saint

Nicolas de Port in Lorraine. According to Sieur de Joinville, in 1254 the entire royal family was

caught in a horrific storm returning, by ship, from the Holy Land. During the storm, the Queen

vowed that if her family was returned safely to France she would present the Saint Nicholas de

Port with a nef valued at five marks of silver. The family arrived home safely and Marguerite

was true to her word. Joinville tells us:

When the Queen (whom God absolve!) had returned to France she had the silver ship

made in Paris. And there were in the ship the King, the Queen, and three children, all of

27 silver; the sailors, the mast, the tillers and the ropes all of silver; and the sails all sown

with silver wire. And the Queen told me the making had cost a hundred livres.28

We also know of instances where table nefs were transformed into reliquaries. Notably, Joanna

of Castille (1479-1555), mother of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, owned a nef set on wheels

which she had converted into a reliquary to house and display the relics of Santa Leocadia in

Toledo.29

Not only did nobility present nefs to churches; they also owned and incorporated them

into their collections. Pope Gregory XI owned “a cup decorated with waves made in the form of

a silver ship, gilt inside.”30 An inventory compiled on September 16, 1380 of the belongings of

Charles V, King of France, itemizes two nefs which were given to the King by the city of Paris.31

One served as a seat marker for the King at courtly feasts, while the other also functioned as a

saltcellar or “saleria.”

The Burghley Nef (fig. 7) (1482-1483, London, Victoria and Albert Museum),

diminutive in size (35 centimeters tall and 20.5 centimeters wide) yet lavishly decorated, is a

pristine surviving example of a nef that served as a saltcellar.32 Like several other nefs crafted in

this period, The Burghley Nef stands atop an elaborate base. Six disembodied griffin talons

28As quoted in Charles Oman, Silver Nefs (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1963), 1. 29Ibid: 28. 30Hermann Hoberg, Die Inventare des päpstlicher Schatzes in Avignon, 1314-76 (Città del Vatincano:

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944), 411. 31“Item, la grant salière d’or, en facon d’une nef, que la ville de Paris donna au Roy, et est pareille a la grant

nef don’t cy-dessus est faicte mencion; pesant quninze marcs six onces d’or,” and Item, la grant nef du Roy, que la ville Paris luy donna, toute plaine; pesant VI xx V marcs d’or.” J. Labarte, Inventaire du mobilier de Charles V, roi de France (Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1879 ), 64 and 77.

32Carsten-Peter Warnke, “Cellinis ‘Saliera:’ der Triumph des Goldschmieds,” Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 21

No. 42 (2000), 49.

28 support the gilded silver substructure, which was carefully wrought to mimic a calm sea.

Swimming atop the waves is a n oversize mermaid, whose tail cradles a nautilus shell that has

been overturned to resemble the hull of ship. Several sailors populate the deck of this fantastical

vessel (one even climbs the twisted silver ropes rigging the polished silver sails), while two

figures play chess on the forecastle. However, due to the object’s small size and lack of

mobility, only individuals seated in close proximity to the nef could view the complex

arrangement of the silver ropes, the billowing sails that emit and reflect light, and the finely

wrought and active figures. Unlike The Burghley Nef, both the Écouen and London Nefs were

designed to be seen by every individual seated at the table, and others in the room.

Nefs such as The Burghley Nef were placed on tables for major events. For instance, a

nef was present at the coronation banquet for Charles VII at Rheims on May 30, 1484.33 An

image that captures the grandeur of such a sumptuous royal event is the calendar miniature for

the month of January in the Limbourg Brothers’ Très Riches Heures (1411-12, Chantilly, Musée

Condé, Ms. 65 fol. 2) (fig. 8).34 The miniature depicts the luster of a New Year’s reception held

at the court of Jean, Duc de Berry (1340-1460). Robed in a blue brocaded, fur-trimmed

houppelande, the duke sits at a banquet table, while his courtiers surround him and tend to his

wishes. The trestle banquet table is crowded with vessels crafted of exceptional materials. The

largest and, arguably, the most important object on the table is the golden nef situated to the

33Oman (1963), 13. 34Much ink has been spilled in discussing this miniature. See Brigitte Buettner, “Past Presents: New Year’s

Gifts at the Valios Courts ca. 1400,” Art Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 4 (December, 2001 ), 612 and Jean Pierre van Rijen, “Precious Metalwork in Gold Leaf: Everyday Lustre at the Court of Jean de Berry as Depicted by the Limbourg Brother,” in Rob Dückers and Pieter Roelofs eds., The Limbourg Brothers: Nijmegen Masters at the French Court 1400-1416 (Gent [u.a]: Ludion, 2005 ), 165-175.

29 duke’s left. The Duc de Berry’s nef stands on an elaborately ornamented hexagonal base and is

crowned on the forecastles with a bear and a swan. The bear and swan, two of the duke’s

heraldic animals, are echoed in the red silk textile, which hangs from the chimney directly

behind. In addition to calling attention to the duke’s prominent position at the table, the nef

appears to hold tableware, possibly the duke’s personal utensils. This miniature makes clear and

emphasizes the link between the ruler and the nef. In a sense, the nef functions as a literal

representation of the ruler, for it would stand in his place when he was absent.

Like the nef owned by Joanna of Castille, the London and Écouen Nefs also rest on wheel

carriages, but instead of being pushed down the table by an external force, these objects moved

themselves--a noteworthy distinction. Furthermore, the London and Écouen Nefs were without

utilitarian functions. Neither contained spaces to hold salt, spices, utensils or personal services.

Despite these differences, the London and Écouen automata pertain to a courtly tradition of

commissioning nefs and displaying and them at courtly feasts. Schlotheim’s innovations are

significant, extending to modifications in scale, imagery, and function, which together

transformed these objects in to vessels for claims about the transcendental dynastic continuity of

the House of Hapsburg.

HANS SCHLOTHEIM AND THE IMPERIAL COURT IN PRAGUE

The son of a clockmaker, Hans Schlotheim was born in Naumbourg, Saxony sometime

between 1544 and 1547.35 In his early to mid-twenties, between 1567 and 1573, he left his

father’s workshop and moved to Augsburg.36 Upon his arrival he trained under the master

35Bobinger (1971-1972): 8.

30 clockmaker Jeremias Metzger and in 1573 married Ursula Geiger, the widow of master

locksmith Hans Schitterer.37 Schlotheim obtained his Schmiedergerechtigkeit (right to forge) the

same year. Three years later, in 1576, he presented his Meisterwerk (masterpiece) to the

geschworene Geschaumeister (sworn inspection masters) in Augsburg and was awarded the title

of Meister (master). In 1577 he installed a large clock on the façade of his house—an ingenious

form of advertising.38 Schlotheim’s self-promotion paid off. He bought a second house on the

famed Schmiedgasse in 1579, placing himself at the epicenter of clock making in the Holy

Roman Empire.39 The absence in archival documents of any mention of Schlotheim for seven

years, between 1579 and 1586 is marked. Despite the lacuna, we may deduce that the 1582 visit

of Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II to Augsburg—to convene the Diet of Augsburg—played a

pivotal role in Schlotheim’s career and his relations with the imperial court. As scholars have

suggested, it was during Rudolph II’s stay in the Free Imperial City that he came in contact with

Schlotheim’s work.40 This is even more likely given that in 1586 Schlotheim requested and

received permission from the city of Augsburg and the clockmakers’ guild to leave the city and

work at the Imperial court in Prague. Schlotheim remained in Prague until 1589. From 1589

36 The history of clockmaking Augsburg starts very early. Archival documents from the late fourteenth

century begin to mention the payment of individuals to repair public clocks in the Free Imperial city. See, Eva Groiss, “The Augsburg Clockmaker’s Craft,” in The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata, eds. Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1980), 57-58.

37Little is known about Jeremias Metzger one of his pieces survives in the Victoria and Albert Museum in

London. It was signed by Metzger and has been dated to 1564. The marriage to Geiger presumably afforded Schlotheim social and occupational advancement as the tools of a clockmaker and locksmith, in the late sixteenth-century, were by and large the same. In the sixteenth century, the clockmakers were embroiled in the general guild of smiths, which included painters, saddlers, and goldsmiths. Archival documents often mention that locksmiths and clockmakers had a double qualification. Ibid: 60.

38Maurice (1976): 120. 39Streng (1963): 247-287. 40Max Engelmann, “Das Krippenwerk des Augsburgers Hans Schlottheim,” Der Kunstwanderer, No. 1

(December 1921), Streng (1963): 273 and Maurice (1976): 125.

31 until the middle of the 1590’s he is recorded at the Saxon court in Dresden, where he created the

Tower of Babel (ca. 1590 Grüne Gewölbe, Dresden) and The Christmas Crib Automaton (ca.

1588, Mathematische und Physicalische Salon, Dresden). 41

The dating of the London and Écouen Nefs is unstable, not only because the objects bear

no date stamps, but also because there exist no other comparanda for the automata. Although the

objects exalt Rudolf II’s deceased forbearer Charles V, whose revival of medieval notions of

Imperial Universalism Rudolf II honored, several scholars claim that the objects were made

before Schlotheim entered the employ of the imperial crown.42 Writing, in 1963 Friedrich Streng

claimed that the Écouen Nef was crafted in 1580 and the London Nef in 1581.43 It is unclear on

what evidence Streng based his opinion. The underlying assumption is that in 1582 Schlotheim

caught the emperor’s attention with these two works and was subsequently invited to Prague.44

In point of fact it is highly improbable that Schlotheim executed the two nefs without an imperial

commission or in such a short span of time. Both of the ships are extremely large, each

measuring almost a meter in length and height and they are made almost entirely of gilded silver,

41Fritsch (2000): 19. 42R.J.W Evans, Rudolf II and his world: A Study in Intellectual History 1576-1612 (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1973), 12. 43Streng (1963): 153. 44We do know that Rudolph commissioned objects while he was in Augsburg. A document dated

December 31, 1582 from the imperial Hofzahlamt (Office of the Treasury) states: “Dem Elias Huetter, des Kurfursten von Sachsen Diener, welcher sich zur zeit des letzten Reichstages zu Augsburg dem Kaiser Rudolf II. zur Anfertigung einiger Wasserkunstwerke erboten hatte und von demselben im August mit dem Auftrage nach Wien geschickt worden war, die wasser kunstkwerke in der Gattermühle, zu Ebersdorf und an anderen Orten, besonders aber im Kaiserlichen Fasangarten zu giessen, nach Vollendung dieser Arbeit aber, um des Kaisers Gutachten abzuwarten, bis ende December 1582 zurückgehalten worden war und mit seinem Diener ausser den Augsburg erhalten 30 Gulden für Kost Wohnung und Arbeits Materialien 329 Gulden 20 Kreuzer augelegt hatte werden dieselben über Kaiserlichen befehl ersetzt. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Vol. 7 (1888) CLXIX No. 5415. On average, four silver Gulden was the equivalent of one golden ducat and seventy-two Kreuzern equaled one Guldin. “Gulden,” in Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, Bd.7 4 Aufl. (Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institute, 1885-1892),922. To my knowledge we have no record of any object commissioned from Schlotheim during 1582.

32 an exorbitantly expensive material.45 Schlotheim would have required substantial financial

backing. The possibility that both nefs were speculative ventures at such an early date in the

clockmaker’s career is highly unlikely. Indeed, the principal subject matter, an imperial

coronation, strongly suggests an imperial commission or, at the very least, the backing and

encouragement of an individual intimate with the imperial court. The London and Écouen Nefs, I

maintain, require additional analysis within this context of imperial patronage.

“YOUR THRONE WAS ESTABLISHED LONG AGO; YOU ARE FROM ALL ETERNITY”

Both the London and Écouen Nefs were prestige objects. Crafted from costly materials

and their manufacture was demanding.46 The technical virtuosity of the automata lies not only in

the complex mechanisms housed in the hulls of the ships, but also in their highly wrought

surfaces of gilded silver. Both bases are engulfed in in incised patterns of turbulent water that is

populated by chimeras and other sea monsters that swarm around the vessels. On each nef, the

waves and the creatures are rendered in relief, allowing for a play of light and accentuating the

rocking movement of the ships as they traverse, by way of internal mechanisms, a surface.

Schlotheim also made an effort to vary the texture of the ornamentation and architectural

elements of the ships. The entire body of both ships is covered in finely embossed and chased

Laubwerk or Ranken, a decorative motif that incorporates a variety of flora and fauna into

complex arrangements of curves and counter-curves.47 In addition to the finely detailed

45Groiss (1980): 60. 46For a very insightful discussion of the efficacy of prestige objects at early modern courts see, Brigitte

Buettner, “Past Presents: New Year’s Gifts at the Valois Courts ca. 1400,” Art Bulletin, Vol. 83 No. 4 (December, 2001), 604.

33 Laubwerk, the clockmaker skillfully molded the ribbing of the vessels, which simultaneously

interrupts and draws attention to the spiraling motif. Canons emerge from inside the ships and

extend outward through portals on both the port- and starboard sides, while larger canons

protrude from the mouths of the dragons on both heads of the vessels. 48

Although the ships are very large, they were constructed in such a way that the decks

were at eye level of viewers seated at a table; the decks constitute the focal points of the objects.

The main decks of the nefs which, like the hulls, are covered in Laubwerk, are populated with

brass figures in formal courtly attire. The London Nef holds two groups of four male figures

each, who stand shoulder-to-shoulder on either side of the deck. More crowded, the Écouen Nef

has twenty-three figures standing aboard the deck of the ship or actively working the masts. On

the Écouen Nef ten trumpeters, who originally played, line the perimeter of the deck. A

drummer, who also played, is situated between the trumpeters on both automata. The main decks

each also contain a representation of a double-headed imperial eagle suspended between two

47Laubwerk or Ranken is more often referred to as (in French) Rinceaux. During the early modern period

this decorative motif was used in a wide variety of settings, such as ceramics, furniture, textiles, armor, and frescoes. It was first employed north of the Alps by printmakers such as Israhel van Meckenem (ca. 1440-1503) and Martin Schöngauer (1450-1491). Remarkably, in an early printed portrait of Emperor Charles V by Daniel Hopfer (1470-1536) the emperor’s bust is surrounded by the motif. Additionally, Hopfer also engraved a map in which the entire geographical area of Burgundy, the first region Charles V inherited, is covered with Laubwerk. Thus, a tradition of surrounding the Emperor with this decorative motif was established before Schlotheim manufactured the nefs, and may have been a catalyst for the inclusion of the motif on these objects. See, Alain Gruber, L’art decorative en Europe: Renaissance et Maniérisme, Vol. 1 (Paris: Citadelles & Mazenod, 1993), 115-128.

48 Remarkably, the 1587 inventory entry of the Dresden nef describes the complex rigging of this particular

object. The rigging of each of the surviving nefs is also fairly complex. They are rigged with three masts—the mizzen, main and fore masts—at full sail. All of the masts could be turned around in an attempt to simulate the wind blowing in the proper direction of movement. A shroud (a set of ropes that lead from the head of the mast and served to relieve lateral strain on the mast) extends from each mast. Three crows’ nests—each containing a figure who struck bells while the automata were in motion—are situated above each yard and sail and crowned with trucks, spindles and vanes on both works. For excellent diagrams of early modern ships see, Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia, or, An universal dictionary of arts and sciences: containing the definitions of the terms, and accounts of the things signify'd thereby, in the several arts, both liberal and mechanical, and the several sciences, human and divine: the figures, kinds, properties, productions, preparations, and uses, of things natural and artificial; the rise, progress, and state of things ecclesiastical, civil, military, and commercial: with the several systems, sects, opinions, &c; among philosophers, divines, mathematicians, physicians, antiquaries, criticks, &c: The whole intended as a course of ancient and modern learning. Vol. 2 (London, 1728), XVII.

34 columns.49 The strategically placed imperial insignia simultaneously announces and demarcates

the symbolic and ritual act that transpires beneath the conical baldachin at the back of the

vessels.

Directly behind the main mast on both automata, Charles V sits enthroned, laden with

symbolic treasure, and garbed in golden ecclesiastical vestments (figs. 9 and 10).50 On the

London Nef, the emperor holds the imperial scepter in his left hand, while his right is out

stretched in a gesture of benediction; he wears the imperial mitre crown, topped with a cross. The

golden brocaded dalmatic he wears is the vestment worn during the unction by the pope.51 On

the Écouen Nef, by contrast, the emperor holds the Reichsapfel (Imperial Globe) and wields a

sword. In both cases, Charles V is represented in the moment immediately following his

transformation into a persona gemina, an individual who is “human by nature and divine by

49The fact that the double-headed eagle is hung between two columns is significant. It recalls Charles V’s

device of the two columns of Hercules. It should also be noted that the double-headed eagle was an imperial insignia. The insignia could only be used by the sovereign after his conformatio coronation by the Pope in Rome. When the sovereign was elected as the German-King of the Romans in Frankfurt and later crowned in Aachen he was depicted with the single headed eagle. A famous example of this distinction can be found in Hans Burgkmair’s Kaiser Maximilian in der Kapelle. (1515 Vienna, Graphische Sammlungen Albertina). In the woodcut the Mitre Crown of the Emperor is displayed over the double-headed eagle, while the Double-Arched Crown of the Emperor Elect, was rendered above a single headed eagle. For a wonderfully technical discussion of the meaning of the two crowns and their use before and during Charles V’s reign, see Earl E. Rosenthal, “Die Reichskrone’ die ‘Wiener Krone’ und der “Krone Karls des Grosen’ im 1520,” Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Vol. 66 (1970), 7-48.

50The depiction of the emperor enthroned and in majesty began in the Holy Roman Empire during the

Carolingian period. It is believed that the tradition was initiated by either Lothar I (795-855) in The Gospel of Lothar I, from the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Paris (ca. 849-851Ms. Lat. 266 fol. 1v) or by Charles the Bald (823-877) in The Psalter of Charles the Bald from the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Paris (ca. 850 Ms. Lat. 1152 fol. 4v). The Ottonian Emperors appropriated this tradition and were regularly represented enthroned, not only in manuscripts, such as the Aachen Gospels (ca. 975 Aachen, Aachner Dom Schatzkammer) , but also on secular seals. “Otto I is the first ruler in Western sigillographic history to be depicted on his seal enthroned, crowned, holding a lily scepter and the Christological imperial orb surmounted by a cross...the revolutionary character of Otto’s seal resides chiefly in the fact that the scene of Royal majesty, previously exclusively found on religious artifacts had made its way into absolutely secular and political objects.” Brigitte Bedos Rezak, “The King Enthroned: A New Theme in Anglo Saxon Royal Econography, The Seal of Edward the Confessor and its Political Implications,” Acta, Vol. XI (1984), 60.

51Robert Deshman, “Otto II and the Warmund Sacramentary: A Study in Political Theology,” Zeitschrift für

Kunstgeschichte, Vol. 34 No. 1 (1971), 8.

35 grace.”52 The inclusion of the seven electors of the Holy Roman Empire and their liturgical

attributes reinforce this claim.

The coronation scene on the London Nef incorporates the three Geistliche Kurfürsten

(Holy Electors) of the Holy Roman Empire and the four Weltliche Kurfürsten (Secular Electors),

all dressed in regal ermine-trimmed red mantels and Kurhütten, (Electoral Crowns) while

processing in circle around the newly crowned emperor (fig. 11). The Electors are identifiable

on the basis of the attributes they were required to hold in the coronation ceremony. The three

Geistliche Kurfürsten carry texts. The Archbishops of Mainz and Trier hold books, while the

Archbishop of Cologne carries a scroll. The four Weltliche Kurfürsten wield liturgical items

used only during the coronation of the emperor. The King of Bohemia carries a silver chalice,

from which the emperor would drink a mixture of wine and water during the ceremony. The

washing basin and cloth used to cleanse the body of the emperor in preparation for his

anointment are held by the Margrave of Brandenburg. The Elector of Saxony carries the

Reichschwert (the imperial sword), a weapon believed to embody the power of the Empire.53

And finally, the Elector of the Palatine holds a large silver key to the imperial kitchen,

designating his responsibility over the sovereign’s food.

The coronation scene on the Écouen Nef includes an additional two heralds donning the

Imperial Wappenrock (tabard), who lead the procession, and an eighth elector, whose hands are

52This notion is crystallized in the Norman Anonymous’ eleventh century De consecratione pontificum et

regum, when the monk stated “We thus have to recognize [in the King] a twin person, one descending from nature, the other from grace. . . .One through which, by the condition of nature, he conformed with other men: another through which by the eminence of [his] deification and by the power of the sacrament [of consecration], he excelled all others. Concerning one personality, he was, by nature, an individual man: concerning his other personality, he was, by grace, a Christus, that is a God-man.” As quoted in, Ernst Kantorwicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 46.

53Howard L. Adelson, “The Holy Lance and the Hereditary German Monarchy.” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 48

No. 2 (June 1966), 181.

36 empty.54 Other differences are visible in the liturgical items the Margrave of Brandenburg and

the Elector of Saxony present. Instead of carrying the washbasin and cloth, the Margrave of

Brandenburg carries a scepter. This crucial piece of imperial regalia is paired with the

Reichsapfel held by the Elector of Saxony. As on the London Nef, the Archbishop of Mainz and

Trier carry books, the Archbishop of Cologne holds a scroll, the King of Bohemia bears a grand

chalice, and the Elector Palatinate has a large key over his right shoulder.

Several aspects of these animated coronation scenes deserve close attention. Both nefs

present the most salient aspects of imperial power and thus adhere to traditional early modern

Majestätbilder—images in which the emperor is depicted enthroned and surrounded by his

electors. Consider, for example, Hans Weiditz’s (1500-1536) woodcut of Charles V’s 1520

Coronation in Aachen (fig. 12) (ca. 1520 Aachen, Aachen Stadtarchiv), which was made to

circulate the news of the newly crowned emperor.55 At first glance the woodcut appears

strikingly similar to the coronation scenes on the nefs; the enthroned emperor is surrounded by

seven standing electors, holding either texts or liturgical objects used in the coronation. Yet

Schlotheim has manipulated the Majestätbilder tradition. In Weiditz’s woodcut the emperor is

seated on a modest high-backed throne draped with a simple unornamented Cloth of Honor and

topped with the double-headed imperial eagle. On the London and Écouen Nefs, Charles V sits

on a low stool flanked by two lions. Remarkably, the thrones on Schlotheim’s works recall King

Solomon’s throne which, according to the first book of Kings, was adorned with “stays on either

54This curious addition of an elector, has two possible explanations. First, the eighth elector could have

been included during the time the automaton was crafted to compensate for a gap in the procession. Second, the eighth figure could have been affixed sometime after 1648 when an eighth electoral position was given to the Duke of Bavaria, Maximilian I (1573-1651).

55Hans Weiditz also published two earlier portraits of Charles, when he was King Charles I of Spain, the

first dates to 1518 and the second to 1519.

37 side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the stays.”56 Here the nefs allude to

Charles V’s Solomonic wisdom, and also suggest that the Holy Roman Empire and the emperor

are extensions of the Old Testament Kings and their divinely protected kingdoms.57 To put it

another way, in the first instance (Weiditz) the throne is decked in conventional royal trappings,

whereas in the second (the nefs) the Solomonic throne is mobilized to convey the divinity,

longevity, and legitimacy of the Hapsburg monarchy. Unlike Old Testament Kings such as

David and Solomon, who were considered harbingers of Christ, the rulers of the Holy Roman

Empire were construed as “shadows” of Christ, impersonators of Christ—Christomim etes.58 In

the words of Ernst Kantorowicz, on earth the emperor “presented the living image of the two-

natured God. . . . The divine prototype and his visible vicar were taken to display great similarity,

as they were supposed to reflect each other.”59

The manifestation of Christ in the Emperor is made apparent when we compare the figure

of the Charles V on the London and Écouen Nefs to a detail of Christ as Weltenreicher (ruler of

the world) from the Christusmantel (fig. 13) (ca. 1525 Wien, Weltliche Schatzkammer), a

lavishly embroidered liturgical pluviale and one of the key liturgical raiments of the Hapsburg

regalia.60 The Christusmantel and the figures of Charles V on the nefs share strategies of

56I Kings 10: 18-20. An excellent visual example of the Old Testament Leonine throne which is

incorporated into a coronation is ceremony, Saul anointed by Samuel (ca. 1250) a detail from an illuminated manuscript from the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York (M. 638 f.23v).

57The term sacrum imperium was first employed in the twelfth-century during the reign of Frederick I of

Barbarossa. Craig Koslofsky, “Holy Roman Empire,” in Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of Early Modern History, ed. Jonathon Dewald, Vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2004), 183.

58Jefferey Hamburger has explored various ways medieval images of John the Baptist depict the saint

imitating Christ or depict the saint as Christ in, Jefferey F. Hamburger, The Deified Evangelist in Medieval Art and Theology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

59Kantorowicz (1957): 47.

38 exhibiting an imperial presence. Austere and immobile majesty is a common feature. Christ and

the figures of Charles V sit frontally, iconically, in canopied thrones before concave backdrops

sumptuously ornamented with vegetal motifs. The figures of Charles V and Christ are draped in

dalmatics and wear mitre crowns topped with a cross. Consequently, each representation calls

attention to the role of the enthroned and crowned figure as the supreme ruler of the Christian

world.

Yet another critical distinction remains to be made between Weiditz’s woodcut and the

coronation scenes on the London and Écouen Nefs. Weiditz’s work statically represents and

attempts, by means of an accompanying text, to record an event that took place on a specific day

in a particular year, a singular event that occurred in chronological time. The automata deviate

from this tradition on precisely this point: the London and Écouen Nefs have the potential to

perform and re-perform the sacramental and liturgical action, which transformed Charles V into

yet another Hapsburg mediator of divine will.

Why, however, would a representation of Charles V’s coronation have been desirable for

Rudolph II to begin with? Why would the emperor not wish to memorialize his father

Maximilian II (1527-1576) or perhaps the first Hapsburg ruler—Rudolph II’s namesake—

Rudolph I (1218-1291)? A partial answer is to be found in Charles V’s reign and dynastic

intentions. A more complete answer lies in the shaky dynastic grounds on which Rudolph II

ascended to the imperial throne.

PLUS ULTRA

60The pluvial, along with its counterparts—the Marienmantel (ca. 1525 Wien, Weltliche Schatzkammer)

and the Johannesmantel (ca. 1525 Wien, Weltliche Schatzkammer)—have been dated to the second quarter of the sixteenth-century. See, Colin Eisler, “Two Early Franco-Flemish Embroideries—Suggestions for their Settings,” The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 109 No. 775 (October, 1967) 578 no. 40.

39 Born on February 24, 1500 to Philip le Beau (1478-1506) and Joanna the Mad of Castille

(1479-1555), Charles V embodied the perfect storm of European dynasties. He was the heir to

three of Europe’s most powerful families: the Trastamara of Castille and Aragon, the Burgundian

Valois, and the Hapsburgs of Austria.61 The orchestration of Charles V’s role in imperial politics

began immediately following his birth. Charles V’s birth on the feast of Matthias—the

individual who, according to the Holy Scriptures, was chosen to succeed as the apostle of

Christ—was viewed by many as fortuitous. Supposedly, upon hearing the announcement of her

grandson’s birth, Isabella of Spain (1451-1504) remarked “cecidit sors super Matthiam” (“and

the lot fell upon Matthias”).62 Isabella’s reputed remark signals Charles V’s link to the apostolic

age, and suggests that he had been pre-elected to his imperial position by God himself.63

Shortly after Charles’s birth, Philip le Beau began preparing his firstborn son to

perpetuate the might of the Hapsburgs.64 Before Charles reached the age of one, Philip arranged

61Charles V’s maternal grandfather, Ferdinand II of Spain (1479-1516) was the head of the house of

Aragaon, while his maternal grandmother, Isabella I of Spain (1474-1504) was born within the house of Castille. His paternal grandfather was the Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (1459-1519) and his paternal grandmother was Mary of Burgundy (1457-1482). Karl Brandi, Kaiser Karl V: Werden und Schichsal einer Persönlichkeit und eines Weltreiches (München, Bruchmann Verlang, 1937) 37.

62As quoted in Brandi (1937): 59. Zurita, one of the chroniclers of Isabella’s life noted “it is well known . .

.that when Isabella learned of [Charles’s] birth, remembering how in the Holy Scriptures it is mentioned that St Matthias was chosen by lot to succeed as an apostle of Christ, and understanding in how much hope [Charles] had been born with the power to succeed to so many powerful kingdoms and estates, she observed that the lot of St Matthias had fallen upon him. And not many days passed before the truth of her prophecy emerged and it seemed as if her remark had been made from Divine inspiration.” As quoted by Rolf Strøm-Olsen, “Dynastic Ritual and Politics in Early Modern Burgundy: The Baptism of Charles V,” The Past and Present Society (2002), 44 no. 30.

63This vertical axis linking the emperor with the apostles was a well-worn trope by the time Charles’s

emerged on the political scene. The Annals of Lobbes, ad annum 961 stressed the Ottonian kings relationship to the apostles and their role in bringing Christianity to the gentes. “Our lord Otto, his father’s name sake, is made to share in the paternal kingship and is given the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit in the palace of Aachen, seven weeks from Easter, on the day of the Pentecost and at the hour on which the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, on the seventh of Calends of June, and on the seventh moon, when Otto was in his seventh year.” As quoted by Philippe Buc in “Ritual and interpretation: the early medieval case,” Early Medieval Europe, Vol. 9 (2000), 188.

64Charles V’s dynastic ambition for the house Hapsburg has been primarily taken up by his German

Biographers. The Spanish biographers of the emperor, not surprisingly, have focused on his role in perpetuating the

40 for him to become one of the thirty members of the Order of the Golden Fleece—a chivalric

order established by Philip the Good (1396-1467) to defend Christendom against the infidel—

and ceded the child-prince the Duchy of Luxembourg.65 Philip died in 1506, causing Joanna of

Castille to be so overtaken with grief that she was unable to care for or stand in as regent of her

son. Joanna’s weakened mental state worried her Hapsburg in-laws, and she was quietly

removed from Brussels and taken to Castille, where she lived in seclusion under the watch of her

father Ferdinand of Aragon, King of Spain (1452-1516).66 Concerned for his grandson’s well-

being and political future, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (1459-1519) placed Charles in the

care of Philip le Beau’s sister, the twice widowed and childless Margaret of Austria (1480-

1530).67 Thus, at an extremely early age, Charles was closely connected to the imperial throne

as he became, at the death of his father, the heir apparent.

In 1516 Charles’s maternal grandfather died and bequeathed all the Spanish Kingdoms to

Charles.68 As a result of Ferdinand’s decision, the Hapsburg line entered Spain; the Hapsburgs

ambitions of the House of Aragon and Castille in relation to Hernán Cortés’s (1485-1547) conquest of Mexico and Peru. Karl Brandi’s biography of the emperor has become the accepted scholarly standard on the whole of Charles V’s life and reign. However, in recent years there has been attempts by German scholars to revise Brandi’s heroic view of Charles V. See, Alfred Kohler, Karl V. 1500-1558. Eine Biographie. (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1999) Luise Schorn-Schütte, Karl V. Kaiser zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2000) and Ernst Schulin, Kaiser Karl V. Geschichte eines übergroßen Wirkungsberiches (Stuttgart, Berlin and Cologne: W. Kohlhammer, 1999).

65On Charles V and the Order of the Golden Fleece see Earl Rosenthal, “Plus Ultra, Non plus Ultra, and the

Columnar Device of Emperor Charles V,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes, Vol. 34 (1971), 204-228 and Earl Rosenthal, “The Invention of the Columnar Device of Emperor Charles V at the Court of Burgundy in Flanders,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes, Vol. 36 (1973), 198-230.

66Manuel Fernández Alvarez, Charles V: Elected Emperor and Hereditary Ruler, Trans. J.A. Lalaguna

(London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), 17. 67On the letters exchanged between Margaret of Austria and her father Maximilian I, which discuss her care

for Charles V and her regency of his Burgundian position see, Brandi (1937): 39-47. 68In addition to Aragonian and Castillian regions in Spain Charles V also inherited the kingdoms of Naples

and Sicily upon the death of his grandfather. Consequently, Charles V was the second Holy Roman Emperor to posses both Naples and Sicily. The previous emperor to possess both Sicily and Naples was Holy Roman Emperor

41 had not ruled the Iberian Peninsula before. This fact has substantial bearing on Charles’s later

dynastic intentions and his attempt to satisfy both the Austrian and Spanish lines of the Hapsburg

house at the time of his abdication in 1553.

When Charles arrived in Spain, in the late fall of 1516, his claims to the crowns of

Castille and Aragon were contested. Many Spaniards contended that the legitimate Spanish heir

was either Charles’s mother or Ferdinand (1506-1564) the younger son of Joanna of Castille and

Philip le Beau, arguing that if Joanna was truly unfit to perform her duties then Ferdinand, who

had been born and raised in Castille, should be considered the heir apparent.69 Recognizing that

his younger brother might stand in the way of his first royal title, Charles sent him to Flanders

where Ferdinand was raised and trained to be entrusted with the government of the Hapsburg

Erblande (hereditary lands).70

In January 1519 Charles received news of Maximilian I’s death. At this time Charles was

aware that, prior to his demise Maximilian, had campaigned for his election as King of the

Romans (emperor elect) and given several electors heavy sums to insure that Charles would be

crowned. Despite Maximilian’s energetic lobbying, the seven electors where not entirely

convinced that Charles was the natural choice to replace his grandfather.71 Charles was

extremely young, only nineteen years of age; he had never been to the German speaking lands of

Friedrich II (1194-1250). The fact that Charles was in possession of both Sicily and Naples is significant. Papal authorities, historically, tended to lobby against the imperial election of the King of Naples. The pope did not want the two heads of Christendom to be in such close proximity. See Alvarez (1975), 29.

69Ferenc Majoros, Karl V. Habsburg als Weltmacht (Graz, Vienna and Cologne: Styria, 2000 ), 112-114. 70On the Hapsburgs and the control of their hereditary lands see, Volker Press, “The Hapsburg Court as

Center of the Imperial Government,” Journal of Modern History, Vol. 58 suppl. (December, 1986), S25-S26 and R.J.W. Evans, Rudolf II and his World: A Study in Intellectual History 1576-1612 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973 ), 10-14.

71Henry J. Cohn, “Did Bribes Induce the German Electors to Choose Charles V as Emperor in 1519?”

German History, Vol. 19 No.1 (2001), 5.

42 the Holy Empire; he did not speak a word of German; nor did he have the military credentials

needed to combat Sultan Süleyman the Great (1494-1566) who was looming just outside the

imperial realms.72 Conscious of Charles’s weaknesses, Francis I of France (1494-1547)

campaigned vigorously for his own election as King of the Romans. In addition to Francis, it was

rumored that Henry VIII of England (1491-1547) had also been in secret discussions with the

electors for their support of his candidacy for Charlemagne’s throne.73

Needless to say, the race for the throne was intense. Upon hearing news of his seasoned

rivals, Charles immediately focused all his attention on the upcoming elections. He swiftly

dispatched couriers to all the electors and wrote to his aunt in Brussels to begin negotiating with

electors on his behalf.74 With the help of Margaret and the pope and by incurring heavy debts to

line the pockets of the electors, Charles was elected King of the Romans on June 28, 1519, and a

date of October 23, 1520 was set for his coronation.75

72Ibid: 14. 73Supposedly, when Charles V informed Francis I of his decision to campaign for the election Francis

replied, “Sire, we are both courting the same lady.” See Alvarez (1975): 30. 74Foreseeing a contentious election the Archbishop of Mainz, Albert III von Brandenburg (1490-1545)

convened all of the electors a month after Maximilian I’s death. During the meeting, the electors agreed that they would vote the new emperor into office three months later in Frankfurt. Charles realized that that he required the support of the pope to defeat Francis and Henry. Throughout the three-month deliberation period, Charles wrote frequent letters to Pope Leo X (1475-1521) that appealed to his papal sensibility. Charles made clear his personal calling to quash the infidel in the east and destroy the German heretic, Martin Luther (1483-1546) whose ideas had begun to plague the empire. Brandi (1937): 85-87.

75Soon after learning of his election, Charles left Spain and first traveled to England and then to Brussels,

where he planned his coronation in Aachen. While in Brussels, he was awarded one million florins for his coronation ceremony by the Estates General of the Netherlands. This delighted Charles, because he was anxious to set the date for his anointing. However, reports out of Aachen claimed that the city was in the midst of a plague outbreak. Charles’s advisors exhaustively strove to convince him to have the coronation at a different cite, such as Regensburg. The advisor’s admonishments were ignored by Charles, who insisted on being crowned in Aachen regardless of how long he was required to delay his anointing. This decision, which took place during the most critical time to establish his dominance in Europe and position on the throne, clearly illustrates Charles V’s reluctance to relinquish his reign’s symbolic tie to the medieval empire. Charles was never indifferent to the

43 On the day of his anointment Charles processed through the streets of Aachen. When the

emperor-to-be reached the city’s cathedral, built by Charlemagne himself, he was met by the

Archbishops of Mainz and Trier outside the entrance. The two Geistliche Kurfürsten flanked

Charles as the door opened and the music of the imperial guard came to a halt while the sacred

music of the liturgy poured out of portals of the church. Charles was escorted by the two

Geistliche Kurfürsten to the high altar, where he was asked if “he would swear to preserve the

ancient faith, protect the church, govern justly, and care for the humble, poor, widows and

orphans.”76 Charles answered “Volo” (I will) to each of the questions posed to him. After

Charles’s affirmative answers the Archbishop of Cologne turned to the congregation and asked if

they would pledge their undying allegiance to Charles as their emperor. Following the pledge of

the congregation, Charles was anointed on the back of his neck, on his chest, hands and head

while the Archbishop of Mainz repeated “Unge te regem oleo sanctificatio.” Once Charles had

been mystically distinguinshed from those on Earth and placed under the authority of God, he

was crowned with the “Coronum Caroli” (the crown of Charlemagne) and given the scepter and

globe while the Electors processed in a circle around him as the congregation screamed “Vivat,

vivat, viviat rex in eternum.”77

location of his symbolic transformation into a persona gemina. On the contrary, he displayed a keen sense of history; an awareness which heightened the profundity of his coronation.

Charles’s controversial decision to wait for his desired location was fortuitous. During his stay in Brussels, the emperor to be regularly exchanged letters with the pope, who in addition to preparing Charles to deal with his most problematic new subject, Martin Luther, bestowed upon Charles the privilege of being crowned both King of the Romans (emperor elect) and Emperor within the same liturgical ceremony. Furthermore, the pope allowed the coronation to take place in his absence. This was the first and last time the pope would grant such a privilege. See Brandi (1937): 100 and Alvarez (1975): 38.

76Alvarez (1975): 34. 77All of the biographies of Charles V describe his coronation see note 40. My brief description has been

taken from Karl Brandi. See Brandi (1937): 105-109.

44 This political and liturgical rite of coronation served to legitimate Charles V; demonstrate

the allegiance of the empire and electors, make clear the continuity of the past empire of

Charlemagne with that of the present, and fortify the Hapsburg line.78 Given the questions about

Hapsburg sucession that troubled Rudolph II, it makes good sense that the symbolic framework

of this momentous occasion was taken up by Schlotheim in the London and Écouen Nefs while

he was working at the Rudolph II’s court. 79 It is my considered opinion that Rudolph II wanted

associate and identify himself with Charles V’s coronation and reign, since he was not,

technically, Charles V’s heir. Rudolph’s cousin Philip II (1527-1598), King of Spain, Algavres,

Portugal, Naples, Sicily and Chilé—the foremost global empire—was. One of the means by

which Rudolph II asserted this model of dynastic sucession was by commissioning and

displaying such vehicles of political meaning as the nefs under discussion.

78For an overview of roles coronations play in societies and an historiographic discussion of the topic see,

János M. Bak, “Introduction: Coronation Studies—Past, Present and Future,” in Jáno M. Bak ed., Coronation (Los Angeles: Centerl for Medieval and Renaissance Studies UCLA, 1985 ), 1-17. As one might imagine, the scholarship on this ritual event is immense. The author who pioneered this field of study was Percy E. Schramm. Schramm was primarily interested in divulging the mechanisms which promoted the symbolic nature of Kingship in the medieval period. Numerous students of Schramm have published on coronations. Their collective body of work, is referred to as the Göttingen School. Ernst Kantorowicz’s masterful The Kings Two Bodies was written in response to Schramm’s work. See, Percy E Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatsymbolik. II (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1925) and Ernst Kantorwicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).

79After his coronation in Aachen, the young and precocious emperor ruled over no less than twenty-seven

kingdoms, thirteen duchies, twenty-two counties and nine seignories. The scale of his monarchy was so great—in addition to colonies in Peru, Mexico and the Philippines the empire stretched from the Straights of Gibraltar in the south of Europe to Holstein in the north, from Alsace in the west to Bohemia in the east—that he was often compared to the illustrious Charlemagne and, at times, hailed as greater than his beloved ancestor. Shortly after Charles’s election his head jurist, Mercurino Gattinara (1465-1530) wrote to him and stated: “Sire, now that God in His prodigious grace has elevated Your Majesty above all Kings and Princes of Christendom, to a pinnacle of power occupied before by none except your might predecessor Charlemagne, you are on the road toward Universal Monarchy and on the point of uniting Christendom under a single shepherd.” As quoted by Fernand Braudel, in Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in Age of the Philip II, Vol. II trans. Sian Reynolds (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995 ), 674. Charles V’s rule even prompted nervous papal authorities to concede that the young emperor had made the medieval notion of a universal Christian Monarchy (monarchia universalis) a reality. On the repeated comparison made between Charles V and Charlemagne see, Franz Bosbach, “Die Politische Bedeutung Karls des Grossen für Karl V,” Archiv für Kulturgechichte, Vil. 84 (2002 ), pg, 49-73. On the response of the papal authorities see, Alfred Kohler, “Karl V,” Neue Deutsche Biographie, Vol. 11 (Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1977), 194.

45

HAPSBURGIAN HAUSMACHT

In order to fully understand Philip II’s claim to the imperial throne we must first delve

deeper into Charles V’s plans for the continuation of the House of Hapsburg. To the dismay of

the empire, Charles V was unmarried when he commenced his imperial reign. Two years

following his coronation Charles was betrothed to his first cousin, Mary I of England (1516-

1558), daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon (1485-1536). However, at the time of

her espousal Mary I was eight years of age, and the nuptial contract could not be instated until

she reached at least sixteen years. Initially, Charles agreed to wait the prescribed period of

time.80 Since Charles had to defer producing legitimate heirs for eight years, he officially

bequeathed the inheritance rights of the Hapsburg Erblande to his brother Ferdinand in 1522.81

Charles’s decision to invest Ferdinand with the Hapsburg lands was bolstered by Ferdinand’s

recent marriage to Anne of Bohemia (1503-1547) in 1521, which considerably strengthened

Hapsburg power in Central Europe.82 It appeared to the empire that Charles had strategically

solved his dynastic problems by spreading the familial supremacy across the whole of Europe.

This, however, was not the case.

Three years later Charles renounced his betrothal to Mary I of England. Henry VIII’s

attempt to divorce Catherine of Aragon enraged Charles and he cut all his ties with the House of

Tudor. Quickly thereafter, Charles brokered a marriage with yet another first cousin, Isabelle of

80On Charles betrothal to Mary I of England and his relationship to the House of Tudor see Kohler (1999):

167-174. 81Brandi (1937): 116-122. 82This Hungarian and Austrian alliance was a crucial move instated to block Süyleman the Magnificent’s

march from Belgrade—which the Turkish troops had taken in 1521—along the Danube. Ibid: 123-125.

46 Portugal (1503-1539).83 The couple was married on March 10, 1526 in Seville. One year later,

their first-born child (and only son to survive childhood) Philip II was born and in 1528 their

second child Maria of Spain (1528-1603), Rudolph II’s mother, came into the world.

At the close of the decade, Ferdinand requested a meeting with Charles to re-affirm his

inheritance promise of 1522. Charles responded, and on his journey from Italy to Germany to

convene the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 he stopped in Innsbruck. Charles’s visit to Innsbruck was

a symbolic gesture. Upon his arrival the two brothers and their younger sister, Mary of Hungary

(1505-1558), prayed together before the tomb of Maximilian I in the Hofkirche.84 Following

their devotions, Charles swore to Ferdinand that he would propose his election as King of the

Romans to the Imperial Diet in Augsburg. Charles intended for Ferdinand to disallow any of his

children the right to the imperial throne and instead propose that Philip II succeed him as

emperor.85 Ferdinand would do no such thing.

Charles V stayed true to his vow. During the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, he proposed that

Ferdinand be elected King of Romans and, consequently, take over the imperial throne. Since

Philip II, the heir apparent, was only a toddler at this time, the representatives who composed the

Reichstände (imperial estates) agreed that electing Ferdinand would be in the Empire’s best

interest. Ferdinand was crowned in Aachen one year later in 1531.86

For the next fourteen years Ferdinand dealt with the confessional issues that plagued the

German-speaking lands and repelled repeated Ottoman attacks in his territories, while Charles V

83Alvarez (1975): 45. 84Ibid: 62. 85Kohler (1999): 113. 86Alvarez (1975): 94.

47 battled the Ottomans in the Mediterranean and the French in Italy. However, Ferdinand’s

attempts to quell a Protestant alliance in Germany failed, and in 1544 the formation of the

Schmalkaldic League forced Charles to devote all of his attention to the rebellious German

princes. In December 1544 Charles announced that he was going to deal with the Schmalkaldic

League by force. After three years of skirmishes, Charles defeated his protestant foes in the

decisive battle at Mühlberg. In 1547, it appeared to all of Europe, that Charles had quashed the

heretical ideas that had plagued Germany for almost three decades. However, in December 1547,

the emperor’s health deteriorated rapidly, prompting him to make swift decisions to tie up the

disparate ends of the house of Hapsburg.87 Charles’s choices spawned an internal Hapsburg

conflict, which led to a decisive split in the Hapsburg political edifice.

It was at this time, when Charles was weakened, that the succession issue was broached

by both Ferdinand and his twenty-year old first-born son Maximilian (1527-1576). Ferdinand

desired that Maximilian take the imperial crown and pressured Charles into proposing

Maximilian’s election to King of the Romans upon Ferdinand’s ascension to emperor. Not

surprisingly, Charles did not favor of Ferdinand’s plan, and proposed that Philip II be elected

King of the Romans instead of Maximilian. By way of appeasing Charles and Philip, Ferdinand

offered to invest Philip with the title of vicar of the Holy Roman Emperor in Italy. Charles

vetoed the suggestion. After three years of bitter exchanges between Ferdinand and Charles a

decision was reached. To the chagrin of Ferdinand and Maximilian, during the Imperial Diet of

Augsburg in 1550 Charles convinced the members of the Reichstände to elect Philip II as King

87Brandi devotes the largest section of his book to Charles’s conflicts and battles with the Schmalkadic

League. See Brandi (1937), 449-450.

48 of the Romans upon Ferdinand’s imperial coronation, or conformatio. Ferdinand and Maximilian

were enraged by the succession arrangements.

The remainder of Charles V’s reign was wracked with persistent Protestant uprisings in

Germany. By 1553 it was clear that several of the Protestant princes were on the precipice of

breaking away from the empire.88 Riddled with gout and depression over his inability to stop the

Protestant movement and unify the empire and the Church, Charles V renounced his imperial

obligations and invested Ferdinand with the empire and the confessional burden. Charles

retreated to Spain, where he lived out the rest of his life in a monastery at Yuste.

Despite Charles’s abdication in 1553, the electors did not recognize the renouncement of

his imperial duties until 1558. Finally, on March 14, 1558 Ferdinand was invested with the

imperial crown. Ferdinand was now in the position to propose his successor, and predictably he

persuaded the electors and the Reichstände to elect Maximilian as King of the Romans.

Consequently, the imperial crown never went to the Spanish line of the House of Hapsburg.

After Maximilian’s death his son, Rudolph II, took the crown in spite of Philip II’s prolonged

and virulent protests.89

Viewed against the backdrop of the Hapsburg succession issue, the London and Écouen

Nefs can be seen to have legitimized the Austrian Hapsburgs generally and Rudolph II in

88These princes were the Margrave Hans von Küstrin, Wilhelm von Hesse and Margrave Albrecht

Alcibiades von Brandenburg, Kohler (1999): 247. 89In addition to two failed attempts at poisoning Maximilian II, Philip sought an imperial title to rival that

of his Austrian relatives. In January of 1563 rumors were flying around Europe that he preparing to declare himself “Emperor of the Indies” and a similar rumor circulated just four months later that he had proclaimed himself “King of the Indies and of the New World.” Twenty years later, a French ambassador in Venice wrote to the French King Henri II to inform him that Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (1517-1586) one of Philip’s leading jurists and minister, visited the pope in Rome to discuss an imperial title for Philip II. “I have learned from these Lords that Cardinal Granvelle is coming to Rome in September this year to have the title of emperor conferred upon his master.”As quoted by Fernand Braudel in Braudel (1995), 675.

49 particular by representing the coronation of Charles V. Through these objects Rudolph could

visually tie his imperial title to Charles V, as if he had directly inherited the throne from him.

This linking of Rudolph II’s dynastic heritage to Charles V was an active political strategy and

was reiterated visually and pictorially in several instances. On May 7, 1577 Rudolph II ordered

that Charles V’s coat of arms be displayed in the Schloßkirche (the palace chapel) and the church

of Saint Jacob in Prague.90 Four years later, the emperor sent Philip II 117 Gulden and 20

Kreuzern for a portrait of Charles V which was in Spain.91 And finally, the emperor juxtaposed

the bronze bust of himself, now known as Portrait bust of Rudolph II (ca. 1590 Vienna,

Kunsthistorisches Museum) II by Adrien de Vries with Leon Leoni’s Bronze Bust of Charles V

(ca. 1540 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum) in the imperial Kunstkammer in Prague.92

RITUAL AND REPETITION

Rituals are displays of carefully choreographed and negotiated ceremonies, gestures, and

behaviors that affirm or re-affirm distinctions of social status while expressing an argument or

statement.93 They are planned and staged with care, with attention to the smallest detail and

90Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Vol. 7 (1888), CLXIX No.

5370. 91 The Rechnungen from the Hofzahlamt in Prauge recorded that on May 19, 1581 Rudolf II sent the money

to Spain for the portraits. “Der Hofzahlmeister entrichtet an Herrn Hans Khevenhüller, Kaisers Rudolf II. Rath und Gesandeten des Königs von Spanien, 117 Gulden 20 Kreuzer für ein Gemälde des Kaisers Karl, welches für den Kaiser gemacht wurden und noch aus Spanien erwartet wird.” Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Vol. 7 (1888 ), CLVVV No. 5382.

92The Location of the busts is discussed in Lars Olog Larsson, “Portraits of emperor Rudolf II,” in Eliska

Fucikova ed. Rudolf II and Prague: the Court and the City (London: Thames and Hudson, 1997), 127. 93As I develop this dissertation chapter into an article and later a book chapter I will expand on this notion

of ritual by engaging Anthropological discussions of ritual. For example, Arnold van Gennep, Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabriell L. Caffee (London: Routledge, 1977), Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphor: Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), Clifford Geertz, Negara:

50 timing. Often, in the early modern period, rituals of all sorts were performed on or around

significant dates, such as feast days, and held in symbolically significant locales.94 Underlying

the consciously designed acts is the anxiety that someone or something will disrupt or prevent

the event. Consequently, the individuals involved in the design and performance of the ritual, in

addition to the public or audience who support the event, desire it to run smoothly and

uninterrupted–in other words, like clockwork.

That ritual assumed a prominent position in imperial politics has long been recognized by

scholars of the medieval Ottonian Reich.95 Historically, scholars of imperial ritual have followed

Percy E. Schramm’s articulation of the capability of ritual “to make the invisible visible and

form the visible in such a way that a deeper meaning could be discovered in it.”96 Building on

Schramm’s argument, more recent scholars such as Gerd Althoff and Karl Leyser have shown

that imperial political rituals were forms of social communication that allowed rulers to express

their power, authority and legitimacy, and that governed almost all aspects of courtly life and

Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward a Theory of Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), and Maurice Bloch, Ritual History and Power (London: Atlantic Highlands, 1989).

94

For a general discussion of ritual see, Robert Darnton, “The Symbolic Element in History,” Journal of Modern History, Vol. 58 (1986 ), 218-234. For a looser yet provocative definition see David A. Warner, “Thietmar of Merseburg on Rituals of Kingship,” Viator, Vol. 26 (1995 ), 56-76, and Timothy Reuter, “Pre-Gregorian Mentalities,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol 45 (1994 ), 465-474.

95The literature on the role ritual played during the Ottonian period is vast. See, Percy E. Schramm, Kaiser,

Könige, und Päpste, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1686-1971 ), passim. Gerd Althoff, Spielregeln der Politik im Mittelalter: Kommunikation in Frieden und Fehd (Darmstadt:, 1997 ), passim. Hans-Werner Goetz, Moderne Mediävistik: Stand und Perspektiven der Mittelalterforschung (Darmstadt, 1997 ), passim. Karly J. Leyser, “Ritual Ceremony and Gesture: Ottonian Germany,” in idem, Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994 ), 1-40. David A. Warner, “Ritual and Memory in the Ottonian Reich: The Ceremony of Adventus,” Speculum, Vol. 76 No.2 (April, 2001 ), 255-283 and Philippe Buc, “Ritual and Interpretation: the early medieval case,” Early Medieval Europe, Vol. 9 No. 2 (2009 ), 183-210.

96Schramm (1968-1971): 1:23 for a similar articulation of the notion see G. Koziol, in Begging Pardon and

Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992 ), 51-86.

51 public engagement.97 The means by which rituals were remembered and represented in literary

and visual forms to paper over conflict has been addressed by David A. Warner. Warner has

interrogated how representations of ritual manipulate a ceremonial event, which took place in the

past, in order to attach a deeper and greater significance to it.98 This re-organization of the past

makes clear, according to Warner, that when ritual events were represented long after their actual

occurrence they were considered, by those who represented the events, to have considerable

implications for the present and future.99

I have addressed these complementary functions of ritual because the London Nef and the

Écouen Nef make claims for legitimacy, disguise conflict, and attach great significance to a past

ritual event. Since the automata center on a coronation ceremony they address the core issues of

power, authority, and legitimacy.100 Both objects not only performed and re-performed the

sacramental and liturgical event that transformed Charles V into a persona gemina; they also

emphasized Charles’s medieval notions of the empire and political theology—which Rudolph

echoed—by presenting the emperor as the earthly representative of God through his association

with Old Testament Kings and Christ. In addition to stressing the quasi-apostolic legitimacy of

Charles V’s reign, the automata benefited Rudolph II by implication. By commissioning such

objects Rudolph II directly associated himself with the coronation of his forbearer as if no

problematic dynastic issues haunted that association. Consequently, both automata may be

97For a discussion of Leyser’s and Althoff’s contribution to the study of ritual and their relationship to

Shramm see, Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, ed. K. Boyd, 2 vols. (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999), 212-217.

98Warner (2001): 258-259. 99Ibid: 259. 100János Bak, “Introduction: Coronation Studies—Past, Present and Future,” in János Bak, ed., Coronation

(Los Angeles: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies UCLA, 1985), 1.

52 viewed as attempts to legitimate Rudolph II’s tendentious claim to being one of the legitimate

progeny of Charles V. By foregrounding and emphasizing Charles V’s coronation, the automata

effectively push the contested coronations of Ferdinand I and Maximilian II into the background

and allude to the licit stronghold of the Austrian line of the House of Hapsburg over the Spanish

line, whose head was Philip II—Charles V’s only son and heir.

In conclusion, it is worthwhile reviewing some of the focus of discussion. First, the

London and Écouen Nefs are part of a tradition representing and animating the electors of the

Holy Roman Empire paying reverence to an enthroned emperor. The nef recorded in the 1587

inventory of the Dresden Kunstkammer, the object witnessed by Jacques Esprinchard in

Augsburg, and the vessel that was housed in the Silberkammer at Schloß Ambras all attest to the

fact that this imagery its animation had been established before Schlotheim crafted the surviving

objects. Second, I have shown that the nefs in London and Écouen could only have been

produced after 1586, when Schlotheim was under the employ of Rudolph II at Prague. Third,

since the objects were produced under Rudolph II’s auspices, and since they clearly represent the

coronation of Charles V they must have played a role in propagating Rudolph II’s claim to be the

legitimate heir of Charles.

Finally, the fact that automata, rather than static arts such as painting or sculpture, were

chosen to bear such ideological weight is significant. That the automata were made from

precious materials, wonderfully wrought, extremely large, portable, and in the form of nefs

suggests that they were intended to be viewed by guests at feasts. As objects that traversed a

table they had the potential to confront viewers more directly and assertively than a painting or

tapestry hanging on the wall or a sculpture in the center of the room. Furthermore, unlike static

works, which could only present the impression of movement, the automata presented an actual

53 re-enactment of the coronation ceremony. Viewers watched the sequence of events that

continuously constituted Rudolph II’s and the Austrian line of the House of Hapsburg’s

legitimacy. Moreover, through the animated repetition the consequential ceremony could take

place in other times and in other venues under pristine conditions. There was no room for

slippages, misfirings, or resistance: in other words the coronation ceremony, and by extension

the House of Hapsburg, would always run like clockwork, whose settings were carefully

controlled by Rudolf II.

54 THE GIFTS THAT KEEP ON GIVING: THE CHRISTMAS CRIB AUTOMATON AND THE LÜNEBURGER

SPIEGEL

On New Year’s Day in 1589 Sophie of Brandenburg (1568-1622), the wife of the newly

instated Albertine Elector of Saxony, Christian I (1560-1591), gave her husband a custom-made

automaton featuring an enactment of the adoration of the kings.101 Crafted by the Augsburg

goldsmith Hans Schlotheim (1545-1602), the author of the nefs discussed in Chapter 1, the

automaton was an elaborately decorated multi-tiered construction of bronze that was gilded and

embellished with silver; by way of an internal mechanism it played two consecutive hymns while

the shepherds and kings of the Christmas story moved in a circle presenting gifts to the Christ

child.102 The automaton was destroyed during the Allied bombing of Dresden on February 13,

101 The 1610 inventory lists the following: “…die Geburt Christi von Kupfer gemacht, versilbert und

vergoldet und mit allerlei Bildwerk gezieret…ist Churfürst Christian, hochlöblicher Gedächtnis von derselben geliebten Gemahlin zum Heiligen Christ verehret worden anno 1589.” HStA Inventar Nr. 3 Fol. 363v.

The piece was also recorded by Tobias Beutel in 1611: “ Der funftlich beweglichen Sachen und Uhrwercke werden zum wenigsten hundert stuck gezehlet/ die vorneumsten sind: Das grosse Astronomische Uhrwerck/ so Chur=fürst Augsto (hochstseeligsten Andectens) 1600.Rthlr.gecostet; Ein Uhrwerk von der Geburt Christi; Zwen in Form wie Schiffe/ als Papegonen/ ein als ein Pfau/ Ouctguct/ Lamb/ und andere thiere.” Tobias Beutel, Chur-Fürstlicher Sächsischer stets grünender hoher Cerdern=Wald auf dem grünen Rauten-Grunde der…(Dresden, 1671), n2.

Philip Hainhofer also described the object, which he saw in 1629 during his visit to the Dresden Kunstkammer: “Ain schönes vhrwerck, darinnen die geburt Christj samt der raÿse der weysen aus Morenland, wie auch der engel herabfahrung vom himmel, ochs und esels sprung, suchung und anbetung her hirten zu sehen, auch etlich Weihenact gesang durch ain pffeifenwerck zu hören, vom Schlotthammer.” “Des Augsburger Patricier Philip Hainhofer Reisen nach Innsbruck und Dresden,” in Oscar Doering ed., Quellenschrifft für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalter und der Neuzeit. (Wien: Verlag von Carl Graser und Co., 1901),176.

The 1640 inventory lists the following: “Ein schon groß uhrwergk, darinnen die Geburth Christi wie auch der Hirten und Weisen auf dem Morgenland ihre Bildwergk zu finden, welch in ablauffung des Uhrwergks herumb gehen und sich voer dem Kindlein neigen, oben auch sich mit zweyen flügeln voneineander thut, die Engle gleichsamm wie vom Himmel herabgflihen undt durch ein Pfeifenwergk, ‘Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich hehr’ singenn: Entlich Joseph wiegt und Maria durch ein Pfeifwergk singet ‘Joseph lieber Joseph mein.’ Is alles von Kupffer und Messing vergüldet und versilbert, und ist Churfürst Christiano I zu Sacßen Hochseeligten gedechtnis und deroselben vielgeliebten Gehahl zum Heyligen Christ verehrt wordern. Anno. 1589.” HStA Inventar Nr. 4 fol.496 r.

102The base was adorned with reliefs of Biblical scenes; see below, pp. 61.

55 1945. Although now lost, the automaton has attracted scholarly attention in some parts and is

commonly referred to as the Christmas Crib Automaton (figs. 3 and 4).103

The Christmas Crib Automaton was unique in numerous respects. First, it appears to

have been a unicum, the only automaton featuring the adoration narrative crafted by Hans

Schlotheim, whereas Schlotheim tended to make automata en masse. His famed nefs, two of

which are the subject of Chapter 1, in the British Museum, and the Musée de la Renaissance in

Écouen exemplify his tendency to re-use models and technology over the course of a decade

(figs. 1 and 2).104 Second, the Christmas Crib Automaton was commissioned by a wife as a gift

for her husband. In the second half of the sixteenth century, automata were generally given as

tokens of allegiance between male rulers; they were diplomatic gifts. In the mid 1560s the

Bishop of Augsburg, Otto von Truchseß, bequeathed an automaton to Holy Roman Emperor

Maximilian II. This vessel, referenced in Chapter 1 but not a nef, was made completely of silver,

and featured an emperor enthroned in the presence of the seven electors of the Holy Roman

Empire.105 In 1582 the Duke of Bavaria, Wilhelm V, gave Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol an

automaton featuring Bavarian trumpeters who played a processional song, while the ebony base

on which they stood displayed the mingling of the Bavarian and Austrian coats of arms, marking,

visually and audibly, a celebratory connection between the Wittelsbach and Habsburg houses

103Former Location: Mathematisch-Physikalischer Salon, Dresden, Inv. n. (destroyed), Literature: Peter

Plaßmeyer, “Renaissance musical automata in the art collection of the Saxon Electors in Dresden,” in J.J.L. Haspels, ed., Royal Music Machines (Utrecht: National Museum from Musical Clock to Street Organ, 2005), 49. Klaus Maurice, Die deutsch Rädeuhr vol. 2 (Munich: Beck Verlag, 1976), 389, Alfred Protz, Mechanische Musikinstrumente (Kassel: Bärenreiter Verlag, 1939), 36-38, Engelmann (1921). In his monumental study on German clocks and automata Klaus Maurice noted that a similar automaton was given to the emperor of China, via Nicolas Trigualt, by the Archbishop of Cologne, Ferdinand of Bayern in 1610.

104See Note 24. 105See Note 22.

56 (fig. 14).106 Sophie’s gift of an automaton to her husband was not in keeping with this established

tradition. There is a third peculiar aspect of the Christmas Crib Automaton. It was self-

reflexive. In the manner of other early modern gifts, it “present[ed] to the viewer both the

present and the supposed spirit in which it was given.”107 All of these peculiarities are relevant

to the analysis of this exceptional object offered in this chapter.

The Christmas Crib Automaton was given by Sophie to her husband during the New

Year’s festival, which in the late medieval and early modern eras abounded with banquets,

games, and displays of largess. The period between Christmas and New Year’s was filled, at

both Protestant and Catholic courts, with visitations of foreign dignitaries, the burning of logs,

the performance of Christmas plays (Weihnachtsspiele), the consumption of food, and the giving

of gifts.108 The Christmas Crib Automaton was one of two objects in an exchange of gifts

between Sophie of Brandenburg and Christian I. Christian reciprocated Sophie’s gift with a

Prunkkassette crafted by the famed, recently deceased Nuremburg goldsmith Wenzel Jamnitzer

(fig. 15).109 Initially, the gifts appear to adhere to conventions of courtly prestation. Christian’s

106Hilda Lietzman, “Die Geschichte zweier Automaten,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeshichte, Vol. 57 No. 3

(1994), 390-402. 107Birgitte Buettner, “Past Presents: New Year’s Gifts at the Valois Courts ca. 1400,” Art Bulletin, Vol. 83

No. 4 (December 2001), 613. 108On the New Year’s festivals at late medieval and early modern courts see, Buettner (2001): 598-619,

Paul F. Casey, “Court Performance in Berlin of the Sixteenth Century: Georg Pondo’s Christmas Play of 1589,” Daphnis, Vol. 32 Nos. 1-2 (2003), 57-72, A. Jefferies Collins, ed., Jewels and Plate of Queen Elizabeth I (London: Trusties of the British Museum, 1955), 101-108, Gregory Lubkin, “Christmas at the Court of Milan: 1466-1476,” in Craig Hugh Smyth and Gian Carlo Garfagnini eds., Florence and Milan: Comparisons and Relations, Vol. 2 (Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, 1989), 257-270, Princely Magnificence: Court Jewels of the Renaissance (London: Victoria Albert Museum, 1980), pg, 11-12, and Leopold Kretzenbacher, Frühbarockes Weinachtsspiel in Kärnten und Steiermark (Klagenfurt: Geschichtesvereines für Kärnten, 1952), 7-32.

109Dirk Syndram, Schatzkunst der Renaissance und des Barock: Das Grüne Gewölbe zu Dresden (Dresden:

Deutsche Kunstverlag, 2004), 38-39, Klaus Pechstein, “Der Goldschmied Wenzel Jamnitzer,” in Erik Forssman ed., Wenzel Jamnitzer und die Nürnberger Goldschmiedekunst 1500-1700 (Munich: Klinkhardt und Biermann, 1985), 57-70, Eduard Isphording, “Wenzel Jamnitzer und sein Werk im Urteil der Nachwelt,” in Erik Forssman ed., Wenzel Jamnitzer und die Nürnberger Goldschmiedekunst 1500-1700 (Munich: Klinkhardt und Biermann, 1985), 191-206, and on the other Jamnitzer Prunkkassette in the Dresden Kunstkammer see, Erik Forssman, “Die Prunkkassette mit

57 gift is consistent with a long history of men presenting to women cases to hold their jewelry,

barrettes, combs, mirrors, and maquillage—objects that enabled the woman to adorn and

beautify her body.110 And Sophie’s gift of an automaton was seemingly well-suited for a prince.

The remarkable craftsmanship, by the Augsburg goldsmith Schlotheim, and the wondrous

movement of the object was, on one level, intended to delight Christian. On yet another level, as

this chapter will demonstrate, the automaton advocates an ideal of religious behavior for a

Lutheran ruler.

My interpretation of the Christmas Crib Automaton and its political and religious

significance is also largely based on an elaborate gift Sophie of Brandenburg gave to her son

Elector Christian II in 1600, the Lüneburger Spiegel of ca. 1587-1592 (Dresden, Grünes

Gewolbe) (fig. 16). This gift, a masterpiece of metalsmithery, placed the ruler of Saxony at the

center of an overtly political allegory. Like the Christmas Crib Automaton, the Lüneburger

Spiegel was steeped in a Lutheran tradition that was grounded in Martin Luther’s writing, was

given by Sophie of Brandenburg at a pivotal political moment, and, as I will demonstrate,

displayed its intended recipient as a virtuous Lutheran ruler. In addition to these sources, I will

der Allegorie der Philosophie von Wenzel Jamnitzer,” Dresdener Kunstblätter, Vol. 48 No.4 (2004), 246-249. Additionally, it is important to note that Sophie’s stepmother, Elizabeth Kurfürstin von Brandenburg, gave Christian I yet another Prunkkasette on Februrary 28, 1590 as a New Year’s gift. However, this piece was not as costly an item as Jamnitzer’s case. Even though the “Kestlein oder Nöheledtlein,” as it was referred to in the 1595 Inventory of the Dresden Kunstkammer, followed the style of Jamnitzer, the case Elizabeth gave to Christian also incorporated linen and embroidered work in addition to costly silver castings. See, Dirk Syndram and Antje Scherner eds., Princely Splendor: The Dresden Court 1580-1620 (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, 2004), 288-291.

110“A lover may freely accept from her beloved these things: a handkerchief, a hair band, a circlet of gold

or silver, a brooch for the breast, a mirror, a belt, a purse, a lace for clothes, a comb, cuffs, gloves, a ring, a little box of scent, a portrait, toiletries, little vases, trays, a standard as a keepsake of the lover, and to speak more generally, a lady can accept from her love whatever small gift may be useful in the care of her person, or may look charming, or may remind her of her lover, providing, however that in accepting the gift it is clear that she is acting quite without avarice.” Andreas Capellanus as quoted in Michael Camille, The Medieval Art of Love: Objects and Subjects of Desire (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1998), 51. For an excellent catalogue of many of the courtly cases see, Heinrich Kohlhaussen, Minnekästchen im Mittelalter. (Berlin: Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1928), passim.

58 adduce several sixteenth-century texts that shaped the didactic role of art objects and images in a

Lutheran context. The Christmas Crib Automaton was a gift whose central theme and action is

giving. The object promoted a very specific kind of princely charitable liberality—that stressed

the importance of bestowing the correct type and amount of gifts to appropriate recipients.111

Thus, we might think of the Christmas Crib Automaton as a political tool; it mediated the

relationship between Christian and his wife and more broadly exemplified the confessional

tensions in the Holy Roman Empire at the close of the sixteenth century. The automaton did not

merely enact a biblical event; it, provided Christian with a model of proper actions and attitudes

for his new role as ruler of Saxony.

THE ALBERTINES, SAXONY, LUTHERANISM AND CALVINISM

The Albertine line of the electors of Saxony established dominance in the region a

generation before Christian I took over the position of his father August I (1526-1586). Prior to

the family’s rise to power, the position of the elector had been reserved for the Ernestine line of

the house of Wettin, whose governance stretched over Torgau, Wittenburg, Gotha, Coburg, Jena,

the Vogtland and Weimar—the Leipziger Teilung (figs. 17 and 18).112 It was the Ernestine

Elector Frederick the Wise (1463-1525) who supported the first wave of the Reformation in

Saxony, and through his intimate ties with Martin Luther made Saxony “the most important

Protestant German territory in the early modern period.”113 Shortly thereafter, in 1539,

111For an interesting discussion of liberality and its virtues at courts see, Jean C. Wilson, Painting in Bruges

at the Close of the Middle Ages (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Pres, 1998), 61-70. 112Karlheinz Blaschke, Moritz von Sachßen: ein Reformationsfürst der zweiten Generation (Göttingen,

Muster-Schmidt, 1983), 17.

59 Protestantism was introduced by Duke Heinrich (1473-1541) to the Albertine lands of Meissen

and Thuringia. By the second quarter of the sixteenth century it appeared to the empire that the

Ernestines and the Albertines were, confessionally speaking, on the same page. This, however,

was not the case. In 1545 the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500-1558), nervous about the

growing Protestant alliance of the Schmalkaldic League, sought to align himself with a strong

Protestant prince. Charles V found sympathies with Moritz (1521-1553), the Albertine Duke of

Saxony. Moritz’s alliance with the emperor strengthened over a short period of time, and in

1547 Moritz battled and defeated his Ernestine cousin, the Elector Johann Friedrich I (1503-

1547), at Mühlberg. Moritz quickly took over the title of elector and moved the capital from

Wittenburg to Dresden. But Moritz’s concord with the emperor was short lived. In 1552 he

sided with his former Protestant foes of the Schmalkaldic League in opposition to Charles V, and

pushed the emperor into signing the the Treaty of Passau, which led to the famed Peace of

Augsburg in 1555. Moritz, however, never saw the Peace of Augsburg come to fruition, because

he died in 1553 in the Battle of Sieverhausen. Nevertheless, Moritz established the dominant

role of the Albertine house in Protestant politics throughout latter half of the sixteenth century.114

To the chagrin of the Ernestine house Moritz was succeeded by his brother August I. It

was throughout and following August’s reign that strong Protestant marriage politics began to

play a larger role in Saxony’s maintenance of Protestant power.115 August had already married

Anna princess of Denmark (1532-1585)—daughter of Saxony’s strong Lutheran ally Christian

113Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, Court Culture in Dresden: From Renaissance to Baroque (London: Palgrave,

2002), 2. 114Ibid: 6-10. 115Karlheinz Blaschke, “Religion und Politik in Kursachsen 1586-1591,” in Heinz Schilling, ed., Die

reformierte Konfesionalisierung in Deutschland—Das Problem der ‘Zweiten Reformation,’ (Gütersloh: Verlags Haus G. Mohn, 1986), 79-97.

60 III (1503-1559)—in 1548. This nuptial contract both expressed and reinforced the Kingdom of

Denmark and Saxony’s mutual commitment to Lutheranism.116 This is not to say, however, that

August did not manipulate marriages to uphold amicable relationships with Calvinists outside of

Saxony. August made a strategic move in 1570 to appease Calvinists by marrying and exporting

his daughter Elizabeth to Johan Casimir, the Elector Palatine.117 At home, though, August took

great measures to assure that his dynasty in Dresden presented itself as the bulwark of

Lutheranism. August married his son and heir Christian I to Margravine Sophie of Brandenburg

in 1582, thus grafting the Albertine house to the small but up and coming, staunchly Lutheran

court in Cölln (now Berlin).118 The Brandenburg Court’s stance on Lutheranism was draconian.

Johan Georg I (1525-1598), the Elector of Brandenburg and Sophie’s father, refused to

acknowledge any other reformed ideas in his lands after 1572.119 It must have been quite

advantageous for Johan Georg I to send off one of his thirteen daughters eventually to replace the

116Katrin Keller has pointed out, “Dieses vom neuen, Lutherischen Eheideal und Rollenverstandis ganz

offensichtlich beinflußte Bild setzen Anna und August als Ausdruck ihrer Frömmigkeit wie als deizidiert evangelisches Leitbild bewußt ein, um sich als Herrscherpaar des neun reformatorischen Zeitalters darzustellen. Zu diesem Leitbild gehörte freilch auch die Einigkeit in allen Gragen des Wirken über Familie und Haushalt hinaus und selbstverstandlich die Zurückhaltung der hinsichtlich diesbezüglicher Aktivitäten.” Katrin Keller, “Kurfürstin Anna von Sachsen (1532-1585): Von Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer ‘Landesmutter,’” in Jan Hirschbeigel ed., Das Frauenzimmer: Die Frau bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2000), 266.

117Watanabe-O’Kelly (2002), 15. 118The marriage alliance between the Elector of Saxony and the Elector of Brandenburg was already

apparent in 1581, when August I took Christian to Cölln an der Spree to participate the festivities surrounding the baptism of the Elector of Brandenburg’s son, whom was also named Christian. There is a printed account of this visit that was written by Philipp Agricola at SLUB Hist.Brand. 14, misc. 2.

119Elector Johan Georg of Brandenburg did not tolerate Calvinism or any reformed ideas within his domain.

“Schon auf eine dahin zielende Bitter der Stände gab er denselben 1572 die Zusicherung, daß die Lehre des göttlichen Wortes, wei sie durch Dr. Luther bei seinem Leben gelehrt, allein und ausschließlich im Lande gelten und keine andere Lehrmeinung oder Ceremoni geduldet werden solle.” L.H. Hirsch, “Johan Georg, Kf. v. Brandenburg,” in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 14 (Leipzig: Dunder & Humboldt, 1881), 167.

61 “dänische Käsemutter.”120 It afforded his family, the Hohenzöllerns, the opportunity to put

themselves on the political map.121

The gift of the Christmas Crib Automaton must be viewed within this context of Lutheran

marriage politics, where marriage alliances helped to establish and further Protestant and,

specifically, Lutheran agendas in Saxony and Brandenburg. Even though Sophie of

Brandenburg, the giver of the automaton, was absorbed into the Albertine household, the

interests of the Brandenburg court and its ardent Lutheranism were not abandoned at the altar. In

fact, Sophie was famously devout. For instance, she relieved her children’s tutor, Elias

Reinhardt, of his duties for not providing a strict Lutheran education. Under Reinhardt, her son

and future elector Christian II was responsible for memorizing, by heart, all of Luther’s

catechism, all of the psalms, Luther’s Sunday Gospel readings, and all the prayers Luther penned

himself. Sophie demanded that her sons’ Lutheran education exceed Reinhardt’s curriculum.122

While the subject matter of the Christmas Crib Automaton was surely inspired by the

time of year at which it was given, it should not be interpreted as mere moving illustration of the

120One of the verses of a popular song that mentions Anna referred to her as the dänische Käsemutter, “die

Churfürstin laufe in die Viehställe, mache Butter und Käse und verkaufe sie wieder, man heiße sie ein dänische Käsemutter.” Keller (2000),: 270.

121The exportation of Sophie was for the Brandenburg house the most politically advantageous marriage of

her generation. Her brother and future elector Joachim Friedrich I was married in 1570 to Katharine von Brandenburg-Küstrin. Sophie’s sister Erdmuthe was married in 1577 to Herzog Joachim Friedrich von Pommern. Her other sister Anna Marie was married to Barnim XII, yet another Herzog from Pommerania, in 1581. Her brother Christian was married to Marie the daughter of Herzog Albrecht Friedrich von Preussen in 1604. A third sister, Magdalene, was married to Ludwig, Landgraff von Hessen-Darmstadt in 1598. And a third brother, Joachim Ernst, was married to Sophie von Solms-Laubach in 1612. Sophie’s younger sister Agnes was married in 1604 to Philipp Julius the Herzog von Pommern. Elisabeth Sophie was married to Janus I von Raidziell. And finally, her youngest surviving sister, Dorothea Sibylle, married Johann Christian Herzog von Liegnitz. Needless, to say all of these marriages that Johan Georg arranged for his numerous children—22 in all and 10 who survived to adulthood—were to courts that did not have the political strength of the Saxon court. See Wilhelm Karl Prinz von Isenburg, ed. Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europäischen Staaten: Band I Die Deutschen Staaten (Marburg: J.A. Stargardt, 1965), 62 and 65-66.

122 HStA Geheimes Archiv 8017/12 doc. 2 and HStA Geheimes Archiv 8017/12 doc. 3

62 practice of gift giving during the Christmas and New Year festival.123 The object was

commissioned and given during a time when there was a great amount of suspicion and anxiety

among Lutherans, in and outside of Saxony, that Christian I had secretly converted to Calvinism.

And the automaton made for Christian I may have responded to these concerns.

The Albertines’ complicated relationship with Calvinism went back to Christian I’s

father, August.124 Even though August made valiant attempts to export and import Lutheran

brides, he surrounded himself with Calvinist and Huguenot sympathizers. Hubert Languet, one

of August’s foreign diplomatic representatives, had fled France in fear of his life because of his

Huguenot leanings. And August’s chaplain, Christian Schütz, had strong ties to Calvinism as

well.125 In 1574 the Lutheran clergy in Saxony attacked what they perceived to be, August’s

lack of evangelical clarity. August responded to the criticism and threw Languet and Schütz into

prison, along with his advisor Dr. Georg Craco and his physician Caspar Peucer, for their

Calvinist leanings.126 August’s crackdown on Calvinists at court had begun. August’s betrothal

of Christian I in 1582 to a woman from an extremely orthodox Lutheran court was consistent

with his reactionary behavior. The marriage signified to the Empire that the Electors of Saxony

were unwavering Lutherans. The marriage alliance with the Brandenburg court promised to

123For an excellent discussion of the reception of the Magi during the early modern period see, Richard

Trexler, The Journey of the Magi: Meanings in History of a Christian Story (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), passim.

124In the beginning of his reign August openly favored Phillipists, followers of Melancthon over orthodox

Lutherans Ernst Koch, “Der kursächsische Philippismus und seine Krise in den 1560er und 1570er Jahren,” in in Heinz Schilling, ed., Die reformierte Konfesionalisierung in Deutschland—Das Problem der ‘Zweiten Reformation,’ (Gütersloh: Verlags Haus G. Mohn, 1986), 60-77.

125Beatrice Nicollier-De Weck, Hubert Languet (1518-1581): Un Reseau politique international de

Melanchthon a Guillaume d’Orange (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1995), 181-189. 126Watanbe-O’Kelly (2002): 15.

63 alleviate suspicion about the steadfastness and orthodoxy of August’s beliefs. August’s attempt

to rectify the situation, however, may have come too late.

Once Christian was of age, in 1584, his father slowly started giving him political

responsibilities.127 Very soon thereafter, Christian required advisors and he brought Dr.

Nikolaus Krell (1551-1601) into the fold. Krell was a Calvinist, and Krell soon started rising in

the ranks. In 1586, the year that Christian took over the position of elector, Christian made Krell

his privy councillor and three years later the Chancellor.128 The promotion of the Calvinist

upstart elated Calvinists while, yet again, deeply offending Lutheran clergy. But Christian did

not stop there. He single-handedly paved the way for Calvinists to become faculty in Saxon

universities, which were at that time living monuments to Luther; he allowed Calvinist books to

be sold in Leipzig; and finally, he decreed that exorcism would no longer be a part of the baptism

service—a key component of the Lutheran rite. Fears of cuius regio, eius religio were

rampant.129

The Christmas Crib Automaton was commissioned by Sophie and given to Christian at

the height of his very public Calvinist sympathies. It is fitting, therefore, that the automaton

should emphasize Christian’s role as a Lutheran prince, especially on a visual and audible level.

He would have watched the figures on the automaton repeatedly perform their action in harmony

with the music, one hymn written by Luther himself. The Christmas Crib Automaton presents a

127Christian I’s official title was “Zivilgouverneur.” See, Chrisa Schille, “Christian I,” in Erik Amburger, et

al, ed., Neue Deutsche Biographie, Vol. 3 (Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1956), 230. 128Jutta Bäumel, “ ‘Cave Calvinae—D.N.K.:’ das Richtschwert des Kursächsischen Kanzlers Dr. Nikolaus

Krell von 1601,” Dresdener Kusntblätter, Vol. 25 No.2 (2001), 144-151. 129Alex Gotthard, “ ‘Politice seint wir bäptisch:’ Kursachsen und der deutsche Protestantismus im frühen

17. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, vol. 20 (1993), 275-319 and Watanabe-O’Kelly (2002), 23.

64 repetitive image—the offering of gifts from rulers to the humble, destitute Christ—structured to

reinforce the values and actions of a pious Lutheran prince.

THE ACT OF GIVING

The figures of the Christmas Crib Automaton moved in a circle atop a painstakingly

ornamented ovular silver base. The figures, biblical scenes, and architectural elements that

populated the base were rendered in a variety of techniques that only the most adept goldsmith

could have undertaken. Small figures, which were cast in the round, stood in recessed niches on

each side of eight modeled arches. Each arch contained one biblical scene in relief: four from

the Old Testament (“The Creation,” “The Flood,” “Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac,” and “Moses

before the Burning Bush”) and four from the New Testament (“The Baptism of John,” “Christ in

the Temple,” “The Crucifixion,” and “The Ascension”). The spaces between the niches and the

arches were filled with swirling vegetal motifs that were executed in relief and engraved detail.

The base had four distinct sides. With the exception of the front of the base, each side contained

two arches with biblical scenes, eight figures in niches—which were arranged in pairs on each

side of the biblical scene—and four Corinthian columns. At the front of the object a third

smaller arch was situated between the two larger arches, two round bosses of unidentified males

heads, and only four figures in niches. Additionally, the front had a double staircase, which

protruded from the base. The purpose of the staircase was to hide several mechanisms enabling

the automaton’s movement.130

130The base’s Italianate architectural elements and their arrangement strongly resemble the portal of the

Dresden Residenzkapelle, which dates to about 1555. The portal now stands in the Judenhof in Dresden, and is the only surviving architectural feature from the chapel. It was most likely designed and partly executed by the Italian Johann Maria. The statues of the two Saint Johns, Saint Peter, and Moses that stand in the niches of the portal were

65 The narrative flow of the biblical scenes moved from right to left, the same direction as

the figures of the automaton. The first scene, “The Creation,” appeared in the right arch on the

left face of the object and was followed by “The Flood.” The third biblical scene, “Abraham’s

Sacrifice of Isaac,” was situated in the right arch on the back-side of the base, and “Moses before

the Burning Bush” was placed in the left arch. Moving around the object, the next scene was

“The Baptism of John,” which was paired with “Christ in the Temple” on the right face of the

base. And finally, the biblical narrative concluded on the front face. “The Crucifixion” was the

penultimate scene. It was followed by the final scene of “The Ascension.” “The Ascension”

was strategically placed directly beneath the figure of the Christ child in the Christmas story.

Thus, the beginning of Christ’s life and his voyage to paradise were dramatically juxtaposed. It

is clear that Schlotheim took the circular movement of the figures of the automaton into account

when organizing the aptly chosen biblical scenes, all which have typological significance with

reference to the life of Christ.

The music that sounded from the base of the Christmas Crib Automaton consisted of well

known Lutheran hymns dedicated to the story of Christ’s birth. The first was Luther’s “From

Heaven above to Earth I Come” (“Vom hoch da Komm ich her”) and the second was a popular

hymn that was first written in the fourteenth century but performed widely in Protestant lands,”

Joseph dearest, Joseph mine” (“Josef, lieber Josef mein.”)131 Although the lyrics of the hymns

were not sung, it is interesting to note that the imagery of the automaton directly engages them.

Luther’s hymn pointedly states:

carved by him. He also may have executed the large relief in the attic and the statue of Christ flanked by two angels (originally four) carrying the symbols of the passion. Henry-Russell Hitchcock, German Renaissance Architecture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 103-104.

131B. Wachinger, “Mönch von Salzburg,” in Kurt Ruh et. al. ed., Die deutsche Literature des Mittelalters

Verfasserlexikon, Vol. 6 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987) 658-670.

66

These are the tokens ye shall mark

The swaddling clothes and manger dark;

There shall ye find the young child laid,

By whom the heavens and Earth are made

Now let us all, with gladsome cheer,

Follow the Shephards and draw near

To see this wondrous gift of God,

Who hath his own dear son bestowed

Ah, Lord who has created all,

How hast thou made thee weak and small

To lie upon the course dry grass

The food of humble ox and ass.132

The lyrics of Luther’s hymn emphasize both the preciousness of the most important gift mankind

ever received—its savior and son of God—and, paradoxically, the Christ child’s humble

appearance.

Luther’s hymn was widely sung during Christmas and New Year’s celebrations

throughout the second half of the sixteenth century, and it was often included in Lutheran

Weihnachtsspiele.133 Notably, “Vom Himmel hoch da Komm Ich her” was sung in a

Weihnachtsspiel entitled Pfund or Pfundt, which Sophie’s father Johan Georg I commissioned

132Leonard Mosely Bacon, ed., Dr. Martin Luther’s Deutsche Geistliche Lieder. The Hymns of Martin

Luther set to their original Melodies with an English Version (London: Hoder and Stoughton, 1884) xxix. 133 Leopold Kretzenbacher, Frühbarockes Weinachtsspiel in Kärnten und Steiermark (Klagenfurt:

Geschichtesvereines für Kärnten, 1952) 11.

67 playwright Georg Pondo to write in 1588. Sophie’s younger brothers and sisters performed the

play on New Year’s Day at the Brandenburg Court in 1589—the same day Sophie gave Christian

I the Christmas Crib Automaton. Three young, electoral princes played the roles of the three

kings, while three more acted as the shepherds. In Pondo’s play, Christ’s penniless beginnings

and affinity with the common man were accentuated by the actors’ use of the Northern German

dialect of Märkisch (a local dialect which the Margraves and Margravines did not speak).134

Since her own family performed the play, it is likely that Sophie was familiar with some of its

key components: the portrayal of the Christ child and Holy Family as local peasants, and the

electoral princes in guise of the Three Kings—both feature prominently in the Christmas Crib

Automaton.

After the music to Luther’s hymn concluded, the Christmas Crib Automaton played the

music to “Josef, Lieber Josef mein.” The lyrics to this hymn, again, address the bereft situation

of the King of Kings. The final verse is:

Little man and God indeed,

Little and poor, Thou art all we need,

We will follow where Thou dost lead.135

Christian I surely knew the lyrics to these hymns. A significant part of his religious training as a

boy consisted of memorizing all of Luther’s hymns and many, many others. This suggests that

134For instance, New Year’s greetings were given to the audience by a child whose name was Wilhelm von

Lewen; they employed the low German dialect. “Vill glug Euer Gnaden wiederfhar/ In anfang, zu dem Newen Jhar/ Gott lass Euer Gnaden werden zu Theill/ Da New geborne Kindelein/ Dauon wir Jtz bringen herein/ Ein Spill, Kurtz, schlecht gering, undt klein.” As quoted in Paul F. Casey, “Court Performance in Berlin of the Sixteenth Century: Georg Pondo’s Christmas Play of 1589,” Daphnis, Vol. 32 Nos. 1-2 (2003) 57.

135John David Lamb, Josef lieber, Josef Mein (Berkeley: Wymn, 1965) 2.

68 while the music sounded the lyrics would easily have been recalled, further emphasizing the

visual components of the object.136

While the hymns played, the kings, each followed by two attendants, paraded around a

small dilapidated structure that contained the Virgin, Joseph, the Christ Child and two asses

(figs. 19 and 20). As the kings passed the manger they turned, faced, and bowed before the

Christ Child, while the Virgin lifted his blanket. Joseph rocked the cradle of the child, while the

mules turned their heads towards and away from the main action of prestation. The attendants,

who followed the kings, were paired and clothed in costumes that were variants on their

respective king’s and carried the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which were described in

the Gospel of Matthew.137 The kings’ and attendants’ engagement with the Christ Child was the

focal point of the automaton: their turning and bowing reinforced the “ritualistic rhythm of the

piece,” while demonstrating princely charitable liberality.138 Once the kings and their entourage

passed the Holy Family they entered a richly adorned semicircular structure and reappeared

behind the manger. After the kings passed the back of the manger, they proceeded into yet

another semicircular structure that mirrored the first. As soon as they re-emerged they repeated

their offering.

136See Note 23. 137Matthew 2:11. 138I have borrowed this phrase, “ritualistic rhythm of the piece” from Cecily J. Hilsdale’s insightful analysis

of the Vatican Greek Manuscript 1851. In her article on this work, Hilsdale addresses the means by which a miniature from the manuscript has a “pattern of alternating progressions and arrest [which] recalls ceremonial processions as described in texts, distinguished by the alternation of movement and stillness and punctuated by the roar of the crowd’s acclamation or the silence of it visual reflection.” The Christmas Crib Automaton also refers to courtly ceremonial acts of giving through the figures’ procession and bowing before the Christ Child. These movements were precisely the same movements that courtiers or attendants would have performed in front of the duke or elector during the act of prestation. See Cecily J. Hilsdale, “Constructing A Byzantine Augusta: A Greek Book for a French Bride,” Art Bulletin, Vol. 87 No. 3 (2005) 466.

69 The three shepherds of the Christmas story followed in the procession. Their stances,

however, were considerably less firm and solemn than the travelers from the East. The star of the

East crowned the scene and opened to reveal God the Father, the Holy Ghost, and cherubs, while

three more cherubs descended from the golden ball frolicking in excitement. With the exception

of the cherubs, who supplemented the celebratory nature of the event, the automaton provided

the most prominent and renowned features of the Christmas story, as told by Matthew. ”And

behold the star that they [the kings] had seen in the East went before them, until it came and

stood over the place where the child was. . . And entering the house, they found the child with

Mary his mother, and falling down they worshipped him. And opening their treasures they

offered gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.”139 This story, however, is slightly altered in the

Christmas Crib Automaton.

As rendered by Schlotheim, all of the kings who present gifts to the Christ Child were

clothed in contemporary courtly garb. Even the black Ethiopian king wore courtly attire that was

the vogue among courtiers across Western Europe. The middle king follows suit. His hair was

long, and his purple mantle swept over the ground. The first king, however, had a curious

addition to his collar and red mantel that suggests he was a specific figure rather than a standard

type. His mantle and collar were trimmed with the recognizable ermine fur of an elector of the

Holy Roman Empire. The same distinctive dress can be seen in Schlotheim’s representation of

the seven electors on his London Nef, which was made shortly before the Christmas Crib

Automaton (fig. 21).140 The Dresden Kunstkammer also contained yet another representation of

139Matthew 2:9-11 140“Vorguldt kunstreich Schiff oder nave mit einer virtel und stunden schlagenden Uhr, welch alle 24.

Stundent muß afgetzogen werden, oben mit dreyen mastbaumen, uf welchen die Bußknechte im Mastkörben

70 the electors in their formal garb. The Electors Tankard of 1588 depicts the political order of the

Holy Roman Empire (fig. 22). The tankard presents the Holy Roman Emperor seated and

flanked on his left and right by the seven electors and their respective insignia.141 The Elector of

Saxony stands second from the right between the Electors of Brandenburg and the Palatinate.

All of these representations of the Elector of Saxony adhere to early modern pictorial

conventions of depicting his formal attire. Thus, the dress of the first king in the Christmas Crib

Automaton, despite his lack of crown (Kurhüt), suggests that this figure is an elector, and this

formal idiom functions as a marker for the intended viewer, Christian I. Both he and other

viewers of the automaton could experience this elector as Christian I himself. In a sense, it is

Christian I who is demonstrating his generosity and largess to the Christ child. This involves an

interesting reversal of roles. The patterning and rhythm of the automaton recalls ceremonial

umbgehen, und Viertel und Stunden auf den glöcklein mit hammern schlagen. Inwedigk die Rom. Key. Mayt. aud den Keyserlichen stul stizendt, und vor deselben die sieben Churfürsten und Herolden mit erzeigung ihrer Reverenz zu entfalunge der lehen umgehendt, Deßgleichen zehen Trommeter und ein Heerpauker, die da Wechselweise zu tisch blasen, auch ein Drommelschleger und drey Trabandten sambt 16 kleinen stucklein, deren man II. Laden Khan, und von sich selbsten abgehen, darbey ein Futter, stehet auf einer grünen langen mit tuch behengt.” 1587 Inventar, Blatt 254r.

141

This particular tankard in the Dresden Kunstkammer is based on an image from Schedel’s Weltchronik of 1493 and a later woodcut by Hans Vogel. The emperor is enthroned in the center of vessel and is flanked on his right by the three ecclesiastical electors: Mainz, Cologne, and Trier. To the left of the emperor stand the four “secular” offices of electors: the king of Bohemia, the Elector of Palatine, the Elector of Saxony, and the Elector of Brandenburg. Oftentimes this object and others similar to it are referred to as “glasses with the imperial eagle.” Almost all of these tankards were painted in the city of Kreibitz in Bohemia. This particular piece is the earliest of its type. It also has a lengthy inscription. Above the electors it reads “Die Römische kayserliche Mayestät, sampt Den Sieben Churfürsten: Inn Irer Kleidung Ampt und Sitz etc.” Below the figures it reads: “Der ertzbischoff zu mentz bekande, ist Cantzler im Deutschen lande. Sonst der bischoff zu Cöln gleich/ Cantzler durch gantz franckreich. Darnach der ertzbischoff zu trier, Is Cantzler in welscher refier. 1588 Also in all ihrem Ornat/ Sitzt kayserliche Mayestat, Sampt den sieben Churfürsten gut wie den ein ider sitzen thut. Inn Churfürstlicher kleidung sein/ Mit an Zeigung des ampts sein. Der König in Beheim der ist/ Des reichs erzschenck zu aller frist. Hernach der pfaltzgraff bein rein Des heiligen reich truchsäss thut sein. Der Hertzog zu Sachsen geborn Ise des reichmarschalch auserkorn. Der Marggraff von Brandenburg gut/ des reich ertzkämmer sein thut.” See Gisela Haase, Sachsische Glas (Leipzig: Seeman, 1988) 295 cat. Nos. 8 and 9.

71 processions of gift giving that transpired at princely courts, where the elector or prince would

have been the receiver rather than the giver of gifts.142

“AND THEN RICH MEN RUSHED FORTH TO RENDER THEIR PRESENTS”

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the celebration of the New Year was a favored

time for the ritual giving and receiving of gifts. Within the Saxon court and the duchy at large,

the tradition even reached the lowest strata of society. Peasants would set a place at the table for

a dead loved one, with pieces of bread and a libation. Gypsies throughout the region would

bestow the blood and bones of a lamb on fields, in the hopes of a bountiful harvest in the coming

year.143 At court, the giving of gifts during the New Year was conceived of as a reenactment of

the three kings bestowing the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh on the Christ Child.144

However, instead of the small child receiving the bounty of kingdoms and persons from afar, it

was the duke, elector, or prince who was on the receiving end of the ceremonial prestation.

Furthermore, the elector did not only receive gifts from visitors and courtiers; he gave them as

well.145 Small tokens such as barrettes, books, trunks, clothing, etc., were bequeathed to

individuals at court, in addition to the ruler’s visual presence, which was also a privilege or a gift

in and of itself.

142Queen Elizabeth famously gave out thousands of presents during the New Year’s festival. The majority

of the gifts were gilt plate. She gave gifts to people she received gifts from and even to individuals she did not receive gifts from, such as the Grooms of her Privy Chamber, the Yeoman of the Robes, and the Jewel House Officers. See Collins (1955): 103.

143 Hanns Bächtold-Stäubli, ed., Handworterbuch des Deutschen Aberglaubens (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter:

1927-1942) 1027. 144Trexler (2002): 78-84. 145

Buettner (2001): 600, Collins (1955): 103-108, Lubkin (1989): 258.

72 It is not surprising, then, that the New Year was a period when European courts presented

themselves at their most resplendent; crowns were donned and regalia displayed.146 Visitors

from nearby and distant lands would come and pay tribute to the prince or duke. Galeazzo Maria

Sforza, Duke of Milan, wrote of the New Year’s festival’s ceremonial and representational

importance. He stated that when the “court [was] frequented at solemn feasts by distinguished

and honorable men . . . the prince himself [stood] out more, and the noble and excellent men who

[were] in a state of grace and favor in the prince’s eyes [grew] in grace and increase[d] in

honors.”147 It is clear that one of the key components of increasing one’s honor—although only

euphemistically referred to here—was showering the Duke, Prince or Elector with precious

tokens, as the travelers from the east did. It is in keeping with these customs that the Christmas

Crib Automaton and representations of courtly ceremonies of gift giving share similar visual

strategies of portraying the givers and receivers of gifts.

The “iconography of gift giving” has been stable and consistent since the fifth century

BCE.148 One of the earliest surviving representations of tribute, or gift offering, appears on the

monumental bas reliefs of the northern and eastern staircases of the Apadana, or audience hall, at

the ancient ceremonial capital of Persepolis (fig. 23). Designed during the reign of Darius I (522

-486/485 BCE), the Apadana was completed under Xerxes I (r. 486/485 – 465 BCE). It is

believed that the reliefs represent the New Year’s festivals at Darius I’s court.149 The gift-givers

146

Princely Magnificence: Court Jewels of the Renaissance (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1980), 12.

147

Lubkin (1989) 258. 148

Buettner (2001): 605. 149Nicholas Cahill, “The Treasury at Persepolis: Gift-Giving at the City of the Persians,” American Journal of

73 are representatives from the twenty-three nations of the Persian Empire. Their gifts, which they

simultaneously display to the seated Darius, range from humble vessels, raw materials, and

animals to jewels, weapons, elaborate textiles, and gold. The exceptional quality of the reliefs is

enhanced by the fact that each gift is carefully delineated, as are the hair, beards, headdresses and

clothing of the givers. Indeed, when one compares the stance of the tribute bearers in the

monumental relief from Persepolis to the posture of the kings in the Christmas Crib Automaton,

the intentional stiffness of the poses in contrast to the seated recipients becomes evident. By

these means the artists demonstrate visually dominant and submissive relationships.

Such an asymmetrical relationship between the giver and receiver of gifts recurs 1300

years later in a ninth-century manuscript illumination of the Chronicle of John Skylitizes, now in

Madrid (fig. 24). In this instance, the Byzantine emperor receives priceless documents from the

Caliph, by way of a messenger. The emperor is depicted on the right, enthroned, and protected

beneath a domed structure, possibly a tent. The potentate is rendered in three-quarter view,

while the messenger, whose stance suggests genuflection, is depicted in profile—as in the

Apadana reliefs and the Christmas Crib Automaton. A further detail, which emphasizes the

contrasting status of the emperor and the messenger, is the distinction between the spaces they

inhabit. The messenger is clearly standing outside the tent. The white negative space between

the body of the messenger and the left corner of the structure literally highlights the inequality

between the emperor and his servant. Similarly, the kings and shepherds of the Christmas Crib

Automaton never enter the enclosed space of the Holy Family. Like the messenger, they inhabit

the periphery. The only physical link they have to the sacred figures is in the transmission of the

gift.

Archaeology, Vol. 89 No. 3 (July 1985), 375.

74 This does not hold true for a third example found in a manuscript of Justinian’s The

Institutions (1458) (fig. 25). In this presentation scene Duke Charles of Orléans sits enthroned

beneath a late Gothic baldachin and before an ornamented curtain bearing the fleur de lis. A

clerical figure, possibly a bishop, stands to the left of the throne bearing witness to the

transaction. The donor or gift giver kneels and passes a book to a finely dressed court official

(who, remarkably, dons the same hat as Charles of Orléans) instead of handing it directly to the

recipient—yet again signifying the incongruity between the giver and receiver. Despite this

discrepancy, this example, as also the two previously discussed, presents the fundamental and

persistent visual components of representations of acts of giving. The giver of gifts is rendered

in profile; the offering is clearly displayed to the viewer and the seated recipient. In each of

these images, and the Christmas Crib Automaton, the central action is the transmission of the

gift. There is, however, a major disparity between the Christmas Crib Automaton and the

examples just discussed. In the automaton, the ruler (Christian I) occupies the role of the giver

of the gift, and this alteration is indeed significant. Rather than acquiring more wealth, the

elector in the Christmas Crib Automaton is giving it away.

THE DEED

Martin Luther consistently advocated that the faithful should improve the lot of their

neighbors. According to Peter Iver Kauffman, “Luther was convinced that if persons did not

wholeheartedly use the goods given to them by God to respond to opportunities for doing good

for others, God would deny them the ultimate good of eternal life.”150 At several points in his

150Peter Iver Kaufman, “Luther’s ‘Scholastic Phase’ Revisited: Grace, Works, and Merit in the Earliest

Extant Sermons,” Church History, Vol. 51 No. 3 (September 1982), 282.

75 writings Luther strongly urges against indulging in earthly luxuries and instead stresses the

importance of charity, or giving. In his sermon On Threefold Righteousness, which he gave in

1518, Luther unabashedly uses the princes of Saxony to exemplify individuals whose riches have

been bestowed on them by God for their piety.

Therefore Christians, who are to be enriched with eternal good things, are not to be

exhorted to righteousness, but rather discouraged from it in favor of a better one. Hence,

one is not to rejoice in these things; just as God enriches the princes of Saxony with

glory, riches, and pleasure, because they are pious lords. And if these things were not

enough, He will bring forth still a mountain of silver and peace in the land will be

preserved. But let them see themselves whether this will do them any good for their

salvation.151

Despite the fact that Saxon princes have been rewarded with seemingly endless silver mines for

their devotion, Luther suggests, these riches will not benefit them in their hope for salvation. It

is faith first and foremost that allows one to enter paradise. According to Luther, the truly

faithful, inspired by their longing for God, give willingly. In The Freedom of the Christian

(1521) Luther states, “See, therefore, how love and desire for God flow out of faith and out of

love flows a spontaneous, willing, joyful life that serves the neighbor for no reward

whatsoever.”152 Using the rhetorical imagery of a river Luther suggests that giving to those in

need was a demonstration, an outward manifestation, of one’s faith. Ilana Krausmann Ben Amos

has astutely noted that “Protestanism provided a new language with which to articulate and

communicate the benefits of gifts, thus investing acts of giving with religious meaning that

151Martin Luther, “On Threefold Righteousness,” in The Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 1, trans. Henry

Eyster Jacobs (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Company, 1915), 89. 152 Luther, “The Freedom of the Christian,” in The Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 2 393.

76 would reinforce the impulse to give.”153 Luther also articulates this notion in The Explanation of

the Theses: “The first and main [good deed] is to help a beggar or one’s neighbor in need.”154

And this deed, the paradigm of all good works, which displays to the world one’s faith, is

precisely the deed the kings of the Christmas Crib Automaton perform as the centripetal force of

the motion of the automaton pulls them and their gifts toward Joseph with his tattered hat and his

worn clothing, the Virgin on her humble wooden seat, and the Christ Child laid to sleep in a

barn.

The potential of the Christmas Crib Automaton to serve a didactic purpose is in keeping

with Luther’s considerations on religious imagery. Luther’s views on the function of religious

art were formed in the first instance as a reaction to the radical iconoclasm promoted by early

reformers, such as his Wittenburg faculty colleague Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486-

1541).155 First and foremost, Luther stressed the inevitability of mental visualizations. In his

treatise Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and the Sacraments (1525) the

reformer stated, “Whether I will it or not, when I hear of Christ an image of a man hanging from

a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water

when I look into it.”156 Second, Luther contended that the work of painters, sculptors, and

printers could enhance a layperson’s understanding of the Bible. In the same treatise of 1525 he

153 Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos, “Gifts and Favors: Informal Support in Early Modern England,” The

Journal of Modern History, Vol. 72 No. 2 (June 2000), 223. 154 Luther, “The Explanation of the Theses” in The Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 3 19. 155Ernst Ullman, “Die Wittenburger Unruhen, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und die Bilderstürme in

Deutschland,” in L’art et les revolutions (Strasbourg: XXVIIe Congrès International d’Histoire de l’Art, 1992), 117-226.

156Martin Luther, “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments,” in Gesa

Elsbeth Thiessen ed., Theological Aesthetics: A Reader (London: SCM Press, 2004), 134.

77 wrote that he wished to “convince the lords as well as the rich to have the entire Bible painted in

detail on houses, so that the eyes of everyone could see it.”157 Furthermore, he saw value in

combining mental and visual images and claimed, following Gregory the Great, that people are

“more apt to retain the divine stories when taught by picture and parable than merely by words or

instruction.”158 For Luther, religious art was an aid to memory; religious images were cues for

the faithful to recall significant figures and events, “zum Ansehen, zum Zeugnis, zum

Gedachtnis.”159

Although Luther’s views on images were attacked by other radical reformers such as

Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), the notions that an art object could serve as a reminder to the

faithful and, furthermore, function as a model of appropriate behavior were adopted by his

followers.160 For instance, in 1526 the Nuremburg reformer Andreas Osiander maintained that

the images of saints, which populated many Lutheran Churches in Nuremburg, could provide

Lutherans with models (Vorbilder) of correct conduct.

In the Holy Scriptures there are sufficient and abundant teachings on what we should and

should not do. However, we also require, for our feeble wills, good examples and role

models of holy and spiritual people. In them we see that God’s word teaches us and we

should follow it. We do this in order to live immaterial and Christian lives.161

157Ibid: 132. 158 Ibid: 133. 159 As quoted by Sergiusz Michalski, The Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question

in Western and Eastern Europe (London: Routledge, 1993), 27. 160 For a clear and cogent discussion of Zwingli’s attack on Luther’s acceptance of images see Hans J.

Hillerbrand ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).http://www.oxfordreformation.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/entry?entry=t172.e0063&srn=1&ssid=37632714#FIRSTHIT. Accessed November 10, 2007.

161Dan wiewol uns Gottes wort/ in der heiligen Schrifft. Gnugsam und reichlich lehret/ was wir thun und

lassen sollen . . .Dannoch bedörffen wir/ umb unserer schwacheyt willen/ auch gutter exempel/ und fürbilde/ der

78

These examples cited thus far are taken from religious treatises or sermons, which attempted to

explicate and legitimize the use of images in the Lutheran church. Remarkably, the same ideas

were put forth by Gabriel Kaltemarkt in order to justify the collection and appreciation of

painting and sculpture within a princely Lutheran context.

Almost nothing is known about Gabriel Kaltemarkt. Where and when he was born is a

mystery, as is the nature of his education. The little we do know has been deduced from his

treatise on collecting, “How a Kunstkammer Should be Formed” (Bedenken wie eine Kunst-

Cammer Aufzurichten seyn möchte), a text that he dedicated and sent to Christian I in the hopes

of being appointed Master of the Collection (Kammermeister) of the Dresden Kunstkammer.162

In his treatise Kaltemarkt makes clear that he was familiar with many of the important

numismatic collections in Europe and had intimate knowledge of the organization and contents

of the Dresden Kunstkammer.163

Throughout his fascinating treatise Kaltemarkt masterfully argued that Lutheran rulers

needed religion, faithful subjects, money, military equipment and books, as well as paintings and

sculptures in order to obtain “the best adornment and treasures of a prince.”164 Furthermore, he

claimed that art objects were essential to the well being of a prince. The ruler required books for

hellige[n]/ und geist reichen leute/ darin[n] wir eben dasselbig sehen/ das uns Gottes wort lehret/ von denen wir lernen/ und denen wir nachfolgen solle[n]/ damit wir unser leben unstafflich unnd Christlich füren.” As quoted in Bridget Heal, “Sacred image and Sacred space in Lutheran Germany,” in Will Coster and Andrew Spicer eds. Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 53 n. 52 (my translation).

162Barbara Gutfleisch and Joachim Menzhausen, “Introduction” How a Kunstkammer should be formed:

Gabriel Kaltemarckt’s advice to Christian I of Saxony on the Formation of an Art Collection, 1587,” in Journal of the History of Collections, Vol.1 No. 1 (1989), 3. For a brief discussion of the text see Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Toward a Geography of Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 207.

163Ibid: 4. 164Ibid: 10.

79 edification, “but also, as a delight to the eyes and strengthening of memory, likenesses of their

[the books] authors and heroes…as a living incitement to do good and avoid evil.”165 These

beliefs regarding the ennobling function of art objects most likely governed how the Christmas

Crib Automaton was endowed with religious and political agency.166 Within a Lutheran

framework, the three kings on the Christmas Crib Automaton were reminders or signals for

Christian I, that reinforced the proper actions and duties of a devout Lutheran.

If arranging marriages for strategic purposes was intended to solidify the relationships

between Protestant courts, it also opened the door for disagreement. Toward the end of his reign

Elector August I took great pains to foster a smooth transition of power. He attempted to flush

out the Calvinists at court, and aligned himself with the orthodox Lutheran court of Brandenburg.

And finally, he brought his heir, Christian I, into the political proceedings prior to his ascent to

the office of elector. However, in light of the fragile political situation surrounding the early

years of Christian’s reign and Sophie of Brandenburg’s strong Lutheran stance, a religious and

political interpretation of the Christmas Crib Automaton seems fitting. The tension between

husband and wife, one a crypto-Calvinist and the other an unwavering Lutheran, embodies the

anxiety of late sixteenth-century confessional politics in the Holy Roman Empire.

Although there is no known surviving correspondence between Sophie of Brandenburg

and Hans Schlotheim that describes or discusses the commission of the automaton, it seems

appropriate that Sophie would have commissioned such an object for her religiously dithering

husband as an exemplification of proper religious and therefore political duties. The gift of the

165

Ibid: 8. 166The idea that objects, and particularly gifts, can be endowed with social functions is addressed in

Hilsdale (2005): 459.

80 Lüneburger Spiegel (fig. 16) (ca. 1587) to her son Christian II—Christian I’s successor—on the

eve to his becoming an elector demonstrates that she was prone to giving religious and politically

loaded gifts to her immediate family.

THE FÜRSTENSPIEGEL

At the time of his father’s unexpected death in 1591, Christian II was only eight years

old. Due to his young age his grandfather Johan Georg I of Brandenburg and the young prince’s

Ernestine cousin Duke Friedrich Wilhelm I of Saxony-Weimar-Altenburg stood in as regents of

the duchy until 1601, when Christian II turned eighteen and was able to take on the

responsibilities of elector. The ten years between Christian I’s death and Chrisitan II’s ascension

were dominated by yet a second Calvinist blitz at the Saxon court. Immediately following

Christian I’s demise many of his consorts were thrown into prison for their Calvinists beliefs.

Most notably, Nicholas Krell was imprisoned and executed just days before Christian II took

office.167 This execution was very likely a symbolic act, to demonstrate that the Saxon court had

cleansed itself of any residual Calvinist leanings. Therefore, like the Christmas Crib Automaton,

Sophie of Brandenburg’s gift of the Lüneburger Spiegel occurred at a pivotal political moment.

In 1600, Sophie requested that the Dresden Rentkammer dispense 1,450 Gulden to

Johann Schlowen of Lüneburg to pay “for a large mirror fitted with 1000 pieces of pounded and

gilded silver. It also shows all of the coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire and is adorned

with many Bohemian gems.”168 In addition to its sparkling gems and coats of arms the

167Karlheinz Blaschke, “Religion und Politik in Kursachsen 1586-1591,” in H. Schilling, ed., Die

reformierte Konfessionaliesierung in Deutschland—Das Problem der Zweiten Reformation (Gütersloh, Verlagshaus, K. Mohn, 1986), 95-96.

168 “Vor einen großen Spiegell, welcher mit 1000 lot vergültten silber beschlagen. Auch mit des gantzen

Romischen reichs wappen, und viehlen darien verstzten Bemischen steihnen getziert.” Quoted in Dirk Syndram,

81 Lüneburger Spiegel is densely populated with representations of the Prophet Daniel’s analysis of

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and allegories of good and bad government.169 In this mirror allusions

to a Lutheran world order abound, and the visual and verbal programs are particularly well suited

for its recipient, the newly instated Elector of Saxony.

The mirror was designed and crafted by two goldsmiths, Luleff Meyer and Dirch

Utermarke, between 1587 and 1592.170 Meyer was a master from Lüneburg, while Utermarke

was an independent master (Freikunstler) working in Hamburg.171 Scholars have disagreed over

the original patron of the Lüneburger Spiegel. Hans Schröder, the first and only art historian to

devote a monograph to the mirror, assumed Sophie of Brandenburg commissioned it in 1587.

Schröder based his hypothesis on the 1610 Dresden Kunstkammer inventory, which includes the

following description of the mirror:

One large gilded silver mirror adorned with Bohemian gems, on which appear Daniel’s

entire prophecy of the four monarchies and the coats of arms of the kingdoms, duchies

Schatzkunst der Rennaissance und des Barok: Das Grüne Gewölbe zu Dresden (Dresden: Deustche Kunstverlag), 59 (my translation).

169J.F. Hayward, Virtusos Goldsmiths and the Triumph of Mannerism 1540-1620 (New York: Sotheby

Parke Bernet, 1976), 253-255; J.F. Hayward, “The Mannerist Goldsmiths: 5 Northern Germany, Part VII,” The Connoisseur. September 1970, 22-30; Hans Schröder, Dirch Utermarke ein Hamburger Goldschmied der Renaissance (Hamburg: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte, 1939), passim; Susan Tipton, Res publica bene Ordinata, Regentenspiegle und Bilder vom guten Regiment: Rathausdekoration in der Frühen Neuzeit (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1996), 44-50.

170The initials of the makers appear on two shields attached to the mirror. One of the shields is topped with

blossoms and a sickle, which are flanked on each side by the initials LM. The second shield has a rampant lion, which is flanked by the initials DV. Hayward (1976), 389.

171Utermarke originally lived in Lüneburg and it is here where he met Meyer. Utermarke was not a

member of the Goldsmith’s guild in Lüneburg, instead he belonged to the brewers guild and worked illegally for Meyer on occasion. In 1592 Utermarke presented a piece to the Goldsmith’s guild in Lüneburg, but it was rejected. After being turned away from the Lüneburg Goldsmith guild Utermarke left the city and settled in Hamburg and worked as a Freikunstler (independent master). In 1595, Utermarke presented a piece to the Goldsmith’s guild in Hamburg. This time he succeeded in being inducted into the guild and spent much of his time there making presentation cups for the city of Hamburg (seventy-five cups still survive along with twelve gilt spoons). Hans Schröder, Dirch Utermarke ein Hamburger Goldschmied der Renaissance (Hamburg: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte, 1939), 100-102.

82 and provinces of the Roman Empire. It is from the elector’s widow, who bought it from

a man in Lüneburg. Additionally, the writing on the glass is executed in enamel. 172

Following Schröder, J.F. Hayward also claimed that Sophie commissioned the object. However,

Dirk Syndram has argued that Sophie did not commission the mirror, but merely purchased it

from Johann Schlowen of Lüneburg.173 Syndram’s argument has most recently been expanded

upon by Susan Tipton on the basis of documents that record the construction and decoration of

the Lüneburger Rathaus. Tipton found that the Lüneburger Spiegel was most likely

commissioned for the Rathaus but the funds needed to purchase it were not available. The

Lüneburger Spiegel was consequently placed on the open market and purchased by Sophie eight

years after its completion, in 1600.174 Although Sophie may not have played a role in designing

the object, the fact remains that she bought it with the intent of giving it to her son Christian II.

It is crucial to examine this object in detail in order to demonstrate that Sophie of Brandenburg

was keen on bestowing lavish gifts that display their intended recipients as righteous Lutheran

rulers.

The shape of the mirror’s frame is derived from monumental epitaphs in Northern

German churches, which commemorated the nobility or wealthy merchants. The epitaph for

Heinrich von Schönberg (ca. 1575) which resided in the Dresden Frauenkirche until the church

172 “1 Großer von silber und vergüldter spiegell mit böhimischen steinen gezierrt, darahn die gantz

Propheziung Danielis von den vier Monarchien, auch des Römischen Reiches unnd der darein gehörigen Königreichen, lender unnd Provincien Wappen, ist von der Churfürstlichen Sächsischen Wittwe, von einen Lüneburger erkaufft worden, und is das glass darauf die Wappen amaliert zerschrichtt.” 1610 Inventar, fol. 167r.

173 Syndram (2004): 60. 174 Tipton (1994): 45.

83 was destroyed in 1945 is a key example of the form (fig. 26).175 The frame of the mirror is a

densely concentrated space, which incorporates a wide variety of ornamentation: swags of

drapery, Rollwerk, oval bosses, flutes, and trophies of arms.176 In addition to its swarming

decoration, the object also includes figures cast in the round, relief work, and engraved detail.

All of the figures on the top half of the mirror are derived from 2:27-45 of the Book of

Daniel, in which the Hebrew prophet divines and analyzes the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the

Babylonian King and Daniel’s captor. In his dream Nebuchadnezzar saw a colossal statue whose

head was made of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet of clay. In

the vision, a singular stone cast into the air destroyed the massive statue. After being struck by

the stone, the statue turned to dust and blew away “like the chaff of summer threshing floors.”177

The stone, however, remained and became a mountain, which covered the entire earth and stood

for eternity. The Prophet Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as a nebulous timetable

that concluded with the domination of the Kingdom of Heaven. Daniel explained that the head

of gold signified the kingdom of Babylonia, while the chest and arms of silver and belly of brass

foretold of two kingdoms that would follow but be inferior to Nebuchadnezzar’s empire.178 And

finally,

175Walter Hentschel, “Epitaphe in der Alten Dresdner Frauenkirche: Eine Untersuchung nach Zeichnungen

im Kupferstich-Kabinett der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen Dresden,” Jahrbuch Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (1961-1962), 101-125. An engraving of the Schönberg epitaph was included in Johann Gottfried Michaelis’s Dresdinische Inscriptiones und Epitaphia, welche auf denen monumentis. . . in und außer der Kirche zu unser Lieben Frauen . . . zu finden. (Dresden: 1714) a splendid copy of which can be found in the Kupferstich Kabinett in Dresden. The remnants of the sculpted epitaph are now in the Dresden Stadtmuseum.

176Max Deri, Das Rollwerk in der Deutschen Ornamentik des sechzehn und siebzehn Jahrhundert (Berlin:

Schuster und Beflub, 1906), 4. 177Daniel 2:35. 178Daniel 2:39.

84 There shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; as iron shatters and destroys all things, it

shall break and shatter the whole earth. As in your vision, the feet and toes were part

potter’s clay and part iron, it shall be a divided kingdom. Its core shall be partly of iron

just as you saw iron mixed with common clay, as the toes were part iron and part clay,

the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As in your vision, the iron was

mixed with common clay, so shall men mix each other by intermarriage, but such

alliances will not be stable: iron does not mix with clay. In the period of those kings the

God of heaven will establish a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; that kingdom

shall never pass to another people; it shall shatter and make an end of all these kingdoms,

while it shall itself endure forever.179

The fact that one half of the decoration of the Lüneburger Spiegel is dedicated to the

Book of Daniel is significant because the Book of Daniel and the prophet himself were treated

repeatedly by Martin Luther in his sermons and writings that addressed the fate of the Holy

Roman Empire and its leaders.180 Luther capitalized on Daniel’s apocalyptic analysis and

intimated that the final divided kingdom was none other than the confessionally split Holy

Roman Empire. In his “Preface to the Prophet Daniel” (Vorrede über den Propheten Daniel)

Luther declared, “The Holy Roman Empire will remain until Judgment Day. The kings and

popes are powerless. Daniel does not deny this and heretofore the record has attested to it.”181

179Daniel 2:40-44. 180Thomas Rahn, “Geschichte gedächtnis am Körper: Furstliche merkund Mediationsbilder nach

Weltreiche Prophetie des zweite Buches Daniel,” in Jorg Jochen Berns and Wolfgang Neuber, eds., Seelenmaschinen. Gattungstraditionen, Funktionen und Leistunggrenzen der Mnemotechniken vom späten Mittelalter bis zum Beginn der Moderne (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2000), 521-61. It is also important to note that Luther was often rendered in the guise of Daniel. A painting from the second half of the sixteenth-century, which hung in the Eisleben Luther-House, depicted Luther before the emperor at Worms. In the image Luther refused to worship an idol that looked surprisingly similar to the emperor himself. R.W. Scribner, “The Incombustible Luther: Images of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany,” Past and Present, No. 110 (Feb. 1986), 54.

85 This apocalyptic rhetoric was picked up by Luther’s students. Johann Mathesius (1504-1565), in

his 1562 publication of his Bergpostilla, hailed Luther’s exegesis of the Book of Daniel.

Furthermore, visual renderings of Luther’s interpretation of the colossal statue began around

1550, most notably with a woodcut by Hans Brosamers.182

The visual program of the Lüneburger Spiegel deploys Luther’s exegesis of the Book of

Daniel, while imbuing it with political significance through the mingling of figures from

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream with allegories of good and bad government and heraldic devices. The

mirror is divided into five registers, organized along a vertical axis. Soaring above the tangled

ornamentation is the colossal Statua Danielis, which appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. 183 The

figure, dressed in a Roman cuirass, stands with one foot firmly planted upon a painted image of

the city of Lüneburg. His enormous sword, which echoes the curve of his lower body, hangs

precariously from his left hip, while his immense and sinewy hands rest against his torso.

Although the figure’s body faces frontally his head is turned to the right. The statue’s distinctive

dress, particularly his leonine padded knees, identifies him (fig. 27). The same formal attire

adorns the body of the statue in the frontispiece to Lorenz Faust’s Anatomia Statuae Danielis, of

1586 (fig. 28). The second register is dominated by the painted medallion of the black double-

181“Es muss bleiben bis an Jüngsten Tag, wie schwach es simmer sey, denn Daniel leugnet nicht und

bischer die Erfahrung auch beweiset hat, beide an Bebsten und Königen.” Martin Luther, “Vorrede uber den Propheten Daniel,” in Biblia, das ist, die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch, originally Wittenburg: Lufft, 1534, Vollständiger Nachdruck (Köln: Taschen, 2002), Vol. 2 Ir.

182The 1587 inventory of the Dresden Kunstkammer also records a “Anatomia Statuae Danielis, in gestalt

eines großen gewapneten Mannes, mit den Bedeutungen der 4 Monarchien sambt dem Sachßischen Stamme, in einmem eingefaßten Rahmen mit Marmolfarbe angestrichen, hat Laurentius Faust pastor Schirmicensis gemachet,” in the library. Inventar 1587, fol. 313v.

183When the Augsburg Handelsman Phillip Hainhofer saw the Lüneburger Spiegel in 1628 he recognized

the crowning figure as the statue that appeared before Nebuchadnezzar and wrote, “Die statua Danielis oder der traum des Nebucadnezars, samt derselben explication, als den vier Monarchien, underschidner Reichwappen, und andern alls Köstlich von getribner arbeit, so vil tausent gulden costet mit gar schönen stainen aus fleißigst Geziert mit großer verwunderung zu sehen und zu Lünburg solle sein gemacht worden.” Doering (1901): 10.

86 headed of the Holy Roman Empire, whose spread wings form the backdrop for the fifty-six coats

of arms of the constituent bodies of the Holy Roman Empire; while the crucified Christ is placed

centrally on the bird’s breast. Flanking the medallion are two warriors on rampant horses. The

horses’ contorted heads draw the viewer’s eye back to the medallion and the smaller figures of

Neptune and sea nymphs, who stand before the Corpus Christi. The second register is

punctuated by a row of twelve more painted medallions, each containing a coat of arms from the

Protestant lands in the empire. The central and largest register includes the mirror, which is

protected behind a large rectangular panel depicting the Earth trapped in the net of vice and

crushing the back of the personification of wickedness.184 To the right of the Earth stands Mars,

whose warring proclivities are referenced by the burnt and pillaged city strategically placed

above the god of war’s head in the middle ground. Peace stands to the left of the Earth, her long

attenuated arm draws the eye to the undisturbed landscape, filled with mountains and quaint

buildings. The center of the panel is dominated by two angels. One is perched on top of the

earth, while the second floats above sounding the trumpet of the apocalypse and heralding the

coming of Judgment and the dawn of the Age of Christ. The central panel is bordered on its

sides by two warriors set in niches while an additional two warriors rest on the extravagant

volutes, and display the trophies of war. These four warriors represent the four fallen kingdoms

Daniel refers to in his analysis of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.185 Thus, these figures bridge the

first and third register because each kingdom, according to Daniel, was embodied by the Statua

184The personification of Vice is rendered in the same position in an engraving by Johannes Sadeler after

Martin de Vos from 1579, which is entitled Politeia: Constituit rerm formas Politeia serna. Si bona da Regem, que si perversa Tirannum. See, Martin Warnke, “Die Demokratie zwischen Vorbildern und Zerrbildern,” in Dario Gamboni and Georg Germann eds., Zeichen der Freiheit: Das Bild der Republik in der Kunst des 16. Und 20. Jahrhunderts (Bern: Verlag Stämpfli, 1991), 84.

185Schröder (1939): 96.

87 Danielis. Like the second register, the third register is punctuated by yet another row of painted

medallions, which present twelve more coats of arms of the Protestant lands of the Holy Roman

Empire. An allegory of good government is situated below the medallions. This conglomeration

of figures serves to shift attention away from the constituent bodies of the Holy Roman Empire

and apocalyptic visions of the top half of mirror toward the purpose of government and the

virtues of a prince.

The allegory of good government consists of hierarchically organized personifications of

moral and civic concepts. In the large niche, Justice sits, elevated in the center, while Prudentia

stands to her left and Caritas, holding a writhing baby, stands to Justice’s right. Pax and Res

Publica grasp hands at the feet of Justice.186 The allusion to the necessity for the state of

maintaining peace is amplified by the chains attached to Pax’s and Res Publica’s wrists, which

terminate around the wrists of Justice. Consequently, the chains, which bind the three figures,

take the place of the balance in traditional representations of Justice. Justice’s entire body

functions as the balance, and her domination over Pax and Res Publica clearly expresses the

necessity to “have ordered all things with measure, number, and weight”187 in the maintenance of

tranquillitas, civium.188 This register is separated from the fifth and final register by a third set

of painted medallions. However, unlike the previous heraldic devices these medallions announce

186The same figures in the exact arrangement appear in Isaac Schwendter’s Das gute Regiment der

Reichsstadt Regensburg from 1592, which still hangs in the altes Rathaus in Regensburg, and again in the frontispiece to Georg Lauterbeck’s Regentenbuch, which was published in Frankfurt in 1600. See Adolf Schmetzer, “Die Restaurierung des Reichssaales,” in Das Rathaus zu Regensburg: ein Markstein deutscher Geschichte und deutscher Kunst (Regensburg: Habbel, 1910), 174.

187Wisdom 11:20. 188For a discussion of the role of Justice in Allegories of Good Government, see Joseph Polzer, “Ambrogio

Lorenzetti’s War and Peace Murals Revisited: Contributions to the Meaning of the of Good Government Allegory,” Artibus et historiae. No. 45 (2002), 77-81.

88 the princely virtues: “CARITAS, IUSTITIA, PATIENTIA, SPES, FORTITVDO, and,

TEMPERANTIA.” Thus, these medallions verbally address the intended viewer of the mirror.

Here the verbal and pictorial programs reinforce and engage one another. The recitation of the

princely virtues directly beneath the allegory of good government demonstrates that the allegory

was intended for the eyes of a princely ruler.

The Judgment of Paris is rendered below the princely virtues. Paris stands in the center

while Apollo hands the Trojan prince the golden apple to give to either Aphrodite of Helen of

Troy. The mirror presents the moment before Paris’s fatal decision, which led to the destruction

of his kingdom by the hands of the Greeks. Thus, the final register functions as a commentary

on the importance of good judgment for the sake of one’s kingdoms. Here, the Judgment of

Paris is intended to correspond, antithetically, to the princely virtues and allegory of good

government. It is clear, then, that the Lüneburger Spiegel brings together terrifically complex

visual and verbal programs that forefront the duties and virtues of a ruler of Protestant lands,

against the backdrop of the end of days. In Christian II’s possession, the mirror functioned as a

reminder to the ruler of Saxony of his Lutheran faith, his allegiance to the Protestant lands, his

duty to maintain a proper and peaceful government, the princely code of conduct, the

consequences of poor decisions, and his prominent role in the Empire that will, according to

Luther, be the last of all empires.

This final aspect of the object becomes even more prominent when we consider that a

vast amount of ornamentation functions as frame for a mirror, a surface that has a very particular

ocular dynamic. When Christian II gazed into the mirror, its reflective surface enabled his

reflection, his own image, to be incorporated into the object itself, literally placing him at the

89 center of this overtly Lutheran political allegory.189 Therefore, the inclusion of Christian II’s

image in the Lüneburger Spiegel functions in ways similar to the animation of the elector in the

Christmas Crib Automaton. Both rulers would have been able to see themselves in their

respective gifts as virtuous Lutheran rulers.

This is not the only similarity between the Christmas Crib Automaton and the Lünebuger

Spiegel. Both were given as gifts to an Elector of Saxony by Sophie of Brandenburg. Each was

made from precious materials and with the highest quality of craftsmanship and technical

dexterity. Additionally, both objects incorporate religious imagery that, as I have argued, had

religious and political significance. And finally, the gifts also foreground various Lutheran

virtues, and as such were pointedly addressed to their respective recipients at politically

momentous moments.

Close examination of the Christmas Crib Automaton has revealed that the imagery not

only speaks to the customs and rituals pertaining to the time of year at which it was given; it also

exemplifies the supreme Lutheran duty. The object was a political tool that may have enabled

the mediation of the relationship of an extremely powerful husband and wife. While Sophie’s

motivation for commissioning the object remains a matter of speculation, the complicated issues

of Christian’s Calvinist leanings underlie both the music and imagery of the automaton. Of

course it will never be known whether Christian I gazed upon the automaton with delight, or if

he recognized a version of himself in the object. We do know that Sophie employed a similar

strategy in her gift of the Lünegburger Spiegel to Christian II, and this implies that the Christmas

Crib Automaton served its purpose.

189For an excellent discussion on the ways mirrors solicit the gaze of viewers see, Susan L. Smith, “The

Gothic Mirror and the Female Gaze,” in Saints, Sinners, and Sisters: Gender and Northern in Art in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Jane L. Caroll and Alison G. Stewart eds. (Burlington: Ashgate, 2003), 74.

90

“VERBUM DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM”: THE VERKEHRTE WELT AUTOMATON

The Verkehrte Welt (the world upside-down) Automaton (fig. 5), crafted sometime

between 1560 and 1570 in Augsburg, is the sole automaton recorded in the 1598 inventory of the

ducal Kunstkammer in Munich.190 The diminutive size of the Verkehrte Welt automaton (it

stands at only 14.2 centimeters) allowed for exceptionally intimate use. This was an object one

could easily have picked up, wound up, inspected, manipulated, and passed around a room. The

object is comprised of a number of sumptuous materials—silver, gold, rubies, diamonds,

emeralds, pearls, enamels, ivory, parchment, and ebony—all elaborately worked and

incorporated in to a compelling, if odd, ensemble. The combination of gem-like colored enamels,

actual gems, gold, and silver—all materials that seem to emit light—enhances the object’s

bewildering imagery and movement—an ape beating a pulpit before three deer. What makes this

automaton strange, however, is not just the bizarre coupling of an ape and deer, but its attempt to

convey that the ape is speaking to the deer. This is a world, unlike our own, where animals talk

and listen.191

190“Auf einem uberlengeten stöckl, von Hebeno ein grien geschmelzte berg, darauf ein viereckhet gulden

gestell in die vierung mit rundafelin versezt, auf welchem sizt ein Aff von gold, geschmelzt, mit einer blawen Kappen, und ein Paketen in der handt, vor im ein gulden Pulpit, daruaf ein gesangbuech, der wirt von einem urwerckh bewegt, das der Aff mit der Paketen die Mensure schlegt. Neben dem Affen ligen ain Hirsch, ain stuckh wildt von goldt, waiß geschmelzt, ain gulden Rech. Oberst neben dem berg ain anderer geschmeltzer baum. Auf der seitens des stöckhels würt ein Deckhel fürgeschoben, darunder ein täfel in dem ein wald, darinen hirschen und Rech, von minature gemalt, in mitten am fürschub ain Porten an deren baiderseits ain Pyramis mit rubin am fueß versezt, oben auf geschmelzt, am Spiz ein Perlin hinder iedem ein Pyramis ain gulden turlen, auf der objerseitten zwai schubladen, so mit gulden geschmelzten hirsköpfl heraußgezogen werden. In dem großern ligen ain guldene Reichpfeiffen, auch in dem clainern schublädl, das ein falsch, an idern ein geschmelzt hirshköpfl. Das fuetral hiezu ist inwendig mit weißem Attlaß gefüertet, von außen mit Plawen sammet uberzogen.” Peter Diemer, Elke Bujot, und Dorothea Diemer, eds. Johannes Baptist Fickler Das Inventar der Münchner herzlogichen Kunstkammer von 1598 (München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004) No. 3390.

91 According to the 1598 inventory of the ducal Kunstkammer in Munich and subsequent

descriptions of the collection, this peculiar object was situated on a table in the northeast corner

of the chamber, just outside the Gwölbl (vault) that housed the most valuable objects in the

collection.192 There can be little doubt that this position was generally considered to be one of

honor.193 Yet despite the fact that this unique object survives and despite the fact that it occupied

such an esteemed location in what was arguably the most distinguished Kunstkammer in the

Holy Roman Empire, it has been curiously ignored by art historical scholarship.194

What prompted the manufacture, collection, and display of the Verkehrte Welt Automaton

at the court in Munich? I attempt to answer this question first by accounting for the ways the

automaton transforms images of preaching into a verkherte Welt idiom and second by focusing

on the preoccupation of the Wittelsbach dukes–Wilhelm IV (1493-1550), Ludwig X (1495-

1545), Albrecht V (1528-1579), and Wilhelm V (1548-1626)— with routing out Protestant

preachers and reinvigorating Catholicism in Bavaria around the time the object was made.

Scholars have often stressed the importance of the Counter-Reformation for cultural production

in late sixteenth-century Bavaria, above all for the Wilhelmean building program of the last two

decades of the century.195 But they have paid little attention to the Bavarian Wittelsbach duke’s

191

Location: Schatzkammer der Residenz, Munich, Inv. n. 609-162, Literature: H. Brunner, Schatzkammer der Residenz München (München: Bayerische Verwaltung der Staatliche Schlösser, Gärten, und Seen, 1975), 42.

192Diemer (2004): 223, nos. 3373-3384 and Chr. Häutle, “Die Reisen der Augsburg Phillipp Hainhofer nach

Eichstädt, München, und Regensburg in den Jahren 1611, 1612, und 1613,” Zeitschrift des Historischen Veriens für Schwaben und Neuberg, Vol. 8 (1881) 95.

193I would like to thank Pieter and Dorothea Diemer for bringing this to my attention. Their unsurpassed

knowledge of the 1598 inventory of the Kunstkammer, and their willingness to share it with me on a daily basis made this chapter possible.

194On the fame of the Munich Kunstkammer see Lorenz Seelig, “Literaturbericht zur Münchner

Kunstkammer,” in Pieter Diemer and Dorothea Diemer eds., Die Münchner Kunstkammer (Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008) 115-124.

92 more intimate objets d’art. The analysis of the Verkehrte Welt Automaton that follows will

emphasize conceptions of and responses to Protestant—in particular, Lutheran—preaching

during the Counter-Reformation in southern Germany.196 In the end I argue the object’s

animation and imagery, shot through with straightforward and oblique references to Protestant

forms of ministry, visualize an argument against one of the most central elements of Martin

Luther’s reformation.

“FOR THEY KNOW NOT THE VOICE OF STRANGERS”

The Verkehrte Welt Automaton’s resplendent ensemble of a hilltop, preaching monkey,

audience of deer, and trees rests on an ebony base containing four drawers. Each drawer houses

a miniature golden hunter’s whistle (Wildruf), and the drawer pulls consist of small white

enameled deer heads.197 The front of the ebony base contains an arched portal. There are three

steps at the foot of the portal and the top is adorned with a pediment. Inside the portal a

descending drawbridge partially obstructs a minutely rendered landscape on parchment,

suggesting that the base is a fortress in miniature. The reference to defensive architecture in the

base is underlined by the two golden battle-axes flanking the portal. These instruments of war

are framed by two ruby obelisks, each crowned with a single pearl, while four more ruby

195The classic text is Paul Frankl, “Sustris und die Münchner Michaelskirche,” Münchner Jahrbuch der

bildenen Kunst, vol. 10 (1916) 1-63. See also, Erich Hubala, “Vom eurpäischen Rang der Münchner Architektur um 1600,” in Hubert Glaser ed., Beiträge zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kunst, 1573-1657 (München: Hirmer Verlag, 1980) 141-151.

196On using objects as a parallel archive see, Bill Brown, “Thing Theory,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 28 No. 1

(2001) 1-22. 197There is only one instance in the literature from the period that places a monkey in the role of the hunter.

It occurs in Georg Rollenhagen’s Froschmeuseler, Buch II, Teil 2, Kap. 11, v. 125-154, in the passage, “Der jagende Affe muß sich den Spott der Krähe gefallen lassen, weil seinem Bogen die Sehne fehlt.” See, Gerd Dicke and Klaus Grubmüller, Die Fabeln des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit: ein Katalog der deutschen Versionen und ihrer lateinischen Entsprechungen (München: Wilhelm Fink, 1987) 25.

93 obelisks are placed at the four corners of the base. A small ivory Roman soldier stands in a niche

on the back of the burnished fortress. His whiteness, like that of the enameled deer heads,

contrasts strikingly with the black south Asian wood of the base.

Two twisting golden trees sprout from the right and left sides of the enameled mound

atop the base. The leaves of these trees, one deciduous and the other coniferous, are denoted by

nothing less than countless translucent emeralds. The hill, which was crafted in the difficult

technique of émail en ronde bosse, contains numerous embossed trees and two small huts.198

Reigning over this topsy-turvy world is a mammoth (relative to the scale of the object) golden

ape mounted on a red enameled platform behind a diamond studded and repousée enameled

golden pulpit. The ape’s small red cap and blue chasuble signals his status as a representative of

the church, and the open songbook before him—possibly a hymnal—suggests he is in the midst

of a service. That the ape is preaching is strongly alluded to by the gem-studded pulpit—which

stands in coded contrast to its simian user—in combination with the creature’s mechanical

movement; powered by a clockwork mechanism encased in the enameled mound, the ape turns

its head, rolls its eyes and raises and lowers its right arm, beating his radiant jeweled lectern

repeatedly. At the monkey’s feet lie three enameled deer—two white stags and one golden

doe—whose heads are raised and whose gazes are directed toward the ape.199 Although the deer

seem at home within the landscape suggested by the enameled hilltop and its vegetation, their

198For excellent discussions of the émail ronde bosse technique see, Erika Speel, Dictionary of Enameling

(Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998) 126, Theodre Müller and Erich Steingräber, “Die Franzosiche Goldemailplastik um 1400,” Münchener Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst, vol. 5 (1954) 29-79; Everett P. Lesley Jr., Enamel (New York: The Cooper Union Museum for the Arts of Decoration, 1954) 4; and Renata Eikelmann, “Goldemail um 1400,” in Reinhold Baumstart ed., Das Goldene Rössl: Ein Meisterwerk der Pariser Hofkunst um 1400 (Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 1995) 106-109.

199On the iconography of the stag see, Debra Hassig, Medieval Bestiaries: Image, Text, Ideology

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 40-52 and Michael Bath, The Image of the Stag (Baden Baden: Valentin Koerner, 1992) passim.

94 juxtaposition with a preaching ape at a pulpit is incongruous—and iconographically novel.

Indeed, the relationship between the ape and the deer is marked by alienation; in the context of

the automaton’s movement and its central element, the ape, they seem isolated. The bewildering

coexistence of the ape and the deer, the ape’s mindlessly repeated gestures, and even the silence

of the object make the Verkehrte Welt automaton a telling commentary on the act of preaching.

The fact that this object evoked images of preaching is attested to by an early

seventeenth-century description. Writing in 1611, during a visit to the Munich court, the famed

Handelsman Philip Hainhofer (1578-1647) reports that in the Kunstkammer he saw: “a black hill

crafted from a touchstone, on top sits an ape with a music book before it. It beats a rhythm and

rolls its eyes. Around it sit several animals, all of which are enameled and gold. It looks like the

wolf preaching to the geese.”200 Hainhofer was reminded by the object of the popular tale of

Reynard the fox, who—according to the numerous manifestations of the tale—duped unwitting

poultry into listening to him deliver a sermon in order to entrap and devour them.201 That the

200“Ain schwartzer berg auß lapide elidio, darob sitz ein af mit eine Musich buch vor Ihme, der schlegt den

tact, und rühret die augen, umb Ihn hero sitzten etliche their alle gulden und geschmelzt, sihet als wann der Wolf den gänsen predigte.” (my translation) Chr. Häutle, “Die Reisen der Augsburg Phillipp Hainhofer nach Eichstädt, München, und Regensburg in den Jahren 1611, 1612, und 1613,” Zeitschrift des Historischen Veriens für Schwaben und Neuberg, Vol. 8 (1881) 95.

201By the time the automaton was manufactured, the tale of the guileful fox had been one of the most

widespread stories north of the Alps for 300 years. The first known text to describe Reynard’s exploits was Ysengrimus, and dates to 1148-1149. Ysengrimus is a Latin epic poem over six and a half thousand lines in length, and is believed to have been written in Ghent. The first vernacular version of Reynard’s travails was penned in France and titled Roman de Reynard. Between 1150 and 1190 the stories of Reynard flourished. The renditions of Reynard’s exploits spread in all directions and we have evidence of manuscripts dating to this forty-year period produced in territories now known as Belgium, Holland, Northern Germany, France, and even Northern Italy. In 1191 the Alsatian Heinrich der Glichesaer produced the first German version, Reinhart Fuchs. Shortly thereafter, an Italian version of the epic appeared, Rainaldo e Lesegrino. In the 1260’s a Frenchman known as Rutebeuf wrote Renart le Bestournée. Sometime between 1263-1270, a third French version of the epic appeared. This text was anonymously written and entitled, Cournnment de Renart. Sometime between 1288 and 1289 Jacquemart Gilée drafted RenartReynard le Nouvel. The first Dutch version, Van de vos Reynaerde, was drafted at the end of the thirteenth century. Three more Dutch versions followed in the fourteenth century. They were respectively titled Renyanaerts Historie, Renaert de Vos, and Hystorie van Renaert die Vos. The tale was also well known in England. Chaucer devoted 680 lines to the fox in The Nun’s Priest’s Tale of the Cook and the Fox, while one

95 automaton recalled to Hainhofer the Reynard tale is no wonder, since numerous sixteenth-

century images of the duplicitous fox preaching to ducks, geese, and chickens mobilized the

same composition as the Verkehrte Welt Automaton (fig. 29 and fig. 30).

Because the composition evokes Reynard imagery, and the central figure is an ape, one

might imagine that the Verkehrte Welt Automaton is simply an allegory against false

preaching.202 And indeed, an ape is an appropriate figure of deceit. Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-

636), convinced that apes were debased replicas and unworthy imitators of man, went through a

series of etymological exercises to argue that the Latin “simia” stemmed from the Latin

“similitude”—rather than the Greek “simus,” which means “snubbed nose”—in his influential

Etymologiae.203 By the thirteenth century the German term Affe (Ape) achieved common

currency as a synonym for “fool.” As indicated by numerous phrases—“den Affe machen” (to

play the fool), “wie ein Affe auf dem Schliefstein sitzen” (to sit like a monkey on a knife-grinder),

“wohl vom blauen Affen gebissen” (to be off one’s head), “wie vom Wilden Affen gebissen da

herumtoben” (to jump around like a raving lunatic), “wie einen Affenkäfig” (it’s like a

madhouse)—to be apish was to be a dunce or a loon. hundred years later William Caxton published the Historye of Renaert the Foxe. A number of studies address the history and development of the Renart tale. See, A.J. Barnouw, “Reynard the Fox,” in E. Colledge ed. Reynard the Fox and other Medieval Netherlands Secular Literature (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1967) 47-157; Norman F. Blake, “English Versions of Reynard the Fox in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” Studies in Philology, Vol. 62 (1965); Gerd Dicke and Klaus Grumüller, Die Fabeln des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit: ein Katalog der deutschen Versionen und ihrer lateinischen Entsprechungen (München: Wilhelm Fink, 1987) 698-699; Thomas Honegger, “A Fox is a Fox: The Fox and the Wolf Reconsidered,” Reinardus: Yearbook of the International Reynard Society, Vol. 9 (1996) 59-74.

202One scholar has argued that the images of apes satirizing members of the cloth, “are likely to have been

intended as satires on unworthy individuals who performed these rituals just as ape-knight and ape-physicians almost certainly constituted criticism of men who were not good members of their profession rather than a criticism of the professions themselves.” Karl Pl Wentersdorf, “The Symbolic Significance of the Figurae Scatologicae in Gothic Manuscripts,” in Clifford Davidson, ed. Word, Picture, Spectalce (Kalamzoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1984) 3.

203H.W. Janson, Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (London: The Warburg

Institute, 1952) 19-20.

96 Typically, in the medieval period, representations of apes are expressive of this notion

that apes are foolish creatures. In the marginalia of a folio from the fourteenth-century Grey-

Fitzpayn Hours (fig. 31) and a fifteenth-century Minnekästchen (fig. 32) from the

Bayerischeslandes Museum, apes convey their foolishness by donning a crown and wielding a

branch, as if it were a scepter (Minnekästchen) and beating a drum while mounted backwards on

a dog (Grey-Fitzpayn Hours), respectively.204 More in tune with the Verkehrte Welt automaton

is a sermonzing ape depicted on a folio of a fourteenth-century book of hours, now in the Walters

Art Gallery (fig. 33). In the register below the text, above a band of foliated and figured

roundels, sits an ape in a Gothic throne wielding a crozier and with three other apes clustered

around its feet.

Medieval simian imagery, represented here by this brisk survey, seems to me to be one

important source for the subject of the Verkehrte Welt Automaton. The ape’s thoughtless,

mechanical mimicry surely owes something to his medieval predecessors. It is important,

however, not to lose sight of the historical distance separating the medieval images of apes from

the Verkehrte Welt Automaton. While these figurations, which populate the edges of manuscript

folios and adorn secular luxury works of art, may seem to predict the golden enameled preaching

ape and his congregation, they were consistently peripheral to the work of art itself, occurring in

places, in the words of Michael Camille, “betwixt and between.”205 By contrast, the Verkehrte

Welt Automaton is constructed so as to feature and even animate the ape and his actions. But

204

Marginalia was also referred to as babuini (monkey business) during the late middle ages. Michael Camille, Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art (London: Reaktion Books, 1992) 12 . For an excellent catalogue and overview of apes in the margins of medieval manuscripts see, Lillian M. Randall, Images in the Margins of Gothic Manuscripts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966) passim.

205Camille (1992): 12.

97 what sort of natural order, not to mention church hierarchy, could sustain an ape preaching? The

world represented on this hilltop is doubly topsy-turvy: apes do not preach; and deer do not listen

to sermons, whether delivered by apes or men.

THE UPSIDE-DOWN WORLD

Before delving further into the significance of the Verkehrte Welt Automaton, and the

extent to which it is an allegory about false preaching, let us explore other contemporary

verkehrte Welt imagery. In the decades in which the automaton was made in Augsburg and

acquired by the Munich court, German-speaking lands were inundated with verbal and pictorial

formulations of the verkehrte Welt.206 The efflorescence of literature, pictures, and objects that

depicted a reversal of laws of nature and social hierarchies took its cues from a number of

sources—classical mythology, animal fables, exempla, proverbs, folklore, and zoological

treatises among them.207 Representations of the verkehrte Welt tended to be “popular” in nature.

Broadsheets depicting women beating their husbands, bulls disemboweling butchers, hares

hunting men, and monkeys attacking castles were widepsread. Tales of ships traversing rocky

terrains and peasants drinking spoons were narrated in such widely read books as Sebastian

Brant’s Narrenschiff (1494) and Hans Sachs’s Das Schlaraffen Landt (1530).208 The world

206Other languages also have similar terms. For instance imagery and literature that portrays an inverted

world can fall under the headings of, “Mundus Perversus,” “Mondo alla Rovescio,” “Monde à l’envers,” “Mundo al Revès,” and “Verkeerde Wereld.” David Kunzle, “The World Upside Down: The Iconography of a European Broadsheet Type,” in Barbara A. Babcock, ed., The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978) 41.

207Many of the zoological treatises were derived from medieval bestiaries such as the Early Christian

Physiologus, Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae, Ambrose’s Hexaemeron, the anonymous De Bestiis et aliis rebus, Hugh of Fouilly’s De avibus, and Solinus’s Collectanea rerum memorabilium, See Debra Hassig, Medieval Bestiaries: Text, Image, Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 5.

98 upside down was also prominently featured in religious imagery. Foxes preaching to ducks and

farriers shoeing geese appear regularly in the misericords of churches such as Hoogstraten in

present day Belgium (fig. 34).209 Luxury items were also, though to a lesser extent, prone to

interest in this imagery. For instance, a silver platter crafted by Abraham Gessner (1580,

Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich) is covered with these reversals, and executed with the

utmost precision and care (fig. 35).210

David Kunzle has proposed that the verkehrte Welt be divided into five types of

inversions and one heterogenous group: human to human; human to animal; animal to animal;

animal to element; animal to object; and “animals in incongruous activity.”211 To the first

208 Sebastian Brant, Das Narrenschiff (Basel) 1494 and Hans Sachs, Sämtliche Fabeln und Schwänke, Vols.

1-3. (Halle: Niemeyer, 1893). The passage where Sachs discusses a peasant drinking a spoon reads as follows: “Ein dorff in einem Bauren fasas, Der gerne leffel mit milch as Sampt einen grossen wecke, Viers hauser

hat sein ecke, vier wagen spandt erfur sein pferdt, Sein küch stundt mitten in derm her, Bold stadel was wein hewe, sein hoff lag in dem strewe, sein stall findt mitten in derm Roß, Sein offen in dabl rod er Schoß, Auß kes macht er gutt milsche, Bon jppen war sein milche, er seblug die bau aus der gruben, und seldtacker auß den Rubern, mit garbe Trölcht er slegel, Auff der spitz stellt ein kegel.”

Sachs also describes a peasant’s paradise where no one works and people are paid to sleep. The streets are lined with plum pudding, houses made from cake, and food falls randomly from the sky—a culinary utopia. One among many key examples of the world turned upside down is an instance in the text when animals invite humans to devour them. “Auch fliegen umb, muget iyr glauben/ Gebraten Hüner, Gensz, und Tauben/ Wer sie nigh fact und ist so faul/ Dem fliegen sie von selbs in da maul/ Die sew all Jar gar wol gerathen/ Lauffen im Land umb, sind gebraten!/ Yede eyn messer hat im Rück!” Boesch (1894); 72

209The term misericord is derived from the Latin misericordia, which denoted mercy or pity. They are

carved wooden brackets beneath the seats of choir stalls in cathedrals or collegiate and monastic churches. Christa Grössinger, The World Upside-Down: English Misericords (London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1997) 11-17.

210J.F. Hayward, Virtuoso Goldsmiths And the Triumph of Mannerism 1540-1620 (New York: Sotheby

Parke Bernet, 1976) Plate Number, 555. Art historians have been curiously silent with regard to the luxury items that depict the verkehrte Welt. For this literature see, Natalie Zemon Davis, “Women on Top: Symbolic Sexual Inversion and Political Disorder in Early Modern Europe,” in Barbara A. Babcock, ed., The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978) 154, Frederick B. Jonassen, “Lucian’s Saturnalia, the Land of Cockaigne, and the Mummers’ Plays,” Follkore vol. 101, no. 1 (1990) 58-68 and Keith Moxey, Peasants, Warriors, and Wives: Popular Imagery in the Reformation. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) 45-62 David Kunzle, “The World Upside Down: The Iconography of a European Broadsheet Type,” in Barbara A. Babcock, ed., The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978) 40.

211In rare instances object/element inversion is featured in verkehrte Welt imagery. For instance, a

sixteenth-century Italian broadsheet incorporates an anvil flying through the air. Such inversions are reminiscent of

99 category belong gender and class inversions, such as the Phyllis riding and subjugating Aristotle,

which was illustrated in Hans Sachs’s Die vier trefliche menner sampt ander vilen, so durch

frawenlieb betrogen, sin und noch betrogen weden (1534) (fig. 36). To the second category

belong animals that treat humans as animals, as, for example, where donkeys ride peasants. To

the third category belongs images which that reverse the role of animals, for instance the

prevalent scene of; hares hunting dogs appears in a range of media, from a small engraving

entitled The Hares’ Revenge by Israel van Meckenem (ca. 1490) (fig. 37), to frescoes which that

date to 1616 in the Ansitz Thun-Martini in the town of Revò in southern Tyrol (fig. 38).212 The

latter example also demonstrates that overlap between and among categories was part and parcel

of world upside-down imagery. The fourth category, “animal to element” reversal, is infrequent,

but one case can be found in in a frame of a Dutch broadsheet published at the end of the

sixteenth century in Amsterdam by Ewout Mülller (fig. 39). Versions of this broadsheet, which

presents a pictorial catalogue of instances of inversion, were widely disseminated. This

particular instance features fish busily nesting in the top of trees (“De vissen nestlen inde

boomen”). The fifth category, the inversion of animal and object, appears frequently in the

misericords of Churches. One the most visually stunning examples of this mode of reversal can

be found on a misericord in Beverly Minster, a wonderfully foreshortened representation of cart

pulling a horse (fig. 40).

A significant percentage of verkehrte Welt imagery falls into the sixth category: animals

performing human activities. Dancing bears, cats playing bagpipes, or monkeys riding horses

ancient “adynata” or “impossibilia.” These rhetorical devices were employed by ancient writers to highlight the unnatural nature of a social anomaly. Kunzle (1978): 59.

212 “The Hares’ Revenge” was so popular that in 1573 Flohaz Johannes Fischart remarked, “strange

combats our artists represent these days. For they bring into the cats against the rats, mice and rats [against the cats]. Who hasn’t seen the hares turning the hunters on the spit?” Quoted by Kunzle (1978):79.

100 appeared in verbal and visual representations well before the Verkehrte Welt Automaton was

crafted. Some of the best recent work on the world upside-down has explored how images of

inversion amounted to the collective voice of the Volk, capable of subverting official culture and

overthrowing a burgeoning bourgeois aesthetics of beauty.213 It might therefore be possible to

argue that the Verkehrte Welt Automaton is a prime example of what the Russian literary theorist

Mikhail Bakhtin deemed the eruption of the popular or “carnivalesque” in an aristocratic

sphere.214 This reading, however, does not fully explain the significance of the object’s imagery,

nor does it shed much light on why the object was acquired by the Munich court and so

prominently displayed. To begin to understand its appeal to the Munich court we must examine

another class of images the automaton readily recalls—representations of Lutheran preachers.

FIGURES OF SPEECH

The period during which the German-speaking world produced such a density of

configurations of the world upside-down was also a time when images of clergymen pulpiteering

were manifold and ever-present. These images, most of which were produced by Protestant

presses and artists, lauded preaching as the foremost strategy to transmit the word of God, as

well as a means to connect theological teachings and the concerns of the clergy with the spiritual

ideas and practices of their congregations.215 Scores of woodcuts such as Lucas Cranach the

Elder’s Hallowed be thy Name (1527) (fig. 41), The Third Commandment (1529) (fig. 42), The

213Moxey (1989). 214Mikhail Bahktin, Rabelais and his World, trans. Hélène Iswolsky (Bloomington: Indiana University

Press, 1984) 164-166. 215R. W. Scribner, “Demons, Defecation and Monsters: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation”

in Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: Hambledon Press, 1987) 278-299.

101 Last Supper of Protestants and the Pope’s Descent to Hell (1547) (fig. 43), Matthias Gerung’s

Evangelical Church Service and Catholic Indulgences (1546), Georg Pencz’s Content of two

Sermons (1529) (fig. 44), and Pancratz Kemp’s The Difference between the True Religion of

Christ and the False Idolatrous Teachings of the Antichrist (1550) (fig. 45), to name but a few,

became emblems of the evangelical movement.216 Such imagery, like that of the world upside-

down, was routine: the laity, young and old, rich and poor, stand or sit in audience before a pulpit

occupied by a gesticulating minister, often with a book laid open before him. Images such as

these were reproduced in books, pamphlets, and broad sheets—or “printed catechisms”—which

not only publicized the new faith, but also conveyed Luther’s essential teachings of sola

scriptura and sola fide to lay persons.217

Out of all of the printed catechisms mentioned above, Pancratz Kempf’s The Difference

between the True Religion of Christ and the False Idolatrous Teachings of the Antichrist (fig.

45), most clearly articulates the Lutheran minister’s ability to transfer the word of God to his

congregation.218 In Kempf’s complex two-part image, the rites, wealth, corruption, and idolatry

of the Catholic Church are pitted against the cleansed sacraments—the Baptism and the Lord’s

Supper—of Luther’s reformed religion. Separated by the column that bisects the image, Luther,

216On the propagandistic role of these images see, R.W. Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular

Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). See especially Chapter 7, “Teaching the Gospel: Propaganda as Instruction” 190-228.

217On the pedagogical function of the printed catechisms see, Gerald Strauss, Luther’s House of Learning:

Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978) 151-175. 218Currently, the large two-block print survives in two versions. One is supplemented with text composed

by Melancthon’s most fervent interlocutor, the theologian Matthias Flacius Illricus (1520-1575) and one is without commentary. The authorship of this print has been questioned. The manner and theme of the work has been attributed to Cranach’s workshop, but the watermark suggests that it was printed in Madeburg, where Illyricus was preaching and writing. Since we know Kempf produced satirical prints in Magdeburg that supported the reformer’s cause, it has been claimed and, for the most part, accepted that Kempf executed the woodcut in Magdeburg under the guidance of Illyricus.

102 pristine in his fur collared coat, or Schaube, is juxtaposed with a hooded monk at the right, with a

demon wielding bellows on his shoulder. Clearly, the bellows are a conduit of Satan’s

message.219 Wearing a devilish grin, the corpulent clergyman stands in his ornamented pulpit

and delivers his sermon (devoted to the teachings of the Antichrist/Abgottischenlehr des

Antichrists) while pointing toward the monks and church officials below him who carry out what

Luther deemed the abuses of the Church.220 A demon blesses the altar table placed on the naked

earth at the center of the composition; a richly adorned priest celebrates a private mass; a bishop

consecrates a bell; two monks lay a cowl on a dying man to ensure that he expires as a member

of a privileged monastic order. Holding aloft the standard of a local saint, a monk leads a

procession of pilgrims around the church in the background. In the right foreground, wearing the

three-tiered papal tiara, Christ’s vicar on earth is selling indulgences. He fondles a pile of coins

with his left hand, while in his right he holds aloft an indulgence paraphrasing the infamous lines

penned by Johann Tetzel in 1517: “Sobald der Gülden im Becken klingt/ im huy die Seel im

Himmel Springt.” (“When the coin in the coffin rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”) 221

Encircled by clouds and kneeling beside God the Father, Saint Francis, plainly displaying his

219This representation of the demon imparting the teachings of Satan to the monk’s ear is an inversion of

the popular legend of Saint Gregory the Great. After Gregory’s death it was suggested by his contemporaries that his works were heretical and should be burned. One of Gregory’s followers prevented the book burning by testifying that he witnessed the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, dictating the works in Gregory’s ear. See, Uwe Westfehling, ed. Die Messe Gregors des Großen. Vision, Kunst, Realität. Katalog und Führer zu einer Ausstellung im Schnütgen Museum Köln (Köln: Schnütgen Museum, 1982) 13.

220The fact that this woodcut underscores the moral, spiritual, and theological oppositions of the Reformed

preacher and the Catholic monk aligns it with the “Wittenberg Tradition,” developed from Luther’s writings, of the antichrist. Popular visual indicators of the antichrist, such as presenting the monk as the devil himself or being born from a she-devil are, surprisingly, not present in this work. On representing the Pope as the antichrist, see Scribner (1981): 155-163.

221“Weil der grosch noch klingt/feret die Seel im himel.”

103 stigmata to the viewer, offers himself as intercessor, prompting the divine wrath of fire and

brimstone.

In the other, left half of the image, Luther is identified as a prophet by the text inscribed

on the pulpit, “Alle Propheten zeugen von diesem dz sein ander name unter dem Himel sey” (All

prophets testify to this one, that his other name is in the heavens). Luther solemnly places his left

hand on the book of scripture, while his right hand extends to make contact with an outstretched

banderole containing three weightless texts and that concludes in the body and orb of God the

Father in heaven. Reading from above, the first of these texts states, “Es ist nur ein Mitler”

(There is only one mediator). The text between Christ and the Paschal Lamb reads: “Ich bin der

weg Niemant etc.”—an abbreviation of John 14:16 (“I am the way, the truth, the life: no man

cometh unto the father but by me”). The third text starts anew with John 19:29, “Gibt es ist di

lamb Gottes etc.” (“Behold, this is the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the World.”) A

passage of text to the left of Christ’s head—the suggestion is that the words emerge from his

mouth—reads, “Vater heilige sie/Ich heilige und opffere mich für sie. Mir meinen wunden etc”

(“Holy Father save them, I sacrificed myself for them with my wounds”). Reiterating this

salvific plea the text below reminds the viewer, “So, wir sundigen haben wir einen wortsprecher

beim Vater. Darumb last uns gewost zu dem gnadenivol treten” (“If we sin we have an advocate

before God, so let us turn in consolation to this means of grace”). Directly beneath this message,

communion is given to a man and a woman kneeling at the altar table, behind which the crucified

Christ rises above the landscape. To his right we read Matthew 26:27, “Trinckt alle daraus”

(“Drink from it, all of you”). The passage from Matthew’s Gospel is strategically placed to

bridge the scene of the Eucharist to the second sacrament of Luther’s church—Baptism. By

picturing the channels by which preachers receive and deliver God’s invisible message and by

104 juxtaposing this invisibility with the wickedly visible mechanisms of salvation institutionalized

by the Catholic church, Kempf’s woodcut asserts that Luther and, by extension, reform preachers

in general, are the shepherds of Christ’ Kingdom, because “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing

by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17).

Joseph Leo Koerner’s recent study of Lucas Cranach the Elder’s (1472-1553) Wittenberg

Altarpiece (1547) offers an excellent introduction to the theological and political underpinnings

of images of Protestant ministry.222 Koerner discusses the wide dissemination of images of

preaching, which he understands as attempts to picture an ideal communicative relationship

between the Protestant minister and his congregation (Gemeinde) of believers. Standing in stark

contrast to the monstrances, papal seals, coins, rosaries, and reliquaries that populate scenes of

Catholic materialism and ritual, printed images of preaching disavow the power of visual

persuasion integral to Catholic practices. No longer dependent on the heilbringende Schau

(salvific display) and the Schaufrömmigkeit (visual piety) of the Catholic Church, the reform

church relies only on words—the Scripture and sermons—to convey Christ. The depiction of

these relationships rests on the assumption that a given message can be transmitted immediately

and clearly. Koerner’s analysis rests on the pivotal declaration that Reformation art was at once

iconic (images continued to play a central role in communicating fundamental religious and

liturgical concerns) and iconoclastic (insofar as the word trumped the image).

Viewed in light of the early sixteenth-century pictorial conventions for and of

representing the act of preaching in the context of the Reformation and of Koerner’s work, the

Verkehrte Welt Automaton offers a parodic commentary on reform preaching (and its

representation) by way of enacting it. It appears to mock the premise that meaningful

222Joseph Leo Koerner, The Reformation of the Image (London: Reaktion Books, 2004).

105 communication can occur between minister and congregation. The object sends an ironic

message: the reformed minister’s ability to transfer the Word of God to the populace is

comparable to the ape’s claim to be able to communicate with deer. What is staged in this

hilltop farce, therefore, is not merely a reinterpreation or simple rephrasing of the printed

catechisms, but an entirely different model of oral transmission that places the Protestant sermon

outside the realm of religiosity. At one level, the automaton parodies and thereby condemns a

social phenomenon and, like other verkehrte Welt imagery, relies on absurdity as a chief comedic

resource. Yet at another level, by twisting the mechanics of Protestant ministry into mindless

repetition and thoughtless gestures, and by representing the audience as an unlikely assemblage

of uninterested and discrete listening bodies, the automaton denies the notion of verbal

efficacy—one of, if not the most, crucial components of Luther’s Reformation.

THE KINGDOM OF LISTENERS

“The office of preaching is second to none in Christendom.”223 This statement on the

glorification of preaching was written by Martin Luther and intended for his freshly formed

congregation of Protestants in Wittenberg. Writing in 1522, the young Luther modeled his

sermon, On the Office of Preaching and of Preachers and Hearers, after John 10:1-11—in which

Christ recounts the parable of the shepherd.

Verily, verily I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but

climbeth up some other way, is the same as a thief and robber. But he that entereth in by

the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his

voice; and he calleth the sheep by name and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth

223Martin Luther, “The Office of Preaching and of Preachers and Hearers,” in The Sermons of Martin

Luther, Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Backer Book House, 1907) 374.

106 his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

And a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him for they know not the voice of

strangers.

Like the Verkehrte Welt Automaton, Luther’s sermon could be construed as a warning against

false preachers. Luther knew well that for the Church of Rome, the pulpit served exclusively to

lay down rules of good behavior and proper spiritual actions, since the seven sacraments were

considered the primary mechanisms of salvation. Luther’s foundational sermon on the office of

ministry was not inspired by a conviction that the Church’s clergymen were pretenders, however,

but by his belief in the efficacy of the spoken word. Later in the sermon Luther writes: “Let it be

called ‘coming’ when one preaches right; the approach is spiritual, and through the word—upon

the ears of hearers (Höreren), the preacher comes at least into the sheepfold—the heart of

believers. Christ says that the shepherd must enter the door; that is, preach nothing but Christ,

for Christ is the door onto the Sheepfold.”224 Luther reiterated this claim one year later, in the

preface to the Ordnung eines gemeinen Kastens der Gemeine zu Leisnig (1523): “Every

householder and his wife shall be duty-bound to cause the wholesome and consoling Word of

God to be preached to them, their children, and their domestic servants, so that the Gospel may

be impressed [eingebildet] on them for their betterment.”225 The reformer further refined this

notion at the end of his career, in a sermon on the Eighth Psalm, penned in 1545, where he states:

“Christ’s kingdom is a hearing-kingdom, not a seeing kingdom; for the eyes do not lead and

guide us to where we know and find Christ, but rather ears do this.”226 In emphasizing the

exchange between the preacher (speaker) and the congregation (hearers) Luther proposes that

224Ibid: 376. 225 D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar Ausgabe) Vol. 12 (Weimar: Hermann

Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1884), 1-30. From here on the Gesammtausgabe will be abbreviated WA. 226 WA LI, 11

107 oral communication—“who says what to whom in what channel with what effect”—is a salvific

mechanism.227 Luther’s advocacy of the pulpit did not fall on deaf ears. In the words of Robert

Scribner, “…for Protestants, ‘hearing the Word’ became virtually a third Sacrament alongside

Baptism and the Lords Supper.”228

The notion that preaching was a means of mass communication to reach a religious base

is not Luther’s own; it was already mobilized in the late fourteenth, fifteenth, and early sixteenth

centuries by charismatic figures such as Jan Hus (1369-1415) and Geiler von Keyserberg (1445-

1510).229 What is novel about Luther’s approach, and what makes it so pivotal in the rise of the

modern evangelical movement, is the devotion of the preacher to his congregation and his ability

to transmit a message (Christ) with “utmost simplicity” for comprehension by all.230 In 1541

Luther wrote:

Cursed be every preacher who aims at lofty topics in the church….When I preach here I

adapt myself to the circumstances of the common people. I do not look at the doctors and

masters of whom scarcely forty are present, but at the hundred or thousand young people

and children. It is to them that I preach, to them that I devote myself, for they too need to

understand. If the others do not want to listen, they can leave … we preach in public for

the sake of plain people. Christ could have taught in a profound way, but he wished to

227 Harold Dwight Lasswell, “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society,” in Lyman

Bryson, ed., The Communication of Ideas (New York: Harper & Row, 1948) (must check on page number.) 228Robert Scribner, “Oral Culture and the Diffusion of Reformation Ideas,” History of European Ideas, Vol.

5, No. 3 (1984) 238. 229In addition to charismatic figures such Hus and von Keyserberg, numerous itinerant preachers predicted

the end of days to rapt audiences. The phenomenon was so widespread that in 1513 the Lateran Council prohibited preaching on such matters. Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine, and Death in Reformation Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 1.

230Patrick T. Ferry, “Confessionalization and Popular Preaching: Sermons Against Synergism in

Reformation Saxony,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4 (Winter 1997) 1144.

108 deliver his message with the utmost simplicity in order that the common people might

understand.231

The sermon was thus a practical means of impressing Christ on the laity. Words convey pure

grace and enable its passage from Christ to his flock. Luther thus endows preachers with

spiritual authority and listeners with the ability to comprehend and retain Scripture’s message

and in turn makes them the direct recipients of God’s Word, thereby saving them.

In formulating this radical salvific mechanism, Luther had to contend with eight hundred

years of eloquent church writing concerning the inability of language to articulate the sacred

mysteries of the established church. For theologians and mystics such as Augustine, Hildegard

von Bingen, and Meister Eckhart, to name but a few, language was not only insufficient for

capturing the ineffability of the mysteries of the Church; it was also vulnerable to distortion,

opacity, and faulty transmission.232 Sight, touch, and taste, for the Church in Rome, were the

primary tools the layperson possessed to understand immanence and achieve salvation.233

Consuming the host, witnessing the weeping cult statue, handling a relic, praying before an

altarpiece of Christ, the Virgin or a saint, beholding the monumental sacred architecture: these

experiences proclaimed the Praesentia of the Catholic Church, stood as evidence of the efficacy

231WA, 35:235 232A. Loth, “Augustine on Language,” Literature and Theology, Vol. 3 No.2 (Spring, 1989) 151-158. See

also Norman Tanner and Sethina Watson, “Least of the Laity: the minimum requirements for a medieval Christian,” Journal of Medieval History, Vol. 32 (2006) 395-423; Berndt Hamm, “Normative Centering in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Observations on Religiosity, Theology, and Iconology,” trans. John M. Frymire, Journal of Early Modern History, Vol. 3 No.4 (1999) 315-323; and Alois M. Haas, Sermo mysticus: Studien zu Theologie und Sprache der deutschen Mystik (Freiburg: Universtätsverlag, 1979.).

233 These crucial aspects of devotion in the late medieval church have been called heilbringende Schau

(salvific display) by A.L. Meyer. See, A.L. Meyer, “Die heilbringend Schau in Sitte und Kult,” in Heilige Überlieferung: Festschrift für I. Herwegen (Münster, 1938). For a more recent and seminal work on the topic see Berndt Hamm, “Frömmigkeit als Gegenstand theologiegeschichtlicher Forschung: Methodisch-historische Überlegungen am Beispiel von Spätmittelalter und Reformation,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Vol. 74 (1977) 464-497. I thank Richard Kieckhefer for suggesting them both to me.

109 of its rites, and validated the sacred economy on which the institution relied. Language and all

of its explanatory, exorcistic, and transubstantiative powers was restricted to the ordained. For

instance, the translation of the Canon into the vernacular was prohibited.234 Protestant authors

often discussed the Catholic Church’s silence in their sermons on salvific matters. In 1566

Johann Mathesius published a sermon on Luther’s life; he reports that before he was introduced

to Luther and his teachings he was ignorant of the significance of the Eucharist: “I know for

certain that, before I came to Wittenberg, I never in my lifetime learned of the forgiveness and

comfort that one gets by consuming the body and blood of Christ in faith; neither in church or in

school was a word heard recollecting this.”235

Counter-Reformation propaganda signals the church’s distrust of both the laity’s ability

to comprehend the proceedings and of preaching in general. One fascinating response to Luther’s

elevation of the office of preaching and the spoken word belongs to the early phase of Counter-

Reformation indoctrination. In the title page of the priest and humanist Johann Cochlaeus’s

(1479-1552) Vom Hochwirdigen Sacrament des Altars (1529), Hans Brosamer (1550-1555), a

precocious student of Lucas Cranach the Elder, casts Luther as the seven-headed hydra from the

Book of Revelation (fig. 46).236 What is most crucial about this image, however, is not that it

renders Luther as an apocalyptic figure, but rather the claims it makes about the reformer’s

ability to convey Scripture’s message. Each of the seven heads portrays Luther as a different

234 One commentary on the Canon reads: “It is unseemly that the laity should be concerned with these things.” Quoted by Koerner, 352

235 Ibid 352 236For an excellent discussion of this and other prints of clerical figures in the guise of the red dragon and

other beasts of the apocalypse, see Christiane Andersson, “Polemical Prints in Reformation Nuremberg,” in New Perspectives on the Art of Renaissance Nuremberg: Five Essays, ed. Jeffrey Chipps Smith (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985) 48-59.

110 persona—doctor, saint, infidel, priest, zealot, bureaucrat, and Barrabas. By throwing the stability

of Luther’s identity into question and by equating these different guises with the head of the “red

dragon” of John’s revelation, the title page attempts to undermine Luther’s spiritual, theological,

and political authority. Yet insofar as this print endeavors to demonstrate (among other things)

the religious leader’s hypocrisy, it also makes a broader claim about the act of preaching. Poised

frontally, Luther grasps the Gospel, from which all of his various heads preach. The cacophony

of voices transforms the red dragon of revelations into a “monster of confusion.”237

Furthermore, the composition implies that reformer is directly addressing the viewer, rendering

the viewer the audience of Luther’s Babel. Like the Verkehrte Welt Automaton, the print

represents the breakdown of communication—paradoxically, by way of a sermonizing figure.

As I aim to show in the concluding sections of this chapter, the prominent display of the

automaton in the Kunstkammer of the Wittelsbach dukes resonates in the context of attempts to

undermine the Reformation’s verbal regime—a cultural gesture aligned with the political

attempts on the part of the Wittelsbach dukes to impair the spread of the Reform movement in

their territorial state.

THE BAVARIAN CATHOLIC “RENEWAL”

In February of 1519, two years after Martin Luther confronted the Catholic church with

his Ninety-Five Theses (1517), Hans Schober, a printer in Munich, published his Sermon oder

Predigt von der Betrachtung des Heiligen Leidens Christi (1519).238 Luther’s sermon on “the

237I am borrowing this phrase from Joseph Leo Koerner. Joseph Leo Koerner, The Moment of Self-

Portraiture in German Renaissance Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993) 60. 238 WA 2: 132.

111 fruit of Christ’s suffering” (Frucht des Leidens Christi) was the first Protestant tract published in

the southern German territory of Bavaria. Two years later, in the city of Landshut, the priest and

printer Johann Weißenburger published a detailed report of Luther’s appearance at the Diet of

Worms, which occurred on 16 April 1521—an epic public performance where the reformer

refused, before the young emperor Charles V and the entire Reichstände, to recant his polemical

avowal of sola fide and unabashedly denied the authority of the pope.239 Weißenburger’s

dramatic and widely circulated account of Luther’s unprecedented stand opened the proverbial

floodgates. Protestant texts and wandering preachers inundated the rural duchy of Bavaria.240

Such a dramatic shift in the religious landscape did not go unnoticed. On Ash Wednesday 1522,

the conjoint rulers of the territory Dukes Ludwig X and Wilhelm IV issued a new ordinance

decreeing that followers of Luther were forbidden within their realm.241 To the dismay of

Protestants in and outside of Bavaria, the brothers acted zealously toward this end.

Enforcement of the ordinance began immediately, and all individuals who were rumored

to have Protestant sympathies were subject to expulsion. In 1522 Wolf Ruß, a chaplan in Neu-

Ötting, was forced to flee to Ulm after the Archbishop of Salzburg, Matthäus Lang von

Wellenberg (1469-1540), caught wind that Ruß had publicly claimed the pilgrimage shrine of

Our Lady at Altötting to be a “heidnischen Kult.”242 Reformers were accused of heresy, put on

239On Weißenburger’s publication see, Claus-Jürgen Roepke, “Die evangelische Bewegung in Bayer im 16.

Jahrhundert,” in Hubert Glaser ed., Beiträge zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kunst, 1573-1657 (München: Hirmer Verlag, 1980) 101. On the various publications of Berichte (reports) of Luther’s appearance at the Diet of Worms in 1521 see WA: Vol.7, 814-824.

240On the movement of reformation preachers in the second and third decades of the sixteenth century, see

R.W. Scribner, “Preachers and People in the German Towns,” in Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: Hambledon Press, 1987) 123-143.

241Dieter Albrecht, “Bayern und die Gegenreformation,” in Hubert Glaser ed., Beiträge zur Bayerischen

Geschichte und Kunst, 1573-1657 (München: Hirmer Verlag, 1980) 13. 242Roepke (1980): 103.

112 trial, deprived of their property, dismissed from their positions, and publicly humiliated. Just one

year after the Ruß affair, a young professor at the University of Ingolstadt, Arsacius Seehofer,

was arrested for his proto-Philippist lectures on Paul’s Epistles, forced publicly to recant

seventeen articles of evangelical teaching, and imprisoned in a Benedictine monastery in Ettal.243

Responding to the public abasement and seizure of Seehofer, Argula von Grumbach (née von

Stauf) (1492-1554), a noblewoman from Ingolstadt, published a letter addressed to the Bavarian

dukes and the university, in which she criticized the state and university’s treatment of the

professor. Von Grumbach’s command of scripture (she cites and discusses over 80 passages in

the letter) was praised by Luther himself in Wider das blind und toll Verdammniß der seibenzehn

Artikel von der elenden Schändlichen Universität zu Ingolstadt ausgangen (1524). Shortly

thereafter she became widely known among Protestants as the “neuen Judith.” Anxious over

von Grumbach’s popularity, Ludwig X and Wilhelm IV, aided by the conservative theologian

(and later inquisitor) Johannes Eck (1486-1543), instigated a smear campaign, in which von

Grumbach was repeatedly referred to as the “schändlich Weib.”244

In Bavaria, then, the persecution, prosecution, and expulsion of Protestants was

sanctioned from above, for the first time in German speaking lands.245 The Wittelsbach dukes

saw the reform movement as a threat to the homogenous and docile inhabitants of their realm.

The purge of the Protestants continued into the reign of Duke Albrecht V, alongside a new

243Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Zweiter Band: Ordnung und Abgrenzung der Reformation 1521-1532

(Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1986) 88-89. 244Peter Matheson, “Introduction,” in Peter Matheson ed., Argula von Grumbach: A Woman’s Voice in the

Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995) 21-24. 245R. Po-Chia Hsia, Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe 1550-1750 (New York:

Routledge, 1989) 40.

113 initiative to disable reformers’ ability to communicate with other like-minded individuals.246 In

1558 Albrecht V issued an ordinance that decreed:

Henceforth no bookseller, whoever he may be, resident or alien, may secretly or openly

peddle or seek books, be they in Latin or German, that deal with theological matters, in

which the Holy Scriptures are discussed…and interpreted, or [books] that defend this or

that teaching and confession; likewise no books or hymnals…[are to be] brought into the

land except for those printed in the following cities and country: Munich, Ingolstadt,

Dillengen, Mainz, Cologne, Freiburg in Breisgau, Innsbruck, Paris, Lyon, Venice, Rome,

Florence, Bologna, Antwerp, Louvain, and Spain.247

Not only did Albrecht attempt to thwart the circulation of Protestant texts in Bavaria; he also

policed the flow of persons. Merchants in Munich were not permitted to travel to confessionally

mixed cities such as Augsburg, Nuremberg, and Regensburg.248 In addition, individuals caught

crossing Bavarian borders to attend Protestant services were fined fifty to one hundred florins.249

Nor were Bavarian students granted permission to attend Protestant universities, such as

Wittenburg and Leipzig in Saxony, and when students did leave Bavaria to study it was required

that they present proof of their matriculation at Catholic institutions.250

246On book censorship in Bavaria throughout the sixteenth century see K. Heigel, “Die Censure in

Altbaiern,” Archiv für Geschichte des deutschen Buchandels, Vol. 1 (1876) 5-32. 247 As quoted in Hsia (1989): 91. In 1558 Albrecht V also appointed the uncompromising Simon Eck to

serve as his personal chancellor. Throughout Eck’s tenure as chancellor he urged Albrecht to ignore the pleas of the Protestant and align himself more closely with Rome and the Jesuits. See W. Götz, Die Bayerische Politik im ersten Jahrzehnt der Regierung Herzog Albrecht V von Bayern (Munich: M. Rieger’sche Universitäts Buchhandlung, 1895) 110-115.

248Roepke (1980): 105. 249Rößler, Geschichte und Strukturen der evangelischen Bewegung (Nürnberg: Verein für Bayerische

Kirchengeschichte, 1966) 176 (must check this) 250Although this was decreed it was extremely difficult to enforce. We have records of several Protestant

preachers in Bavaria, who attended university in Wittenburg.

114 In addition to suppressing and weeding out “heretics” the Wittelsbach dukes began

forging closer ties with Rome and the Jesuits. 1549 witnessed the first push of the Society of

Jesus into the territorial state. Wilhelm IV called on the order that year to take over the faculty

and curriculum at the University of Ingolstadt. This was quickly followed by the establishment

of Jesuit schools in Landshut, Landsberg, Munich, Dillingen, Straubing, Altötting, and

Ebersberg.251 In the course of the Jesuits’ programmatic infiltration of the Bavarian educational

system the Collegium Germanicum was established in Rome. Founded in 1552 by Pope Julius

III (1487-1555) with the help of Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), the institution was devoted to

the theological training of future German priests.252 In 1553, Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509-

1580), an ecclesiastical official who oversaw the seminary, wrote to Albrecht V: “It seems to me

that His Holiness was well disposed in the deliberations to found this college because like the

Trojan Horse, many brave men will come forth from it, who, fired with Divine Grace, will

convert parts of Germany or at least preserve those parts that are now Catholic.”253 With the

education of Bavaria’s future priests and Catholic reformers underway, Albrecht V turned his

251In an address to the city of Munich during the founding of Jesuit Gymnasium, Albrecht V stated: “Wir

finden ie lenger ie mer, das die patres von der societe mit iren Fleis grossen Nuz in unserm Lande schaffen, da auch ir Soceitet aus den Gnaden Gottes an gueten Leuten von Tag zu Tag wachst und zuenimbt, da hergegen andere orden schier all abnemen, derwegen Wir nit ungeneigt weren, mit Zulassung der Bäpstl. Heylichkeit und der Ordinarien iedes Orts inen mer Clöster un unserem Land enzugeben.” Albrecht (1980): 17.

252Francesco C. Cesareo, “The Collegium Germanicum and the Ignatian Vision of Education,” The

Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4 (Winter, 1993) 829. 253As quoted in Hsia (1989): 46. Indeed, the Collegium Germanicum was successful in winning back many

of the individuals who had left the Catholic faith. In 1594 an anonymous Protestant preacher expressed his contempt for the institution: “The German college at Rome is a hotbed singularly favorable for developing the worst kind of Jesuitry. Our young Germans are educated there gratuitously; and at the end of their studies they are sent home to restore papistry to its former place and fight for it with all their might. You find them exercising the ministry in a great number of collegiate churches and parishes. They became the advisors of the bishops and even archbishops; and we see these Jesuits under our very eyes defending the Catholic cause with such zeal that we Evangelicals may well ask ourselves in what lands and in what towns such fervent zeal for the beloved Gospel is found among our own party. They seduce so many souls from us that it too distressing even to enumerate them.” Quoted from Nothgedrungene Erinnerungen in Thomas J. Campbell, The Jesuits 1534-1921: A History of the Society of Jesus from its Foundation to the Present Time (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1921) 1: 66.

115 attention to extending his influence in Catholic dioceses in and outside of Bavaria. In 1564 the

Duke’s twelve-year-old son, Ernst (1554-1612), was elected bishop in the diocese of Freising.

Later the adolescent became the Bishop of Hildesheim, Liège, Halberstadt, Münster and in 1583

he was elected Archbishop of Cologne—the most powerful Catholic office in the Holy Roman

Empire.254 Just three years after Ernst took control in Freising, Philipp, Albrecht’s three-year-old

son, was elected bishop of Regensburg, placing the diocese directly under the duke’s regency.

The Pope himself affirmed Albrecht’s gestures toward the Church when he told Otto von

Truchseß, bishop of Augsburg, that the love he felt for Albrecht brought tears to his eyes (“das

Wasser in die Augen geschossen”).255

While busily allying himself with Rome, Albrecht also developed a greater interest in the

salvation of his “Kinder” and promoted Bavaria as a sacral community.256 In 1570 he formed the

Bavarian Clerical Council (Geistlicher Rat). Composed of ecclesiastical and secular officials,

the council ensured that Catholic doctrine was strictly followed by parish priests and persons in

the duke’s government. For instance, the council coerced priests into documenting the frequency

of confession and communion among their parishioners, especially those with noble blood and

ties to the court. Pilgrimage sites, such as Andechs, Inchenhofen, and Altötting, were revived—

after lying dormant during the first half of the sixteenth century—to encourage widespread

254During Ernst’s time in Cologne four electors of the Holy Roman Empire were Catholic (Mainz, Trier,

Bohemia, and Cologne) and three electors (Saxony, Brandenburg, and Palatinate) were Protestant. It should also be noted that during Ernest’s tenure in Cologne, 1583 to 1612, fewer than one third of the imperial cities represented at Imperial Diets were Catholic.

255In a letter to Albrecht Kardinal Truchseß wrote: “wie auf höchst Ihre Heiligkeit ein dankbares

Wohlgefallen ob Ew. Liebden gehabt haben, also daß Ihrer Heiligkeit das Wasser in die Augen geschossen…” As quoted by Albrecht (1980): 17.

256Albrecht, likening himself to the illustrious Charlemagne, deliverer of the pagan German tribes into

Christianity, assured the Bishop Otto von Truchseß from Augsburg that he would not rest until he accomplished, “was Carolus Magnus gethan, wie er eben diesel an a paganismo ad fidem catholicam gebracht.” Ibid: 18

116 devotion and provide, in the words of the Bavarian court priest Johann Rabus, “spiritual

medicines for heretical poison.”257 “Pilgrimage books,” for example Martin Eisengrein’s

Unserliebe Fraw zu alten Oetting. Das ist Von der Uralten, heyligen Capellen unser lieben

Frawen unnd dem Fuerstlichen Stifft (1571), chronicled the repeated miracles performed at

shrines in Bavaria, and urged the laity to travel to them and bestow benefaction on the cult.258

Bolstering Eisengrein’s account of the Marian shrine at Altötting, Albrecht V testified to the

sanctity of the site in print. According to the duke, in the summer of 1568 he was caught in the

gales of a storm on the Abersee. Fearful of death by drowning he prayed to the Virgin, and

swore that if rescued from the tempest, he would make a pilgrimage to her shrine at Altötting.

Having emerged from the storm unscathed, Albrecht, clothed in nothing more than a sackcloth,

wound his way to Altötting and presented the Virgin twenty-one silver figures of saints, a

communion service, altar cloths, and embroidered vestments and hangings for her shrine.259 For

the Wittelsbachs in the second half of the sixteenth century, then, few other concerns trumped

the establishment of a mono-confessional state. The central motivation for this mission was

precisely the conviction that a singular confession would secure the binding—the religio—of

people to society.

CONCLUSION

257As quoted by Philip M. Soergel, Wonderous in His Saints: Counter-Reformation Propaganda in Bavaria

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 161. 258Ibid: 160-167. 259Maria Angela König, Weihegaben an U.L. Frau von Altötting von Beginn der Wahlfahrt bis zum

Abschluss der Säkularisation, Vol. 2 (Munich: Lenter, 1940) 73-76.

117 Given the Counter-Reformation court and confessional and political atmosphere in which

the Verkehrte Welt Automaton was made, and the nature and imagery of widespread images of

pupiteering, the automaton no longer seems quite so strange. What is most astonishing about the

Verkehrte Welt Automaton, however, is the manner in which it invokes and rephrases this

preaching imagery. The protestant minister becomes an animated golden ape; the congregation is

transformed into resplendent indifferent deer; and the reformed church, implausibly, is supported

by a hilly mound of trees. By these transpositions, the Verkherte Welt automaton suggests that

the event it enacts is itself preposterous. By means of an internal mechanism that animates the

object, it attempts to engender speech itself; it vilifies repetition, demonstrates the routinization

of charisma, manifests the emptiness of preaching, and signals the impotence of communication.

There is more. The object’s bewildering imagery, setting, and silence is amplified by the fact

that it addresses the beholder as if she were party to the incomprehensible sermon. We become

passive auditors bemused by the object’s action, just as the Catholic Church and, by extension,

the Wittelsbach dukes construed the simple folk. Thus, as a representational machine, the

automaton provided an arena wherein convictions such as the primacy of the sermon in

conveying Christ could be rejected. But unlike Brosamer’s The Seven Heads of Martin Luther,

the Verkehrte Welt Automaton does not make this claim unambiguously. Whereas Brosamer,

like the majority of Reformation and Counter-Reformation propaganda, relied on the presence of

the printed word to, in the words of R.W. Scribner, “spell out its message,” the Verkehrte Welt

Automaton relied on its imagery, composition, and most of all its animation.260 Remarkably,

what we are approaching here, then, is a phenomenon of communication: a silent object that,

260Scribner (1981): 11.

118 without the incorporation of alphabetical writing, is able to convey the fallibilities of verbal

communication.

119 HAPSBURG-OTTOMAN DIPLOMATIC MACHINERY: AUTOMATA AND THE

TÜRKENVERERHRUNG

In 1590 the Bohemian Baron Wenceslas Wratislaw (d. ca. 1613), an imperial envoy to

Constantinople, described four automata that Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II (1552-1612) had

given to Ottoman Sultan Murad III (1546-1595) as tribute. Wratislaw wrote of:

a clock in the shape of a tower upon the striking of which, Turkish Jugglers, in the

different rooms, ran about and peeped out; another striking clock of chased work; a large

square clock, a masterpiece of art, upon the striking whereof Turks ran out, mounted on

horses and fought, and then, when it left off striking went again; a long clock, on which

stood a wolf, carrying a goose in his mouth, on the striking of which the wolf fled, and a

Turk hastened after him with his gun ready to shoot, and when the last stroke was about

to strike, shot at the wolf; a large square smooth clock, on the top of which a Turk turned

his eyes when it struck, moved his head and mouth.261

Although those four automata are now lost, five other automata representing “Turks” have

survived the sixteenth century. Scholars agree that these automata, like those Wratislaw escorted

to Constantinople, were intended to be given as tribute to high-ranking Ottoman officials during

the second half of the sixteenth century.262 They are now referred to as the Turkish Automaton

(ca. 1580 Innsbruck, Kunsthistorisches Museum) (fig. 47); the Sultan on Horseback (ca. 1570

261Wenceslas Wratislaw, The Adventures of Wenceslas Wratislaw of Mitrowitz in the Turkish Capital of

Constantinople . . ., trans. A.H. Wratislaw (London: Bell and Daldy, 1862 ), 64. 262Klaus Maurice, Die deutsche Räderuhr. Vols. 1-2. (C.H. Beck: München, 1976 ), 667-670, Otto Kurz,

European Clocks and Watches in the Near East (London: The Warburg Institute University of London, 1975) and Gottfried Mraz, “The Role of Clocks in the Imperial Honoraria for the Turks,” in Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr eds. The Clockwork Universe (Washington: Smithsonian Museum of Art, 1980), 37-48. That gifts intended for the Ottomans remained in collections in the Holy Roman Empire is attested by the fact that the 1578 inventory of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II’s possessions records two watches “von der Türckhischen Verehrung uberblieben” along with several silver vessels and a clock with a glass case. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Vol. 13 (1892), XCI ff. No. 490, No. 623 and No. 176

120 Dresden, Mathematisches und Physicalische Salon) (fig. 48); the Sultan on Horseback (ca. 1570

Moscow, The Kremlin Museum) (fig. 49); the Sultan on Horseback (ca. 1580 Vienna,

Kunsthistorisches Museum) (fig. 6); and the Pashas on Horseback (ca. 1585 Newark, the

Newark Museum of Art.) (fig.49).263

All of the surviving objects, like those listed by Wratislaw, mirrored, by their subject

matter, their intended audience. Not only do they portray—in gold and silver—mustachioed

figures clad in caftans, wielding swords and crowned with turbans, but the performance of the

animated figures would have been familiar to their recipients as well. Remarkably, all of the

surviving automata, and many of those listed in diplomatic accounts of imperial ambassadors

who traveled to Constantinople, display scenes of Turks in ceremonial processions.264 These

remarkable cross-cultural diplomatic gifts, the focus of this chapter, are invaluable for our

understanding of the diplomatic relationship forged between the Holy Roman Empire and the

Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century.

The automata discussed here are but a fraction of scores of automata, clocks, and

precious vessels that were given as diplomatic tribute payment by Holy Roman Emperors to

263The Turkish Automaton is first mentioned in the inventory of the Archducal Kunstkammer at Schloß

Ambras in 1619. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Vol. 20 (1899 ), LXXXI no. 1784. C. Leitner, ed. Katalog der Sammlung für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe (Wien: Kunsthistoriches Museum, 1966 ), 42 no. 77 and Elisabeth Scheicher and Alfred Auer eds. Kunsthistoriches Museum, Sammlungen Schloss Ambras. Die Kunstkammer. (Innsbruck: Kunsthistoriches Musem, 1977 ), 49. An Italian diplomat described the object in his account of the Kunstkammer in 1659: “uno che rappresenta Maometto secondo Imperatore de’ Turchi a cavallo. Il Turco è d’oro massiccio, il cavallo d’argento: e quando vuol battere le ore muove tutte due le gambe d’avanti a guisa di Corbetta, e manda fuori dall bocca e dale nari tanti nitriti, quanti esser dovriano li tocchi delle ore, fu donato dal Turco a Mattia Imperatore.” As quoted by Otto Kurz, European Clocks and Watches in the Near East. (London: The Warburg Institute University of London, 1975 41 no. 2 the original text can be found in G. Campori, Lettere aristiche inedite.( Modena: Soliani, 1866 ), 113. Philip Hainhofer recorded a the automaton of a Turkish Sultan in the Dresden Kunstkammer during his visit in 1629 “Des Augsburger Patricier Philip Hainhofer Reisen nach Innsbruck und Dresden,” in Oscar Doering ed., Quellenschrifft für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalter und der Neuzeit. Wien: (Verlag von Carl Graser und Co., 1901 ), 173. To my knowledge, there exist no contemporary references to the automata in Vienna, Newark, or Moscow.

264 A.H. Loebl in, Zur Geschichte der Türkenkriege von 1593-1606 (C.H. Beck: München, 1899 ),

Appendix A and B.

121 Ottoman officials between 1547 and 1593. A result of a peace treaty signed by Archduke

Ferdinand I (1503-1564) and Sultan Sülyeman the Magnificent (1494-1566) on July 19, 1547,

this transfer of wealth and goods was referred to by German speakers as the Türkenvererhrung or

the “Turkish gifts.”265 A diplomatic euphemism, the expression implied that the Hapsburg

rulers—Archduke Ferdinand I (later Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I (r. 1558-1564), Holy

Roman Emperor Maximilian II (1527-1576, r. 1564-1576), and Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph

II (1552-1612, r. 1576-1612)—willingly gave unreciprocated gifts to the Ottomans: the rhetoric

attempted to transform the obligatory nature of tribute into an act of disinterested prestation.

The Türkenvererhrung has been amply studied by historians and art historians of the

early modern period—all of whom have tended to view the tribute as a means to cement

Hapsburg-Ottoman relations and feed the Ottoman elites’ demand for luxury goods. Examples

of such interpretations include Otto Kurz’s European Clocks and Watches in the Near East

(1975); Gottfried Mraz’s “The Role of Clocks in the Imperial Honoraria for the Turks” (1980); J.

Michael Roger’s “The Gorgeous East: Trade and Tribute in the Islamic Empires” (1991); Lisa

Jardine’s Worldly Goods (1996); and Julian Raby’s “The Serenissima and the Sublime Port: Art

in the Art of Diplomacy” (2007).266 What such accounts lack, though, is an in-depth analysis of

the automata and their fascinating imagery. Why were these objects, so crucial to the

265“Verehrung” is the modern German spelling of the term. The late middle-German spelling is

“vereegung.” It is also interesting to note that in certain contexts, the term “verehrung” is also a synonym for reverence (reverentz).

266 Otto Kurz, European Clocks and Watches in the Near East (London: The Warburg Institute University

of London, 1975 ), and Gottfried Mraz, “The Role of Clocks in the Imperial Honoraria for the Turks,” in Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr eds. The Clockwork Universe (Washington: Smithsonian Museum of Art, 1980 ), 37-48. J. Michael Rogers, “The Gorgeous East: Trade and Tribute in the Islamic Empires,” in Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration, ed. Jay A. Levenson (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991 ), Lisa Jardine, Worldly Goods (London: Macmillan, 1996 ), Julian Raby, “The Serenissima and the Sublime Port: Art in the Art of Diplomacy,” in Venice and the Islamic World 828-1797, ed. Stefano Carboni, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).

122 maintenance of peace and the well-being of the Holy Roman Empire, manufactured in the form

of “Ottoman Types”? While it may seem unusual that the automata represented “Turks,” this

was the case for most, if not all, of the figurative works sent to Constantinople on behalf of the

Holy Roman Empire during the period of the Türkenvererhrung. Presenting Ottomans with

three-dimensional images of themselves had no parallel in diplomacy among Christian

sovereigns. Lifelike and sculptural objects (objects that cast shadows) were explicitly proscribed

by the Hadith. Unlike the Koran, which does not openly prohibit lifelike images, several

passages in the Hadith claim that makers of mimetic works unlawfully compete with the creative

acts of Allah, and that the improper use of mimetic objects can lead to idolatry.267 Moreover,

the transportation of automata was greatly hindered by their very constitution. Unlike textiles,

jewelry, books, goblets, medallions, and paintings—conventional diplomatic gifts—automata

were generally heavy, voluminous, and breakable. They were not easily conveyed over long

distances and thus were ill-suited as gifts with which envoys could travel. How were automata

that represented Turks supposed to function in the Ottoman-Hapsburg diplomatic theater? It is

remarkable that in the research on the Türkenvererhrung, not only is there almost nothing written

directly on the automata, let alone their particular form of mimicry, but the problem of why they

were considered appropriate and efficacious has not been addressed explicitly.

Informed by recent interest in cross-cultural diplomatic prestation, this chapter

documents the role automata played in Hapsburg-Ottoman diplomacy in the context of the

Türkenvererhrung, and it analyzes the importance Hapsburg rulers placed on automata in the

267There are two instances in the Koran where image use is questioned. Sura 21:53-55 and Sura 42: 9-11.

Numerous passages in the Hadith deplore the use of lifelike two- and three- dimensional images, for instance Bukhari Vol. 4 55:71 and Bukhari Vol. 7 62:110. For an excellent summation of Islamic image prohibition and its probable origins see, Erica Cruikshank Dodd, “The Image of the Word: Notes on the Religious Iconography of Islam,” in Eva R. Hoffman, ed. Late Antique and Medieval Art of the Mediterranean World (London: Blackwell, 2005), 185-189.

123 diplomatic theater in the second half of the sixteenth century. It relates how the rulers of the

Holy Roman Empire negotiated their subordinate position in a diplomatic milieu.268 I argue that

the automata that formed part of the tribute payment can be understood not as mere luxury goods

or (to borrow Arjun Appadurai’s phrase) “potential commodities” that helped maintain the status

quo, but as objects that redefined the diplomatic encounter between the Ottoman and Holy

Roman Empires.269 I do this by dwelling on the objects’ ability to mimic Ottoman processions, a

mimicry that betrays reverence (Vererhrung) and troubles the stability of the east-west

opposition featured in much of the scholarship on encounters between Christendom and Islam.

THE TÜRKENVERERHRUNG

The peace agreement established between Sultan Sülyeman and Archduke Ferdinand was

the product of seventeen years of negotiations concerning control of the kingdoms of Bohemia

and Hungary.270 In the end, Ferdinand was permitted to rule Habsburgisch Ungarn and the

Königreich Böhem, while Sülyeman controlled what sixteenth-century German speakers referred

to as Osmanisch Ungarn and the Siebenbürgen (fig. 51).271 A crucial component of this peace

268Natasha Eaton has attempted to understand this phenomenon in her examination of the diplomatic gift

exchanged between the English East India Company and the Mughal Court in late eighteenth-century India. See, Natasha Eaton, “Between Mimesis and Alterity: Art gift and diplomacy in colonial India,” in Michael J. Franklin ed., Romantic Representations of British India (London and New York: Routledge, 2006 ), 84-112.

269Arjun Appadurai, “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value,” in The Social Life of Things:

Commodities in a cultural perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983 ), 3-63. On the theorization of agentive objects in cross cultural encounters see, Christopher Pinney, “Creole Europe: The Reflection of a Reflection,” Journal of New Zealand Literature, No. 20 (2002), 125-161 especially, 154-157.

270In 1515 Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (1459-1519) saw an opportunity to eastwardly expand the

empire. He brokered a crucial marriage between his grandson, Ferdinand I to Anne of Bohemia (1503-1547). A stipulation of the marriage contract stated that upon the death of Anne’s brother, Louis II (1506-1526) King of Hungary and Bohemia, the crowns would go to Ferdinand. Maximilian also negotiated a second marriage alliance in 1515, in order to bolster the Hapsburg claim to the throne. He gave the hand of his granddaughter, Mary of Hungary, to King Louis II. To reference the printed and published reports or “Berichte” penned by imperial ambassadors in Constantinople and sent to Ferdinand I, see Anton Gevay ed. Urkunden und Aktenstücke im 16. Und 17. Jahrhundert. Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken (Vienna: Österreiches Nationalarchiv, 1893 ), vols. 1-3.

124 treaty—and the condition on which the Hapsburgs were allowed to hold sway over their portion

of Hungary and Bohemia—was the annual payment of 40,000 ducats to the Sultan.272 The treaty

also specified that the peace and the division of land between the two empires could be renewed

every five years, as long as the Austrian princes paid the honorarium in full and on time in

Constantinople.273 The Hapsburgs dutifully satisfied these Ottoman mandates to maintain a

pacific, if often discordant, relationship with the Ottomans until the outbreak of the Türkenkrieg

in 1593. The agreement signed by both Ferdinand I and Sülyeman did not stipulate that the gold

coin was to be supplemented by precious objects.274 These addenda or, “sweeteners,” to the coin

were taken, in accordance with early modern diplomatic practices, as givens.275 Despite the fact

that gifting luxurious objects to a foreign potentate was standard practice in the early modern

diplomatic theater, other aspects of the Türkenvererhrung were unique.

The exceptional nature of the Türkenvererhrung comes into sharp focus when we

consider conventional diplomatic occasions and missions in the early modern period. In the

sixteenth century there were two categories of diplomatic occasions: ceremonies and

271Habsburgisch Ungarn stretched from Dubrovnik in the south to the tributary of the Vistula (or in German the Weichsel) river in the north and across Bratislova in the west to present day Miskolc in the east and the Königreich Böhem which encompassed modern day Austria, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. These regions correspond to almost the entire region of the Balkans, with the exclusion of present-day Croatia, and the western of half of present-day Ukraine. Consequently, the central plains of Hungary were under the control of the Ottomans and they organized them into frontier provinces (beglergegilik). Halil Inalick, ed. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 ), 304.

272The Ducat was the standard gold coin throughout the empire. It was not, however, imperially sanctioned

until 1566. On average, four silver Gulden was the equivalent of one golden ducat and seventy-two Kreuzern equaled one Guldin. “Gulden,” in Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, Bd.7 4 Aufl. (Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institute, 1885-1892 ), 922.

273

Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002 ), 73.

274

Loebl (1899): 44. 275See Lisa Jardine, Worldly Goods (London: Macmillan, 1996) especially Chapter Two “The Price Of

Magnificence.” 91-132.

125 negotiations. In the former case, a nuncio of the sovereign principal graced a ceremony, such as

a marriage, baptism, coronation, or funeral as a stand-in for his employer. In the latter case a

procurator, who was often a trained jurist, voiced the interests of his principal and arranged,

among other ventures, marriage alliances, terms of war, and trade agreements. Generally, there

were also two forms of diplomatic missions. The first was a singular mission, where an embassy

traveled to a single court to negotiate a dispute or witness a ceremony and then directly returned

to the court of his employer. The second is referred to by historians of diplomacy as a “circular

mission,” where an envoy traveled to a number of courts without returning to the principal’s

court for an extended period of time.276 The nature of the diplomatic occasions and missions of

the Türkenvererhrung do not correspond to these standard forms. Rather, the Hapsburg presence

in Constantinople was what M.S. Anderson has termed an “Embassy of Obedience.”277 That is,

the diplomats representing the Holy Roman Empire were sent to the Sublime Port to affirm the

Ottoman Empire’s subjugation of the most powerful sovereign in Christendom. A further

peculiarity of the Türkenvererhrung was the fact that the representatives of the Holy Roman

Empire were resident ambassadors and sometimes lived in Constantinople for decades at a time.

The resident imperial ambassadors had two chief functions: to ceremoniously present the Sultan

and Ottoman officials the tribute payment once a year and to provide the Holy Roman Emperor

with gossip issuing from the center of Ottoman power.278 Throughout the sixteenth century the

276Anthony Cutler, “Gift and Gift Exchange as Aspects of the Byzantine, Arab and Related Economies,”

Dumbarton and Oaks Papers, Vol. 55 (2001) 251. On the regularity of the practice of gift giving in an early modern diplomatic context see, Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971 ), 101-107.

277M.S. Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450-1919 (London and New York: Longman, 1993 ),

16.

126 Holy Roman Empire had only one other diplomat in residence—at the Papal court in Rome.279

Diplomats sent to other major European powers, such as France, Spain, Venice, and England,

only remained at the courts for short periods of time and then returned to Vienna.

The Türkenvererhrung also differed from other diplomatic engagements in that it was a

unilateral venture; the Turks did not send ambassadors to the imperial court in Vienna.280 The

Ottoman government presented itself as possessing an unshakeable sense of superiority and as

being uninterested in reciprocal diplomatic relations with their powerful adversary.281

Additionally, the imperial diplomat who resided in Constantinople was kept prisoner in his own

home. He was permitted to speak neither with Ottoman citizens nor with individuals attached to

the Sultan’s court. In one of his Turkish Letters the famed imperial diplomat Ogier Ghiselin de

Busbecq (1521-1592), who resided in Constantinople from 1554 to 1562, describes how, after

being locked in his residence in Constantinople for months, he crafted a battering ram out of a

ceiling beam and tried to break open the locked iron gates guarding the main entrance to his

residence—in vain.282 (Of course, diplomats adept at bribery found circuitous ways to acquire

intelligence pertaining to the workings of the Ottoman court and the Sultan’s military

campaigns.) This oppressive surveillance and control of the German imperial diplomat contrasts

278The latter portion of the ambassadors’ duties was taken seriously. The imperial representative was

required to write reports to the Holy Roman Emperor no less than every four days. See Gevay (1893): Vol 1. pgs. i-iv.

279Mattingly (1971): 98. 280Anderson (1993): 10. 281It was not until the Hapsburgs and the Ottomans signed the peace of Zsitva-Törok in 1606 that the

Hapsburg ruler was considered equal to the Ottoman Sultan. Inalcik (1994): 423. 282

Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, trans. Edward Seymour

Forster (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005 ), 39

127 starkly with the circumstances of other imperial ambassadors who were incorporated into the

everyday lives of the courts of Christian sovereigns.283

In other ways, too, imperial diplomatic relations with Ottoman court were exceptional.

The volume of gifts sent to Constantinople, for example, far exceeded Hapsburg diplomatic

practices of prestation. In April of 1565 six silver drinking vessels (Trinkgeschirre) were sent to

the Papal court in Rome.284 In August of the same year, an embassy representing the emperor

traveling to Florence was armed with only one pendant, (eine Kette) for Cosimo I de Medici

(1519-1574).285 Three years later, a variety (allerlei) of gilded silver goblets were given to an

imperial envoy travelling to London to bequeath to Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603).286 Compare

these numbers to an account book drafted in 1556 by the Militärzahlmeister in Vienna that lists

over 340 Ottoman individuals, not including the Sultan, who were to receive gold coin, drinking

vessels, small clocks, or automata in that year alone (fig. 52).287 Ottoman officials often

requested additional gifts. For example, in 1549, Ferdinand I personally commissioned an

elaborate silver vessel and armor for the Pasha in Ofen, and seventeen years later Maximilian II

took it upon himself to ensure that an unnamed individual in Constantinople received an extra

clock.288

283Francois de Callières, The Art of Diplomacy, ed. M.A. Keens-Soper and Karl w. Schweizer (New York:

Leicester University Press, 1983), 56. 284 Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Vol. 7 (1888), cxix Reg.

4980. 285Ibid: cxix Reg. 4991. 286Ibid: cxxvii, Reg. 5113. 287Wilfried Seipel, Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503-1564: Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie (Vienna:

Kunsthistorisches Museum ), 302.

128 To be sure, the Germans were not alone in bestowing resplendent objects on the Sultan

and Ottoman administrators. In 1560 the chief of the Colchians delivered a brilliant ruby that

functioned as a serving vessel and twenty white falcons to Süleyman’s camp outside of

Edirne.289 Four years earlier, the Persian ambassador had presented the Sultan with “carpets of

the finest texture, Babylonian tent-hangings embroidered on either side in various colors, a

harness and trappings of exquisite workmanship, scimitars from Damascus adorned with jewels

and shields of wonderful beauty.”290 Venetian Doges and merchants also presented the Ottoman

court with bolts of vibrant textiles, colorful glass, and precious and finely wrought metal work.

For example, in 1584 the Venetian senate granted money to be spent on robes made of cloth-of-

gold for the Sultan’s personal tutor, Hoca Sa’deddin (1536-1599) and two of the Sultan’s sisters.

During the same year a scholar at the Sultan’s court, by the name of Mehmet, was presented with

windowpanes and glass lamps from the Republic, while the Sultan, an ardent hunter, received

several gyrfalcons. It is noteworthy that the Colchians, Persians, and Venetians gave gifts to

sustain and cultivate mercantile relationships with the Ottoman Empire or to alleviate tensions

over military or political blunders, such as when the Venetians sank Ottoman trading ships off

the coast of the Republic in 1523.291 However, these gifts were not a form of tribute nor were

they annually presented, as was the case with Türkenvererhrung.

288“Dem Nassadistch Obersten Andreas Tarnoczj zu Komorn, welche für dem Pascha von Ofen als

Geschenke bestimmt sind als: ein silbernes und vergoldetes doppeltes Trinkgeschirr von 4 mark 12 Loth Wiener Gewicht, das nebst dem dazuhörigen Futteral von mert Pappierer, Goldschmied zu Wien, geliefert wurde, weiters ein Panzerhemd, wleches von Karl Schwetkhowicz um 175 Gulden rheinisch gekauft wurde. Für Sammtliche Objeckte erscheinen 270 Gulden 35 Kreuzer rheinisch in Ausgabe.” and “Hanns Runckl, Uhrmacher zu Augsburg, erhält für eine Uhr, welcher Kaiser Maximilian II. nachträglich einer Person in Constsantinople verehrte, 38 Gulden.” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen, vol. 7 (1888 ), CV Reg. 4852 and CXXI Reg. 5019.

289Ibid: 131 290Ibid: 62 291On the Venetian Gifts see, Raby (2007): 94-96.

129 Nor was the Holy Roman Empire the sole provider of clocks and automata to the

Ottoman court. In 1547 the King of France, Francis I (1494-1597), sent Sülyeman a clock that

also served as a table fountain.292 In 1583, the first official English ambassador to

Constantinople, William Harborne (1542-1617), gave the Sultan Murad III (1546-1595):

One clocke valued at one hundred pounds steerling: over it was a forest with trees of

silver, among which were deer chased by dogs, and men on horseback following, men

drawing water, others carrying mine oare on barrows: on the toppe of the clocke stood a

castle and on the castle a mill. All of these were of silver. And the clock was round beset

with jewels.293

To cite just more instance, Catherine de Medici gave the widow of Sultan Selim II (1524-1574),

Nur Banu (1525-1583), a clock “avoir de figures” in 1574.294 Like the Venetian presents, these

gifts were given to promote or solidify trade relationships with the Sultan, as was the case of the

gifts from King Francis I and William Harborne, or they were given on a specific occasion.

Catherine de Medici’s present was bestowed on the widowed Sultana during the festivities that

surrounded her husband’s funeral.

My brief account of the Türkenvererhrung has called attention to its exceptional role in

sixteenth-century diplomatic and prestation practices. Some questions, however, remain. We do

not know, for example, whether Ottoman sultans desired the automata presented to them by

imperial envoys.295 We do know the Grand Vizier Mehmet Sokollu (1506-1579) betrayed an

292Kurz (1975) 24. 293H.G. Rawlinson, “The Embassy of William Harborne to Constantinople 1583-8,” Transactions of the

Royal Historical Society, 4th series, 5 (1922 ), 7. 294 Kurz (1975): 30 no. 1.

130 interest in aniconic, German clocks. Two drawings of clocks sent from his court to Augsburg

(dated to 1576) have been preserved in Vienna (figs. 53 and 54).296 Each sketch represents an

order for a spherical clock. Turkish instructions, which had been translated into German,

requested that equal attention be paid to the objects’ external appearance and internal

mechanisms. It was also specified that small bells strike the hours and be visible through crystal

hemispheres. Finally, the sketches indicated that the clocks’ silver casing should be richly

ornamented with a swirling foliage motif and banded ornament. According to Otto Kurz and

Gottfried Mraz, several similar requests from high-ranking Ottoman officials survive in the

archives in Vienna.297

At least three letters in the Hofkammerarchiv in Vienna penned by the imperial envoy

David Ungnad (d. ca. 1600) admonish Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II (1527-1576) against

commissioning objects that included modeled metal work (“getribne arbeyt”), pictorial

295We do know that starting in 1477, after the Ottomans signed a peace treaty with Venice, Sultans began

requesting aniconic clocks from the Ventians. In Fra Francesco Suriano’s account of his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Il Trattato de Terra Santa e dell Oriente (written in 1479 and published in 1524) he states that Sultan Mehmet II requested the Signoria of Venice send artisans adept at crafting lenses (christallini), striking clocks (horioli da sonare) and a “good” painter (bono dipintore) to Constantinople. It is uncertain if Mehmet commissioned more clocks. An inventory of the Topkapi Palace Treasury (the Enderun Hazinesi) taken in 1505 lists just one clock among numerous pieces of Chinese porcelain, chests of ivory, rose-water sprinklers, and a pair of scissors encrusted with diamonds. According to the Venetian merchant Marino Sanuto, Sülyeman also fancied simple, yet technologically sophisticated, clocks. In a diary entry dated 1531, Sanuto records that he saw a gold ring set with the face of clock in Venice that was to be sent to the Sultan. Kurz notes that the oft cited passage in Suriano’s account does not appear in the manuscript, only in the printed edition of 1524. Ibid: 21-22 no. 2. On the treasury inventory of 1505, see Cengiz Köseoglu, The Topkapi Saray Museum, trans. J.M. Rogers (Little, Brown and Company: Boston, 1988), 31. For a discussion of Sanuto’s diary and its importance in understanding Sülyeman’s desire for Venetian luxury objects, see Gülru Necipoglu, “Süleyman the Magnificent and the Representation of Power in the Context of Ottoman-Hapsburg-Papal Rivalry,” Art Bulletin, Vol. 71 No.3 (September 1989 ), 403.

296Hofkammerarchiv, Vienna, Reichsakten, 190 fols. 855 and 856. This source will be hereafter

abbreviated HKA, RA. 297 Mraz, for instance cites a request made by Ahmad Pasha for aniconic clocks in 1573. The note from the

imperial envoy that accompanied the sketches reads: “Ahmed Pasha, who last year vainly awaited clocks made in the form according to the model he had sent, …now asks that in his name we petition your Imperial Majesty that you order made for and sent two clocks of the form designated by the pattern enclosed.” Mraz (180): 43, Kurz (1975): 25.

131 representations (“Pildtwerch”), or the phases of the moon (“Monschein”) for the tribute

offerings.298 The enduring practice of offering animated and figurative objects to the Ottomans

as part of the yearly honorarium is all the more distinctive if we take the preferences of Mehmet

Sokollu, Ungnad’s letters, and Islamic image prohibition into account.

What happened to the tribute offerings after they were ceremoniously presented to the

Sultan and other Ottoman officials remains unclear. The majority of the tribute—specie, clocks,

automata, silver, silver-gilt, and gold vessels—was likely sent directly to the mint to be melted

down, for during the Türkenverehrung Ottoman currency had been severely debased.299 This

hypothesis is supported by the evidence of the first surviving inventory of the Erderun Hazinesi,

the Topkapi Palace Treasury, taken after 1593. Compiled in 1680, the inventory lists only a few

German “clocks” and astronomical instruments.300 If the automata were not immediately

destroyed for their intrinsic value, it is possible that they were placed in the treasury among the

“heathen” (gebr) objects, which, according to the incomplete inventory, encompassed paintings,

playing cards, illustrated books, and objects crafted from silver.301 Since no complete inventory

or contemporary account of the Topkapi Palace Treasury dating to the second half of the

sixteenth century survives, the fate of these objects will, perhaps, remain obscure.

TRIBUTE

298“Ein gevierte vhr in dises Papiers grösse, die gerecht sey. Dise vhr solle nuer shlechtlich geez, ohne

Monschein. Pildtwerch oder getribne arbeyt gemacht werden.” HKA, RA 190, 854 and 857. 299Derin Tereziglu, “The Imperial Circumcision Festival of 1582: An Interpretation,” Murqarnas, Vol. XII

(1995) 86. 300Köseoglu (1988): 21. 301Ibid: 23.

132 When an automaton such as the Turkish Automaton was given to an Ottoman official it

acquired the status of tribute, which distinguished it from conventional diplomatic gifts, because

there was no expectation that it would be replaced by a material counter-gift. Tribute was a one-

way transaction. The exchange of gifts between rulers in early modern Europe was a regular

practice that was linked to the actual mechanisms of domestic, international, and dynastic

politics. Gifts were exchanged in order, among other things, to secure protection, guarantee

marriages, establish trade agreements, acquire land, and to rise up the governmental ranks. In

short, rulers bestowed gifts on other rulers to create or reaffirm social and political bonds.302

Countless records of gifts of this nature appear in the Rechnungen of the imperial

Hofzahlamt, which recorded all the expenditures of the Holy Roman Emperor. For instance, on

March 7, 1553 Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II paid for two gilded drinking vessels and two

pendants, which were intended to be given to four unnamed government officials in Swabia for

“Türkenhilfe.”303 On November 10, 1576 Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II bought two clocks

in Augsburg and one in Regensburg for the recently widowed Cathrine de Medici (1519-

1589).304 And nineteen years later, Rudolph sent the Russian Tsar Fyodor I Ivanovich (1557-

302On giving and receiving gifts in the late medieval and early modern periods see, Natalie Zemon Davis,

The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) V. Groebner, Liquid Assets, Dangerous Gifts: Presents and Politics at the End of the Middle Ages (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002) J. Osborne, Entertaining Elizabeth I: The Progress and Great Houses of her Time (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), Dagmar Eichberger, “The Culture of Gifts: A Courtly Phenomenon from a Female Perspective,” in, Dagmar Eichberger, ed. Women of Distinction: Margaret of York/Margaret of Austria (Leuven: Brill, 2005), 286-295, J.F. Bestor, “Marriage Transactions in Renaissance Italy and Mauss’s Essay on the gift,” Past and Present, Vol. 164 (1999), 6-46.

303 March 7, 1553 “Von dem Bürger zu Ulm Michael Reichart wurden zwei vergoldete Trinkgeshirre um

202 Gulden 30 Kreuzer rheinisch und zwei goldene Ketten zu je 100 Kronen Gewicht um 325 Gulden 20 Kreuzer rheinisch gekauft, welche als geschenke für die vier Obereinnehmer der Türkenhilfe im Schwäbischen Kreis bestimmt Waren.”” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorichen Sammlungen, vol. 7 (1888), CX Reg. 4864.

304“Herr (Augerius) von Bussbeckh kauft im Auftrage Kaisers Rudolf II drei vergoldete Schlaguhren,

welche als Ehrengeschenke für die verwiwete Königin von Frankreich betstimmt waren, und zwar die zwei besten

133 1598) two pendants, a medallion, and an astronomical clock.305 Although we know that

diplomatic gifts, such as these, regularly inspired a material counter gift, archival traces of direct

transactions are few and far between.306 An exceptional instance occurred in 1600. During the

fall of that year the Augsburgian merchant Johan Christoph Fugger received a letter from his

agent at the imperial court in Prague describing the arrival of the embassy of Persian Shah Abbas

I (r. 1588-1629) to Rudolph II’s Hradcany Palace. According to Fugger’s informant, the

embassy, which numbered no fewer than thirty men and was accompanied by a “wilden Mann,”

traveled over India by foot, sailed around Africa, and caravanned across Europe to negotiate

joining forces with Rudolph II against the Ottoman Empire.307 Despite the fact that gifts are not

mentioned in the letter, we know the embassy did not come empty-handed. The 1607-1611

inventory of Rudolph II’s Kunstkammer records the diplomatic gifts Abbas I gave to the Holy

Roman Emperor.308 In addition to a bezoar stone harvested from the stomach of a camel,

Rudolph was presented with silk stockings, carpets, gems, and numerous gold vessels. Two years

later, as a gesture of reciprocity, Rudolph sent an unnamed student of the Dutch artist Cornelis

Cornelisz van Haarlem (1562-1638) to Bijapur to paint a portrait of the Shah in the guise of

bei Alexius Koch, Bürger und Goldschmied zu Regensburg, und bei Christof Prestlein, Bürger zu Augsburg, die dritte be idem Kaufmann Philipp Jacob Tucher in Augsburg.” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorichen Sammlungen, vol. 7 (1888), CLXVII Reg. 5356.

305“Der Gesammtwerth mehrerer von dem Kaiserlicen Kammergoldschmied Zacharias Glöckhner

gelieferter goldener Kettern und Medaillon, zweier von Christof Schüsser und einer dritten von Paulus Glockher gelieferter Uhren mit dem astrolobis und schlagwerch, welch Gegenstände dem zum Grossfürsten von Moskau abgeorndeten Gesandten als Ehrengeschenke mit geben worden waren, wird auf 2355 Gulden 14 Kreuzer veranschlagt.” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorichen Sammlungen, vol. 7 (1888), CCXXV Reg. 5547.

306Suzanne B. Butters, “The Uses and Abuses of Gifts in the World of Ferdinando de’ Medici (1549-1609)”

I Tatti Studies: Essays in the Renaissance, Vol. 11 (2007 ), 243-354. 307Victor Klarwill, ed., Fugger-Zeitungen: ungedruckte Briefe an das Haus Fugger aus den Jahren 1568-

1605 (Wien: Rikola Verlag, 1923), 223. 308Kunstkammerinventar Kaiser Rudolfs II 107-1611, Rotraut Bauer and Herbert Haupt eds. Jahrbuch der

Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Vol. 72 No. 36 (1976), Fol. 39 Nos. 325f-327 fol. 53 Nos. 504-510, fol. 210 Nos. 1330-1335.

134 Cupid and flanked by Venus and Bacchus.309 This portrait is now lost, but Rudolph was later

informed that upon seeing the painting for the first time, the Shah held it on his knees and stared

at it for two hours.310

In this instance, the recipient of the initial gift was, in a sense, obliged to reciprocate.

And by returning the gift, expectations of reciprocity were met, social bonds were maintained,

and parity between the two rulers was established.311 This, however, was not the case in the

annual unilateral bequest of tribute from the Holy Roman Emperor to the Ottoman Sultan. The

disparity of material exchange between the Holy Roman Emperors and Ottoman rulers during

the Türkenverehrung crystallized the degree and direction of subordination between the giver

and receiver. Given that the Ottomans never offered a counter-gift, a normative gift economy,

like that described above, did not pertain in the case of tribute; the power dynamic in this

diplomatic encounter was clearly defined and the tribute worked to articulate it as unilateral.

But, as we shall see, this was not entirely the case. Despite the fact that the automata given as

tribute did not incur a mutual transaction, I want to suggest that they promoted a degree of

interaction by mimicking Ottoman processions—ceremonies that transformed the Sultan into a

“figuration of power.”312

309It should be noted that several of the artists at Shah Abbas’s court were experimenting with western

motifs. See, Sheila R. Canby, Shah’Abbas: The Remaking of Iran (London: The British Museum, 2009), 52-56. 310

Otto Kurz, “Künstlerische Beziehungen Zwischen Prag und Persien zur Zeit Kaiser Rudolf II: und Beiträge zur Geschichte seiner Sammlungen,” in E.H. Gombrich ed., The Decorative Arts of Europe and the Islamic East (London: Dorian Press, 197), 5.

311For the classic texts on the social dimension of the exchange of gifts see, Bronislaw Malinowski,

Argonauts of the Western Pacific: Ann Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea (1922; reprint, Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 1984), and Marcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. W.D. Halls (New York: W.W. Norton, 1990).

312 Clifford Geertz, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1981 ), 131.

135

PROCESSIONS

Ottoman ceremonial processions were rigorously choreographed, highly charged, lengthy

theatrical displays that made metapolitical claims about the Sultan’s absolute sovereignty and his

relationship to his court, his subjects, and foreign powers.313 This very public form of statecraft

took place regularly, and was often the only opportunity for foreign diplomats to catch a glimpse

of the “Grand Turk.” (Ottoman Sultans rarely left the Topkapi Palace and, with few exceptions,

when foreign visitors came to pay their respects the Sultan was shielded from view by a

curtain.)314 Every Friday the Sultan, astride his imperial steed, with his entourage of viziers,

commanders of the imperial guard, foot soldiers, sword and standard bearers, holy men, dwarves,

hounds, camels, and falcons slowly wound their way from the Imperial Gate of the Topkapi

Palace, down the Divan Yolu (Council Road) to a series of monumental royal mosques.315

Additionally, during the celebration of a rite de passage such as the ascension of a new Sultan,

the wedding of the Sultan’s sister or daughter, the presentation of a new born royal child, or the

circumcision of a royal son, the Sultan and up to one thousand Ottoman officials paraded from

Topkapi Palace to the Hippodrome where tents, stages, and seating arrangements were erected

313The processions of the Ottoman Sultans changed very little over the sixteenth century. The ceremonies

were organized according the Procession Registers that were kept in the palace archives, and the Master of Ceremonies (the Tesrifacti) made sure that all the protocol guidelines were strictly followed. See, Nuhran Atasoy, “Processions and Protocol in Ottoman Istanbul,” in Karin Adahl, ed. The Sultan’s Procession: The Swedish Embassy to Sultan Mehmed IV in 1657-1658 and the Ralamb Paintings (Istanbul: Forskningsinstituet, 2006 ), 169-170.

314 Gürlu Necipoglu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth

Centuries (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990 ), 25 315Ibid: 30

136 for public festivities in honor of the event.316 Often, these public festivities were complemented

by boat processions along the Golden Horn and the Bosphorus.

Many European diplomats took an intense interest in Ottoman ceremonies and

processions. In the sixteenth century numerous short treatises on the practices of Ottoman

officials were published and widely distributed. Such accounts include Benedict Curipeschitz’s

Itinerarium der Botschaftsreise des Josef von Lamberg und Niclas Jurischitz durch Bosnien,

Serbien, Bulgarien nach Konstantinopel (1530); Benedetto Ramberti’s Libri tre delle cose de

Turchi, Nel primo si descrive il viaggio da Venetia à Constantinopoli, con gli nomi de’ luoghi

antinchi moderni; Nel seconda la Porta, cioè la corte de Soltan Soleymano, Signor de’Turchi;

Nel Terzo il modo de reggere il stato & imperio suo. (1539); Junis Beg’s and Alivse Gritti’s

Opera nova la quale dechiara tutto il governo del gran turcho, (1537); Antoine Geuffroy’s

Briesve description de la court du grant Turc et ung sommaire du regne des Othmans, (1542);

and of course Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq’s Turkish Letters (1580). These short and early

accounts gave way to more scrupulously detailed seventeenth-century descriptions of the

Ottoman court, like Salomon Schweigger’s Einen newe Reßbeschreibung auß Teutschland Nach

Constantinople und Jerusalem (1608) and Stephan Gerlach’s Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern

Tage-Buch/ der von zween Glorwürdgsten Römiscen Käysern/ Maximiliane und Rudolpho,

Beyderseits den Ander dieses Nahens/…/An di Ottmanische Pforte zu Constantinopel

Aberfertigen/ und durch den Wohlgeborhenen Herrn Hn David Ungnad/ …glücklischst-

vollbrachter Gesandschaft, (1674).

316Derin Tereziglu, “The Imperial Circumcision Festival of 1582: An Interpretation,” Murqarnas, Vol. XII

(1995 ), 86.

137 To these written sources can be added a wealth of visual material representing Ottoman

processions.317 The earliest examples include Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s woodcut The

Procession of Sülyeman the Magnificent through the Hippodrome (1533) (fig. 55), Jan Swart van

Groningen’s Reiterportrait Süleimans des Grossen mit Gefolge (1545) (fig. 56), and Domenico

de Franceschi’s woodcut in nine sheets of Süleyman riding in procession from the Imperial Gate

to Friday Prayer (1563). In addition to printed images, envoys and artists accompanying

embassies often produced albums of drawings that attempted to capture Ottoman statecraft. The

most detailed depictions can be found in four albums: one by the Austrian envoy Albert Wyts

(1574, MS. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 3325*); a second by the author of

the Neuwe Chronica Tiirchkischer Nation von Turcken selbsbeschreiben (1590), Johannes

Lewenklau (sometimes Löwenklau), who traveled to Constantinople in 1584 with the imperial

envoy Heinrich von Liechenstein (ca. 1585 MS. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,

Cod. 8615) (fig. 57); a third, signed by the elusive Zacharias Wehme, is preserved in Dresden

(1592, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, no. 12a); and an anonymous album, now known as the

Traveler’s Picture Book with Scenes of Life in Istanbul at Oxford (1588, MS Bodl. Or. 430) (fig.

58).318

Pictorial accounts of Ottoman processions attempted to capture the appearance of

Ottoman state ritual. However, in representing these events artists had to segment the flow of

images processions of this sort generated—panting dogs, bouncing horsehair standards, fluttering

317On printed processions see, Larry Silver, “Triumphs and Travesties: Printed Processions of the Sixteenth

Century,” in Larry Silver and Elizaboth Wyckoff, eds., Grand Scale: Monumental Prints in the Age of Dürer and Titian (New Haven: Davis Museum and Cultural Center and Yale University Press, 2008 ), 15-32.

318On the identification of various figures in the Lewenklau Album, see, H.W. Rudolph, “Ein Nachtrag zum

Porträtbuch des Hieronymus Beck von Leopoldsdorf. Bildnesses Orientalischer Herrsche und Würdenträger in Cod. Vindob. 8615,” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, Volume 1 (1999 ), 189-207.

138 disembodied heron feathers, marching golden dwarves, flapping falcons, prancing armored

horses—into static components. And by doing so the most crucial elements of the procession—

movement and an elapse of time—were excluded. Artists tried to compensate for the fact that

motion and temporality were permanently deferred in their images. One strategy was to

manufacture images on a large-scale, in order to include as many participants in the procession

as possible as well as to evoke the span of time such an event encompassed.319 Pieter Cocke van

Aelst’s woodcut of one of Süleyman’s processions exemplifies this tendency.320 Spanning

almost fifteen feet in length, van Aelst’s frieze—which the artist claimed was based on his own

eyewitness account of a procession in 1533—depicts seven scenes and was printed on no fewer

than ten separate sheets, each measuring 35 x 87 centimeters.321 In the sheet that incorporates

the Sultan, now referred to as Customs and Fashions of the Turks or Procession of Süleyman the

Magnificent through the Hippodrome, the Flemish printmaker chose to depict one of, if not the

most, dramatic moments in the procession: Süleyman parading through the Hippodrome. Here,

Süleyman, in strict profile atop his horse and echoing monumental Roman Imperial equestrian

portraits, is strategically represented at the moment before he crosses in front of the Pharonic

obelisk of Tutmosis III (1479- 1425 BCE) that was brought to Constantinople by Emperor

319For an overview of the composite print phenomenon in the sixteenth century see, Horst Appuhn and

Christian V. Heusinger eds., Riesenholzschnitte und Papiertapeten der Renaissance (Uhl: Unterscheidheim, 1976) and for a more recent account, Larry Silver and Elizaboth Wyckoff, eds., Grand Scale: Monumental Prints in the Age of Dürer and Titian (New Haven: Davis Museum and Cultural Center and Yale University Press, 2008).

320It should be noted that van Aelst was not the first artist to produce a composite-print of a parade of

Turks. Between 1529 and 1530, Erhard Schön produced a frieze of fifteen prints, accompanied by the text of Hans Sachs, which featured the atrocities of the Turks after the siege in Vienna. See, Keith Moxey, Peasants, Warriots, and Wives: Popular Imagery in the Reformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 76-77.

321Karl van Mander claims that van Aelst was in Istanbul to negotiate for a sale of tapestries to the Sultan

on behalf of Willem Dermoyen of Brussel. See, Astrit Schmidt-Burkhardt, “Pieter Cocke van Aelst: Sitten und Gebräuche der Türken,” in Europa und der Orient 800-1900, ed. Gereon Sievernich and Hendrik Budde (Guttersloh: Bertelsmann Verlag, 1989), 137.

139 Theodosius (347-395) in the fourth century. This striking placement allows the artist seamlessly

to align the two eastern empires of Egypt and Byzantium with the Ottoman Empire that replaced

them, while the ruined Classical architecture—cracking column drums, crumbling entablatures,

falling arches—signals the Ottomans’ supposed lack of appreciation for the remnants of the

empires they inherited.322 Yet, insofar as this compositional strategy appears laboriously staged,

the rhetoric of the remainder of the image softens its artfulness by suggesting that it represents a

random punctum temporis.323 Van Aelst went to great lengths to render almost all the figures in

the sheet as if they had been instantaneously arrested in their own idiosyncratic activity.

Compare Süleyman’s statuesque posture to the figure in the right foreground who is turning his

back to viewer as he gracefully lifts and extends his left foot. Or, consider the two figures on

horseback behind the Sultan, who enter from stage left. The direction they face is indicative of

their movement through the image, but when the artist placed the caryatid on the edge of the

sheet, he obscured the horses’ bodies. This partial masking enhances the horse’s action. The

picture not only relies on a lack of geometrical clarity to suggest instantaneity, it also depends on

the looks, gestures, and implied conversations among the foot soldiers who lead the Sultan, as

well as the figure descending the stairs of the classical building in the middle ground on the right,

the birds that fly over head, a riderless horse being hurried across the path of the procession, and

the winding path of countless figures that inch toward the Fatih Mosque on the left horizon.

Combined, all of these elements support the image’s autoptic claims and imbue it with a

temporal dimension. Yet despite van Aelst’s effort to present a believable record of his visual

322On the European reaction to what they perceived to be the Ottoman’s skewed sense of history, see

Amanda Wunder, “Western Travelers, Eastern Antiquities, and the Image of the Turk in early Modern Europe,” Journal of Early Modern History, vol. 7 Nos. 1-2 (2003), 89-119.

323On problems of representing a punctum temporis in painting see, E. H. Gombrich, “Moment and

Movement in Art,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes, Vol. 27 (1964), 293-306.

140 encounter with the Sultan, the picture betrays a visible tension between the static, sculptural

nature of the Ottoman ruler—which epitomizes his authority in the image—and the dynamic

logic of the procession. One of the reasons behind giving Ottoman officials automata that

represented Ottomans lies in the objects’ ability to resolve this conflict.324

OTTOMANS, AUTOMATA, AND TEMPORAL INTEGRATION

At the outset of the Türkenvererhrung, in 1548, Archduke Ferdinand I and Holy Roman

Emperor Charles V (1500-1558) made the imperial governor of Swabia responsible for

overseeing the Turkish gifts, and this post remained in the care of that office until 1593, when

the annual tribute was halted.325 The governor exchanged and raised money for payment to the

Turks.326 He was also entrusted with commissioning silversmiths, goldsmiths, and clockmakers

to create objects that would serve as supplements to the funds that constituted the major portion

of the tribute offering.327 The governors may have shown clockmakers prints or drawings of

Ottoman ceremonies, for several of the automata betray a reliance on such models. As Otto Mayr

324Remarkably, scholars accept a theory that van Aelst’s motivation for creating the composite-print, was to

cajole the Sultan into commissioning his own set of tapestry designs. See, Lisa Jardine and Jerry Brotton, Global Interests: Renaissance Art between East and West (London: Reaktion Books, 2000), 82-87 and Thomas Campbell, Tapestry in the Renaissance: Art and Magnificence (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2002 ), 251-252.

325 Mraz (1980) 40. 326Rechnungen from the Hofzahlamt in Vienna note that during first year of the Türkenverehrung the

empire sent 72,709 Gulden and 13 Kreuzern to the Sultan, and 1000 Ducats and three vessels, made entirely of silver, to the Pasha in Ofen (Budapest). This amount of money stayed relatively stable throughout the years of the Türkenverehrung. For instance, in 1549, the Sultan received 72,779 Gulden 35 Kreuzern, and in 1550 he received 68,508 Gulden and 16 Kreuzern. Ibid 39. On average, four silver Gulden was the equivalent of one golden ducat and seventy-two Kreuzern equaled one Guldin. “Gulden,” in Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, Bd.7 4 Aufl. (Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institute, 1885-1892 ), 922.

327Anthony Cutler has argued that many of the reliquaries and luxuries exchanged between the imperial

Byzantine court and foreign courts functioned in the same fashion. See, Anthony Cutler, “Gift and Gift Exchange as Aspects of the Byzantine, Arab and Related Economies,” Dumbarton and Oaks Papers, Vol. 55 (2001 ), 251.

141 and Klaus Maurice have observed, the Sultan on the automata in Vienna, Dresden, and Moscow

are likely based on van Aelsts’s woodcut. It is also possible that Ferdinand, Maximilian, or

Rudolph provided models for the automata which convey Ottoman processions. The 1596

inventory of the Archducal Kunstkammer at Ambras records “Ain lange rolln wie der Türggisch

Kaiser geen Kurchen reüt,” and the 1607-1611 inventory of the imperial Kunstkammer in Prague

contained, “Ein buch von der hand gemalt, sein allerley türkische trachten und ire cermonien”328

As in the van Aelst woodcut, the referential relationships of these source materials to their

sources were presumed.

The surviving automata are all of average size, measuring about forty centimeters in

height and twenty centimeters in width. Each automaton includes a figure of the Sultan, with the

exclusion of the Newark piece which is comprised of four figures that all appear to be Pashas.

The Turkish Automaton at Ambras is the most mechanically complex and unique in its subject

matter.329 Executed around 1580, this spectacular object is populated by three Ottoman figures

and bristles with finely wrought ornamentation. The Sultan is identified by his central position,

richly festooned caftan, bulbous turban and drawn saber. The internal mechanism of this

automaton causes the Sultan to roll his eyes and lift his saber, while his two attendants move

their oars as if paddling the Sultan across the choppy and fish infested Bosphorus in one of the

many ceremonial processions that took place on the water around Constantinople. The

remaining automata display scenes of Turks on horseback, galloping or majestically prancing,

alone or in a group.

328Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorichen Sammlungen des aller höchsten Kaiserhauses, Vol. 7 (1888), ccxl and

Bauer and Haupt (1976 ),: Fol. 382 No. 2713 329

Location: Kunsthistorisches Museum Sammlungen Schloß Ambras, Innsbruck-Ambras, Inv.n. KK_7482, Literature: Maurice (1976): fig. 271, Maurice and Mayer (1980): 242.

142 The most extravagant of the automata were surely given to the Sultan. For instance the

imperial diplomat Stephan Gerlach (1546-1612) tells us that in 1590 Holy Roman Emperor

Rudolph II gave Sultan Murad III an automaton in the shape of a castle. When the object was

activated the gates of the structure opened and a Sultan on horseback, followed by several Pashas

on horseback, emerged. The figures, which were made entirely of silver, rode in a circle before

disappearing behind a second gate embedded in the face of the fortress.330 Although much

simpler in its composition, a surviving automaton, now in Newark, approximates Gerlach’s

description (fig. 50).331 The octagonal silver base of the object is festooned with eagles in flight

and aniconic curved motifs, which recall the Ottoman crescent. Resting atop the base is a second

octagonal structure, with engaged pillars on all corners. Each pair of pillars frames an arch,

through which one can see the object’s movements (recall Mehmet Sokollu’s request). Swirling

vegetal motifs crawl up the sides of the arches and terminate in a tulip in full bloom. All of this

extensively wrought and ornamented silver served as the foundation for the animation of

Ottoman ceremony and pomp. Four figures process on horseback in pointed caps, possibly

külahs, carrying swords on their hips that serve as the cardinal points of the procession, which

moved clockwise in a circle around the raised timepiece. In front of and behind each equestrian

figure strut two turbaned figures clutching spears. Although neatly organized around the two

types of figures, the automaton is dominated by the riders whose social status is greater than

those of their earthbound counterparts. As well as conveying the look, action, and social rank of

an Ottoman official these features promoted the object’s purported novelty, because the recipient

was, most likely, intended to recognize a version of himself in the object.

330A.H. Loebl in, Zur Geschichte der Türkenkriege von 1593-1606 (C.H. Beck: München, 1899 ), 117. 331

Location: Newark Museum, Newark, Inv. n. 14.346, Literature: Maurice (1976): fig. 273.

143 Three extant automata evidence a similar configuration (figs. 48 and 49). An automaton

of a Sultan on horseback, now in Vienna, depicts the Ottoman official atop a richly saddled steed

and accompanied by an Ottoman attendant holding the leash of a dashing hound, a small African

holding a shield, and a Sultan in miniature grasping the chain of a seated ape (fig. 6).332 When

active the horse tapped the sumptuous silver base of the object with its left front hoof and rolled

its eyes while the Sultan turned his head from side to side, as if looking to the crowd that lined

the streets during the processions through Constantinople. Giving the Sultan such a varied and

exotic entourage, the object signals the Ottoman Empire’s expansion into the Continent of Africa

and re-performs, for Ottoman eyes, the ceremonial pomp at events such as royal

circumcisions.333

Although not embellished with representatives of the Sultan’s court and conquered

domain, the automaton which was destroyed in the 1945 bombing of Dresden was a multi-media

affair (Fig. 48).334 This work was distinguished by the inclusion of actual horsehair for the

mount’s tail and leather or rope reins which, in all likelihood, extended from the empty rings at

the base of the horse’s bit and terminated in the left hand of the Sultan. This unexpected

incorporation of organic material punctures, in the words of Christopher S. Wood, is “the

membrane between figuration and reality.”335 The horsehair is not a representation of a horse’s

tail, in the sense that the gilt body is a representation of the Sultan. It differs because it is the

thing (horsehair) itself, not a signifier that refers to an absent referent. This was not the first time

332

Location: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Inv. N. KK_6857, Literature: Maurice (1976): fig. 275. 333Tereziglu (1995): 82-84. 334

Location: Formerly Mathematisch-Physikalischer Salon, Dresden, Literature: Maurice (1976): fig. 276. 335Christopher S. Wood, Forgery, Replica, Fiction: Temporalities of German Renaissance Art (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2008 ), 316.

144 props were used to fabricate lifelikeness. Donatello’s equestrian portrait of Galtamelata in Padua

(1453) (fig. 59) included actual spurs that were worn by the Venetian condottiere, figures that

formed the extravagant program of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I’s tomb held actual

candles and daggers (fig. 60), and the sculptures that populated the reconstruction of the Holy

Sepulchre at Varallo (fig. 61) wore clothes and dined at tables before dishes of roasted lamb.336

But unlike Donatello’s equestrian portrait, the “colossal puppets” of Maximilian’s tomb, or

statues on the Sacro Monte, the accoutrements on the Dresden automaton did not merely make

the object appear as though it were capable of doing something—they accentuated what it did.

As the horse raised and lowered its head, the reins slackened and tightened, while the tail trailed

behind as it lurched forward. By way of its supplemental props and animation the automaton

overcomes the tension between the rigid figuration of the Sultan and the dynamic logic of the

procession, because it is able to animate the representation without forfeiting any of the Sultan’s

stateliness. Furthermore, unlike two-dimensional images of the Sultan performing Ottoman

pomp that exist outside of experienced time and space, the automata populate and participate in

the viewer’s experience of space and flow of time, as do processions.

Surprisingly, however, despite their paradoxical ability to recreate Ottoman processions

while maintaining an unchanging image of the Sultan, the automata do not say much about the

specific Ottomans that perform these rituals. They offer little information about the figures’

particular physiognomy or psychology. As such, the automata are references that only point to a

specific target; they do not fully describe it. I will turn later to why these stereotypical images of

336On Donatello’s equestrian statue see, John Pope-Hennessy, Italian Renaissance Sculpture (New York:

Vintage, 1985), 53-54. On the figures at Varallo see Alessandro Nova, “Popular Art in Renaissance Italy: Early Response to the Holy Mountain at Varallo,” in Claire Farago ed., Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America 1450-1650 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 113-126. And for Maximilian’s tomb see, Wood (2008): 314-315.

145 the Sultan may have been considered appropriate gifts. First, however, let us consider how these

generic images of Ottoman rulers corresponded to other contemporaneous representations of the

Sultan in Christendom.

THE TRUE IMAGE OF THE SULTAN

Representations of Ottoman rulers produced at the same time as the automata include

prints published and widely dispersed in Europe—an array of portrayals that aimed to identify

and catalogue the Turk.337 Bronwen Wilson has traced the publication of both costume and

portrait books featuring Ottoman rulers and military leaders, calling attention to their diverse

mechanisms for conveying difference and sameness to a European audience.338 In Venice,

costume books such as Nicolas de Nicolay’s Les quatre premiers livres des navigations et

peregrinations orientalis (1567) influenced how Ottomans were represented in a variety of

contexts. For instance, Francesco Sansovino’s Informatione (1570) (a text that urged the

Venetian Senate to wage war with their Muslim neighbors) published woodcuts copied after the

engravings in Nicolay’s treatise (fig. 62 and 63). These illustrations placed sartorial display in

the foreground—elaborate headdresses, colorful caftans, and beard lengths—to distinguish the

Ottoman enemy. Similarly, popular “portraits,” of Ottoman rulers, such as the anonymously

published Selin (1580), (fig. 64) stop short of portraying physiognomic or psychological

individuality. Crude features are brought together with turbans and blandly ornamented

337For an excellent treatment of images of Turks in Venetian and German painting in the beginning of the

sixteenth century see, Julian Raby, Venice, Dürer and the Oriental Mode (New York: Islamic Art Publications, 1982).

338Wilson makes this persuasive argument in two publications: Bronwen Wilson, “Reflecting on the Turk

in late sixteenth-century Venetian portrait books,” Word and Image, Vol. 19 Nos. 1-2 (2003) and Bronwen Wilson, The World in Venice: Print, the City, and Early Modern Identity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005) see especially Chapter IV, “Reproducing the Individual: Likeness and History in Printed Portrait Books,” 222-255.

146 garments to convey to the viewer a spurious image of Sultan Selim II (r. 1566-1574). Only the

label, which reads “Selin imperator de Turchi,” clearly indentifies the schematic portrayal as a

specific personage.

Images of the Sultans in “Portrait Books” stand in stark contrast to those in costume

books, for these were charged with realistic detail. Little of this detail, however, was grounded

in actual knowledge about the figures represented. Many of the portraits published in, for

instance, Theobald Müller’s Musaie Ioviani imagines artifice manu ad vivum expressae (1577)

Pietro Bertelli’s Vite degl’ imperatori de Turchi con le loro effigie (1599) portray Ottoman rulers

that had long been dead. Bertelli’s portrait of Sultan Mehmet II (r. 1444-1446 and 1451-1481)

(fig. 65) offers far more visual information about the deceased Sultan than the image of Selim II,

which is general to the extreme. Mehmet’s portrait is distinguished by physiognomic detail. The

skin of the Sultan’s face is aged. It puffs and wrinkles below his eyes and is furrowed along his

brow. His illuminated Roman nose arcs downward, calling attention to his parted and thin lips.

This portrait-like specificity is situated atop a thick neck with loose jowls that seamlessly blends

into the Sultan’s sloping shoulders. Mehmet daintily grips his scepter, fingers unevenly grasping

his royal attribute. The body is rendered in three-quarter view displaying his robe, the drapery of

which lays in random patterns, bunched at his right elbow and falling in irregular folds down his

breast. This detail serves to give the impression that this is an image of a specific historical

individual.

In comparing these two modes of representing Ottoman Sultans, we might conclude that

the automata given as tribute function like the image of Selim. The three-dimensional figures’

lack of a secure identity would surely bolster such a claim. To equate the sultans on the

automata, and their lack of particularity, with images like that of Selim II, though, would be to

147 forget about their intended audience—Ottoman rulers. Whereas stereotypical images of

Ottomans in Europe promoted the “circulation and proliferation of racial and cultural

otherness,”339 the automata, in their evocation of Ottoman processions, re-present to the sultan

and other Ottoman officials how the Sultan represented himself to his subjects and foreign

diplomats.340 Furthermore, the lack of individuality the automata betray resonates with how

Islamic artists represented high-ranking Ottoman officials. As Esin Atil explains, “all

representations of [Ottoman] rulers were executed from memory and based on accepted models

of an ideal type.”341 Such iconographic conventions can be seen in a number of Ottoman

portraits. Take, for example, the Portrait of Admiral Haireddin, by Haidar Reiss Nigari (1540

Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Müsezi) (fig. 66) and the anonymously produced Portrait of Sultan

Ahmed (ca. 1615 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) (fig. 67). The way the automata

approach physiognomy suggests the ruler they animate is more than merely a historical figure; it

suggests that the figure is an ideal type that exceeds space and time. At one level, then, the

automata communicated the Holy Roman Emperors’ reverence for the Sultan and their

acceptance of the Sultan’s transcendental authority. Yet, at another lever, the three-dimensional

and animated representation of the Ottoman ruler transgressed Islamic image prohibition (a

proscription which the Holy Roman Emperors were repeatedly reminded of) and afforded the

rulers of the Holy Roman Empire the opportunity to demonstrate their Empire’s technological

acumen. This claim, that the automata were objects that permitted the Hapsburgs to present

339Homhi K. Bhabba, “The other question: the stereotype and colonial discourse,” in Visual Culture: The

Reader, eds. Jessica Evans and Stuart Hall (London: Open University Press, 2004 ), 372. 340See Note 52. 341Esin Atil, “The Image of Süleyman,” in Sülyeman the Second, ed. Halil Inalick and Cemal Kafadar

(Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993 ), 334.

148 themselves as masters of mimetic technology, is amply borne out when we take into account the

challenging and at times insurmountable problems the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire faced in

procuring the automata and transporting the objects from central Europe to Western Asia.

TRAFFICKING AUTOMATA

Scheduling the manufacture and shipment of the automata was often burdensome.

Generally, the automata and other Turkish gifts were to be completed by late July in order to

travel to Constantinople under the most favorable weather conditions.342 This time frame,

however, was problematic for clockmakers. On October 29, 1581, Holy Roman Emperor

Rudolph II wrote to the Governor of Swabia, Maximilian Ilsung, requesting Ilsung commission a

clockmaker in Augsburg to make several rings set with clockwork for the Ottoman Pasha in

Ofen.343 Ilsung wrote back to the emperor and apologetically stated that he had spoken with a

master clockmaker in Augsburg (unfortunately the name is not mentioned) who stated that the

rings could not be delivered until the following autumn, at the earliest. According to Ilsung, the

clockmaker was unable to craft clockwork mechanisms during the fall, winter, and spring

months due to poor lighting and frigid weather conditions.344 Delays in receiving the tribute

from Augsburg frequently required that envoys postpone their trips to Constantinople. In

342There are many entries in the Hofzahlamt-Rechnungen which record payments to Augsburgian artisans

for the extra gifts that were sent along with the tribute payment. On February 8, 1566 the documents state: On September 5, 1568:”Dier Kaiserliche Uhrmacher Gerhart Eenmoser erhält für zwei von ihm gefertigte und der Kammer gelieferte uhrlein, welcher Kaiser Maximilian II. durch die kurzlich anwesend gewesene türkische Botschaft nach Constantinople übersendent halte, 68 Gulden rheinisch ausbezahlt.” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen, vol. 7 (1888 ), Pg CXXI Reg. 5136.

343It should be noted that a letter written by Pietro Aretino dated October 2, 1531, states that Süleyman

bought a gold ring set with clockwork, which was manufactured in Venice. Kurz (1975), 22. 344Mraz (1980), 48.

149 Wratislaw’s memoirs we read: “We spent several months of that year (1591) at Vienna, waiting

till the jewelry, watches, and other special presents, which our ambassador was to offer not only

to the Turkish emperor, but also to his pashas and grandees, were brought from Augsburg.”345

Regular scheduling conflicts notwithstanding, automata—and other objects comprised of

clockwork—were still steadily commissioned and sent to Constantinople.

The emperors’ eagerness to convey these mimetic machines to the court in

Constantinople becomes even more pronounced when we consider the numerous obstacles that

beset the objects’ intercontinental travel.346 Once complete, objects were brought by Augsburg

merchants to Vienna on barge by way of the Danube. In Vienna, the Military Paymaster

(Militärzahlmeister) recorded the objects’ worth and their final destination—the Ottoman

Empire—and they were then handed over to the imperial envoy, who accompanied the cargo to

Constantinople.347 The envoy, servants, military protection, wagons of food, wine, gold coin, and

gifts traveled over land by caravan to Ofen. This stop was crucial because the Pasha in Ofen

always received honoraria from the Holy Roman Emperor, and it provided the envoy an

345Wratislaw (1862): 1f. 346The travel routes from Vienna to Constantinople were roughly the same for the Imperial Ambassadors

throughout the period of the Türkenverehrung. For a more detailed and precise description of the routes see, Stephan Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch/ der von zween Glorwürdgsten Römiscen Käysern/ Maximiliane und Rudolpho, Beyderseits den Ander dieses Nahens/…/An di Ottmanische Pforte zu Constantinopel Aberfertigen/ und durch den Wohlgeborhenen Herrn Hn David Ungnad/ …glücklischst-vollbrachter Gesandschaft (Frankfurt, 1674) Salomon Schweigger, Einen newe Reßbeschreibung auß Teutschland Nach Constantinople und Jerusalem…Mit hundert schönen newen Figuren/ dergleichen nie wird geweysen seyn/ In III. Unterschiedlichen Büchern Auffs fleissigst eigner Person verzeichnet und abgerissen Durch Salomon Schweigger (Nürnberg, 1608) and Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, trans. Edward Seymour Forster (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005).

347Regrettably, only lists from the mid 1560s and onward survive (we therefore, cannot say with certainty

that automata were given as tribute before this time). We do know through letters and memoirs of Venetian merchants that Ferdinand I began sending elaborate clocks with astronomical and moving figures during the 1540s. According to Paolo Giovio, Ferdinand sent Süleyman celestial clock with moving figures, so large that twelve men had to carry it. Giovio also believed that the clock had been originally crafted for Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I. Kurz has suggested that the object might have been the famed Theoria planetarum which numerous craftsmen and scholars worked on in Nuremberg during Maximilian I’s reign. See Kurz (1975): 23 nos. 1 and 2.

150 opportunity to discuss issues directly concerning the problematic Hungarian territory, which the

Pasha oversaw. 348 Once the gifts had been ceremoniously bestowed on the Pasha the caravan

was transferred back to a series of barges—numbering about fifteen—on the Danube.349 Ogier

Ghiselin de Busbecq described the experience of traveling down the river after he was received

by the Pasha in Ofen:

The vessel on which I traveled was towed by a rowing boat with twenty-four oarsmen;

the other boats were propelled each by a pair of longer oars. We never halted day or

night, except for a few hours when the unhappy rowers and sailors refreshed themselves

from their incessant toil with food and rest. The rashness of the Turks seemed to me

quite remarkable; they never hesitated to continue their voyage in spite of the densest

darkness, the absence of any moon and violent gales and they had continually to

encounter danger from the mills and the trunks and branches of trees, which projected

from the banks. It frequently happened that the violence of the wind caused my boat to

come to such a violent collision with the stumps and boughs of trees which overhung the

stream that it seemed in immanent danger of being broken in pieces. In fact on one

occasion part of the deck was carried away with a large crash.350

Having survived the torrents of the river, the barges docked at the Serbian city of Nish. From

there, the caravan traveled southeast, down an ancient Roman road, through the foothills of the

Balkan Mountains to Sophia. Once the diplomatic corps took rest and sustenance in the capital

348Ogier Ghiselin Busbecq, briefly mentions his first encounter with Pasha in his first “Turkish Letter:” “. .

.we were introduced into the presence of the Pasha, who had recovered from his illness. We tried to mollify him with presents, and then complained of the insolence and misdeeds of the Turkish soldiers and demanded back the places which had been taken from us in violation of the truce and which he had promised in his letter to my sovereign to restore on condition that he sent a representative.” Busbecq (2005): 12.

349There is a seventeenth century (1628) gouache painting of the Count of Kuefstein delivering gifts to the

Pasha at Ofen at Schloß Greillenstein in Lower Austria. See H. Tietze, Die Denkmale des politischen Bezirkes Horn (Vienna: Schroll, 1911 ), 482.

350Busbecq (2005): 12-13.

151 of Bulgaria, they set off southward through the Balkan valleys.351 If the party survived the

valleys—whose open spaces made them vulnerable to brigandage and extortion—they then had

to traverse a rugged mountain pass known as “The Narrow Gates,” or “Capi Derwent” near the

Turks before descending to the ancient Macedonian city of Philippolis. From there they headed

along the banks of the Maritza River to Adrianopolis, before trudging through the tulip-filled

fields on the outskirts of Constantinople.

Clockwork automata had an additional disadvantage of being sensitive to changes in the

weather and climatic conditions, and often required repair when they reached their destination.

A Viennese clockmaker, Wolfgang Teissenreider, visited the Pasha’s court in Ofen from

September 9 until December 9, 1562 to repair gifts that had been sent from Vienna.

Teissenreider was unable to finish his work in the autumn of 1562 and, according to

Rechnunungen from the Hofzahlamt, he was paid for his time and travel expenses to return to

Ofen from March 26 until August 15 1563.352 Eight years later, the Viennese clockmaker

traveled with Caspar Minkwitz, an imperial envoy, to Constantinople, because many of the gifts

had become “seriously defective.”353 After many failed attempts to transport working clocks and

automata to Constantinople the Empire made it a rule to send a clockmaker along for the

voyage.354

351“In fact, a man who intends to go among the Turks must be prepared, as soon as he has crossed the

frontier, to open his purse and never close it till he leaves the country. Meanwhile he must sow money broadcast and pray that it may not prove unfruitful. If there is no other result, it is at any rate the only method of softening the fierce heart of the Turk, who hates all other nations. Money acts like a charm to sooth their otherwise intractable minds.” Ibid: 25. On piracy and brigandage in the sixteenth century see Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean: And the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol.2, trans. Sian Reynolds (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 865-890.

352Mraz (1980): 40. 353Ibid: 40-41.

152 Sending clockmakers to Constantinople ensured that the automata and other clocks would

be operative when they were presented. It also suggests that the emperors may have wanted to

transfer German artisanal and technological skills to the east.355 If the diffusion of technology

was one of the desired byproducts of sending clockwork objects to the Ottoman capital, it was

not entirely unsuccessful. Beginning in the last quarter of the sixteenth century a small colony of

German clockmakers established itself across from the Golden Horn in Galatea. The settlement

flourished and produced small watches and wall clocks (Telleruhren), until the mid-eighteenth

century when English exports of pendulum clocks, watches, and movements began to dominate

the international market.356 Although the Hapsburgs may have succeeded in transplanting a

miniature Augsburg to the Bosphorous, this technological colonization does not fully explain

why the rulers of Christendom were determined, regardless of the time involved or the costs, to

repeatedly send automata to Constantinople. But why did the practice of gifting automata endure

under such conditions?

We might conclude that the automata, in all their preciousness, were a means for

Ferdinand I, Maximilian II, and Rudolph II to parade “magnificence.” To claim that these

objects were intended to assuage the insecurities of the Holy Roman Emperors, however, is to

assume that their gifting, circulation, and display were after-effects of a cemented social and

political situation. If, however, beneath the most stringently choreographed and regulated

diplomatic encounters there lies the fluid give and take that sustains the political relationship,

354Kurz (1977) 25. 355On the transmission of technological knowledge by itinerant artisans see, Peter Mathias, “Skills and the

Diffusion of Innovations from Britain in the Eighteenth Century,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 25 (1977), 93-113 and more recently by Joel Mokyr, The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002) passim.

356Köseoglu (1988): 33. On England’s monopoly of clockwork in the eighteenth century see, GH. Baile,

et.al, Britten’s Old Clocks and Watches and Their Makers (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1956), 77-140.

153 why would objects exchanged in a diplomatic context somehow not participate in such

conciliations?

The animated three-dimensional images of the Ottoman officials performing stately

rituals must have been received in Constantinople with admiration and wonder. We can imagine

that shortly after receiving such an object an Ottoman official would have wound it up, and, thus,

became the spectator of his own empire’s pomp. No longer an actor in the drama, the Sultan,

Grand Vizier, or Pasha was engaged as an observer. This uncanny displacement may well have

amplified the object’s ability to communicate deference by promoting the Ottoman’s sense of

superiority. At the same time, however, by gifting such hyper-mimetic objects—objects which

occupy the same spatial and temporal fabric as the viewer, and therefore compete with the

creative acts of Allah—the Holy Roman Emperors transgressed the diplomatic rules of decorum

and asserted their control over such mimetic technology. To put it another way, the automata

themselves stage competing and overlapping claims of power. Seen in this light the automata

enable an alternative account of the fraught power relationship between Islam and Christendom.

In lieu of the traditional narratives of the West dominating the East, and the East’s reactionary

behavior in response to its oppression, we must focus attention on the ways in which power was

in constant flux. And it is crucial that such subtle, almost imperceptible, negotiations were

handled by objects.

154

155

Figure 1

156

Figure 2

157

Figure 3

158

Figure 4

159

Figure 5

160

Figure 6

161

162 Figure 7

163

Figure 8

164

Figure 9

165

Figure 10

166

Figure 11

167

Figure 12

168

Figure 13

169

Figure 14

170

Figure 15

171

Figure 16

172

Figure 17

173

Figure 18

174

Figure 19

175

Figure 20

176 Figure 21

177

Figure 22

178

Figure 23

179

Figure 24

180

Figure 25

181

Figure 26

182

Figure 27

183

Figure 28

184

Figure 29

185

Figure 30

186

Figure 31

187

Figure 32

188

Figure 33

189

Figure 34

190

Figure 35

191

Figure 36

192

Figure 37

193

Figure 38

194

Figure 39

195

Figure 40

196

Figure 41

197

Figure 42

198

Figure 43

199

Figure 44

200

Figure 45

201

Figure 46

202

Figure 47

203

Figure 48

204

Figure 49

205

Figure 50

206

Figure 51

207

Figure 52

208

Figure 53

209

Figure 54

210

Figure 55

211

Figure 56

212

Figure 57

213

Figure 58

214

Figure 59

215

Figure 60

216

Figure 61

217

Figure 62

218

Figure 63

219

Figure 64

220

Figure 65

221

Figure 66

222

Figure 67

223 BIBLIOGRAPHY

. Ådahl, Karin, and Svenska forskningsinstitutet i Istanbul. The Sultan's Procession: The Swedish Embassy to Sultan Mehmed IV in 1657-1658 and the Rålamb Paintings. Istanbul : Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul ; London : I. B. Tauris, distributor, 2006.

Adelson, Howard L. “The Holy Lance and the Hereditary German Monarchy.” The Art Bulletin 48, no. 2 (June 1966): 177-192.

Althoff, Gerd. Spielregeln Der Politik Im Mittelalter: Kommunikation in Frieden Und Fehde. Darmstadt: Primus, 1997.

Anderson, M. S. (Matthew Smith). The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450-1919. London ; New York: Longman, 1993.

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses., and Oberstkämmerer-amt. Jahrbuch Der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen Des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Wien [etc.] A. Schroll [etc.], 1883.

Babcock, Barbara A, and American Anthropological Association. The Reversible World : Symbol, myth and ritual series;. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978.

Bächtold-Stäubli, Hanns. Handwörterbuch Des Deutschen Aberglaubens, Herausgegeben Unter Besonderer Mitwirkung Hoffmann-Krayer, Eduard,; 1864-1936. Handwörterbücher zur deutschen Volkskunde, hrsg. vom Verband deutscher Vereine für Volkskunde. Abt. 1. Aberglaube;. Berlin und Leipzig, W. de Gruyter & Co., 1927.

Bakhtin, M. M. 1895-1975. (Mikhail Mikhailovich). Rabelais and His World. Cambridge, Mass., M. I. T. Press, 1968.

Bath, Michael. The Image of the Stag: Iconographic Themes in Western Art. Saecula spiritalia,; Bd. 24;. Baden-Baden: V. Koerner, 1992.

Bauernfeind, Hans. Josef Lieber Josef Mein. Blätter für gemischten Chor; 238;. Wien ; München Doblinger, 1960.

Bäumel, Jutta. “Cave Calvinae--D.N.K.: das Richtschwert des Kursächsischen Kanzlers Dr. Nikolaus Krell von 1601.” Dresdener Kunstblatter 25, no. 2 (2001): 144-151.

Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, and Historische Kommission. Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1953.

Bedini, Silvio A. “The Role of Automata in the History of Technology.” Technology and Culture 5, no. 1 (Winter 1964): 24-42.

224 Ben-Amos, Ilana Krausman. “Gifts and Favors: Informal Support in Early Modern England.” The Journal of Modern History 72, no. 2 (June 2000): 295-338.

Benn, Gottfried. Briefe. Wiesbaden: Limes-Verlag, 1977.

Berns, Jörg Jochen. Seelenmaschinen: Gattungstraditionen, Funktionen, Und Leistungsgrenzen Der Mnemotechniken Vom Späten Mittelalter Bis Zum Beginn Der Moderne / Neuber, Wolfgang. Frühneuzeit-Studien ;; n.F. 2;. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2000.

Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment. Oxford: Berg, 2001.

Blake, Norman F. “English Versions of Reynard the Fox in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” Studies in Philology 62 (1965): 63-77.

Blaschke, Karlheinz. Moritz Von Sachsen: Ein Reformationsfürst Der Zweiten Generation. Persönlichkeit und Geschichte ;; Bd. 113;. Göttingen: Muster-Schmidt, 1983.

Bobinger, Maximilian. “Der Augsburger Uhrmacher Hans Schlothaim.” Schriften der Freunde alter Uhren, no. XI (1971): 8-23.

Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Bosbach, Franze. “Die Politische Bedeutunge Karls des Grossen für Karl V.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 84 (2002): 49-73.

Bott, Gerhard, and Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg. Wenzel Jamnitzer Und Die Nürnberger Goldschmiedekunst 1500-1700 : München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1985.

Boyd, Kelly. Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing. London ; Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999.

Brandi, Karl. Kaiser Karl V: Werden und Schichsal einer Persölichkeit und Weltreiches. Munich: Bruchmann Verlag, 1937.

Brant, Sebastian. Narrenschiff. Basel, 1494.

Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. New York, Harper & Row, 1972.

Braunfels, Wolfgang. Die Kunst Im Heiligen Römischen Reich Deutscher Nation. München: C.H. Beck, 1979.

Brecht, Martin (1932-. ...). Martin Luther. Zweiter Band, Ordnung Und Abgrenzung Der Reformation: 1521-1532. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1986.

225 Bredekamp, Horst. The Lure of Antiquity and the Cult of the Machine: The Kunstkammer and the Evolution of Nature, Art, and Technology. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1995.

Britten, F. J. 1843-1913. (Frederick James). Britten's Old Clocks and Watches and Their Makers; a Historical and Descriptive Account of the Different Styles of Clocks and Watches of the Past in England and Abroad Containing a List of Nearly Fourteen Thousand Makers. Baillie, G. H.; 1873-1951. ; (Granville Hugh), New York, Bonanza Books, 1956.

Brown, Bill. “Thing Theory.” Critical Inquiry 28, no. 1 (Autumn 2001): 1-22.

Bryson, Lyman, and Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Institute for Religious and Social Studies. The Communication of Ideas, a Series of Addresses, Religion and civilization series;. New York, Institute for Religious and Social Studies, distributed by Harper, 1948.

Buc, Philippe. “Ritual and Interpretation: the early medieval case.” Early Medieval Europe 9, no. 2 (2000): 1-28.

Buettner, Brigitte. “Past Presents: New Year's Gifts at the Valois Courts, ca. 1400.” The Art Bulletin 83, no. 4 (December 2001): 598-625.

Busbecq, Ogier Ghislain de. The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin De Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople, 1554-1562: Translated from the Latin of the Elzevir Edition of 1663. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005.

Butters, Suzanne B. “The Uses and Abuses of Gifts in the World of Ferdinando de' Medici (1549-1609).” I Tatti Studies: Essays in the Renaissance 11 (2007): 243-354.

Cahill, Nicholas. “The Treasury at Persepolis: Gift-Giving at the City of the Persians.” American Journal of Archaeology 89, no. 3 (July 1985): 373-389.

Callières. The Art of Diplomacy. Leicester, Leicestershire: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1983.

Camille, Michael. Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art. Essays in art and culture;. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992.

———. The Medieval Art of Love: Objects and Subjects of Desire. New York: Abrams, 1998.

Campbell, Thomas J. 1848-1925. (Thomas Joseph). The Jesuits, 1534-1921; a History of the Society of Jesus from Its Foundation to the Present Time. New York, Encyclopedia Pr., 1921.

Campbell, Thomas P, and N. Y.) Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York. Tapestry in the Renaissance: Art and Magnificence. New York : Metropolitan Museum of Art ; New Haven : Yale University Press, 2002.

226 Canby, Sheila R, and British Museum. Shah `Abbas: The Remaking of Iran. London: British Museum Press, 2009.

Carboni, Stefano, Institut du monde arabe (France), and Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.). Venice and the Islamic World, 828-1797. New York : Metropolitan Museum of Art ; New Haven [Conn.] : Yale University Press, 2007.

Carroll, Jane Louise. Saints, Sinners, and Sisters: Gender and Northern Art in Medieval and Early Modern Europe / Stewart, Alison G. Burlington, VT ; Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2003.

Casel, Odo. Heilige Überlieferung: Ausschnitte Aus Der Geschichte Des Mönchtums Und Des Heiligen Kultes. Münster: Aschendorf, 1938.

Casey, Paul F. “Court Performance in Berlin of the Sixteeenth-Century: Georg Pondo's Christmas Play of 1589.” Daphnis 32, no. 1-2: 57-72.

Cesareo, Francesco C. “The Collegium Germanicum and the Ignatian Vision of Education.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 24, no. 4 (Winter 1993): 829-841.

Chambers, Ephraim. Cyclopaedia: Or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences ... The Whole Intended as a Course of Antient and Modern Learning, Extracted from the Best Authors, Dictionaries, Journals, Memoirs, Transactions, Ephemerides, &c. in Several Languages. London, D. Midwinter [etc.], 1741.

Chatenay, Leopold. Vie De Jacques Esprinchard, Rochelais, Et Journal De Ses Voyages Au XVI Siècle / Esprinchard, Jacques ; (Associated Name). Bibliothèque générale de l'École Pratique des Hautes-Études; Sect. 6;. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1957.

Cohn, Henry J. “Did Bribes Induce the German Electors to Choose Charles V as Emperor in 1519?.” German History 19, no. 1: 1-27.

Colledge, Edmund. Reynard the Fox and Other Medieval Netherlands Secular Literature. Bibliotheca Neerlandica ;; 1;. Leyden: Sijthoff, 1967.

Collins, A. Jefferies 1893- (Arthur Jefferies). Jewels and Plate of Queen Elizabeth I: The Inventory of 1574. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1955.

Comité international d'histoire de l'art, and Comité français d'histoire de l'art. L'art Et Les Révolutions: Actes [du] XXVIIe Congrès International D'histoire De L'art, Strasbourg, 1-7 Septembre 1989. Strasbourg: Société alsacienne pour le développement de l'histoire de l'art, 1992.

Conihout, Isabelle de. Ces Curieux Navires: Trois Automates De La Renaissance. Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1999.

227

Coster, Will. Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe / Spicer, Andrew. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Crary, Jonathan. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1990.

Cunningham, Andrew. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine, and Death in Reformation Europe / Grell, Ole Peter. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Cutler, Anthony. “Gifts and Gift Exchange as Aspects of the Byzantine, Arab, and Related Economies.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001): 247-278.

Darnton, Robert. “The Symbolic Element in History.” Journal of Modern History 58 (1986): 218-234.

Daston, Lorraine. “Marvelous Facts and Miraculous Evidence in Early Modern Europe.” Critical Inquiry 18, no. 1 (Autumn 1991): 93-124.

Davis, Natalie Zemon. The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France. The Curti lectures; The Menahem Stern Jerusalem lectures;. Madison: the University of Wisconsin press, 2000.

Deri, Max. Das Rollwerk in Der Deutschen Ornamentik Des Sechzehnten Und Siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, Berlin, Schuster & Bufleb, 1906.

Deshman, Robert. “Otto III and the Warmund Sacramentary: A Study in Political Theology.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 34, no. 1 (1971): 1-20.

Dewald, Jonathan, and Gale Group. Europe 1450-1789 Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World. New York : Scribner ; London : Simon & Schuster, 2004.

Dicke, Gerd. Die Fabeln Des Mittelalters Und Der Frühen Neuzeit: Ein Katalog Der Deutschen Versionen Und Ihrer Lateinischen Entsprechungen / Grubmueller, Klaus. Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften ;; Bd. 60; Variation: Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften ;; Bd. 60. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1987.

Die Kunstkammer: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen Schloss Ambras, [Innsbruck. Führer.]. Führer durch das Kunsthistorisches Museum ;; 24;. Wien, 1977.

Diemer, Peter. Johann Baptist Fickler, Das Inventar Der Münchner Herzoglichen Kunstkammer Von 1598 : Abhandlungen. Neue Folge ;; Heft 125; Variation: Abhandlungen (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse) ;; n.F., Heft 125. München:

228 Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission Beim Verlag C.H. Beck München, 2004.

Diemer, Peter, Dorothea Diemer, Lorenz Seelig, and Elke Bujok. Die Münchner Kunstkammer. München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.

Dückers, Rob and Pieter Roelofs. eds. The Limbourg Brothers: Nijmegen Masters at the French Court 1400-1416, Gent [u.a.]: Ludion, 2005.

Eichberger, Dagmar. ed. Dürer and His Culture. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Eichberger, Dagmar. Women of Distinction: Margaret of York, Margaret of Austria / Bleyerveld, Yvonne,; 1967-. Davidsfonds: Brepols, 2005.

Eisler, Colin. “Two Early Franco-Flemish Embroideries - Suggestions for Their Settings.” The Burlington Magazine 109, no. 775 (October 1967): 571-581.

Elsner, Jaś. Roman Eyes: Visuality & Subjectivity in Art & Text. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Engelman, Max. “Das Krippenwerk des Augsburger Hans Schlottheim.” Der Kunstwanderer, no. 1 (December 1921): 1-31.

Evans, Jessica. Visual Culture: The Reader / Hall, Stuart. London [u.a.]: Sage Publ., 2005.

Evans, Robert John Weston. Rudolf II and His World: A Study in Intellectual History, 1576-1612, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973.

Fernández Alvarez, Manuel. Charles V: Elected Emperor and Hereditary Ruler. Men in office;. London: Thames and Hudson, 1975.

Ferry, Patrick T. “Confessionalization and Popular Preaching: Sermons against Synergism in Reformation Saxony.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 28, no. 4 (Winter 1997): 1143-1166.

Forssman, Erik. “Die Prunkkassette mit der Allegorie der Philosophie von Wenzel Jamnitzer.” Dresdener Kunstblatter 48, no. 4 (2004): 246-249.

Frankl, Paul. “Sustris und die Münchner Michaelskirche.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenen Kunst 10 (1916): 141-151.

Franklin, Michael J. Romantic Representations of British India. Routledge studies in romanticism ;; 7;. London ; New York: Routledge, 2006.

229 Freedberg, David. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Fucíková, Eliska. Rudolf II and Prague: The Court and the City. Prague : Prague Castle Administration ; London ; New York : Thames and Hudson, 1997.

Gamboni, Dario. Capitani, Kunstmuseum Bern, and Bernisches Historisches Museum. Zeichen Der Freiheit: Das Bild Der Republik in Der Kunst Des 16. Bis 20. Jahrhunderts / Germann, Georg. Bern: Verlag Stämpfli & Cie AG, 1991.

Geertz, Clifford. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

———. The Art of Anthropology: Essay and Diagrams. London School of Economics. Monographs on social anthropology no. 67. New Brunswick, N.J: Athlone Press, 1999.

Gerlach, Stephan. Gerlachius, and (Dedicatee). Stephan Gerlachs Deß Aeltern Tage-Buch/ Der Von Zween Glorwürdigsten Römischen Käysern/ Maximiliano Und Rudolpho, Beyderseits Den Andern Dieses Nahmens/ Höchstseeligster Gedächtnüß/ An Die Ottomannische Pforte Zu Constantinopel Abgefertigten/ Und Durch Den Wohlgebohrnen Herrn Hn. David Ungnad/ Freyherrn Zu Sonnegk Und Preyburg &c. ... Mit Würcklicher Erhalt- Und Verlängerung Deß Friedens/ Zwischen Dem Ottomannischen Und Römischen Käyserthum Und Demselben Angehörigen Landen Und Köngreichen &c. Glücklichst-Vollbrachter Gesandtschafft: Auß Denen Gerlachischen/ Zeit Seiner Hierbey Bedienten Hoff-Prediger-Ampts-Stelle/ Eygenhändig Auffgesetzten Und Nachgelassenen Schrifften/ Herfür Gegeben Durch Seinen Enckel M. Samuelem Gerlachium. Maximilian,; II. ; (Associated Name). Franckfurth am Mayn: Zunner, 1674.

Geuffroy, Antoine. (Author). Estat De La Court Du Grant Turc, L'ordre De Sa Gendarmerie, Et Ses Finances, Avec Ung Brief Discours De Leurs Conquestes Depuis Le Premier De Ceste Race. Paris: Chrestien Wechel, 1542.

Gevay, Anton von. Gesandtschaften König Ferdinands I. an Sultan Suleiman I. 1532 - 1536. Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte der Verhältnisse zwischen Östreich, Ungern und der Pforte im XVI. u. XVII. Jahrhundert / Anton v. Gevay ;; Bd. 2;. Wien: Schaumburg, 1838.

Glaser, Hubert. Beiträge Zur Bayerischen Geschichte Und Kunst, 1573-1657. Wittelsbach und Bayern ;; 2/1; Um Glauben und Reich, Kurfürst Maximilian I. ;; [1];. München: Hirmer, 1980.

Goetz, Hans-Werner. Moderne Mediävistik: Stand Und Perspektiven Der Mittelalterforschung. Darmstadt: Primus, 1999.

230 Goetz, Walter Wilhelm. Die Bayerische Politik Im Ersten Jahrzehnt Der Regierung Herzog Albrechts V. Von Baiern, 1550-1560. ALBERT V., Duke of Bavaria. München, 1896.

Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. New approaches to European history ;; 24;. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Millennium ed., with a new preface by the author. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Gombrich, E. H. “Moment and Movement in Art.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 27 (1964): 293-306.

Gotthard, Alex. “'Politice seint wir bäptisch:' Kursachsen und der deutsche Protestantismus im frühen 17. Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für historische Forschunge 20 (1993): 275-319.

Groebner, Valentin. Liquid Assets, Dangerous Gifts: Presents and Politics at the End of the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages series;. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Grössinger, Christa. The World Upside down: English Misericords. London: Harvey Miller, 1997.

Gruber, Alain Charles. The History of Decorative Arts. Classicism and the Baroque in Europe / Pons, Bruno. New York: Abbeville Press, 1996.

Gutfleisch, Barbara, and Joachim Menzhausen. “How a Kunstkammer should be formed: Gabriel Kaltemarkt's advice to Christian I of Saxony on the Formation of an Art Collection.” Journal of the History of Collections 1, no. 1 (1989): 3-32.

Haas, Alois M. Sermo Mysticus: Studien Zu Theologie Und Sprache Der Deutschen Mystik. Dokimion ;; Bd. 4;. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1979.

Haase, Gisela. Sächsisches Glas: Geschichte, Zentren, Dekorationen / Karpinski, Jürgen. München: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1988.

Hainhofer, Philipp. Des Augsburger Patriciers Philipp Hainhofer Reisen Nach Innsbruck Und Dresden. Doering, Oscar,; B. 1858. Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und die Neuzeit.; Neue Folge.; Bd. 10;. Wien, C. Graeser, 1901.

Hainhofer, Phillip. Die Reisen der Augsburg Phillip Hainhofer nach Eichstädt, München, Regensburg in den Jahren 1611, 1612, und 1613. Vol. 8. Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben und Neuberg, 1881.

Hamburger, Jeffrey F. St. John the Divine: The Deified Evangelist in Medieval Art and Theology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

231 Hamm, Berndt. “Frömmigkeit als Gegenstand theologiegeschichtlicher Forschung:Methodisch-historische Überlegungen am Beispiel von Spätmittelalter und Reformation.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 74 (1977): 464-497.

———. “Normative Centering in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Observations on Religiosity, Theology, and Iconology.” Journal of Early Modern History 3, no. 4 (1999): 315-323.

Haspels, Jan Jaap. Royal Music Machines. Zutphen: Walburg pers, 2006.

Hassig, Debra. Medieval Bestiaries: Text, Image, Ideology. RES monographs on anthropology and aesthetics; Variation: RES monographs in anthropology and aesthetics. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Hayward, J. F. 1916-1983. (John Forrest). Virtuoso Goldsmiths and the Triumph of Mannerism, 1540-1620. New York: Rizzoli International, 1976.

Hayward, J.F. “The Mannerist Goldsmiths: 5 Northern Germany, Part VII.” The Connoisseut (September 1970): 22-30.

Heigel, K. “Die Censure in Albaiern.” Archiv für Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels 1 (1876): 5-32.

Hentschel, Walter. “Epitaphe in der Alten Dresdner Frauenkirch: Eine Untersuchung nach Zeichnungen im Kupferstich-Kabinett der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen Dresden.” Jahrbuch Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (1961): 101-125.

Heusinger, Christian V. Riesenholzschitte und Papiertapeten der Renaissance. Uhl: Untersheidheim, 1976.

Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Hilsdale, Cecily J. “Constructing a Byzantine "Augusta:" A Greek Book for a French Bride.” The Art Bulletin 87, no. 3 (September 2005): 458-483.

Hirschbiegel, Jan, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Residenzen-Kommission. Symposium (6th : 1998 : Dresden. Das Frauenzimmer: Die Frau Bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter Und Früher Neuzeit / Paravicini, Werner. Residenzenforschung,; Bd. 11;. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 2000.

Hitchcock, Henry Russell. German Renaissance Architecture. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981.

232 Hoberg, Herman. Die Inventar des Päpstlicher Schatzes in Avignon, 1314-1376, Città del Vaticano: Bibliotheca Aposolica Vaticana, 1944.

Hoffman, Eva Rose F. Late Antique and Medieval Art of the Mediterranean World. Blackwell anthologies in art history ;; 5; Variation: Blackwell anthologies in art history ;; 5. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.

Honegger, Thomas. “A Fox is a Fox: The Fox and the Wolf Reconsidered.” Reinardus: Yearbook of the International Reynard Society 9 (1996): 59-74.

Hsia, R. Po-chia. Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe, 1550-1750. Christianity and society in the modern world;. London ; New York: Routledge, 1989.

Hupp, Otto. Kunstschätze Des Regensburger Rathauses: Beschrieben Von Otto Hupp. S.-Abdr. Aus Dem Vom Magistrat Der Stadt Regensburg Herausgegebenen Werke: Das Rathaus Zu Regensburg 1910. Regensburg J. Habbel, 1910.

Inalcik, Halil. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914 / Quataert, Donald,; 1941-. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

———. SüleymâN the Second [i.e. the First] and His Time / Kafadar, Cemal,; 1954-. Beylerbeyi, Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993.

———. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600. London: Phoenix, 1994.

Isenburg, Wilhelm Karl, and Prinz zu. Schwennicke, Detlev. Europäische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln Zur Geschichte Der Europäischen Staaten / Freytag Von Loringhoven, Frank,; Baron,; 1910-. Marburg: Stargardt, 1978.

Janson, H. W. 1913-1982. (Horst Woldemar). Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Studies of the Warburg Institute,; v. 20;. London, Warburg Institute, University of London, 1952.

Jardine, Lisa. Global Interests: Renaissance Art Between East and West / Brotton, Jerry. Picturing history;. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000.

———. Worldly Goods: A New History of the Renaissance. New York: Nan A. Talese, 1996.

Jonassen, Frederick B. “Lucian's "Saturnalia," the Land of Cockaigne, and the Mummers' Plays.” Folklore 101, no. 1 (1990): 58-68.

Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig. The King's Two Bodies; a Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1957.

233 Kaplan, Paul H. D. 1952- (Paul Henry Daniel). The Rise of the Black Magus in Western Art. Studies in the fine arts.; Iconography ;; no. 9;. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1985.

Kaufman, Peter Iver. “Luther's "Scholastic Phase" Revisited: Grace, Works, and Merit in the Earliest Extant Sermons.” Church History 51, no. 3 (September 1982): 280-289.

Kemp, Martin. “Taking it on Trust: Form and Meaning in Naturalistic Representation.” Archives of Natural History 17, no. 2 (Spring 1990): 127-188.

Klarwill, Victor. Fugger-Zeitungen; Ungedruckte Briefe an Das Haus Fugger Aus Den Jahren 1568-1605. Wien [etc.] Rikola Verlag, 1923.

Koerner, Joseph Leo. “The Mortification of the Image: Death as a Hermeneutic in Hans Baldung Grien.” Representations, no. 10 (Spring 1985): 52-101.

———. The Reformation of the Image. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Koerner, Joseph Leo. (Author). The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art: [University of Chicago Press 1993] / Brilliant, Richard. ; (Author), 1994.

Kohler, Alfred. Ottner. Karl V. 1500-1558: Neue Perspektiven Seiner Herrschaft in Europa Und Ubersee / Haider, Barbara. Zentraleuropa-Studien ;; Bd. 6;. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002.

Kohlhaussen, Heinrich, and Deutscher Verein für Kunstwissenschaft. Minnekästchen Im Mittelalter. Berlin: Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1928.

König, Maria Angela. Weihegaben an U.L. Frau Von Altötting/ 2, Im Rahmen Der Zeitgeschichte: 1492 - 1750. München: Lentner, 1940.

Koziol, Geoffrey. Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1992.

Kretzenbacher, Leopold. Frühbarockes Weinachtsspeil in Kärnten und Steiermark. Klagenfurt: Geschichtesvereines für Kärnten, 1952.

Kubler, George. The Shape of Time; Remarks on the History of Things. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962.

Kugler, Georg Johannes. Seipel, and Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien. Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503-1564 : Wien : Kunsthistorisches Museum ; Milano : Skira, 2003.

Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Austro-Hungarian Monarchy., and Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Jahrbuch Der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien. Wien: A. Schroll & Co., 1883.

234

Kuripesic, Benedikt. Itinerarium, Oder: Wegrayss Küniglich Mayestät Potschafft Gen Constantinopel Zudem Türckischen Keiser Soleyman, Anno 1530. Österreichisch-bosnische Beziehungen ;; Bd. 2;. Klagenfurt [Austria]: Wieser Verlag, 1997.

Kurz, Otto. European Clocks and Watches in the Near East. Studies of the Warburg Institute ;; v. 34;. London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1975.

———. The Decorative Arts of Europe and the Islamic East: Selected Studies. Studies in the history of European art ;; S1;. London: Dorian Press, 1977.

Lesley, Everett P, Smithsonian Institution Cooper-Hewitt National Museum of Design (SI, and Cooper Union Museum for the Arts of Decoration (New York). Enamel: An Historic Survey to the Present Day. New York: The >Cooper Union Museum for the Arts of Decoration, 1954.

Levenson, Jay A, and National Gallery of Art (U. S.). Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration. Washington : National Gallery of Art ; New Haven : Yale University Press, 1991.

Leyser, Karl. Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries / Reuter, Timothy. London ; Rio Grande [Ohio]: Hambledon Press, 1994.

Lietzmann, Hilda. “Der kaiserliche Antiquar Jacopo Strada und Kurfurst August von Sachsen.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 60, no. 3 (1997): 377-399.

———. “Die Geschichte zweier Automaten: Ein weiterer Beitrag zum Werk des Valentin Drausch.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 57, no. 3 (1994): 390-402.

Liliencron, Rochus, Freiherr von,, King of Bavaria,, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, and Historische Kommission. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie ... Auf Veranlassung ... Wegele, Franz X. Von. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot, 1875.

Loebl, A.H. Zur Geschichte der Türkenkriege von 1593-1606. Munich, 1899.

Loth, A. “Augustine on Language.” Literature and Theology 3, no. 2 (Spring 1989): 151-158.

Luther, Martin. Biblia, Das Ist, Die Gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch / Füssel, Stephan. ; Luther Bible of 1534. Köln: Taschen, 2003.

———. D. Martin Luthers Werke; Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar, H. Böhlau, 1883.

———. Dr. Martin Luthers Deutsche Geistliche Lieder: Nebst Den Während Seines Lebens Daza Gebräuchlichen Singweisen Und Einigen Mehrstimmigen Tonsätzen Über Dieselben Von Meistern Des Sechzehnten Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1840.

235 ———. Works of Martin Luther, with Introductions and Notes. Jacobs, Henry Eyster,; 1844-1932. Philadelphia, A.J. Holman company, 1915.

Majoros, Ferenc. Karl V.: Habsburg Als Weltmacht. Graz: Styria, 2000.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. Argonauts of the Western Pacific; an Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, Studies in economics and political science ...; No. 65 in the series of monographs by writers connected with the London school of economics and political science; Variation: Studies in economics and political science ;; no. 65. London, G. Routledge & Sons; New York, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1922.

Marx, Barbara. Kunst und Representation am Dresdner Hof. Munich: Deutsche Kunstverlag, 2005.

Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971.

Maurice, Klaus. Die Deutsche Räderuhr, 1976.

Marr, Alexander and R.J.W. Evans. Curiosity and Wonder from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006.

Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. The Norton library ;; N378;. New York: Norton, 1967.

Mayr, Otto. Authority, Liberty, & Automatic Machinery in Early Modern Europe. Johns Hopkins studies in the history of technology new ser., no. 8. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.

Meyer, Hermann Julius. Meyers Konversations-Lexikon. Leipzig, Bibliographisches Institut, 1893.

Michaelis, Johann Gottfried. Johann Gottfried Michaelis Monumenta Dresdensia, Oder Grab- Und Ehren-Mahle Der Haupt-Stadt Und Vestung Dresden: Besonders Derer ... in Und Außer Der Kirchen Zur Lieben Frauen ... Mit Großer Mühe Zusammen Getragen Und Nebst E. Histor. Vorr. Von Gedachter Kirche Dem Druck Übergeben. Budisin: Richter, 1718.

Michalski, Sergiusz. The Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question in Western and Eastern Europe. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 1993.

Mokyr, Joel. The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton [N.J.]: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Moxey, Keith P. F. Peasants, Warriors, and Wives: Popular Imagery in the Reformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

236 Müller, Theodor, and Erich Steingräber. “Die Franzosiche Goldemailplastik um 1400.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenen Kunst 5 (1954): 29-79.

Necipoglu, Gülru. Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. New York, N.Y. : Architectural History Foundation ; Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1991.

Necipoğlu, Gülru. “Süleyman the Magnificent and the Representation of Power in the Context of Ottoman-Hapsburg-Papal Rivalry.” The Art Bulletin 71, no. 3 (September 1989): 401-427.

Nicollier-De Weck, Béatrice. Hubert Languet (1518-1581): Un Réseau Politique International, De Melanchthon À Guillaume d'Orange. Travaux d'humanisme et Renaissance ;; no 293;. Genève: Libr. Droz, 1995.

Olsen, B. “Material Culture after Text: re-membering things.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 36, no. 3 (2003): 87-104.

Olson, Roberta J. M. Italian Renaissance Sculpture. World of art;. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992.

Oman, Charles. Silver Nefs, London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1963.

Osborne, June. Entertaining Elizabeth I: The Progresses and Great Houses of Her Time. London: Bishopsgate Press, 1989.

Parshall, Peter. “Imago Contrafacta: images and facts in the Northern Renaissance.” Art History 16 (December 1993): 554-579.

Pinney, Christopher. “Creole Europe: The Reflection of a Reflection.” Journal of New Zealand Literature, no. 20 (2002): 125-161.

Polzer, Joseph. “Ambrogio Lorenzetti's "War and Peace" Murals Revisited: Contributions to the Meaning of the "Good Government Allegory".” Artibus et Historiae 23, no. 45 (2002): 63-105.

Preda, Alex. “The Turn to Things: Arguments for a Sociological Theory of Things.” The Sociological Quarterly 40, no. 2 (Spring 1999): 347-366.

Press, Volker. “The Habsburg Court as Center of the Imperial Government.” The Journal of Modern History 58 (December 1986): S23-S45.

Price, Derek J. de Solla. “Automata and the Origins of Mechanism and Mechanistic Philosophy.” Technology and Culture 5, no. 1 (Winter 1964): 9-23.

Protz, Albert. Mechanische Musikinstrumente. Kassel: Bärenreiter-Verlag, 1939.

237 Raby, Julian. Venice, Dürer, and the Oriental Mode. The Hans Huth memorial studies ;; 1;. [S.l.] : Islamic Art Publications ; Totowa, N.J. : Distributed by Sotheby Publications, 1982.

Ramberti, Benedetto. Libri Tre Delle Cose De Tvrchi.: Nel Primo Si Descriue Il Uiaggio Da Venetia À Costantinopoli, Con Gli Nomi De Luoghi Antichi & Moderni: Nel Secondo La Porta, Cioe La Corte De Soltan Soleymano, Signor De Turchi: Nel Terzo Il Modo Del Reggere Il Stato & Imperio Suo. Aldo,; Figlivoli Di. ; PP: In Venegia: In casa de' figlivoli di Aldo., 1539.

Randall, Lilian M. C. Images in the Margins of Gothic Manuscripts. California studies in the history of art,; 4;. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1966.

Rawlinson, H. G. “The Embassy of William Harborne to Constantinople, 1583-8.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5. Fourth Series (1922): 1-27.

Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America, 1450-1650. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Reuter, Timothy. “Pre-Gregorian Mentalities.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45 (1994): 465-474.

Rezak, Brigitte Bedos. “The King Enthroned: A New Theme in Aglo Saxon Royal Econography, The Seal of Edward the Confessor and its Political Implications.” Acta XI (1984): 53-88.

Rogers, J. M. Batur. The Topkapi Saray Museum: Architecture--the Harem and Other Buildings / Çig, Kemal,; 1913-1983. Boston: Little, Brown, 1988.

Rosenthal, Earl. “Plus Ultra, Non plus Ultra, and the Columnar Device of Emperor Charles V.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34 (1971): 204-228.

Rosenthal, Earl E. “Die Reichskrone de Wiener Krone und der Krone Karls des Grosen im 1520.” Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 66 (1970): 7-48.

———. “The Invention of the Columnar Device of Emperor Charles V at the Court of Burgundy in Flanders in 1516.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36 (1973): 198-230.

Rössler, Hans. Geschichte Und Strukturen Der Evangelischen Bewegung Im Bistum Freising 1520-1571. Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns,; Bd. 42;. Nürnberg, Verein für Bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1966.

Rüstow, Alexander. “Lutherana Tragoedia Artis.” Schweizer Monatshefte 39 (1959): 891-906.

Sachs, Hans. Sämtliche Fabeln Und Schwänke. Neudrucke deutscher Litteraturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts ;; no. 110-117, 126-134, 164-169, 193-199, 207-211, 231-235; Variation: Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts ;; no. 110-117, 126-134, 164-169, 193-199, 207-211, 231-235. Halle a.S.: M. Niemeyer, 1893.

238

Schilling, Heinz, and Germany) Verein für Reformationsgeschichte. Wissenschaftliches Symposion (5th : 1985 : Reinhausen. Die Reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland: Das Problem Der "Zweiten Reformation": Wissenschaftliches Symposion Des Vereins Für Reformationsgeschichte 1985. Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte ;; Bd. 195;. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1986.

Schorn-Schütte, Luise. Karl V.: Kaiser Zwischen Mittelalter Und Neuzeit. Beck'sche Reihe.; Wissen;. München: C.H. Beck, 2000.

Schramm, Percy Ernst. Die Zeitgenössischen Bildnisse Karls Des Grossen: Variation: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance ;; Bd. 29. Hildesheim, Gerstenberg, 1973.

———. Kaiser, Könige Und Päpste. Gesammelte Aufsätze Zur Geschichte Des Mittelalters. Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1968.

Schröder, Hans von. Dirich Utermarke Ein Hamburger Goldschmied Der Renaissance: Von Hans Schröder. [Umschlagtitel]. Hamburg [Museum f. Hamburgische Geschichte], 1939.

Schulin, Ernst. Kaiser Karl V.: Geschichte Eines Übergrossen Wirkungsbereiches. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999.

Schuselka, Ernst. Fillitz, Kunsthistorisches Museum, and (Wien). Katalog Der Sammlung Für Plastik Und Kunstgewerbe / Neumann, Erwin. Führer durch das Kunsthistorische Museum ;; 9, 11;. Wien: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1964.

Schweigger, Salomon. Ein Newe Reyßbeschreibung Auß Teutschland Nach Constantinopel Und Jerusalem: Darinn Die Gelegenheit Derselben Länder, Städt ..., Der Innwohnenten Völcker Art, Sitten, Gebreuch ... Jnsonderheit Die Jetzige Ware Gestalt Deß H. Grabs, Der Stadt Jerusalem ... Deßgleichen Des Türckischen Reichs Gubernation, Policey, Hofhaltung ... ; Mit Hundert Schönen Newen Figuren ... Jn III. Unterschiedlichen Büchern ... Nürnberg: Lantzenberger, 1608.

Science and the Arts in the Renaissance. Folger Institute symposia. Washington, D.C: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1985.

Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural Knowledge. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Scribner, R. W. “Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany.” Past & Present, no. 110 (February 1986): 38-68.

239 Scribner, Robert W. For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation. Cambridge studies in oral and literate culture ;; 2;. Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

———. Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany. London ; Ronceverte, WV, U.S.A.: Hambledon Press, 1987.

Sievernich, Gereon, and Berliner Festspiele. Europa Und Der Orient, 800-1900 / Budde, Hendrik. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, 1989.

Silver, Larry, Davis Museum and Cultural Center, Yale University., and Philadelphia Museum of Art. Grand Scale: Monumental Prints in the Age of Dürer and Titian / Wyckoff, Elizabeth. Wellesley, Mass. : Davis Museum and Cultural Center, Wellesley College ; New Haven : in association with Yale University Press, 2008.

Smith, Jeffrey Chipps, and Archer M. Huntington Art Gallery. New Perspectives on the Art of Renaissance Nuremberg: Five Essays. [Austin]: Archer M. Huntington Art Gallery, College of Fine Arts, University of Texas at Austin, 1985.

Smyth, Craig Hugh. Garfagnini. Florence and Milan : Villa I Tatti ;; 11; Variation: Villa I Tatti (Series) ;; 11. Florence: La Nuova Italia editrice, 1989.

Soergel, Philip M. Wondrous in His Saints Counter-Reformation Propaganda in Bavaria. Studies on the history of society and culture ;; 17;. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Speel, Erika. Dictionary of Enamelling. Aldershot, Hants. ; Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate, 1998.

Stammler, Wolfgang. Die Deutsche Literatur Des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon / Langosch, Karl,; 1903-1992. Berlin ; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977.

Stetten, Paul von. Kunstgewerbe Und Handwerksgeschichte Der Reichsstadt Augsburg. Augsburg, 1779.

Strauss, Gerald. Luther's House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Streng, Friedrich. “Augsburger Meister der Schmiedgasse um 1600.” Landesverein für Familienkunde 1, no. 1 (1963): 247-287.

Strøm-Olsen, Rolf. “Dynastic Ritual and Politics in Early Modern Burgundy: The Baptism of Charles V.” Past & Present, no. 175 (May 2002): 34-64.

Swan, Claudia. “Ad vivum, near het leven, from the life: considerations on a mode of representation.” Word and Image 11 (December 1995): 353-372.

240

Syndram, Dirk, N. Y.) Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden., and Fondazione Memmo (Italy). Princely Splendor: The Dresden Court, 1580-1620 / Scherner, Antje. Milan : Electa ; Dresden : Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, 2004.

Syndram, Dirk, and Staatliche Kunstsammlungen (Dresden). Schatzkunst Der Renaissance Und Des Barock: Das Grüne Gewölbe Zu Dresden. Meisterwerke;. München ; Berlin: Dt. Kunstverl., 2004.

Tanner, Norman, and Sethina Watson. “Least of the Laity: the minimum requirements for a medieval christian.” Journal of Medieval History 32 (2006): 395-423.

Terzioğlu, Derin. “The Imperial Circumcision Festival of 1582: An Interpretation.” Muqarnas 12 (1995): 84-100.

The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata, 1550-1650. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1980.

The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Thiessen, Gesa Elsbeth. Theological Aesthetics: A Reader. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2005.

Tietze, Hans. Die Denkmale Des Politischen Bezirkes Horn, Hoernes, Moritz,; 1852-1917. Oesterreichische Kunsttopographie.; Die Denkmale des politischen Bezirkes Horn in Niederösterreich.; Bd. 5: 1-2;. Wien, In Kommission bei A. Schroll, 1911.

Tipton, Susan. Res Publica Bene Ordinata : Studien zur Kunstgeschichte,; Bd. 104;. Hildesheim ; New York: G. Olms, 1996.

Trexler, Richard C. The Journey of the Magi: Meanings in History of a Christian Story. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Vantuono, William. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: A Dual-Language Version. Garland reference library of the humanities ;; vol. 1265;. New York: Garland Pub., 1991.

Victoria and Albert Museum. Princely Magnificence: Court Jewels of the Renaissance, 1500- 1630: [exposition] 15th October 1980-1st February 1981. London: Debrett's Peerage in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum, 1980.

Von Grumbach, Argula. Argula Von Grumbach: A Woman's Voice in the Reformation / Matheson, Peter. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.

241 Vratislav z Mitrovic, Václav. Adventures of Baron Wenceslas Wratislaw of Mitrowitz. What He Saw in the Turkish Metropolis, Constantinople; Experienced in His Captivity; and After His Happy Return to His Country, Committed to Writing in the Year of Our Lord 1599. London, Bell & Daldy, 1862.

Warner, David A. “Ritual and Memory in the Ottonian Reich: The Ceremony of Adventus.” Speculum 76, no. 2 (April 2001): 255-283.

Warner, David A. “Thietmar of Merseburg on Rituals of Kingship.” Viator 26 (1995): 56-76.

Warnke, Casten Peter. “Cellini’s ‘Salieria.’ Der Triumph des Goldschmieds,” Artibus et Historiae 21, no. 42 (2000): 9-29.

Watanabe-O'Kelly, Helen. Court Culture in Dresden: From Renaissance to Baroque. Houndmills, Basingstoke ; New York: Palgrave, 2002.

Wentersdorf, Karl P. Word, Picture, and Spectacle: Papers / Davidson, Clifford. Early drama, art, and music monograph series ;; 5;. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1984.

Westfehling, Uwe, Schnütgen-Museum, Cologne (Germany), and Aussenreferat. Die Messe Gregors Des Grossen: Vision, Kunst, Realität: Katalog Und Führer Zu Einer Ausstellung Im Schnütgen-Museum Der Stadt Köln. Köln: Die Stadt, 1982.

Wilson, Bronwen. “Reflecting on the Turk in late sixteenth-century portrait books.” Word and Image 19, no. 1-2 (2003): 38-58.

———. The World in Venice: Print, the City and Early Modern Identity. Studies in book and print culture;. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005.

Wilson, Jean C. Painting in Bruges at the Close of the Middle Ages: Studies in Society and Visual Culture. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1998.

Wood, Christopher S. Forgery, Replica, Fiction: Temporalities of German Renaissance Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Wunder, Amanda. “Western ,Travelers, Eastern Antiquities, and the Image of the Turk in Early

Modern Europe.” Journal of Early Modern History 7, no. 1-2 (2003): 89-119.

242 APPENDIX

MUNICH

Diemer, Peter. Johann Baptist Fickler, Das Inventar Der Münchner Herzoglichen Kunstkammer Von 1598 : Abhandlungen. Neue Folge ;; Heft 125; Variation: Abhandlungen (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse) ;; n.F., Heft 125. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission Beim Verlag C.H. Beck München, 2004.

3390 “Auf einem uberlengten stöckl, von Hebeno ein grien geschelzterberg, darauf ein viereckhet gulden gestell in die vierung mit rundafelin versezt, auf welchem sizt ein Aff von gold, geschmelzt, mit einer blawen Kappen, und ein Paketen in der handt, vor im ein gulden Pulpit, darauf ein gesangbuech, der wirt von einem urwerckh bewegt, das der Aff mit der Paketen die Mensur schlegt. Neben dem Affen ligen ain Hirsch, ain stuckh wildt von goldt, waiß geschmelzt, ain gulden Rech. Oberst neben dem berg ain gulderner baum mit da in und großen schmaragt versezt, underst neben dem berg ain anderer geschmeltzter baum. Auf der seitens des stöckhels würt ein Deckhel fürgeschoben, darunder ein täfel in dem ein wald, darinen hirschen und Rech, von minature gemahlt, in mitten am fürschub ain Porten an deren baiderseits ain Pyramis mit rubin am fueß versezt, oben auf geschmelzt, am Spiz ein Perlin hinder iedem ein Pyramis ain gulden turlen, auf der objerseitten zwai schubladin, so mit gulden, geschmelzten hirshköpfl heraußgezogen werden. In dem großern ligen ain guldene Reichpfeiffen, auch in dem clainern schublädl, das ein falsch, an idern ein geschmelzt gulden hirshköpfl. Das fueteral hiezu ist inwendig mit weißem Attlaß gefüertet, von außen mit Plawen sammet uberzogen.”

Hainhofer, Phillip. Die Reisen der Augsburg Phillip Hainhofer nach Eichstädt, München, Regensburg in den Jahren 1611, 1612, und 1613. Vol. 8. Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben und Neuberg, 1881.

“Ain schwartzer Berg aus lapide elidio, darob sitzt ain af (sic) mit einem musicbuch vor Ihme, der schlägt den tact und rühret die aguen, und umb ihn hero siztzen etliche their, alle gulden und geschmelzt, sihet als wan der wolf den gänsen predigte,”

DRESDEN

HStA Inventar Nr. 1

Fol. 254r “Vorguldt kunstreich Schiff oder nave mit einer virtel und stunden schlagenden Uhr, welch alle 24. Stunden muß aufgetzogen werden, oben mit dreyen

243 mastbaumen, uf welchen die Bußknechte im Mastkörben umbgehen, und die Viertel und Stunden auf den glöcklein mit hammern schlagen. Inwendigk die Rom. Key. Mayt. auf den Keyerlichen stul sitzendt, und vor deselben die sieben Churfürsten und Herolden mit erzeigung ihrer Reverenz zu endtfalunge der lehen umgehendt, Deßgleichen zehen Trommeter und ein Heerpauker, die da Wechselweise zu tisch blasen, auch ein Drommelschleger und drey Trabandten sambt 16 kleinen stucklein, deren man II. Laden Khan, und von sich selbsten abgehen, darbey ein Futter, stehet auf einer grünen langen tafel mit tuch behengt.

HStA Inventar Nr. 2

Fol. 121r “Kunstlich mößen und vorguldt schieff oder Nave, mit einer virtel und stunden schlagen: den Uhr, welch alle 24. Stunden muß ufgezogen werden, oben mit drey mastbeument, auf welchen die Büßleuchte im Mast-Korben umbgehen, und die viertel und stunden uf den Glöcklein mit Hammern schlagen, Inwendigk di Rom. Key. Mayt: auf dem Keyserlichen stull sitzend und vor derselben die siben Churfürsten und Herolden mit erzeigung ihrer Reürentz zu entfahlunge der lehen umbgehendt, Deßgleichen 10 Trommetter und ein Heer: Bauker, auch ein Trommelschlager und sieben trabanten, samt 16. Kleinen stuckhen so man alle loßbrennen und abschließen kann, und von sich selbst loß gehen, Darzu ein futter gehörigk.”

HStA Inventar Nr. 3

Fol. 363v “Die Geburt Christi von Kupfer gemacht, versilbert und vergoldet und mit allerlei Bildwerk gezieret…ist Churfürst Christian, hochlöblicher Gedächtnis von derselben geliebten Gemahlin zum Heiligen Christ verehret worden anno 1589.”

HStA Inventar Nr. 4

Fol.496r. “Ein schon groß uhrwergk, darinnen die Geburth Christi wie auch der Hirten und Weisen auf dem Morgenland ihre Bildwergk zu finden, welch in ablauffung des Uhrwergks herumb gehen und sich voer dem Kindlein neigen, oben auch sich mit zweyen flügeln voneineander thut, die Engle gleichsamm wie vom Himmel herabgflihen undt durch ein Pfeifenwergk, ‘Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich hehr’ singenn: Entlich Joseph wiegt und Maria durch ein Pfeifwergk singet ‘Joseph lieber Joseph mein.’ Is alles von Kupffer und Messing vergüldet und versilbert, und

244 ist Churfürst Christiano I zu Sacßen Hochseeligten gedechtnis und deroselben vielgeliebten Gehahl zum Heyligen Christ verehrt wordern. Anno. 1589.”

Fol. 269v “Ein New große Spiegeluhr vom Kupffer gemacht und verguld, schlegt Viertel und Stunden, wecker, weiset den Calendar und die Sieben Planeten, stehet auff einem überlengten geheüse, in welchen des Bacchi Opffer, Spectacul und Triumph in Schlagen herumb gehet und vor ohme eine Kessel Trummel geschlagen wird”

Hainhofer, Philipp. Des Augsburger Patriciers Philipp Hainhofer Reisen Nach Innsbruck Und Dresden. Doering, Oscar,; B. 1858. Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und die Neuzeit.; Neue Folge.; Bd. 10;. Wien, C. Graeser, 1901.

Pg. 163 “Ain grosse uhrwerckh in welchem die minuten viertel, und ganze stunden, auch des monats schein zu sehen, un kan allerleÿ lieder auf der welt (meherleÿ melody zu geben auf glockenwerckh zu schlagen) gesetzt werden, treibt auch ain pfeiffelwerckh, desgleichen ain instrumentem musicale und ainem heerpaucker samt etlichen trommerteren mit ihrem blaswerckh.”

245 Pg. 166 “Zwaÿ schöner uhren, deren aine ain Elephant, die andere ain schwan, und so

man ihnen ain glass wasser fürhaltet, dasselbige aussauffen.”

“Ain schönes weis- und schlag uhrwerck, darinn der guguk mit seinem Schnabel und geschreÿ die viertel stunden andeutet, die stunden mit den flüglen schlegt, und beÿm schwaif zucker aussprizt.”

“Zway schöne von gantzem silber secundum longitudinem and latitudinen ausgethaille globj, welche alles coelestis durch ain uhrwerckh von dem Hercule, terrestris aber vom Atlante auf ainem tisch fortgetragen, und an stat trinckgeschirren gebraucht können werden.”

Pg. 167 “Allerleÿ schöne uhrwerk, wie ain thurn, daran die Romische Kaÿserliche brustbilder von silber. Auf ainem gang steen dis hausleuthe und blasen durch ain pfeiffwerck, oben schlagen ains ieden planeten die minuten, and wirt sonst das uhrwerk durch ein Cristallin Kugeln im lauf aines schneckengangs getriben, wan es unden einfellt, steigt es in moment omit verwunderung aines minuten zaigers wider in die hohe.”

“Ain schönes uhrwerk, welches auf glocken allerleÿ Weynachtlieder schlegt, etliche engel under der mutter Mariae und des Kindlein Jesu augen bewegt.”

Pg. 168 “Zweÿ schöne hundlein, darinn uhrwerk mit bewegung ihrer augen zu befinden. Ain vehrlein mit dem pelican und seinem iungen, wann es schlegt, so bewegen sie sich.”

“Ain beer, wan es schlegt, so bewegt er die augen die tanzen, rüssel, und baucket darbeÿ ain waÿdmann des horn ansetzt als ob er blies.”

“Ain schönes uhrwerk, wie Nessus dem Herculi sein weib entführet, von ganzem silber, schönen rubin, smaragden und perlen geziert, gehet auf ain tafel fort, schiesset auch pfeil von sich, bewögt samt etlichen hunden kopf und augen.”

“Ain Schiff, so auf ainer tafel etliche bootsleuth darinnen forttreiben, wan es still stehet, aine thür sich aufthut, siben Churfursten des Reichs heraußgehen, Reverenz für Kaÿ. Maÿ bezeugen Kaÿ. Maÿ. mit dem scepter und haupt gleichsam die lehen gibt, etlich trommeter wechselweisse blasen, ain heerpaucker auf den Kesselbauken schlegt in dem Mastbaum die Schlaguhren, und sonsten anderen bewegung vil zu sehen, vom Johann Schlothaimer zu Augsburg gemacht ist worden.”

Pg. 173 “Ain schönes uhrwerk, wie die Indianer die Elephanten mit ainem thurn und kasten, samt etlichen personen führen, schlegt ain mohr im fortgehen auf ainer tafel auf der pauken ain bogen von sich.”

246 Ain ander schön uhrwerk, darin da lämmtlein Gottes die stund bleket, die engel allerleÿ passions instrumenta zur creuzigung Christi herumbtragen auch allerleÿ Osterlieder auf glockenwerk spilen.”

Pg. 174 “Ain uhr, darinn der Baccus sein fest celebriert, bewegt das maul im herumbtragen, al ob er von ainer braatwurst esse trinkt auch zum offtern, darüber zween Philosophi die kopf schüttlen, circul und sphaeren herumbwenden, und ein Satyrus für dem Baccho pauket.” Pg. 176 “Ain schönes vhrwerck, darinnen die geburt Christj samt der raÿse der weysen aus Morenland, wie auch der engel herabfahrung vom himmel, ochs und esels sprung, suchung und anbetung her hirten zu sehen, auch etlich Weihenact gesang durch ain pffeifenwerck zu hören, vom Schlotthammer.”

“Ain schöner grosser pfau, welcher in herumbgeben schreÿt, den kopf wendet, die augen glisset, entlichen den ganzen lieb, und ain rad oder aine wannen mit dem schwanz drehet aufrichtet auch zucker fallen lasset.”

Pg. 176 “Ain Uhrwerk in ainer pulferflaschen in Dolchen knöpfen in ainmen Kriechenden schneken: item in Kriechenden spinnen in ohrengehengen.”

Pg. 179 “Ain schönes von wachs possierte kindlein welches, wann es gewiegt wirt, den leib, füsse, augen und ärme rhüren thut.”

Tobias Beutel, Chur-Fürstlicher Sächsischer stets grünender hoher Cerdern=Wald auf dem grünen Rauten-Grunde der…(Dresden, 1671)

N2. “ Der funftlich beweglichen Sachen und Uhrwercke werden zum wenigsten hundert stuck gezehlet/ die vorneumsten sind: Das grosse Astronomische Uhrwerck/ so Chur=fürst Augsto (hochstseeligsten Andectens) 1600.Rthlr.gecostet; Ein Uhrwerk von der Geburt Christi; Zwen in Form wie Schiffe/ als Papegonen/ ein als ein Pfau/ Ouctguct/ Lamb/ und andere thiere.” n2.

AMBRAS Die Kunstkammer: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen Schloss Ambras, [Innsbruck. Führer.]. Führer durch das Kunsthistorisches Museum ;; 24;. Wien, 1977.

247

CCL “Mer ain schöne runde vergult uhr, so umb und umb mit schön getribnen fügurn, oben be idem ziager mit aim mann – und weibskopf und ain kugel, die den tage und nacht zaigt.”

CCL “Widerumb ain schöne hoch vergulte hur, oben das geheüs be idem glöggl durchbrochen, oben auf die Fortuna auf ainer runden kugl, auf allen seiten mit schönen figurn, so funf ziager hat, mit lidern geheis, mit rottem sammet gefüedert.”

CCL “Ain uhrwerk in aim gulden ring one zaiger; bemelte zwai stukh ligen in ainem gstätle.”

CCL “Mer ain hülzener Pachus auf ainem hülzen fuesz.”

CCL “Mer ain stöcklein, darbei ist Vulcanus, hat ain hammer in der hand and schlage auf ain glöggl.”

CCL “Mer das uhrwerch mit den tromettern, so Herzog Wilhelm in Bayern geen Thurnegg hat vereht.” (Trompetenautomat, Wien) (Gift) Pg. CCLXVII Automaton in Silbercammer, “Ain hoches schönes alts gschirr, auf dem luckh siczt ain Kaiser in seinem tron under aim gwelb auf seiln (columns), darunder ain uhrwerch, unden herumb die siben curfürsten, so da, wann uhrwerck gericht ist, im cürcl umbgeen und sich vor dem Kaiser naigen, kombt her von Cardinal Otto von Augsburg, wigt 39 marckh 6 lot.” Hainhofer, Philipp. Des Augsburger Patriciers Philipp Hainhofer Reisen Nach Innsbruck Und Dresden. Doering, Oscar,; B. 1858. Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und die Neuzeit.; Neue Folge.; Bd. 10;. Wien, C. Graeser, 1901.

Pg. 42 “Ain Uhrwerk, welches ain Elephant ist, der ain thurn trägt, außlösung des Uhrwerchs an 4. Orten geschätz loßnet.”

PRAGUE Kunstkammerinventar Kaiser Rudolfs II 107-1611, Rotraut Bauer and Herbert Haupt eds. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien,

(1496) “In einer runden gemalten laden 5 kleine uhrlein beysamen, das eine darunder ist formirt als ein büchlin, unnd ein mayenkefer ist bey disen 5 urlein, auch mit rederwerckh, der geht auf einem tisch, such mehr uhrn hinden folio 338”

248 (257) “In einem grossen schwartz hiltzin 8-eggeten hoch zugespitzten futral ein silbern vergulte schaln gleich einem brunnen, wie mans dann mit einem uhrschlissel kan auffziehen und mit wein springen lassen, oben auf steht ein Judit mit Holoferni haubt, daraus rotter wein springen kan, die schalen is mit vil stainen, blument, und tierlein geziert, ein schön werkh, das weiblin geht umb.” (1751) “Das grosse silbern schiff mit den trometern, welchs man kan wie ein uhr auffziehen, das es auff einem geht, in nussbaumin kasten mit 2 fligl.” (1753) “Item des Hanns von Weli kriegschiff oder naven von holtz geschnitzt und gemalt.” (2056) “Ein kindlein, welches den kopf und füß bewegt, in seinem bettlin und wiegen.” 2139 (374) “Ein hoch uhrwerckh gleich ein turm, geht mit kugeln, die einer larven auß dem maul farn, sein futtral ist mit schwartz samet und gulden passement verbrembt.” 2140 (375) “Ein gefiert uhrwerckh mit zappenleder umbfangen, mit crystalline gleser, darzwischen 2 kugelen von cristall hin und wider lauffen, weiset wie andere uhrn, vom Christoff Marggrafen ge:” 2141 (376) “Ein ander uhrwerckh von C. Marggrafen mit einer perspectif und gemalten landtschafft, darin laufft helffenbainin kügelin hin und wider uff 2 stähline saitten, zeigt und schlegt, ste uff seinem futter oder kästlin.” 2142 (377) “Ein uhr oder rederwerckh, ist ein pfaw, geht und wendt sich ringsumb, shreitt und macht eine wannen mit seinem schwaiff von rechten federn, steht auff der tafel der kc:.” 2143 (90) “Ein von wachs und natürlichen farben possiert weibsbrustbild in einem nußbaumin kasten, welche zurugk im kopf wirt uffzogen wie ein uhr, die verwendt die augen, auf der tafel.” 2144 (378) “Ein klein werckhlin uff einem ebinen fuß stehendt, mit 4 piramiden vergult, oben auf ist ein storgkennest, die schnadern mit den schnäbeln und thun die fligel auf, wan mans aufzeucht wie ein uhr, uf der tafel.” 2145 (379) “Ein ander werckh vom C. Marggraven mit veyelbraunem samet überzogen, ist ein waxin bild, schlegt uff der cittern, mit dem kopf und hand sich bewegendt, man zeuchts auf wie ein uhrwerckh, schlecht ein fantasia.”

249 2146 (380) “Ein uhrwerckh so von Don Giuley verlassenschafft kommen, hatt 3 turm und 4 schlagwerckh, hatt ein Bachustriumph mit der bauggken under andere zierd mehr.” 2147 (381) “Das grosse music und schlagwerckh mit vilen figurn und gutten stainen versetzt, welches Geörg Beyrlin ud N. Sand von Augsburg Ihr. May: verkaufft.” 2148 (384) “Ein wreck ebenim geheuß, hatt unden zwen uffzüg, hatt ein pfeiffwerckh, macht ettlichen figurn ein dantz und intrada, oben auf ist ein vergultter berg, da erscheint ein jäger, der blasst auf seinem horn und jagt Hirsch, rech, und bern.” 2149 (423) “Ein spinnredlin mi taller zugehör von holtz, wan man es umbtreibt, schlecht es uff messin saitten dem pergamascho und ein fantasy.” 2193 (425) “Ein dockenwerckh, so man aufzeucht wie ein uhr, ist in einem grienen kästlin, ein Pfeiffer, ein trommelschlager und ein landtsknechtin, recht beklaidet und thut jades sein wesen.” 2194 (426) “Ein jung knäblin in einem langen röckhlin beklaidet, welches man auch wie ein uhr aufzeucht, schlegt natürlich die trummel und geht umbher.” 2195 (427) “Ein messin hund ligendt mit uhrwerck, ligt uff ebenim kestlin, riert die augen, dabey ein Türk, zaigt mit seinem stab die stund, hatt ein schlagwerkh vom Jerg Frommüller.” 2196 (428) “Ein messing vergultte schiltkrott, die durch uhrwerckh auch geht, vom Frommüller.” Folio 366 (2403) “Der nußbaumin kasten in forma eines tabernaculs, darin ein waxin brustbild, so durch rederwerckh die augen verwendt.” Folio 368 (2420) “Ein kleinotlin in einem blolichten seckhelin in gemalten ledlin ligendt, ist inwendig der englische gruß und bewegen sich der engel und die Maria mit kopf und hendt, hatt Herman Dort, ein Westphelling goldschmeid gemacht.” Folio 368 (2421) “Ein anders kleinodlin mit einem Saint Hieronymo, der bewegt den kopf und schlegt sich mit dem stain an die brust, in einem veyelbraun daffetin seckelin in obgemeltem schächtelin.” Folio 368 (2422) “Ein ander kleinotlin uff die obige manier, darin ein HIS. kindlein sitzendt und sich mit hendt und kopflin bewegendt, auch in veyelbraunem seckelin.” Folio 368 (2423) “Ein ander kleinotlin gar klein, darin ein Saint Francescho, der sich mit kopf und hand bewegt, ist auch in veyelbraunem seckelin.”

250 Folio 368 (2424) “1.1. kleine runde gemalte schechtelin, ist in jedem ein bewegende schiltkrott, so sich mit füeß und köpflein bewegen.” Folio 368 (2425) “Ein schnegg darauff ein kindlein mit einem apfel in einer und in der andern hand ein blümlein heltt udn so der schnegg auffgezogen ist, gehet e ruff einem tisch fort, in schwartz liderm mit goldt uffgetruckhtem futral.” Folio 368 (2426) “Ein kleine schiltkrott mit uhrwerk, welche auch geht.”

Folio 368 (2427) “Ein grosse spinne mit uhrwerckh so uff einem tisch fortlauff wann siuffgezogen wirt.”