An earlier draft of this paper was read at the American Historical Association meeting in New York, December 29, 1971. The author wishes to acknowledge here his indebtedness to his respondent at that session, Professor Gottfried Krodel, for several valuable criticisms and suggestions.

1. Christensen, Carl C., “Municipal Patronage and the Crisis of the Arts in Reformation Nuernberg,” Church History, XXXVI (1967), 140–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I borrowed the term from Dehio, Georg, “Die Krisis der deutschen Kunst im sechzehnten Jahrhundert,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, XII (1914), 1–16.Google Scholar

2. Baron, Hans, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, rev. (Princeton, N. J., 1966), p. 443.Google Scholar For another discussion, by a historian, of the meaning and proper use of the term, see Schöffer, I., “Did Holland's Golden Age Co-incide with a Period of Crisis?” Acta Historiae Neerlandica, I (1966), esp. p. 87.Google Scholar

3. Art historians have become increasingly conscious of the impropriety of attempting to pass judgment on the relative merits of one historical style as over against another. See Hauser, Arnold, The Philosophy of Art History (Cleveland, Ohio, 1963), pp. 216–17.Google Scholar But, as Hauser goes on to point out (p. 219): “From the correct insight that a work is best judged by the historian according to the principles of its own stylistic ideals, it by no means follows that no tension ever exists between what an artist intends and what he can accomplish. In reality, not only do we often see incompetent individual works, but it is possible for all the known examples of a style, e.g., the works of early Christian painting, to fall far short of what their creators are likely to have intended.”

4. Benesch, Otto, German Painting: From Dürer to Holdbein, trans. Harrison, H. S. B. (Geneva, 1966), p. 149;Google ScholarFischer, Otto, Geschichte der deutschen Malerei (Munich, 1942), pp. 303–8;Google ScholarCuttler, Charles D., Northern Painting from Pucelle to Breugel (New York, 1968), p. 415;Google ScholarDickinson, Helen A., German Masters of Art (New York, 1914), pp. 283–84.Google Scholar

5. von der Osten, Gert and Vey, Horst, Painting and Sculpture in Germany and the Netherlands 1500 to 1600, trans. Hottinger, Mary (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1969), pp. 283–87;Google ScholarFeulner, Adolf and Müller, Theodor, Geschichte der deutschen Plastik (Munich, 1953), pp. 441–42;Google ScholarPost, Chandler R., A History of European and American Sculpture (Cambridge, Mass., 1921), I, 253, 256;Google ScholarPinder, Wilhelm, Die deutsche Plastik: Vom ausgehenden Mittelalter bis zum Ende der Renaissance (Potsdam, 1929), II, 483.Google Scholar

6. Fischer, Otto, Geschichte der deutschen Zeichnung und Graphik (Munich, 1951), p. 360;Google ScholarHind, Arthur M., A History of Engraving & Etching (Boston, 1923), pp. 81, 109;Google ScholarHind, Arthur M., An Introduction to a History Woodcut (London, 1935), I, 41;Google ScholarZigrosser, Carl, Six Centuries of Fine Prints (New York, 1939), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

7. Janson, H. W., in his Key Monuments of the History of Art: A Visual Survey (New York, 1959), includes fifteen examples of German art from the period 1480–1540, but none at all from the period 1540–1600Google Scholar. It goes without saying, of course, that this later period was not totally lacking in competent painters and sculptors and in continued artistic productivity, particularly in the decorative arts. One craft, for example, which apparently did not decline was that of the goldsmith: von der Osten and Vey, p. 285; also, Janssen, Johannes, History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages, trans. Christie, A. M. and Mitchell, M. A., 16 vols. (London, 1896–1910), XI, 181ff.Google Scholar

8. Trevor-Roper, Hugh, The Rise of Christian Europe (New York, 1965), p. 194.Google Scholar

9. The question has for centuries been a concern of the confessional polemicists. This has been noted, for example, by Woltmann, Alfred, Die deutsche Kunst und die Reformation (Berlin, 1867), p. 7.Google Scholar

10. For references to historians who once did, see Rüstow, Alexander, “Lutherana Tragoedia Artis,” Schweizer Monatshefte, XXXIX (1959), 891;Google Scholar Janssen, XI, 180, fn. 2. Janssen himself seems, in his dating of the decline, to vacillate between “towards the end of the sixteenth century” (XI, 76) and “after the middle of the century” (XI, 192).

11. Hind, A History, p. 81; von der Osten and Vey, pp. 285, 287; Post, pp. 248, 253.

12. Fischer, Geschichte der deutschen Zeichnung und Graphik, p. 360; Fischer, Geschichte der deutschen Malerei, p. 303; Feulner and Müller, p. 442; Cuttler, p. 415.

13. Burkhard, Arthur, Hans Burgkmair d. Ä. (Leipzig, 1934), p. 172;Google ScholarOtto, Gertrud, Bernhard Strigel (Munich, 1964), p. 81; Benesch, p. 149.Google Scholar

14. See Appendix A.

15. This does not overlook the fact that one can find some evidence that certain segments of the German art community may have suffered economic hardship at various times already in the century before the Reformation. See Huth, Hans, Künstler und Werkstatt der Spätgotik (Augsburg, 1923), pp. 70ff.;Google ScholarStechow, Wolfgang, 2nd ed., Northern Renaissance Art 1400–1600: Sources and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1966), p. 76; cf. Janssen, XI, 45, fn. 2.Google Scholar

16. This document is reproduced in Rott, Hans, Quellen und Forschungen zur südwest deutschen und schweizerischen Kunstgeschichte im XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert, vol. III: Der Oberrhein, Part II: Quellen, I: Baden, Pfalz, Elsass (Stuttgart, 1936), pp. 304–5;Google Scholar a portion of a related document (also found in Rott, p. 305) is given in translation in Janssen XI, 46; cf.Chrisman, Miriam Usher, Strasbourg and the Reform (New Haven, Conn., 1967), p. 287.Google Scholar The work by Rott provides one of the most useful source collections on German artists to be found in print. The contents of the various volumes are as follows: vol. I: Bodenseegebiet, Part I: Text (Stuttgart, 1933), Part II:Google ScholarQuellen (Stuttgart, 1933)Google Scholar; vol. II: Alt-Schwaben und die Reichsstädte (Stuttgart, 1934);Google Scholarvol. III: Der Oberrhein, Part I: Text (Stuttgart, 1938), Part II:Google ScholarQuellen, I: Baden, Pfalz, Elsass (Stuttgart, 1936), Part III:Google ScholarQuellen, II: Schweiz (Stuttgart, 1936).Google Scholar Hereinafter the work will be referred to as Rott, with the first Roman numeral designating the volume, the second Roman numeral the part of a volume, and the arabic numeral the page. For other, individual, petitions for municipal employment, see: Rott, III, III, 62; Rott, II, II, 64; Rott, III, II, 227; Rott, III, II, 229–30.

17. Stechow, p. 131. Janssen (XI, 43) quotes from a pamphlet of 1524 in which there is the complaint that “churches and convents are no longer built and adorned, but, on the contrary, they are destroyed, and numbers of hands are thrown out of work.”

18. For the document, Rott, III, III, 131–32; for some explanation, Rott, III, I, 161.

19. Janssen (XI, 45) quotes the following statement by a Nuremberg writer in 1548: “it is pitiful that in these days excellent artists not only get no honour, but they cannot even earn their daily bread.”

20. This translation is from Janssen, XI, 45. For the original German text of the preface, plus some biographical data on Vogtherr, see Stuhlfauth, Georg, “Künstlerstimmen und Künstlernot aus der Reformationsbewegung,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LVI, 3rd Ser. VII (1937), 509–12.Google Scholar For a brief discussion of the artistic significance of Vogtherr's pattern-book, see Gombrich, E. H., Art and Illusion (New York, 1960), pp. 157–58.Google Scholar

21. Woltmann, Alfred, Holbein und seine Zeit, rev. (Leipzig, 1874), pp. 315–16.Google Scholar

22. The documents are printed in Habich, Georg, “Studien zur deutschen Renaissancemedaille, III: Friedrich Hagenauer,” Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, XXVIII (1907), 181–98, 230–72 (see pp. 269–72).Google Scholar

23. Habich, p. 245; Janssen, XI, 46–47.

24. Rott, III, II, 306.

25. Such jurisdictional disputes, of course, were not new at the time of the Reformation: Huth, p.73; Habich, pp. 182–83. But they take on a new significance in view of the economic hardship caused by the Reformation.

26. In addition to those cited below, see Rott, I, II, 135.

27. Rott, I, II, 233.

28. Rott, I, II; Rott, II, II, 104.

29. Rott, I, II, 235 (cf. Rott, I, I, 191).

30. Christoph Bockstorfer, a painter in Constance, in 1523 paid tax on property valued at 300 lb.; in 1524 the valuation sank to 150 lb.; in 1525, to 45 lb.; in the years between 1530 and 1543, he paid on a valuation of only 30 lb. See Rott, I, II, 44. Andreas Haider, also a Constance painter, in 1522 paid property tax on 192 Pf. H.; by the year 1525, this had dropped to 144 Pf. H.; and, by 1529, he was being taxed on a valuation of only 40 Pf. H. See Rott, I, II, 46. For further evidence of the plight of the painters in Constance see Rott, II, II, 46 (where a municipal document of 1528 acknowledges “das das maler handwerck böse syg gewesen”). It must be acknowledged, however, that the available tax data do not invariably point to economic hardship. For an example of an Augsburg artist whose tax payments remained fairly constant during and beyond the period of the Hagenauer dispute mentioned above, see: Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, vol. XXIX: Die Chroniken der schwäbischen Städte, Augsburg, vol. VI:Google ScholarDie Chronik des Augsburger Malers Georg Preu des Älteren 1512–1537 (Leipzig, 1906), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar Preu's artist son, however, fared less well, as is revealed in his tax returns from the 1540's (ibid., pp. 5–6).

31. In 1534 the Basel authorities had the property of the painter Gabriel Zehender inventoried at the request of his impatient creditors; within the year Zehender had fled from the city. Rott, III, III, 64–65.

32. Christensen, Carl C., “Dürer's ‘Four Apostles’ and the Dedication as a Form of Renaissance Art Patronage,” Renaissance Quarterly, XX (1967), 325–34, esp. pp. 333–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Stafski, Heinz, Der Jüngere Peter Vischer (Nuremberg, 1962), p. 48.Google Scholar It has been maintained that one of the reasons for the decline of the Vischer foundry was the increasing preference in Germany, in emulation of Italy, for red and white marble rather than bronze for sepulchral monuments: Post, p. 252. However, there is evidence that the Reformation was responsible for disrupting work on at least one large and important Vischer commission, the bronze screen ordered by the Fugger family of Augsburg for their burial chapel in St. Anna Church. See Lieb, Norbert, Die Fugger und die Kunst im Zeitalter der Spätgotik und frühen Renaissance (Munich, 1952), pp. 125–39.Google Scholar For another example of a work of religious art whose completion was interrupted by the Reformation (Veit Stoss's altar in the Bamberg cathedral), see Schaffer, Reinhold, Andreas Stoss, Sohn des Veit Stoss, und seine gegenreformatorische Tätigkeit (Breslau, 1926), pp. 113–24;Google Scholar and Huth, who suggests that the unfinished state of this carved altar is the explanation for the fact that it was never painted (p. 96; cf. pp. 57–58).

34. Theodor, Hampe, 2nd ed., Nürnberger Ratsverlässe über Kunst und Künstler im Zeitalter der Spätgotik und Renaissance, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1904), I, Nos. 3179, 3182, 3184, 3185, 3186.Google Scholar

35. Rott, III, III, 63; Rott, III, III, 58; Rott, I, II, 233; Rott, II, II, 29.

36. Rott, II, II, 64; Rott, I, I, 190; Rott, I, I, 186; Janssen, XI, 46. In this connection, it might be appropriate to include the following jingle, from the period around 1540, “which accompanied the woodcut of ‘Veit the Sculptor’ in one of the various later editions of an obviously popular image once attributed to Peter Flötner”:

Fine figures did I carve galore,

In Southern and in German style,

But now this art nobody wants

Unless I carve my figures fine

As nudes and make them come to life—

Such could I sell in ev'ry town.

But since I cannot do this trick

I'll have to choose some other job

And with my halberd I will serve

A potentate of great renown.

The poem and the editorial comment are both reproduced from Stechow, p. 133.

37. Rott, III, I, 144; Rott, II, II, 30; Rott, II, II, 64; Janssen, XI, 46, fn. 2. There are, to be sure, known examples from the pre-Reformation era of artists, and even financially successful ones, supplementing their income from sources lying outside the field of artistic endeavor. For Cranach, see the more than twenty pages of useful documents printed in Lüdecke, Heinz, ed., Lucas Cranach der Ältere: Der Künstler und seine Zeit (Berlin, 1953), pp. 156–77, esp. No. 17.Google Scholar

38. See Appendix B.

39. Stechow, p. 131. For other examples of migration: Rott, I, II, 44 (cf. Rott, I, I, 89); Habich, pp. 183–84.

40. For painting, see Appendix C. The preponderance of religious themes in pre-Reformation painting documented in this chart must not be interpreted as signifying that the art of this period was so visionary or rigidly stylized that it lacked the resources for rendering secular themes in a naturalistic manner. As is well known, German artists at this time were producing some excellent landscape painting, but it was being done as part of compositions with ostensibly religious (or historical) subject matter, and not in the form of independent works. German artists, generally speaking, were competent enough to depict secular themes, but there apparently was as yet only a limited market for this type of art.

41. Battisti, Eugenio, “Reformation and Counter Reformation,” Encyclopedia of World Art, XI (1966), col. 902;Google ScholarEggert, Helmuth, “Altarretabel (prot.),” Reallexikon zur deutschen Kuntsgeschichte, ed. Otto, Schmitt, I (1937), col. 565.Google Scholar

42. Garside, Charles Jr., Zwingli and the Arts (New Haven, Conn., 1966), pp. 120, 137, 163–70;Google ScholarCampenhausen, Hans Frhr. v., “Die Bilderfrage in der Reformation,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXVIII (1957), 100–104, 109.Google Scholar

43. Garside, pp. 141–42, 172–73; Campenhausen, pp. 106–7.

44. For the following two paragraphs see Lehfeldt, Paul, Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern (Berlin, 1892);Google ScholarRogge, Christian, Luther und die Kirchenbilder seiner Zeit (Leipzig, 1912);Google ScholarPreuss, Hans, Martin Luther: Der Künstler (Gütersloh, 1931);Google Scholar Campenhausen, pp. 111–28; Christensen, Carl C., “Luther's Theology and the Uses of Religious Art,” The Lutheran Quarterly, XXII (1970), 147–65.Google Scholar

45. It is argued by Buchholz, Friedrich, Protestantismus und Kunst im sechzehnten Jahrhundert (Halle, 1928), p. 20, that early Lutheran ecclesiastical art resulted not from the patronage of the church as such, but that of pious individual membersGoogle Scholar. I am not convinced that this distinction is of any great importance, for the same thing is true of much of late medieval ecclesiastical art. See Christensen, Carl C., “Iconoclasm and the Preservation of Ecclesiastical Art in Reformation Nuernberg,” Archiv Für Reformationsgeschichte, LXI (1970), 205–21, esp. 212–14.Google Scholar

46. See, most recently, Schmidt, Philipp, Die Illustration der Lutherbibel 1522–1700 (Basel, 1962).Google Scholar

47. Christensen, “Luther's Theology,” p. 165, fn. 138. We might compare here the statement of Holl, Karl, The Cultural Significance of the Reformation, trans. , Karl and Hertz, Barbara and Lichtblau, John H. (New York, 1959), p. 148,Google Scholar with respect to church architecture: “The fact that in the worship service Luther had not really created anything new, but had been content with a purification of tradition, long prevented Protestantism from reaching clarity over the purpose of the church building. What ends should it really serve? It could not be a house of God in the Catholic sense. For there was here no sacrament to be revered. Should it then be a preaching place or a place for meditation? Or both together? So long as these questions were not decided, indeed, not even discussed, Protestantism was not in a position to give artists assured direction.” Cf. Buchholz, p. 15.

48. Kressel, H., “Das Problem des Altars in der lutherischen Kirche,” Monatsschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst, XLI (1936), 204–7. As Kressel points out, Luther thereby gave his approval to the dual function of the altar as it had developed in the medieval tradition: (1) communion table, and (2) base or stand for the crucifix and Christian imagery.Google Scholar

49. Der Kirchenbau des Protestantismus von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, herausgegeben von der Vereinigung Berliner Architekten (Berlin, 1893), p. 22;Google Scholar Christensen, “Iconoclasm,” pp. 218–19.

50. Descargues, Pierre, Cranach, trans. Ramsbotham, Helen (New York, 1961), p. 72; Buchholz, p. 41;Google ScholarFriedländer, Max J. and Rosenberg, Jakob, Die Gemälde von Lucas Cranach (Berlin, 1932), pp. 50–51.Google Scholar

51. Thulin, Oskar, Cranach-Altäre der Reformation (Berlin, 1955), p. 126;Google ScholarEhresmann, Donald L., “The Brazen Serpent: A Reformation Motif the Works of Lucas Cranach the Elder and His Workshop,” Marsyas, XIII (1966–1967), 34–35;Google ScholarKibish, Christine O., “Lucas Cranach's ‘Christ Blessing the Children’: A Problem of Lutheran Iconography,” The Art Bulletin, XXXVII (1955), 197.Google Scholar For further information on the great upswing in the production of Lutheran art from 1529 on, see Hoberg, Martin, Die Gesangbuchillustration des 16. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zum Problem Reformation und Kunst (Strassburg, 1933), pp. 13, 73.Google Scholar

52. Meier, Karl Ernst, “Fortleben der religiös-dogmatischen Kompositionen Cranachs in der Kunst des Protestantismus,” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, XXXII (1909), 426;Google ScholarMcClinton, Katharine Morrison, “The Lutheran Reformation Paintings of Lucas Cranach, The Elder,” Response, IV (1962), 4.Google Scholar

53. Thulin, p. 33.

54. Eggert, cols. 565–602; Thulin, passim; Gertz, Ulrich, Die Bedeutung der Malerei für die Evangeliumsverkündigung in der evangelischen Kirche des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1936), passim.Google Scholar

55. For the following, see Christensen, Carl C., “The Significance of the Epitaph Monument in Early Lutheran Ecclesiastical Art (ca. 1540–1600): Some Social and Iconographical Considerations,” in The Social History of the Reformation, ed. Buck, Lawrence P. and Zophy, Jonathan W. (Columbus, 1972), pp. 297–314.Google Scholar

56. Of course, Protestants did commission some religious art for other than public church settings, e.g., the adornment of private chapels, palace chambers, etc. See, for example, Guldan, Ernst and Utto, Riedinger, OSB., “Die protestantischen Deckenmalereien der Burgkapelle auf Strechau,” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, XVIII (1960), 28–86.Google Scholar

57. Janssen, XI, 150; Stuhlfauth, p. 513; Friedländer and Rosenberg, p. 25.

58. Tyler, Royall, The Emperor Charles the Fifth (London, 1956), p. 26.Google Scholar

59. Rosenthal, Earl E., The Cathedral of Granada: A Study in the Spanish Renaissance (Princeton, N. J., 1961);Google ScholarRosenthal, Earl E., “The Image of Roman Architecture in Renaissance Spain,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, LII (1958), 334; von der Osten and Vey, p. 175.Google Scholar

60. Von der Osten and Vey, p. 175. For the art patronage of Maximilian I, see Baldass, Ludwig, Der Künstlerkreis Kaiser Maximilians (Vienna, 1923),Google Scholar and Händler, Gerhard, Fürstliche Mäzene und Sammler in Deutschland von 1500–1620 (Strassburg, 1933), pp. 9–25.Google Scholar

61. Von der Osten and Vey, p. 175. For an example of the importance imperial patronage could have in liberating a German artist from provincialism and stimulating him to a more stylistically advanced creativity, see Otto's work on Strigel, p. 9.

62. Blunt, Anthony, Art and Architecture in France 1500 to 1700 (London, 1953), pp. 1–87;Google ScholarBenesch, Otto, The Art of the Renaissance in Northern Europe, rev. (London, 1965), pp. 122ff.Google Scholar

63. For the princes, see Händler. Benesch, German Painting, stresses (p. 12) the decisive importance of ducal patronage.

64. For the townsmen, see Lieb, Norbert, Die Fugger und die Kunst im Zeitalter der hohen Renaissance (Munich, 1958);Google ScholarSchwemmer, Wilhelm, “Aus der Geschichte der Kunstsammlungen der Stadt Nürnberg,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, XL (1949), 97ff.;Google Scholar Christensen, “Municipal Patronage.”

65. von Schlosser, Julius, Die Kunst- und Wunderkammern der Spätrenaissance (Leipzig, 1908), pp. 34–35;Google ScholarHampe, Theodor, “Kunstfreunde im alten Nürnberg und ihre Sammlungen,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, XVI (1904), 57ff.,Google ScholarFischer, Otto, “Geschichte der öffentlichen Kunstsammlung,” Öffentliche Kunstsammlung Basel: Festschrift zur Eröffnung des Kunstmuseums (Basel, 1936), pp. 8–25; Janssen, XI, 187ff.Google Scholar

66. Holborn, Hajo, A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation (New York, 1961), pp. 79, 85;Google ScholarStrauss, Gerald, Nuremberg in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1966), pp. 147ff.; Chrisman, p. 287.Google Scholar

67. Ferguson, Wallace K., “Recent Trends in the Economic Historiography of the Renaissance,” Studies in the Renaissance, VII (1960), 23–24; Trevor-Roper, pp. 194–95.Google Scholar

68. Holborn, p. 85.

69. See Holborn, p. 67: “The German cities reached the peak of their productive energies in the half century between 1480 and 1530.”

70. In Dürer's period communal patronage may already have lost some of the importance it had earlier held for art. See Benesch, German Painting, p. 12.

71. von Below, G., Das ältere deutsche Städtewesen und Bürgertum, 3rd ed. (Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1925), p. 20;Google ScholarMoeller, Bernd, Reichsstadt und Reformation (Gütersloh, 1962), pp. 67ff.;Google Scholar Strauss, pp. 147ff. With respect to the significance of this for art, see von der Osten and Vey, p. 318, and Fischer, Geschichte der deutschen Malerei, p. 303. Strauss (p. 282) makes the interesting observation that when the arts did decline in Nuremberg, it was not so much due to economic causes: “Burghers ceased to support the arts, not for lack of money but because their city's position was no longer commanding enough to compel continuing expression in architecture and the decorative arts.”

72. In most of the monumental arts there clearly must have been a quantitative as well as a qualitative decline. This, however, apparently does not hold true with respect to the art of engraving. See Hind, A History, pp. 86, 118.

73. Von der Osten and Vey, p. 254.

74. Hauser, Arnold, The Social History of Art, trans. Godman, Stanley (New York, 1960), II, 42.Google Scholar

75. Von der Osten and Vey, p. 176.

76. Fischer, Geschichte der deutschen Zeichnung und Graphik, p. 360; Stuhlfauth, p. 513; Feulner and Müller, p. 442; Pinder, II, 483; Benesch, German Painting, p. 149. For a criticism of this “generations” theory, see Hauser, The Philosophy of Art History, pp. 249–51.

77. There might be adduced here the statement of Plumb, J. H., The Italian Renaissance (New York, 1965), pp. 32–33, that, in the Renaissance, “great artists are as common as peaks in the Himalayas, leading one to believe that the ability to draw or carve is no rarer in human beings than mathematical skill and only requires the appropriate social circumstances to call it forth in abundance.”Google Scholar

78. Cf. Fischer, Geschichte der deutschen Malerei, p. 308.

79. One historian refers to the artist as “an oscillating needle of the seismography of life”; Schöffer, p. 89.

80. Peltzer, Alfred, Deutsche Mystik und deutsche Kunst (Strassburg, 1899), p. 3;Google ScholarBurkhard, Arthur, Matthias Grünewald (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. viii–ix;Google Scholar Dickinson, p. 4. For a discussion of the impact of the Reformation events upon a highly subjective artist such as Grünewald, see Benesch, German Painting, pp. 148–49.

81. Gilmore, Myron P., The World of Humanism 1453–1517 (New York, 1952), pp. 229–30.Google Scholar

82. I do not find convincing, however, the suggestion of Rüstow (pp. 899ff.) that Hans Baldung Grien's apparent preoccupation with demonic forces and his disturbing compositions based on these themes derive from the spiritual unrest produced by the Reformation. Hartlaub, G. F., in his Hans Baldung Grien: Hexenbilder (Stuttgart, 1961), makes clear that Baldung Grien's interest in witchcraft long antedated the Reformation. Of the ten compositions based on such themes attributed to Baldung Grien and illustrated in Hartlaub's monograph, seven date from before 1517.Google Scholar

83. Unfortunately, there is as yet no adequately comprehensive or up-to-date treatment of the subject of sixteenth-century iconoclasm in the German-speaking lands. Some useful information can be found in the volumes of Janssen (see especially v, passim, and XI, 28ff.), but the author is neither impartial nor discriminating enough to be a fully reliable guide. For iconoclasm in various individual towns, see (in addition to the works cited in fnn. 42, for Zwingli's Zurich, and 45, for Nuremberg) the following: Barge, Hermann, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (Leipzig, 1905), I, 374, 398 (Wittenberg);Google ScholarMackinnon, James, Luther and the Reformation, III (London, 1929), 70–71, 77 (Wittenberg);Google ScholarSchildhauer, J., “Der Stralsunder Kirchensturm des Jahres 1525,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst Moritz Arndt-Universität Greifswald, VIII (1958/1959), 113–19;Google ScholarWackernagel, Rudolf, Geschichte der Stadt Basel, III (Basel, 1924), 496–97, 513–17.Google Scholar For an example of somewhat later Calvinist iconoclasm in Germany, see Rott, Hans, “Kirchen- und Bildersturm bei der Einführung der Reformation in der Pfalz,” Neues Archiv für die Geschichte der Stadt Heidelberg und der rheinischen Pfalz, VI (1905), 229–54.Google Scholar

84. Cf. McRoberts, David, “Material Destruction Caused by the Scottish Reformation,” Essays on the Scottish Reformation 1513–1625,nd ed. ed. ed. David, McRoberts (Glasgow, 1962), p. 459.Google Scholar Young artists were accustomed to sketch works of art seen and studied on their Wanderjahre, and to draw on these ideas and themes later for the production of their own work: Huth, p. 34. There were, to be sure, some instances (particularly in areas quickly brought back under Roman Catholic control) where iconoclastic destruction provided the incentive for new creativity, to replace the demolished works; see, e.g., von der Osten and Vey, p. 244 (Münster cathedral). But on the whole it would be hard to find evidence in sixteenth-century Germany of any “renaissance” of art stimulated by iconoclasm, such as has been suggested for medieval Byzantium by Martin, Edward James, A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London, n.d.), pp. 220–21.Google Scholar

85. Benesch, German Painting, p. 169; Lüdecke, p. 121.

86. The Writings of Albrecht Dürer, ed. and trans. by Conway, William Martin (New York, 1958), p. 70.Google Scholar For Dürer's indignant reaction to iconoclasm, see Rupprich, Hans, Dürers Stellung zu den agnoëtischen und kunstfeindlichen Strömungen seiner Zeit (Munich, 1959).Google Scholar There must be acknowledged, however, the noteworthy fact that some artists apparently approved of Reformation iconoclasm. See Beerli, Conrad André, Le peintre poète Nicolas Manuel et l'evolution sociale de son temps (Geneva, 1953), pp. 275–76;Google Scholar also, the Preu, Georg chronicle cited in fn. 30, pp. 13, 44, 75–78. I owe this last reference to Professor John M. Headley.Google Scholar

87. Valentin, Veit, The German People (New York, 1946), p. 174.Google Scholar

88. Janssen, XI, 27.

89. Saxl, F., “Dürer and the Reformation,” Lectures (London, 1957), I, 271.Google Scholar Cf. the statement concerning Hans Baldung Grien made by Baumgarten, Fritz, “Hans Baldungs Stellung zur Reformation,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, XIX (1904), 262:Google Scholar “Möglicherweise zog auch die neue Lehre mit dem grossen Umschwung aller Verhältnisse, den sie für Strassburg im Gefolge hatte, unsern Baldung so stark in ihre Kreise, dasser des Zeichenstifts und Pinsels wohl zeitweilig vergass und sich als guter Bürger den praktischen Aufgaben, die es in der aufblühenden Gemeinde in Menge zu lösen gab, mit ganzer Seele widmete. Dass unser Maler als Ratsherr gestorben, gibt jedenfalls au denken.”

90. His, Eduard, “Holbeins Verhältniss zur Basler Reformation,” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, II (1879), 156–59;Google ScholarSaxl, F., “Holbein and the Reformation,” Lectures (London, 1957), I, 277.Google Scholar

91. His, pp. 157–59.

92. Kolde, Theodor, “Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Nürnberg,” Beiträge zur bayerische Kirchengeschichte, VIII (1901/1902), 1–31, 49–72. For another example of the banishment of an artist, see: von der Osten and Vey, p. 209.Google Scholar

93. Franz, Günther, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, 7th ed. (Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, 1965), p. 280;Google Scholar Benesch, German Painting, p. 148.

94. Franz, pp. 280–81; Battisti, col. 906.

95. Franz, p. 281; cf. Battisti, col. 906.

96. Battisti, col. 906.

97. Von der Osten and Vey, p. 283.

98. Some other suggested connections between the Reformation and the decline of German art: (1) The partitioning of Europe along religious lines allegedly resulted in a weakening of German art in that it led to a breaking off of contacts with Italy. See von Haebler, Hans Carl, Das Bild in der evangelischen Kirche (Berlin, 1957), p. 21;Google Scholar Battisti, col. 902; cf. von der Osten and Vey, p. 309. (2) According to another view, the individualism implicit in Luther's theology spelled death to painting and sculpture. It created an atmosphere in which no great art was possible, because there were no longer any common ideals or universal emotions; each artist was thrown on his own. See Dickinson, pp. 283–84. (3) Certain Roman Catholic historians have argued that the Reformation introduced a deadly poison into art in the form of the religious dissensions and hatreds characteristic of the period. Artists, either through compulsion or choice, degraded their noble talents and profession by placing them in the service of sectarian polemics and party strife. See Janssen, XI, 51–52, 76; Grisar, Hartmann, S. J., Luther, trans. Lamond, E. M. (London, 1951), v, 224.Google Scholar

99. Lehfeldt, pp. 81ff.

100. Ruhmer, Eberhard, Cranach, trans. Spencer, Joan (London, 1963), p. 28;Google Scholar Lehfeldt, pp. 95–96; Ehresmann, p. 47; Woltmann, Die deutsche Kunst, pp. 35–36. Lehfeldt's argument is rebutted in Buchholz, p. 1. Preuss, Hans, Die deutsche Frömmigkeit im Spiegel der bildenden Kunst (Berlin, 1926), p. 183, argues that every new spiritual movement goes through a didactic phase as it concerns itself with teaching its doctrine.Google Scholar

101. Spitz, Lewis W., The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p. 262;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPanofsky, Erwin, “‘Nebulae in Pariete’; Notes on Erasmus' Eulogy on Dürer,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XIV (1951), 37;Google ScholarPhillips, Margaret Mann, Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance (New York, 1965), pp. 33, 51;Google ScholarHolborn, Hajo, Ulrich von Hutten and the German Reformation, trans. Bainton, Roland H. (New Haven, Conn., 1937), p. 89;Google ScholarKohlhaussen, Heinrich, “Eine Landschaft des Hans Süss von Kulmbach für Willibald Pirckheimer,” Zeitschrift für Kunstwissenschaft, I (1947), 107.Google Scholar

102. See the works listed in fn. 44.

103. Thulin, pp. 126–48; Ehresmann, passim. For Luther's probable involvement in the creation of this motif, see: Thulin, p. 126; Ehresmann, p. 41.

104. In addition to the works cited in fn. 100, see Janssen, XI, 50; Buchholz, p. 39. Buchholz argues (pp. 7, 43) that it was the artist's responsibility, not Luther's, to reject any assignments which proved impossible to execute without sacrificing good taste. Gertz (p. 39) suggests that these compositions were never intended to be viewed as “art,” in the modern sense of that term.

105. Thulin, pp. 134ff.; Gertz, p. 31; Meier (p. 415) argues that this wide geographical extension indicates the success of this composition, in an age when people were perhaps less sophisticated aesthetically than today.

106. The reader may be referred to the extensive catalogue and illustrations provided in Friedländer and Rosenberg.

107. I do not find very convincing the suggestion of Spelman, Leslie, “Calvin and the Arts,” The Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, VI (1947–1948), 251,Google Scholar that reformers such as Calvin provided something of a service to art, in that they completed its emancipation “from the church, making possible an unhampered development of art in the free air of the world.” Portraiture is among the secular art forms whose development often is said to have been stimulated by the Reformation: Stuhlfauth, pp. 513–14. Yet, for a negative assessment, see Pope-Hennessy, John, The Portrait in the Renaissance (New York, 1966), p. 178: “it seems that under the influence of reform the concept of the human personality became more cut and dried and the horizons of the portrait tended to contract.”Google Scholar

108. Burckhardt, Jakob, Force and Freedom: Reflections on History, ed. Hasting Nichols, James (Boston, 1964), p. 61.Google Scholar

109. Christensen, “Luther's Theology,” p. 148.

110. Martin Luther on “The Bondage of the Will.” A New Translation of “De Servo Arbitrio” (1525), trans. Packer, J. I. and Johnston, O. R. (Westwood, N. J., 1957), p. 83.Google Scholar