Restrike as restoration: a Diachronic Analysis of The Triumphal Arch of Maximilian I

Through the analysis of The Triumphal Arch of Maximilian Iprinted in Vienna in 1799, this paper examines the tension betweenhistory and chronology that frustrates the interpretation of posthumously printed images. Adam von Bartsch (1757-1821), who oversaw the production of the restrike, viewed the eighteenth century publication as a document of the progress of art in the sixteenth century. While the few extant impressions of the Archserved this evidentiary function, the new editions were not material witnesses to the past. The preparations Bartsch undertook to return the suite to an approximation of its original appearance fabricated the restrike’s historical value. By repairing broken woodblocks, he reduced the visible signs of age in the restrike. He replaced missing blocks with his own etched reproductions in order to ensure no gaps appeared in the surface of the print. He also included instructions for constructing the Archby integrating the relief and intaglio prints. Bartsch’s efforts to restore the Archtransformed the representation of Maximilian’s power into an art-historical monument, a distinctly eighteenth century concept. By encouraging viewers to use the restrike as a substitute for earlier examples, he anachronistically associated historicalinterest with the emperor and his secretaries. The persistance of Bartsch’s ideas in the current scholarship on Maximilian’s print commissions demonstrates the pressing need to disentangle the sixteenth century and eighteenth century meanings of the Arch. This suite offers a model for the analysis of other restrikes, which by definition make a belated entrance into history.