The present clock-case appears to be one of only four known surviving examples. One was formerly in the Klemperer Collection, Dresden⁽¹⁾, another was in the Ole Olsens collection, Copenhagen⁽²⁾ and a third was in a collection in Düsseldorf⁽³⁾. Large baroque clock-cases of architectural form such as this are very rare as they were particularly difficult and expensive to make and fire, due to their size and complexity. They were also important experimental large-scale sculptural pieces made at a time when the manufactory had only just hired its first full-time ‘in house’ sculptor or Modellmeister, and the sculptural repertoire at Meissen was in its infancy.

Meissen recruited the sculptor Johann Gottlieb Kirchner as the first Modellmeister on 29 April 1727, when he was only 21. Before his arrival it had relied on works supplied by sculptors from Dresden, models from Augsburg or elsewhere or molds that had been taken from goldsmiths’ models. The manufactory’s Formers, who carried out a variety of forming tasks also worked flexibly by producing more sculptural works. Large porcelain clock-cases were something that the manufactory had already been experimenting with when they employed Kirchner, and a weekly work report of 17 May 1727 shows that after only a few weeks of being there, Kirchner was already working on a clock-case. At this time Kirchner’s task was to provide figures for a clock-case which had already been modeled by the ‘former’ Georg Fritzsche. Fritzsche was considered to be the most talented of the formers at Meissen, and a 25 January 1727 work report records that he had been working on an experimental clock-case which was based upon a model which had been specially sent in to the manufactory⁽⁴⁾. This was almost certainly the clock-case which is thought to have been commissioned for the king’s birthday, but which was ultimately redirected to Russia as a diplomatic gift. This clock-case is dated 12 May 1727 and is now in St. Petersburg⁽⁵⁾. A clock-case from the Oppenheimer collection in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, is also dated 1727, and this is a second similar model by Fritzsche which had some modifications and the addition of figures by Kirchner⁽⁶⁾. These cases were essentially developed from Renaissance originals, and an old-fashioned design was being used because at the time the factory lacked an in-house Modellmeister to create a more up-to-date baroque design.

This changed after Kirchner’s arrival. In October 1727 he developed a baroque clock-case which comprised a pyramid-shaped structure supported by four sphinxes on a concave pedestal base⁽⁷⁾. This was followed by work on a new clock-case in early 1728 which was mentioned in a February 1728 work report: ‘1st abermahl ein Uhrgehäuse mit feinen Zierrathen nach einem von dem Modellirer Kirchner gefertigten Modell in so weit biß auf erfolgtes Brennen, zur perfection gebracht worden, so wird auch voritzo an einem Gieß- und Wasch-Becken gearbeitet, so von dem Bildhauer inventiret worden’ (Once again a clock-case with fine decoration after one of the modeler Kirchner’s examples brought to perfection as far as successful firing, a washbasin invented by the sculptor is also currently being worked upon)⁽⁸⁾.

Various dates have been put forward as probable dates for the creation of the present form of clock-case, but it was Günter Reinheckel in his 1964 Keramos article who convincingly argued that this February 1728 report was a reference to the present form of clock-case, and that early 1728 must therefore be the date of this form. As the report states that the figural table-fountain⁽⁹⁾ and the clock-case were created at a similar time, this has a bearing on the dating of the clock-case. Reinheckel noted that the similarly between the caryatid figures of Kirchner’s table-fountain and his satyr figures on the present form of clock-case are very striking, and he concluded that it must be the present form of clock-case which was referred to in the February 1728 report. He speculated that Kirchner may have designed it in November or December 1727 and constructed the original clay models for casting in January 1728⁽¹⁰⁾.

It is reasonable to assume that Kirchner developed the present clock-case model in early 1728, however, the dating for the present lot is further complicated by Kirchner’s departure from Meissen only a few months later. Although he was a talented sculptor, he was unused to working in clay, and his work ethic was also somewhat haphazard, and he sometimes failed to turn up to work. In early 1728 there were complaints that ‘his models made of clay and plaster were very complex’, and initially had to be made in wood as he hadn’t yet mastered the medium⁽¹¹⁾, and in April 1728 he was dismissed from the factory. An ivory sculptor, Johann Christian Lücke, was briefly employed as the replacement Modellmeister, but the following year he was also dismissed, as it seems he did very little and did not live up to expectations. In 1731 the factory turned to Kirchner again, recruiting him with an increased salary of 300 Talers⁽¹²⁾. To keep an eye on his progress, Kirchner was required to get a book ‘into which drawings of all the models, whether those already existing, those to be executed in the future, or such as were sent ready to the factory, were to be entered in reduced form’⁽¹³⁾. According to Zimmerman, in 1732 Kirchner made two drawings for clock-cases, one with ‘japanischen’ figures, and the other with ‘modernen’ figures⁽¹⁴⁾, describing the present form of clock-case as being the one with modern figures. However, if these drawings were made, they have not survived in the Meissen archives, and Reinheckel suggests that they may never have been made⁽¹⁵⁾. It is possible that the present lot may date to the 1731-33 period when Kirchner returned to the factory, but the color of the porcelain paste suggests that it is more likely to date to 1728. It is less likely that the clock dates to the period after Kirchner’s departure in April 1728 and his return in 1731, but this also cannot be ruled out.

The figures of the present lot are incorporated into the architectural structure of the clock-case much more successfully than any of his other clock-cases, or any of the earlier clock-cases produced by Fritzsche. As the repertoire of sculptural figures at Meissen was in its infancy at the time he made this clock-case, Kirchner probably turned to architectural figures at the Zwinger in nearby Dresden for inspiration, as he had done in 1727-1728 when he was creating his Temple of Venus⁽¹⁶⁾. The satyr caryatid figure on the left-hand side of this clock-case with his arm crossed under his chin to hold the entablature behind him is reminiscent of the Court Sculptor Balthasar Permoser’s caryatid figures which had only recently been installed at the Zwinger⁽¹⁷⁾. Kirchner would have been familiar with these sculptures as his elder brother, Johann Christian Kirchner, worked on the project with Permoser. The large shell-like dome on the upper part of the clock-case is reminiscent of the large sloping shells in the niches of the Nymphenbades in the Zwinger⁽¹⁸⁾. None of the clocks of this type have their original crowning figure at the top. This may have been the figure of Chronos modeled by Kirchner, which Berling states was intended for the uppermost figure of a clock-case decorated with many figures⁽¹⁹⁾, but it may have been a seated figure, which echoed the painted chinoiserie decoration, as suggested by Siegfried Ducret⁽²⁰⁾.

1. Published by Ernst Zimmerman, Meissner Porzellan, Leipzig, 1926, pl. 23. When it was published two years later, the figure at the top (which was almost certainly unrelated to the clock) was lacking, see Ludwig Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Porzellansammlung Gustav von Klemperer, Dresden, 1928, pl. 45. The same clock was also published by Günter Reinheckel, ‘Ein Uhrgehäuse aus Meissner Porzellan von Johann Gottlieb Kirchner’, in Keramos, no. 26, 1964, pp. 6-10; by Otto Walcha, Meißner Porzellan, Dresden, 1973, pl. 41, and an exhibition celebrating the anniversary of J.G. Höroldt’s birthday featured the re-creation of this clock, see Jürgen Schärer (ed.), Höroldt ’96, Verschiedene außerordentlich feine Mahlerey und vergoldete Geschirre, die jederzeit ihren Liebhaber gefunden…, Schloss Albrechtsburg zu Meissen September-November 1996 Exhibition Catalogue, Meissen 1996, pp. 28-51.
2. Hermann Schmitz, Generaldirektør Ole Olsens Kunstsamlinger, Munich, 1927, Vol. II, p. 35, no. 1455 and pl. 48.
3. This was published by Siegfried Ducret, Meißner Porzellan, Bern, 1952, Taf. V, as being in a private collection in Düsseldorf. According to Günter Reinheckel’s 1964 Keramos article, this clock was in the Schneider Collection, Düsseldorf.
4. Due to the similarities between the Meissen porcelain clock-case and the Augsburg brass clock-case by Johann Gottlieb Graupner, Graupner’s brass model has been identified as the one which was used, see Claus Bolz, ‘Eisbären und Polarfüchse ./. 6 Kästen Sächsisches Porzellan’, in Keramos, Heft 148, April 1995, p. 24, fig. 13 and Ulrich Pietsch and Claudia Banz (ed.), Triumph of the Blue Swords, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Porzellansammlung, Zwinger 2010 Exhibition Catalogue, Leipzig, 2010, pp. 345-346, Cat. no. 409.
5. It is thought this clock-case was commissioned by Crown Princess Maria Josepha to celebrate the birthday of Augustus ‘the Strong’ (King of Poland and Elector of Saxony), but it was sent to Princess Elizabeth of Russia as part of a gift of six crates of Meissen porcelain to the Russian Court in return for the polar bears and arctic foxes which Augustus had received in March 1727. The clock and the political circumstances of the gift are discussed by Lydia Liackhova, ‘In a Porcelain Mirror’ in Fragile Diplomacy, Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design and Culture, New York, November 2007 – February 2008 Exhibition Catalogue, New Haven and London, 2007, pp. 66-67, and the clock is illustrated on p. 62, Fig. 4-8. Also see Ulrich Pietsch and Claudia Banz (ed.), ibid., 2010, pp. 346-348, no. 410, and a series of details of it are illustrated by Claus Bolz, ibid., 1995, pp. 25-30.
6. See Abraham L. den Blaauwen, Meissen Porcelain in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 2000, pp. 93-95, no. 48. This clock was formerly in the Ralph Bernal collection and was sold in his epic sale at Christie’s, London which was held between 5 March – 30 April 1855, lot 195. It was subsequently sold by Sotheby’s on 14 September 2021, lot 64.
7. This case is crowned by a Chronos figure, see Karl Berling, Das Meissner Porzellan und seine geschichte, Leipzig, 1900, fig. 160. Another example of this clock-case is illustrated by Ulrich Pietsch et al., Frühes Meissener Porzellan, Kostbarkeiten aus deutschen Privatsammlungen, Hetjens-Museums, Deutsches Keramikmuseum, Düsseldorf and Porzellansammlung im Zwinger, Dresden, January – July 1997 Exhibition Catalogue, Munich, 1997, no. 23.
8. Report of 9 February 1728, cited by Günter Reinheckel, ibid., 1964, p. 7.
9. Rainer Rückert, Meissener Porzellan 1710-1810, Munich, 1966, p. 78, no. 194, noted that a complete example of this table fountain was illustrated in an auction catalogue by Helbing, Munich, 1902, lot 619 (the date of the sale is not cited, but he notes it as catalogue no. 100), and Keramik Freunde der Schweiz, no. 54, 1961, pp. 22-23.
10. Günter Reinheckel, ibid., 1964, p. 8.
11. Report 288, 17 May 1727, published by Claus Bolz, ibid., 1995, p. 31.
12. Ernst Zimmerman, ibid., 1926, p. 90.
13. Karl Berling, Königlich Sächsische Porzellanmanufaktur Meissen, Leipzig, 1910, p. 12 and p. 173, note 53, which says that these designs have not been found.
14. Ernst Zimmerman, ibid., 1926, p. 113 and Günter Reinheckel, ibid., 1964, p. 7.
15. Reinheckel, ibid., 1964, p. 7.
16. For the Oppenheimer example, see Abraham L. den Blaauwen, ibid., pp. 100-102, no. 50. For the example in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, see Jeffrey Munger, European Porcelain in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Haven and London, 2018, no. 17.
17. One of Permoser’s figures is particularly reminiscent to the satyr on this clock (although it is not an exact transposition), see Sigfried Asche, Balthasar Permoser und die Barockskulptur des Dresdner Zwingers, Frankfurt, 1966, p. 69, fig. 54.
18. Sigfried Asche, ibid., 1966, pp. 130-131, figs. 107 and 108.
19. Karl Berling, ibid., 1910, p. 13 and p. 173, note 61.
20. Siegfried Ducret, ibid., 1952, in the text for Taf. V.