Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Blog Post | Instrumentalising Politics: Maximilian as patron of the organ | By Grantley McDonald


The organ is often called the King of Instruments. This is partly because larger organs were usually located in important churches that regularly hosted ceremonies involving secular and ecclesiastical princes. But this description also reflects the fact that no other instrument can produce such an impressive and complex sound, ranging from the ground-shakingly low to the almost inaudibly high, from the softest whisper to the mightiest roar. Medieval observers admired these instruments as technical marvels whose high price-tag meant that only the very rich or corporations such as churches or city councils could afford to commission and maintain them. Besides the cost of the instrument itself, installing a larger organ in a church usually involved expensive modifications to the building: masons had to be hired to knock holes in the walls and construct “swallow’s nest” platforms, stairs and doorways; carpenters and woodcarvers had to be engaged to make the case; painters had to be commissioned to decorate the wings; and blacksmiths to forge all the necessary hardware. Organs thus projected wealth and exclusivity, displaying the munificence of those who commissioned them. Yet these instruments also had more sublime connotations. In late-medieval iconography, small portative organs or larger positive organs are often played by angels. This instrument therefore evoked the endless joys of heaven and the majesty of the Almighty. Some saw in the harmony of all the pipes a metaphor of the harmonious society. Furthermore, the organ was one of the few instruments that could simultaneously execute several polyphonic voices. While improvised polyphony performed by a chorus required all the singers to predict what their companions would do, according to the rules of counterpoint, an improvisation created by a single guiding intelligence could be planned and executed with a greater degree of control. Listeners were entranced and delighted by the sound of the organ, which could fill a space with invisible motion and energy. The pleasure that medieval hearers experienced from the sound of the organ is suggested by the warnings of strict reformers who tried to ban its use in church, lest it produce a vain delight that distracted the mind from the purity of plainchant, the worthiest vehicle for the Word of God. For all these reasons, Maximilian understood that organ music, especially when executed by the best players, could add significantly to the aura of majesty that surrounded him during state occasions. He also realised that any organ he donated to a church would represent his magnificence and generosity even when he was far away. For these reasons, Maximilian promoted the construction and playing of organs throughout his territories for the duration of his reign.

The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were a period of transition in organ technology. The organ was invented in antiquity for use in the arena. Knowledge of this technology never quite disappeared, though instruments remained rare until the thirteenth century. Medieval organs were generally constructed with a “Blockwerk” mechanism, in which each note was provided with many pipes that doubled the fundamental pitch at the unison, octave, twelfth, fifteenth and so on, creating a strident sound all the time.1 At the end of the tenth century, Wulfstan compared the sound of the organ at Winchester cathedral to thunder, leading those who heard it to cover their ears. During the fifteenth century, organ builders increasingly began to make instruments on which the individual ranks of pipes (or “stops”) could be engaged separately, thus giving the player a greater degree of control over the volume and timbre of the instrument. With this technical development came the possibility and the desire to create new sounds with pipes of metal, wood, even paper and stone; with open or stopped pipes of various diameters and shapes; or with reed pipes, not to mention all kinds of “toy stops” that imitated drums, bagpipes or birdsong. In 1507, Henricus Glareanus mentioned in a letter to his friend Huldrych Zwingli that a new organ that had just been built in the cathedral of Cologne, “constructed with such skill that one would imagine that one was hearing a lute, a viol, a harp, drums and all manner of sounds” (“At (res nova) est itidem nobiscum organum tanta industria constructum, ut chelym, sambucam, cytharam, tympana omneque genus sonorum audire se putat”).2

The construction of an organ demanded mastery of many different technical skills. An organ builder and his team had to construct pipes out of various materials and in various shapes; voice them to ensure that each pipe was consistent in tone and volume to the others; tune them; make a set of bellows and a wind supply that was free of leaks; manufacture the keyboard and the complicated mechanism that transferred the impulses of the player’s fingers to the interior of the instrument, opening and closing holes that allowed the wind to enter the pipes; create a further mechanism that allowed the player to engage or disengage the individual stops; and find a position in the building that would allow the organ to speak to best advantage. The appearance of the instrument was also important. Organs were usually placed in a case that prevented damage to the pipes and the mechanism, stopped dust and filth from falling into the instrument, and acted as a resonator to focus, blend and amplify the sound. Late-medieval cases were often decorated in a style similar to that of altarpieces, with painted wings and carved architectural details highlighted with gilt. Instruments of this time were constructed very delicately, and required frequent maintenance and repair. For this reason, organists often had practical experience of organ building, usually gained as part of their apprenticeship. Such skills were necessary to keep their instrument in good working order, especially when the next organ builder might be far away. Another important part of the organist’s training was the humble – and easily forgotten – role of the bellows-blower (calcant). This activity required some understanding of music and the ability to predict the length of a phrase, lest the organ run out of wind before the end of a phrase.

The most famous organist associated with Maximilian was Paul Hofhaimer (1459–1537). Hofhaimer, born at Radstadt in the mountains south of Salzburg, is first documented as a teenager at the court of Sigmund of the Tyrol at Innsbruck. There he probably refined his skills under the instruction of Sigmund’s organist Nicolaus Kromsdorfer. Hofhaimer later replaced Kromsdorfer as court organist when the latter was appointed as parish priest at St James’, Innsbruck, which served as the court church. When Maximilian took over power in the Tyrol in 1490/91, Hofhaimer entered his service, and remained a valued member of Maximilian’s household, with only one hiatus between 1502 and 1505, when he worked at Passau and Salzburg.

We only have a handful of keyboard pieces by Hofhaimer.3 This is due in part to the likely loss of many sources, and in part to the fact that organists at this time mainly improvised polyphony on the basis of plainsong, following carefully codified rules. Several chant books used by organists have survived from the decades around 1500, which indicate that the players alternated sections with the chorus, which sang the chant either monophonically or as the basis for polyphony, whether composed or improvised. The organ did not play at the same time as the singers, but alternated with them, following the same rules of counterpoint to create a satisfying musical whole worthy of the occasion. Hofhaimer’s delicacy and elegance as a composer is amply demonstrated by his songs, which survive in much greater numbers than his keyboard works.

Hofhaimer enjoyed an international reputation. He was celebrated in poems and prose descriptions by many of the leading humanists of his day, including Conrad Celtis, Joachim Vadianus, Willibald Pirckheimer and Pietro Bonomo, although it is clear that some of these literary tributes were actually produced at Hofhaimer’s request. Several descriptions of state occasions attended by Maximilian mention Hofhaimer’s presence. Such attention was exceptional in a genre of writing that focused almost exclusively on the presence and actions of the princes, aristocrats and prelates. The musician and humanist Othmar Nachtigall (latinised as “Luscinius”) praised Hofhaimer’s technical skill and his unending stream of invention. Luscinius’ description of Hofhaimer’s improvisation suggests the “flow state” that psychologists recognise as a precondition for uninterrupted, spontaneous creativity. Students were sent to study with Hofhaimer from as far afield as Venice, Strasbourg and Saxony. They in turn disseminated his technique and his taste throughout the Holy Roman Empire, thus multiplying his influence.

Hofhaimer was also sought after as a consultant in the conception and voicing of important new organs, for example at St James’s church in Innsbruck, the magnificent instrument in the Fugger chapel in St Anne’s church in Augsburg, as well as instruments in Bressanone/Brixen, Bolzano/Bozen, Vipiteno/Sterzing, and Eisenerz (Styria). In reward for his outstanding service and for his promotion of organ playing and pedagogy, Maximilian knighted Hofhaimer in 1515 at the Double Wedding in Vienna. In a description of this ceremony, at which Hofhaimer himself played, the humanist statesman Johannes Cuspinianus declared that Hofhaimer was unparalleled in the German-speaking lands (“in universa Germania secundum non habet”). This judgement echoed a comment by Wolfgang Walcher, Abbot of St Peter’s, Salzburg, who called Hofhaimer the king of organists (“monarcha organistarum”).4 In a woodcut created just before Maximilian’s death, or perhaps just afterwards, Hans Weiditz depicted a mass at which Maximilian kneels just to the side of the altar, while in the middle-ground the chapel sings mass, and Hofhaimer plays the regal, a small reed organ (fig. 1).5 Perhaps the clearest expression of Hofhaimer’s astonishing prestige is the fact that he is the only member of Maximilian’s court to receive a chariot virtually all to himself in the Triumphal Procession, accompanied only by his trusty calcant (fig. 2).

Hofhaimer was not the only organist in Maximilian’s employment. Maximilian employed other organists to play for the daily services at St James’, Innsbruck: Jacob Kellergraf (1496), Georg Accot (1504–1509), and Hans Sattler (1511–1520). In 1507, Maximilian sent Hofhaimer to live at Augsburg, where the court often stayed for long stretches, or stopped on its progress, thus leaving the burden of playing in Innsbruck to these other men. Although these were presumably capable players, they earned only a fraction of what Hofhaimer received. Hofhaimer was a star, and Maximilian knew that something of the musician’s charisma reflected on him as patron.

Despite his permanently overstretched finances, Maximilian always ensured that Hofhaimer received his salary, which was drawn on the income from the salt works at Hall in Tirol. He also poured money into the construction of organs. In February 1497, Maximilian paid Wolfgang Reichenauer 100 Gulden for improvements to the organ in St James’, Innsbruck, including more power to the reed stops.6 In March 1498 he commissioned another instrument from Reichenauer for 100 Gulden.7 Finally, in May 1498, Maximilian appointed Reichenauer for a period of ten years, at the impressive salary of 200 Gulden a year. During this time, Reichenauer was to build ten large organs and one positive organ, that is, a smaller instrument that could be moved. For each of the large organs, Reichenauer would receive 700 Gulden to pay for his food, wages and transport, while Maximilian would pay for all the materials and the wages of Reichenauer’s assistants. Reichenauer’s contract of appointment specified that each of these organs was to include some new and unusual feature.8 Clearly not all these instruments were destined for Innsbruck, but were presumably to be dotted around Maximilian’s territories. In the event, Maximilian dismissed Reichenauer in August 1500, perhaps disappointed by his output.9 However, his willingness to support the construction and maintenance of instruments throughout his lands was unabated. In July 1500, he paid for renovations to the stained glass and the organ in St George’s chapel in the castle in Wiener Neustadt.10 In 1501, he contributed 50 Gulden to the construction of an organ for the Franciscan church in Linz.11 In 1512, he was deeply involved in the rebuilding and combining of three earlier instruments at St James’s, Innsbruck, undertaken by the prominent Bohemian organ builder Jan of Dubrau.12

Maximilian also used his legal powers as territorial prince to promote organ music throughout his territories. Amongst the Habsburg hereditary territories was “Further Austria” (Vorderösterreich), a patchwork of small feudal territories and imperial cities in Vorarlberg and what is now southwest Germany. In 1494, Maximilian earmarked a benefice in the market church of Rottenburg am Neckar to pay for an organist.13 In 1495, he reserved a benefice supported by income from Säckingen Abbey to support an organist there.14 In 1496, he used his right of presentation to benefices (ius praesentandi) to support an organist for the collegiate church in Horb.15 Between 1516 and 1518, Leonhard Kleber occupied this position at Horb.16 Kleber wrote a manuscript of keyboard intabulations of vocal music, including several songs by Hofhaimer. Although Maximilian did not often visit his hereditary lands in Further Austria, his support of three organists’ benefices in those territories suggests that he recognised the soft power that patronising the King of the Instruments could give him.

In late medieval iconography, King David was often depicted playing a musical instrument, usually the harp, but sometimes the organ.17 Maximilian’s knowledge of the tradition of David as a musical king is indicated by the chapter of the Weißkunig that describes his love of music. The White King is said to have been inspired to promote sacred music through the example of David, and military music through the example of Alexander. In the accompanying woodcut (fig. 3), Maximilian stands amidst his musicians. In the foreground are placed conspicuously a harpist (perhaps suggesting David) and an organist (could it be the most famous organist in Maximilian’s service?). An illumination in the so-called St Elizabeth’s Psalter, made in the early thirteenth century probably at Reinhardsbrunn Monastery in Thuringia, shows David enthroned while his musicians make a joyful noise on the fiddle, tuned bells, long horn (perhaps an early form of cornetto), and positive organ (fig. 4).18 The similarities with the woodcut from the Weißkunig are striking, even to the selection of instruments. As a patron of organs and organists, as king amongst his musicians, Maximilian not simply identified with David, but appropriated the tradition of the organ as a truly kingly instrument.

Grantley McDonald



Notes

1. For comments on the construction and the tonal quality of the surviving Blockwerk material remaining in the organ in Rysum, see Ralf Lützelschwab, “Wie Donner? Gedanken zur Perzeption von Orgelklang im Mittelalter,” Das Mittelalter 27 (2022), 68–90, at 75–77.

2. Huldrych Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke. Band VI., V. Teil, Corpus Reformatorum XCIII.5 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991), 439.

3. For more information on organ-building in fifteenth-century Austria, and a link to a recording of Hofhaimer’s Recordare for organ, see Klaus Aringer’s articles in the website Musikleben des Spätmittelalters in der Region Österreich: https://musical-life.net/essays/orgeln-und-orgelmusik-der-region-oesterreich or https://musical-life.net/essays/die-ueberlieferung-der-musik-fuer-tasteninstrumente-1400-1520.

4. Salzburg, Stiftsarchiv St Peter, Hs A 626, 17r.

5. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/747302, Creative Commons CC0 1.0.

6. Innsbruck, TLA, gvh 1496, 111r.

7. Vienna, FHKA, AHK GB 4, 12r (36r).

8. Innsbruck, TLA, oö Kammer-Kopialbücher 6, Bekennen 2 (1498), 182–183 (79v–80r).

9. Vienna, FHKA, AHK GB 7, 216v.

10. Vienna, FHKA, AHK GB 6, 7r (30r).

11. Vienna, FHKA, AHK GB 9, 24r (45r), 39r (60r).

12. Innsbruck, TLA, Copialbuch Missiven an Hof 1512, 73; Innsbruck, TLA, oö Kammerraitbuch 59 (1512), 70v; Innsbruck, TLA, Kunstsachen I, 530 and 935.

13. Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Abt. Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, B 40 Bü 353, Nr 14.

14. Karlsruhe, GLA, D 1024a.

15. Innsbruck, TLA, Maximiliana XIV/1496, 33r; Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Abt. Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, B 40 Bü 299, Nr 1.

16. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Mus.ms. 40026, 165v.

17. For example, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10094, 73r: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00112103?page=157

18. Cividale del Friuli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, ms 137, 149r; image from Wikimedia Commons.


Header image credits: Maximilian I Hearing Mass Hans Weiditz the Younger German ca. 1515 (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/747302)


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Herbert Krammer (March 9, 2026). Blog Post | Instrumentalising Politics: Maximilian as patron of the organ | By Grantley McDonald. Managing Maximilian (1493-1519) - A blog on Persona, Politics, and Personnel through the Lens of Digital Prosopography at the time of Maximilian of Habsburg. Retrieved April 15, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/15ub2


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.