The memorial certainly does bear unmistakable signs of Peter Vischer’s handiwork, but it is impossible not to feel that in many points, as for instance the articulation of the hands and feet, and the anatomy of the body in the case of the figure of Christ, it is decidedly inferior to the best work of the house of Vischer. Compare it with the beautiful tomb-plate of Frau Margarete Tucher in the cathedral at Regensburg (Ratisbon) and the difference in manner and technique at once leaps to the eye. Yet this memorial also was made in 1521. (Ill. 16.) It can hardly have been designed by the same hand, although this, like the monument of the Eissen family in the Church of St. Ægidius at Nuremberg, to which it is near akin, certainly came from the Vischer foundry, for it bears the mark and signature 14P88. Normberge. 1521. But the trade-mark between these two initials is substantially the same as that found on the inkstand of 1525. We have no choice, then, but to follow Bergau and Seeger and to attribute these two former works, in great part at any rate, to Peter Vischer the younger. And, indeed, they exhibit to a high degree all those qualities which are most characteristic of his work. There is a rhythmic balance in the composition which at once recalls the reliefs on the Sebaldusgrab attributed to him. Here again the artist has seized a fine moment in the dramatic incident he wishes to portray. He has harmonized and subordinated all the characters of that pathetic scene when Christ met the sisters of the dead Lazarus. The noble figure of the Christ who has stepped forward to listen to and to grant the prayer of the bereaved sister forms the centre of a picture whereof the disputing Apostles and the sorrowing women are the necessary complement. With regard to the Apostles themselves it only requires a moment’s comparison to demonstrate that their figures are mere modifications of those on the Sebaldusgrab, and they may have been wrought by any member of the family, therefore, or even by an assistant. For the craftsmen of those days were obliged to take a frankly business view of their handiwork. Michel Wolgemut left much in each of his pictures to be done by his pupils and assistants, and Dürer, too, following his master’s custom was, in too many cases, forced to adopt the same practice. For a man must live, and Dürer found that his careful and elaborate style of painting was simply beggaring him. The commissions received by the Vischer family were necessarily executed after something of the same spirit. The design would be sketched out by the old man or one of his sons, or, again, by him and his sons in part and in consultation. Then whilst the more skilful of them wrought the more important figures and details of the piece, the subsidiary details and characters would be left to the ’prentice hands. In the case of the Tucher monument the task