JACOB MERZ’S PORTRAIT 
OF FRANC CAUCIG/KAVČIČ
Seymour Howard, Davis, California
Jacob M erz's p o rtra it of the notable Jugoslav painter and academ ician 
Franc Caucig/Kavčič (1755—1828) ds an excellent study. It is also of 
great interest as a docum ent related to artists’ training and careers at 
national academ ies during the early m odem era (Fig. 23). The young 
Swiss p o rtraitist was a student of Cauoig at the Academy of Fine 
Arts in Vienna betw een 1801 and 1807.
Jacob Merz (1782— 1807) had already been a m uch favored student in 
Zürich, (showing great prom ise,1 He had had the choise of studying in sev­
eral great cultural centers, m ost notably a t Dresden, w ith Anton Graff 
(1736—1813), and a t S tuttgart, w ith the etcher Johann G otthard von 
M üller (1747— 1830). B ut w ith the advice of his protector he chose to 
go to Vienna and w ork u nder H einrich Füger (1751— 1818). Its faculty, 
outstanding am ong the Central European academ ies, was attracting 
students from m any nations. F urtherm ore, Merz already had im portant 
liaisons w ith patrons and protectors of the Viennese academy. These 
advantages prom ised extraordinary success for him.
W hen Jacob Merz came to the Academy, in November 1801, Archduke 
Karl, a national hero, had been leading the H apsburg court in a policy 
of seeking favor w ith the Helvetic Federation. The Swiss cantons buffer­
ed the frontier on which Austria faced the m enacing and vengeful 
anti-m onarchical expansion of Napoleonic France. Merz was a favored 
protege of the cultural and political leaders of Zürich and its pow erful 
canton. His life-long patron, pastor Johann W ilhelm Veith (1758—1833), 
m em ber of an old and well-known Swiss family, was an avid patriot 
as well as an enterprising a rt collector, cultural entrepreneur, and m an 
of letters. He had m any influential friends in Central Europe. He had
1 On the career of the artist and discussions of a representative sampling 
of his work, see Seymour Howard, Jacob Merz (1783—1807), exhibition cat­
alogue. Schweizerisches Institut für Kunstwissenschaft, Zürich, 1981 (bibl.
p. 18).
The principal source on his life and work has been the biography, with 
extensive excerpts from contemporary correspondence, by Merz’ s patron 
Johann Wilhelm Veith (Notizen aus dem Leben von Jacob Merz, Mahler 
und Kupferäzer, Tubingen, 1810; 176 pp., with a nearly complete list of 
his prints, pp. 173—176).

w ritten a eulogy to his parish of Andelfiingen, praising its resistance 
to the French occupation. Archduke K arl’s adjutant, Count Delmotte, 
had already m et the young Merz in Switzerland, during a stay w ith 
Veith in 1797. Merz could expect extraordinary favors in Vienna, and, 
indeed, his fortunes waxed rapidly in the H apsburg capital (Fig. 24). 
Archduke Karl, who received his cultural training from his aunt, Arch­
duchess M aria Christina, and her husband Duke Albert (founder of the 
Albertina), had ju st been appointed a protector of the Academy, in 1801. 
Another p rotector was the w ealthy a rt collector Count M oritz von Fries, 
an adm irer of M erz’s one-time m entor and p ro tecto r Johann Caspar 
Lavater (1741—1801); von Fries becam e a p atro n of Merz in Vienna. 
Merz was adm itted to the Academy on -the basis of a large posthum ous 
p o rtrait of Lavater, executed in 1802 as an engraving, th at was agreed 
upon w ith Fiiger as an acceptance piece. Lavater, the fam ous Swiss 
savant, enthusiast, and exponent of physiognomy, had -been wounded 
by a French m usketeer during the occupation of Zurich in 1800 and 
suffered a m arty r’ s death. His m em ory rallied patriotic and anti-Jacobin 
sentim ents. The m aking of a m em orial p o rtrait of him was a project 
clearly attractive to the H apsburgs and to the Swiss for political as 
well as cultural reasons.
Merz came to Vienna, as did o th er Swiss m en of arts and letters, to 
enjoy the patronage of the H apsburg court. The great Swiss historian 
and religious convert Johannes von M üller of Schaffhausen (1752—1809), 
whose thought served as a m odel of nationalism and m oral philosophy 
for Merz and Veith, had become director of the state library and 
archives. Johann Rudolph Fiissli (1737— 1806), a graphic a rtist and a rt 
historian, who was a m em ber of the illustrious Zürich family of artists, 
w riters, and publishers, was appointed keeper of the Academy library 
and collections, to which he introduced Merz. Füssli's assistant and 
successor was Jacob Egger of Gossau in St. Gall (1770—1842), later 
Merz’s closest friend. Merz him self came to Vienna w ith another good 
friend, the m ilitary painter Georg O tt (1783— 1807), soion of a Zürich 
family of artists; O tt also becam e a protege of Archduke Karl. Their 
colleague Jacob Lorenz Billwiler (1779— 1832) came to th e Academy in 
the sam e year. It was Billwiler who m ade the etching of M erz’s p o rtra it 
of Caucig for the Academy (Fig. 25), after the untim ely death of Merz 
a t ithe age of 24.2 At this tim e a Swiss m an m ight do very well in 
Vienna w ith royal patronage.
The H apsburgs, like o th er political leaders of Europe, gave ever-in­
creasing support to their a rt academ ies by the end of the eighteenth 
century, employing them as instrum ents of state policy in the arts. 
These institutions w ere m eant to ensure appropriate artistic excellence 
in th e products of burgeoning state-controlled industries, as well as in
2 The print is noted and reproduced in Ksenija Rozman, Franc Kavčič/Caucig 
1755—1828, exhibition catalogue. Narodna galerija, Ljubljana, 1978, p. 72; 
cf. also p. 16 for a copy (in lithograph) after the etching by the Serbian 
printmaker Anastas Jovanovič (1717—1899).

expensive m onum ents and other artistic enterprises sponsored by the 
government.3
Füger, director of the Academy, had once been a child prodigy, like 
Merz. He was schooled in the great national academy at Dresden be­
fore coming to Vienna. Sponsored by the H apsburgs, he com pleted 
a long training in Rome, w here he w orked under the direction of the 
painter Anton Raphael Mengs (1728— 1779), who w ith his som etim e 
colleague and fellow a rt theorist Johann Joachim W inckelm ann (1719 to 
1768) helped to establish th e principles and im agery underlying the 
first style of m odern aesthetics: Neo-Classicism. The state sponsors 
of the Viennese Academy, who had already published th e w ork of 
W inckelmann, the father of a rt history and prophet of Neo-Classicism, 
intended for Füger to assim ilate the new style, then sweeping all 
Europe. He did. He twice copied M engs’ s classicistic ceiling painting 
Pranassus (1761), prom inently set in the m ain salon of the fam ous and 
influential new villa of W inckelm ann’s patron, Cardinal Alessandro 
Albani. Albani, an enlightened anti-Jesuit antiquarian and diplom at, was 
the forem ost cham pion of the new m ode and was called the H adrian 
of his tim e. Füger initiated in Vienna the strict academ ic regime and 
eclectic aesthetic precepts th at he learned from Mengs and from his 
academ icist brother-in-law Antonio Mengs-Maron (1733— 1808). This was 
the schooling of Merz.
Cauoig him self had also studied in Rome under the auspices of the 
Vienna academy, for even m ore years than did Füger. He, too, knew 
the leading artists of the time, then w orking in Rome. It was later 
th at Paris, under th e rule of Napoleon, began to usurp the position 
of Rome as the European capital of art, abducting h er treasures and 
assum ing her pow er and fame. Caucig becam e an accom plished Neo- 
Classic artist, one of th e m ost austere practitioners of the style at 
the Academy. Like m ost of his fellow-professors, he was a citizen of 
the A ustrian Em pire and had studied at the Academy before going 
to Rome. After his return, he served as an instructor there. Eventually, 
he becam e the director of th e Academy and helped to establish Neo- 
Classicism as th e entrenched idiom of th at institution and of the state.4 
That paradigm atic idiom, of high m oral tone, based upon lustrous 
inherited notions of excellence, illusionism , and individualism associated
3 On the history of European national academies and their growing socio­
political and economic importance in early modern European nations, see 
especially Nicholas Pevsner, Academies of Art, Cambridge, 1940.
For the policies and history of the Vienna academy and the official acti­
vities of its members, see in particular Karl F. A. von Lützow, Geschichte 
der kais. kört. Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna, 1877, and Walter 
Wagner, Die Geschichte der Akademie der bildenden Künste in Wien, 
Vienna, 1967.
4 On the career, works, and cultural ambiance of Caucig, see the thor­
oughgoing catalogue of Dr. Rozman cited above, and on his acquaintance 
with other Neo-Classic artists of Rome see also her study »The Roman 
Views of Felice Giani and Francesco Caucig,« Master Drawings, 18, 1980, 
253—256. For Caucig’ s career at the Academy, see further von Lützow, 
passim, and Wagner, passim and p. 402: Korrector of history of drawings, 
1796—1798; Professor of painting, 1799—1820; Director of painting and sculp­
ture, 1820—1828.

w ith Classical antiquity and the afterlife of its tradition, served as the 
official im agery sponsored by W estern nations and their cultural sat­
ellites until well into the p resen t century.5
Franc Cauoig was perhaps the m ost austere and disciplined neoclassi­
cist of the academy. Merz surely received considerable instruction in 
the new idiom from him, probably studying his m any drawings after 
antiquities and classicistic m asters m ade in Rome — m uch as he stu d ­
ied such w orks by Lips and Füger. For example, Merz drew m any 
versions of the cast of the head of the classical Uffizi Niobe (e. g., 
Fig. 27), prom inently shown in Josef Ziegler's (1785—1852) oil p o rtrait 
of Caucig (Fig. 26, 1820). And certain of his studies after the antique, 
the life m odel (Fig. 28), and Raphael (Fig. 30) are especially close to 
those of Caucig (e.g., Figs. 29 and 31). Merz, like Caucig, also m ade 
various landscape studies on excursions w ith his friends.6 
Caucig is represented by Merz as aging; he was about 48 years old 
at the time of this po rtrait. He is sensitively shown as benign, acute, 
com fortable, and phlegm atic, though not w ithout traces on his shad­
owed side of the grum bling im patience noted by th e Nazarenes. It is an 
excellent likeness, to judge from o ther p o rtraits of Caucig. Descriptions 
of Caucig and the excellence of o th er p o rtraits by Merz also support 
our faith in this one. Merz was apparently sym pathetic to Caucig and 
to the other faculty m em bers whom he depicted. He seems to have 
adm ired Caucig, as he did Füger, Johann M artin Fischer (1741—1820), 
and Franz Zauner (1746— 1822), Caucig’s predecessors as directors of 
the Academy, whom he also portrayed.
Merz had shown rem arkable abilities in p o rtraitu re in Zürich, well 
before he was publicly favored by the Archduke. Füssli, who had be­
come his m entor and p ro tecto r a t th e Academy, arranged for him to 
m ake drawing p o rtraits of the m ajor professors at th e Academy. The 
present p o rtra it of Caucig is one of this series. (All the studies are in 
the Crocker Art M useum, Sacram ento, California, am ong some 300 re­
cently uncovered draw ings and oil sketches by Merz, a folio th at con­
stitutes virtually the entire know n original w ork of the artist.)7 
Merz’s p o rtraits of the Academy faculty form a close-knit series that, 
in a flattering conceit, alludes to th e Iconography series of p o rtraits 
of famous academ ic artists of Flanders by Anthony Van Dyck. Van 
Dyck’s p o rtraits w ere then m uch in vogue, and Merz had adm ired and
5 On the history and importance of Neo-Classicism and studies on the sub­
ject, see the exemplary studies of Robert Rosenblum (Transformations in 
Late Eighteenth Century Art, Princeton, 1967) and Hugh Honour (Neo- 
classicism, Middlesex, 1968) and the Council of Europe exhibition catalogue 
The Age of Neo Classicism, London, 1972.
6 Ziegler’ s canvas is noted and reproduced in Rozman, Kavčič/Caucig, p. 73, 
as are various of Caucig's own studies from Classical casts, the model, 
and Renaissance masters and also landscape sketches made on his travels 
(pp. 162 ff., passim).
7 The Academy portraits have Crocker Art Gallery inventory numbers 806 
(Beck), 808 (J. M. Fischer), 811 (Zauner), 815 (Caucig), 820 (Füger), 821 
(Maurer), 822 (V. Fischer), 823 (Schmutzer), and 827 (Füger). Two are illu­
strated in Howard, Merz: no. 28, Jacob Matthias Schmuzer (1733—1811), 
Director of the school of prints and etching, and no. 29, Füger. All the 
faculty series are similar in size and material. The Caucig portrait may

copied them early in his career (Fig. 32). Merz’ s .portrait of Füger, like 
Van Dyck’s self-portrait, appears in two versions: one study of the 
head only (Fig. 33) and the other of b u st size (Fig. 34), like the rest 
of th e suite. Probably Merz intended to m ake prints after his drawings; 
Billwiler in fact m ade p rin ts of all th e sketches, shortly after M erz’ s 
death. Like the finished prints m ade after Van Dyck’s sketches, Bill- 
w iler’s etchings of Merz’ s studies are harsher and m ore mechanical- 
looking reproductions of the originals.8
The graphic and m onochrom e tradition was especially strong in M erz’ s 
Central European academ ic background, and in his own work. He 
learned to paint in oils only in 1803, shortly before his death. He was 
originally trained as a reproductive p rintm aker by his Zürich m aster, 
H einrich Lips (1758—1817) (Fig. 36). Lips w as once a teacher at the 
W eim ar academy; he had studied in Italy and was a friend of Goethe. 
He was th e principal illu strato r of Lavater’s Physiognomische Frag­
m ente (Zürich, 1775—1778). M erz’s p o rtraits of the Academy professors 
resem ble sim ilarly literal studies by Lips and his fellow illustrators 
of Zürich, which however are h ard er and m ore linear. Their factual 
physiognomic and psychological appearance recalls the precepts of Lips, 
Lavater, Anton Graff (1736—1813), and Veith, expressed in letters to 
Merz. They repeated th eir ideals of scrupulous observation of nature 
and detail th at echoed an objective scientific naturalism endorsed by 
Goethe.9 That tradition of objective observation and recording anti­
cipated the developm ent of the m odern cam era and accom panied the 
contem porary use of the cam era lucida as well as the cam era obscura. 
There is also a certain softness and sophisticated aplom b in the aca­
demy p o rtraits th at may reflect the study of French three-color crayon 
technique, like th a t used by the Swiss artist Jean Etienne Liotard 
(1702—1789) in his m any royal p o rtraits in Vienna. But m ore likely 
they reveal the influence of the eclectic and ingratiating cosm opolitan 
m anner of M erz’s academ y instructors, especially Füger and Johann 
B aptist Lam pi the elder (1751—1830), who used it in th eir private por­
trait commissions. It was a m anner derived from contem porary English 
and continental p o rtraits and m iniatures. Merz’ s various sources, though 
inform ed by rem nants of Baroque rhetorical outpourings and Rococo 
vivacity, adhere closely to beignly tem pered in terests in m aterialist 
versim ilitude and academ ic discipline. These same elem ents character-
serve as an example: warm grey paper, black and red chalk with chalk 
heightening, remnants of a tissue-paper cover sheet, »P. Caucig x« in gra­
phite, »Kunstler/D. Füger, Austrian« in graphite on mount, 258 X 194 mm. 
(10 1/8 X 7 5/8 inches), Crocker Art Museum inv. no. 815. Merz also made 
a study of Füssli in the same technique and format, but in a somewhat 
larger size, which apparently was retained by Füssli; it was recorded early 
in this century as on the Berlin art market (sale photo in Witt Library, 
London).
* With the exception of the Merz portrait of Zauner, known to me only 
in a trial proof in the Albertina, Billwiler’ s exchings after Merz’ s studies 
of the Academy professors were first recorded in Johann R. Füssli, Allge­
meines Künstlerlexikon, Zürich, 1809, p. 847.
’ These ideas are presented in great detail by Veith, especially in a letter 
to Merz with an accompanying commentary in Veith, N otizen... Merz, 
pp. 155—172.

ized the bourgeois realist-naturalist tradition of accurate and probingly 
psychological p o rtraitu re th at flourished during the nineteenth century. 
Over the years, Caucig recom m ended various of his students to Antonio 
Canoiva (1757— 1822), whom he had know n very well in Rome. Appar­
ently it was he who introduced Merz to the famous sculptor, formely 
director of the Academy of St. Luke in Rome, a m odel for the Vienna 
academ y from the tim e of Mengs and his circle. Canova, the »Phidias 
of his age,« had come to Vienna to install his great funerary m onum ent 
of M aria C hristina a t the A ugustinerkirche. Canova befriended the 
younger artist and sat for a m iniature p o rtrait akin to those that Merz 
m ade of the Academy professors (Fig. 35). He also at th at time com ­
m issioned Merz to m ake an etching in pure outline, ä Ja Flaxman, 
of the C hristina m onum ent (cf. Fig. 37), to be used in a sum ptuous 
A ustrian publication about it. Duke Albert acquired various copies of 
the large p rin t o f it th at Merz made. Merz also reproduced the design 
in a sm all tondo print, along w ith large and sm all p rin t versions of 
the p o rtrait of Canova. The C hristina m onum ent itself, Canova’ s super­
vision of his design for the print, and Canova’ s instruction and advice 
about his draw ing profoundly influenced the young m an ’s art. Even 
in his genre studies, Merz becam e increasingly attracted to the beauti­
ful Neo-Classic style, already learned partly in Zürich from Lips and 
m ore thoroughly learned in Vienna from his professors at the Academy, 
especially Caucig.1 0
In th at style. Merz illu strated the influential artists’ anatom y book 
of Fischer, published by the Academy, w ith fine p rin ts of a classicistic 
Meleager-like skeleton (1804). He also laboriously designed and executed 
the plate of Z auner’s Marcus-Aurelius-like equestrian statue of Joseph II 
for the royal house, m ainly at the urging of th e Archduke (1807). His 
dem onstrated ability, as m uch as his personal charm and influential 
friends, earned him the com m issions for these great projects estab­
lishing the Neo-Classic style and academ icism as the official support 
of reputation and pow er in H apsburg Vienna.
Neo-Classicism, as preached and practiced an the national academies 
and by Lips in Zürich, revered and incorporated n o t only th e a rt of 
classical antiquity b u t also that of successive grand m asters who adm i­
red it - especially Raphael, the m odel for the life as well as the a rt of 
Merz. Ju st as this style was becom ing entrenched in Vienna, a counter- 
current arose, which, fresh, new , and strong, was to become even m ore 
influential in the avant-garde developm ent of Central European artistic 
expression. The N azarenes, a group of young Germ anic artists n u rtu red 
by the eclectic academ ic and Neo-Classic training at th e Vienna academy 
in the years ju st before M erz’s death, openly repudiated its ideals after
1 0 On, Merz, Canova, the portrait, and the Christina monument plates, see 
Howard, Merz, p. 13 and nos. 31, 74; Selma Krasa, »Antonio Canova’ s 
Denkmal der Erzherzogin Marie Christine,« Albertina Studien, V/VI, 1967/68, 
94 f., 106, n. 191, figs. 29—32; and Veith, N otizen... Merz, pp. 49—52, 76 f, 
91, 142, 176, nos. 39—40, 42—43. On Caucig’ s friendship with Canova and 
his recommendations of students to the sculptor, see Rozman, Kavčič/ 
Caucig, pp. 264, 306; on Caucig’ s introduction of Merz to Canova, see Veith, 
Notizen ... Merz, p. 77, Hernn. Professor C**.«

the hum iliating defeat of the H apsburgs at Vienna by Napoleon, in 1809. 
As the B rotherhood of St. Luke, they condem ned their professors and 
the Academy and cham pioned instead a Neo-Gothic a rt and a system 
of guilds, then rom antically associated w ith freshly rising Germ an 
bourgeois ideals of nationalism and egalitarianism . Merz had been 
trained in this way before he left Switzerland, b ut he largely renounced 
this background at the academ y in Vienna. The new m ovem ent had 
far-reaching consequences, b u t for all their radical break w ith tradition, 
the N azarenes’ w ork was always firm ly grounded in the technical care 
and precision and respect for tradition and history th at they had 
learned a t the Academy.1 1 Though waning and veiled, these academic 
ideals and m odes have persisted in am bitious art to the present day. 
In Merz's studies after Caucig’s m odels and in his p o rtrait of Caucig, 
we find th e tem pered eclecticism and naturalism of the academ ic style 
th at inform ed the subsequent a rt of th e century.
MERZOV PORTRET FRANCA KAVČIČA
Risba Jacoba Merza (Hirslanden 1783 — Dunaj 1807), portret slikarjevega 
učitelja Franca Kavčiča (1755—1828), nas pouči o temeljnih načelih, o vlogi 
in pokroviteljstvu dunajske akademije v času, ko tej akademiji po pomenu 
za kulturno življenje Srednje Evrope ne najdemo primerjave.
Merz je bil spreten risar, grafik in portretist. Bil je zelo priljubljen v 
krogu vplivnih kulturnikov v rodnem ziiriškem kantonu. Heinrich F. Füger, 
ravnatelj dunajske c. kr. akademije, ga je povabil, naj vstopi v njegovo 
šolo prav v času, ko je mladi umetnik dokončal svoje začetno šolanje v 
Švici in ko so Habsburžani snubili Švicarje, naj se jim pridružijo v boju 
proti Napoleonovi Franciji. Prvo priznanje je Merz dosegel na Dunaju, ko 
ga je vzel pod zaščito nadvojvoda Karl. Nadvojvoda je zvedel za nadarje­
nega umetnika prek švicarskih znanstev adjutanta grofa Delmottea. Merz 
je bil priljubljen umetnik in cenili so ga tako ljudje iz bližine dvora kot 
tudi ugledni meščani, akademijski učitelji in šolski kolegi, med njimi še 
zlasti tisti, ki so bili povezani z rodno Švico.
Eden glavnih Merzovih učiteljev je bil jugoslovanski (slovenski) slikar Franc 
Kavčič, poznejši direktor dunajske akademije. Kavčič je pomagal Merzu, 
da je izoblikoval lasten neoklasicistični slog in da je zavrgel svojo dote­
danjo lokalno obarvano maniro. Merzov slikarski napredek je bil kaj kmalu 
zaznaven že pri akademijskih vajah, ki so se približale sorodnim Kavčiče­
vim delom. Ko je Kavčič Merza predstavil kiparju Antoniju Canovu, se 
je Merz še bolj poglobljeno oprijel novoklasicističnega sloga — tistega sloga, 
ki sta ga tudi Kavčič in njegov prijatelj Canova utrjevala v Rimu in ki je 
postal priljubljena manira v zgodnjem času moderne Evrope.
Naročilo za slikanje dunajskih akademijskih profesorjev je 1804. leta pri­
skrbel Merzu na Dunaju živeči Švicar, varuh akademijske knjižnice in zbirk, 
grafik ter umetnostni pisec Johann Rudolf Fiissli (1752—1809). Portret sli­
karja Kavčiča priča o novi slikarjevi navezanosti na akademijo in o njegovi 
risarski spretnosti; izpričuje tudi nepretrgano povezanost z romantičnim 
realizmom in zanimanje za upodabljanje fiziognomij, ki se jih je naučil 
risati že v Švici pri učiteljih in vzornikih, kot so bili Anton Graff, Caspar 
Lavater, Heinrich Lips in Johann Wilhelm Veith. Ti umetniki so objektivno 
upodabljali svet, reševali so vprašanja srednjega stanu in bistveno vplivali
“ For the Nazarenes and the Academy, see, for example, K. Andrews, The 
Nazarenes, Oxford, 1964, Chap. 1, and Jens C. Jensen, »Overbecks Eintritt 
in die Wiener Akademie und ein Brief von Heinrich Friedrich Füger,« in 
Romantik und Realismus in Österreich exhibition catalogue, Schweinfurt, 
1968, pp. 33— 40.

na oblikovanje porajajočega se realizma. Merzov portret slikarja Kavčiča 
je prim er skrbne risbe iz serije podob dunajskih akademijskih profesorjev 
— iz suite, ki spominja na tisto, ki jo je zasnoval Anthonis van Dyck in 
ki je z grafičnimi listi slavila velike akademijske učitelje tedanjega časa. 
Merzovi portreti so bili dobro sprejeti, vendar so bili zaradi slikarjeve 
zgodnje smrti šele postumno razmnoženi z grafičnimi listi. V letih 1807—09 
jih je vrezal Švicar, dunajski akademijski učenec in Merzov prijatelj Jacob 
Lorenz Billwiler. Merz sam pa je še pred smrtjo za akademijo in za svoje 
dvome naročnike zasnoval in vrezal mnoge pomembne grafike, med njimi 
na primer Zaunerjev spomenik Jožefa II., Canovov nagrobnik Marije Kri­
stine, grafike za ilustracijo Fischerjeve knjige o umetniški anatomiji in 
drugo.
Merzovo obetavno in bleščeče, vendar tragično kratko življenje in delo je 
kmalu prekrila senca poznejših dogodkov. Brž ko je Napoleon leta 1809 
zavzel Dunaj, so revolucionarni in vplivni mladi »Nazarenci« začeli od­
klanjati kakršnokoli pokroviteljstvo, trdo vodstvo in akademijski elektični 
pouk, kar vse je nekoč prevzelo in izoblikovalo mladega Merza in kar je 
vladalo na akademijah tudi še v 19. stoletju.

23 Jacob Merz: Franc Caucig, 1803—1804, Sacramento, Crocker Art Museum

24 Jacob Merz: Self-Portrait, c. 1807, Sacramento, Crocker Art Museum

25
/V7/7 Yf/
Johann Lorenz Billwiler, alter Jacob Merz: Franc Caucig, Teacher of 
History Painting, 1807—1809, Etching

26 Josef Ziegler: Franc Caucig with 
the Bust of Niobe, c. 1820, Vien­
na, Historisches Museum der 
Stadt Wien
27 Jacob Merz: Head of Ufizzi Niobe 
(from cast), c. 1803, Sacramento, 
Crocker Art Museum
28 Jacob Merz: Standing Male Mo­
del Holding Rod, c. 1804—1806, 
Sacram ento, Crocker Art Mu­
seum
29 Franc Caucig: Bust of the »Pseu­
do Vilellius«, 1781 (?), Vienna, 
Kupferstichkabinett

30 Jacob Merz: Detail of Raphael’s Expulsion of Heliodorus in the Vatican 
Stanze, c. 1802—1805, Sacramento, Crocker Art Museum
31 Franc Caucig: Detail of Raphael’s Expulsion of Heliodorus, Ljubljana, 
Narodna galerija

32 Jacob Merz, after Paul Pontius’s print after Anthony Van Dyck: Theo­
dore Rombouts, from Icons of Artists, 1798, Sacram ento, Crocker Art 
Museum

33 Jacob Merz: Heinrich Füger, 1803 
—1804, Sacramento, Crocker Art 
Museum
34 Jacob Merz: Heinrich Füger, 1803 
—1804, Sacramento, Crocker Art 
Museum
35 Jacob Merz: Antonio Canova, 36 Heinrich Lips: Self-portrait, in
1805, Sacramento, Crocker Art J. C. Lavater, Physiognomische
Museum Fragmente . . Leipzig 1755, Et­
ching

Jacob Merz: The Tomb of Archduchess Maria Christina by Canova, 1805, 
Vienna, Augustinerkirche, Etching