DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0301
270
Early German and Fl&mish Woodcuts.—Part II.
a rnaster. Tbis opinion is involved witli Thausing’s exploded tbeory tliat Diirer
remained in Wolgemut’s workshop till 1497, and tbat his early eugravings were mere
copiesof those signed “ W.” It is also very improhahle tliat Diirer woukl tabe the pains
to repeat, line for line, so many large drawings which perished when they were first cut
on tlie bloc-k. The more natural interpretalion of the facts, vkz., that the unsigned cuts
are the work of a copyist who refrained from pirating Diirer’s monogram, is borne out
hy a comparison of the two versions in every case. The copies are hy no means rude or
unintelligent on the whole, hut they hetray, in details too numerous to mention, a failure
to understand the meaning of the artist’s line. Look, for instance, at the head of the
martyr who lies heyond the bisliop in this woodcut, and notice the copyist’s omission of
anatomical dttail in the severed neck; or see what he has made of the ear of wild corn,
or of the little castle on the mountain. In B. 127 he has spoilt the three spikes of
flowering grass ; the boat to the left of the castle on an island is drawn without a mast;
the two black hoats above it are less clearly expressed. He has done better with B. 131,
but the largest bird is apparentiy flying upside down. The perspective is never so good
as in the signed crrts. The faults are not those of an inexperienced wood-engraver, but
those of a draughtsmnn who has reproduced almost every detail of his original but
missed its spirit and spontaneity.
If I may hazard a conjecture as to tlie authorship of the copies, I would suggest that
they are all by the same hand as the copies of the Apocaiypse in the edition printed at
ytrassburg, in ln02, by Hieronymus Greff of Frankfort, and signed with a monogram
composed of the letters IYF and a cross (Nagler, Mon. iv, 573).1 It was this piracy,
no doubt, which called fortli Diirer’s warning, “Heus tu insidiator,” etc., in the 1511
cdition. These copies reproduce Dixrer’s designswith about the same degree of accuracy
as the unsigned versions of the single woodcuts.
The watermark, wbich occurs, I believe, on all the unsigned single cuts (certainly on
the two in this collection and the two in the Albertina), is a lxigh crown. This is not,
however, as Thausing asserts, Ilausmann’s no. 4, which distinguishes one of the earliest
papers whicli Dih’cr used at Nuromberg, but a diff’erent form, more resembling no. 21,
but not identical with it. The five cusps whicli rise above tbe row of five circles are
much taller and dift’er in shape, the three micldle ones being rounded at the top.
4. THE MEN'S BATH. B./28. H. 1897. E. 18.
[393 X 283.] Fiue impression ; border slightly cut. Watermark, Ha. 24.
Presented by W. Mitchell, Esq., 1895.
4a. THE MEN’S BATH. B. 128. H. 1897. B, 18.
/
[387 X 282.] Another fine impression, with margin [6 mm.]. Watermark,
Ha. 24.
In the inventory of 1837.
Probably about the same date (149G) as tlie drawing of a bathfor women at Bremen,
reproduced in a rare contemporary woodcut (Paris, two impressions, and Albeitina).
See Ephrussi, “ Les Bains de Femmes d’Albert Durer,” Paris, 1881, and Thausing,
Mitth. d. Inst. f. osterr. GescMchtsforschung, iii, 98.
5. “ERCULES.” B. 127. II. 1893. R. 24.
[390 X 283.] Fine impression. Watermark, Ha. 24.
Collections : Berlin Museum (duplicate, F. 329), Drugulin (F. 535), Mitckell.
Prosented by W. Mitchell, Esq., 1895.
1 These copies, which are much rarer than the originals. and often coloured, have
been reproduced in facsimile, with the omission of the monogram, and published at
Munich (1894), with an introduction by Dr. Sepp. The title-page of this edition states
that thc text is from the Strassburg cdition of 1502, but there is not a word to inform
the inexperienced purchaser that the woodcuts are not reproduced from Diirer’s
originals. This edition has been widely circulated in London, and was reprinted at
Munich in 1901.
Early German and Fl&mish Woodcuts.—Part II.
a rnaster. Tbis opinion is involved witli Thausing’s exploded tbeory tliat Diirer
remained in Wolgemut’s workshop till 1497, and tbat his early eugravings were mere
copiesof those signed “ W.” It is also very improhahle tliat Diirer woukl tabe the pains
to repeat, line for line, so many large drawings which perished when they were first cut
on tlie bloc-k. The more natural interpretalion of the facts, vkz., that the unsigned cuts
are the work of a copyist who refrained from pirating Diirer’s monogram, is borne out
hy a comparison of the two versions in every case. The copies are hy no means rude or
unintelligent on the whole, hut they hetray, in details too numerous to mention, a failure
to understand the meaning of the artist’s line. Look, for instance, at the head of the
martyr who lies heyond the bisliop in this woodcut, and notice the copyist’s omission of
anatomical dttail in the severed neck; or see what he has made of the ear of wild corn,
or of the little castle on the mountain. In B. 127 he has spoilt the three spikes of
flowering grass ; the boat to the left of the castle on an island is drawn without a mast;
the two black hoats above it are less clearly expressed. He has done better with B. 131,
but the largest bird is apparentiy flying upside down. The perspective is never so good
as in the signed crrts. The faults are not those of an inexperienced wood-engraver, but
those of a draughtsmnn who has reproduced almost every detail of his original but
missed its spirit and spontaneity.
If I may hazard a conjecture as to tlie authorship of the copies, I would suggest that
they are all by the same hand as the copies of the Apocaiypse in the edition printed at
ytrassburg, in ln02, by Hieronymus Greff of Frankfort, and signed with a monogram
composed of the letters IYF and a cross (Nagler, Mon. iv, 573).1 It was this piracy,
no doubt, which called fortli Diirer’s warning, “Heus tu insidiator,” etc., in the 1511
cdition. These copies reproduce Dixrer’s designswith about the same degree of accuracy
as the unsigned versions of the single woodcuts.
The watermark, wbich occurs, I believe, on all the unsigned single cuts (certainly on
the two in this collection and the two in the Albertina), is a lxigh crown. This is not,
however, as Thausing asserts, Ilausmann’s no. 4, which distinguishes one of the earliest
papers whicli Dih’cr used at Nuromberg, but a diff’erent form, more resembling no. 21,
but not identical with it. The five cusps whicli rise above tbe row of five circles are
much taller and dift’er in shape, the three micldle ones being rounded at the top.
4. THE MEN'S BATH. B./28. H. 1897. E. 18.
[393 X 283.] Fiue impression ; border slightly cut. Watermark, Ha. 24.
Presented by W. Mitchell, Esq., 1895.
4a. THE MEN’S BATH. B. 128. H. 1897. B, 18.
/
[387 X 282.] Another fine impression, with margin [6 mm.]. Watermark,
Ha. 24.
In the inventory of 1837.
Probably about the same date (149G) as tlie drawing of a bathfor women at Bremen,
reproduced in a rare contemporary woodcut (Paris, two impressions, and Albeitina).
See Ephrussi, “ Les Bains de Femmes d’Albert Durer,” Paris, 1881, and Thausing,
Mitth. d. Inst. f. osterr. GescMchtsforschung, iii, 98.
5. “ERCULES.” B. 127. II. 1893. R. 24.
[390 X 283.] Fine impression. Watermark, Ha. 24.
Collections : Berlin Museum (duplicate, F. 329), Drugulin (F. 535), Mitckell.
Prosented by W. Mitchell, Esq., 1895.
1 These copies, which are much rarer than the originals. and often coloured, have
been reproduced in facsimile, with the omission of the monogram, and published at
Munich (1894), with an introduction by Dr. Sepp. The title-page of this edition states
that thc text is from the Strassburg cdition of 1502, but there is not a word to inform
the inexperienced purchaser that the woodcuts are not reproduced from Diirer’s
originals. This edition has been widely circulated in London, and was reprinted at
Munich in 1901.