DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52770#0022
drawings, I am of opinion that this consensus of doubt is unjustified, and that the
attribution of the engraving to Diirer as one of his earliest attempts is quite
probable. This opinion is maintained with weighty arguments by Hans F. Seeker
in Zeitschrifl fur bildende Kunst, 1918, N.F. xxix,.p. 261. I am convinced by what he
writes that the resemblances to Diirer’« early woodcuts are not to be explained, as
they are by W. Weisbach (“ Dor junge Diirer,” 1906, p. 73), as the imitation by
another hand of Dtirer’s peculiarities. They are quite consistent with the theory
that Diirer himself was trying his hand at engraving at the period when the landscape
elements, such as castle, trees, lake and sailing-boat, the cloud underneath the divine
apparition, and the foreground plants, were part of the master’s natural mode of
self-expression ; they constitute, in their cumulative effect, a very strong reason for
attributing the work to Diirer himself, and the more they are examined the less
probable does it appear that an imitator would have combined them all so skilfully
with a central group of men and horses so full of force and originality, and contain-
ing in itself a motive so Diireresque as the attitude of the fallen horse on the
left (see the details from a drawing and a woodcut reproduced by Seeker, p. 263).
The resemblance to the group of trees in the Orpheus drawing (L. 159) leads Seeker
to suggest the date 1494, and to put the engraving before Dtirer’s first journey to
Venice.
The banderoles, of which the only other example in Dtirer’s engraved work will be
found in the early engraving, B. 92, are reminiscent of a practice frequent among his
predecessors in engraving, but very soon to be discarded by himself. They represent,
of course, the words (not actually engraved) spoken from heaven to Saul, and Saul’s
reply (Acts ix, 4-6). Reproductions on a larger scale will be found in Weisbach
{op. cit. p. 74) and Seeker {op. cit., p. 262) ; the latter gives the engraving minus the
restoration of the lower corners. These restorations are also omitted here.
This engraving has been attributed by Dr. H. Rottinger, in his recently published
book, “ Diirers Doppelganger,” Strassburg, 1926, to the Master of the illustrations
to St. Bridget, whom he formerly identified with Hans Wechtlin, but now Peter
Vischer the elder. I have not yet read the arguments on which this identification
and this attribution are based, but foresee that they are not likely to command
general assent.
4
attribution of the engraving to Diirer as one of his earliest attempts is quite
probable. This opinion is maintained with weighty arguments by Hans F. Seeker
in Zeitschrifl fur bildende Kunst, 1918, N.F. xxix,.p. 261. I am convinced by what he
writes that the resemblances to Diirer’« early woodcuts are not to be explained, as
they are by W. Weisbach (“ Dor junge Diirer,” 1906, p. 73), as the imitation by
another hand of Dtirer’s peculiarities. They are quite consistent with the theory
that Diirer himself was trying his hand at engraving at the period when the landscape
elements, such as castle, trees, lake and sailing-boat, the cloud underneath the divine
apparition, and the foreground plants, were part of the master’s natural mode of
self-expression ; they constitute, in their cumulative effect, a very strong reason for
attributing the work to Diirer himself, and the more they are examined the less
probable does it appear that an imitator would have combined them all so skilfully
with a central group of men and horses so full of force and originality, and contain-
ing in itself a motive so Diireresque as the attitude of the fallen horse on the
left (see the details from a drawing and a woodcut reproduced by Seeker, p. 263).
The resemblance to the group of trees in the Orpheus drawing (L. 159) leads Seeker
to suggest the date 1494, and to put the engraving before Dtirer’s first journey to
Venice.
The banderoles, of which the only other example in Dtirer’s engraved work will be
found in the early engraving, B. 92, are reminiscent of a practice frequent among his
predecessors in engraving, but very soon to be discarded by himself. They represent,
of course, the words (not actually engraved) spoken from heaven to Saul, and Saul’s
reply (Acts ix, 4-6). Reproductions on a larger scale will be found in Weisbach
{op. cit. p. 74) and Seeker {op. cit., p. 262) ; the latter gives the engraving minus the
restoration of the lower corners. These restorations are also omitted here.
This engraving has been attributed by Dr. H. Rottinger, in his recently published
book, “ Diirers Doppelganger,” Strassburg, 1926, to the Master of the illustrations
to St. Bridget, whom he formerly identified with Hans Wechtlin, but now Peter
Vischer the elder. I have not yet read the arguments on which this identification
and this attribution are based, but foresee that they are not likely to command
general assent.
4