1916, xxxix, 129). This is accepted by Friedlander (A. D. der Kupferstcher u.)
Holzschnittzeichner, p. 140), but not by Pauli (Repertorium, 1919, xli, 29).
This engraving especially has occasioned much writing on Diirer’s relation to Jacopo
de’ Barbari (see the works by Haendcke, Weisbach and Justi cited by Friedlander,
loc. cit., also Koehler.) Diirer is proved, on the whole, to have influenced Barbari,
rather than vice versa.
The glimpse of a devil in Hell on the left, and the skull and bone lying on the ground,
point clearly to an allegorical and moralizing intention on the engraver’s part.
J9
Holzschnittzeichner, p. 140), but not by Pauli (Repertorium, 1919, xli, 29).
This engraving especially has occasioned much writing on Diirer’s relation to Jacopo
de’ Barbari (see the works by Haendcke, Weisbach and Justi cited by Friedlander,
loc. cit., also Koehler.) Diirer is proved, on the whole, to have influenced Barbari,
rather than vice versa.
The glimpse of a devil in Hell on the left, and the skull and bone lying on the ground,
point clearly to an allegorical and moralizing intention on the engraver’s part.
J9