DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52770#0039
though a somewhat later date would be consistent with the development of Diirer’s
technique and agree better with the large size of the plate. A drawing of this sub-
ject, formerly in the Lawrence collection, is lost, but a copy of it with the date
(almost certainly false) of 1523, from the Fagel and Northwick collections, and
belonging since 1921 to Captain H. S. Reitlinger, is reproduced in the Burlington
Magazine, xl, 19. It shows completely what Diirer intended to make of those parts
of the design which remained unfinished. The title “ Charlemagne ” has been
given both to the drawing and the engraving, and it is possible that he meant to
portray this half legendary potentate rather than a Turkish Sultan, though the absence
of a cross on the orb is significant.
Watermark : the proof at Amsterdam has towers on a shield surmounted by a coat-
of-arms ; the details are indistinct.
21
technique and agree better with the large size of the plate. A drawing of this sub-
ject, formerly in the Lawrence collection, is lost, but a copy of it with the date
(almost certainly false) of 1523, from the Fagel and Northwick collections, and
belonging since 1921 to Captain H. S. Reitlinger, is reproduced in the Burlington
Magazine, xl, 19. It shows completely what Diirer intended to make of those parts
of the design which remained unfinished. The title “ Charlemagne ” has been
given both to the drawing and the engraving, and it is possible that he meant to
portray this half legendary potentate rather than a Turkish Sultan, though the absence
of a cross on the orb is significant.
Watermark : the proof at Amsterdam has towers on a shield surmounted by a coat-
of-arms ; the details are indistinct.
21