DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52770#0159
Watermarks : ‘ arms of Amsterdam,’ ‘ imperial eagle.’
Two states
I. With Diirer’s monogram below the skull.
II. The monogram effaced.
It has been generally accepted, since the publication of an article on this engraving
by Jaro Springer in the Berlin Jahrbuch, 1887 (viii, 56) that the Crucifixion in Outline
mentioned by Sandrart in 1679 as an engraving by Diirer, is a forgery of the late
16th century, compiled with the use of drawings by Diirer of the years 1521-23
(L.325, 328, 381, 383, 446, 582, with the addition of an earlier drawing at Milan of
a Turkish woman, Diirer Society, viii, n). Ephrussi had argued that the existence
of these studies was evidence for the genuineness of the engraving. Owing to the
strong reasons urged against its genuineness by Springer, this theory has now given
place to the hypothesis that Diirer made these studies for a picture of the Crucifixion,
which he is not known to have carried out.
On discovering, in 1923, that another plate exists, overlooked by all previous writers,
and greatly superior in quality to that described by Passavant1 and reproduced and
described by Springer, I was tempted for some time to think that the opinion of
Ephrussi might after all be correct, and that this engraving might be Diirer’s own
work of the year 1523, based on studies made with a view to the engraving, and not
for a picture. There is, in the better plate, a resemblance, which one might think
it beyond the skill of any forger to have produced, to the technique of Diirer’s
unfinished plates : the trial proofs of Adam and Eve, Jealousy, and the Turkish
Sultan at Amsterdam. I admit the difficulty of attributing to Diirer the architecture
on the left, but the reason which has weighed most strongly with me in abandoning
my belief in the genuineness of the engraving is the fact that the very fine impression
in the British Museum, which the burr, scratches on the plate, etc., prove to be one
of the first proofs printed, has a watermark, Briquet 5304, in use about 1570-80.
To maintain Diirer’s authorship after that, one would have to suppose that his plate
remained unprinted till about 40 years after his death.
I have seen but three impressions of the better plate, which has no monogram.
Most collections contain the inferior copy, described by Passavant as the original,
which exists in two states, with and without a monogram. The British Museum
possesses all three varieties, but the good engraving lay unnoticed among duplicates
till 1924. Passavant also describes a copy by Nussbiegel, and gives in his addenda
(iii, p. 491) a number of marks which distinguish it from his supposed original.
1 It may have been a similar proof that Passavant saw in the Sotzmann (afterwards Retberg)
collection, and supposed to be a proof before the monogram of his No. no. The Posonyi Sale
Catalogue, 1867, distinctly mentions two plates, in addition to the Nussbiegel copy, and describes
watermarks which seem to be earlier than those known to me.
“ 139. Schoner alter Abdruck, auf Papier mit dem Anker im Kreise mit dem Sterne.
Sehr selten (Inv. No..4589).
“ 140. Dieselbe Darstellung (eine andre Platte), schoner alter Abdruck auf Papier mit
einem Wasserzeichen, welches zwei ubereinander gesetzten Kronen mit einem Kreuze gleicht.
Ebenso, der Kopf des Heilandes gerieben. Sehr selten (Inv. No. 4589).
“ Die Abdriicke der vorstehenden beiden einander sehr ahnlichen Flatten gelten offers als
Originale.
“ 141. Dasselbe Blatt. Die Nussbiegel ’sche Kopie (Inv. No. 4591).”
No. 140 is evidently the impression now at Berlin. No. 139 was sold as a duplicate in 1906
(Amsler & Ruthardt’s Auction 74, No. 301.—M.105).
141
Two states
I. With Diirer’s monogram below the skull.
II. The monogram effaced.
It has been generally accepted, since the publication of an article on this engraving
by Jaro Springer in the Berlin Jahrbuch, 1887 (viii, 56) that the Crucifixion in Outline
mentioned by Sandrart in 1679 as an engraving by Diirer, is a forgery of the late
16th century, compiled with the use of drawings by Diirer of the years 1521-23
(L.325, 328, 381, 383, 446, 582, with the addition of an earlier drawing at Milan of
a Turkish woman, Diirer Society, viii, n). Ephrussi had argued that the existence
of these studies was evidence for the genuineness of the engraving. Owing to the
strong reasons urged against its genuineness by Springer, this theory has now given
place to the hypothesis that Diirer made these studies for a picture of the Crucifixion,
which he is not known to have carried out.
On discovering, in 1923, that another plate exists, overlooked by all previous writers,
and greatly superior in quality to that described by Passavant1 and reproduced and
described by Springer, I was tempted for some time to think that the opinion of
Ephrussi might after all be correct, and that this engraving might be Diirer’s own
work of the year 1523, based on studies made with a view to the engraving, and not
for a picture. There is, in the better plate, a resemblance, which one might think
it beyond the skill of any forger to have produced, to the technique of Diirer’s
unfinished plates : the trial proofs of Adam and Eve, Jealousy, and the Turkish
Sultan at Amsterdam. I admit the difficulty of attributing to Diirer the architecture
on the left, but the reason which has weighed most strongly with me in abandoning
my belief in the genuineness of the engraving is the fact that the very fine impression
in the British Museum, which the burr, scratches on the plate, etc., prove to be one
of the first proofs printed, has a watermark, Briquet 5304, in use about 1570-80.
To maintain Diirer’s authorship after that, one would have to suppose that his plate
remained unprinted till about 40 years after his death.
I have seen but three impressions of the better plate, which has no monogram.
Most collections contain the inferior copy, described by Passavant as the original,
which exists in two states, with and without a monogram. The British Museum
possesses all three varieties, but the good engraving lay unnoticed among duplicates
till 1924. Passavant also describes a copy by Nussbiegel, and gives in his addenda
(iii, p. 491) a number of marks which distinguish it from his supposed original.
1 It may have been a similar proof that Passavant saw in the Sotzmann (afterwards Retberg)
collection, and supposed to be a proof before the monogram of his No. no. The Posonyi Sale
Catalogue, 1867, distinctly mentions two plates, in addition to the Nussbiegel copy, and describes
watermarks which seem to be earlier than those known to me.
“ 139. Schoner alter Abdruck, auf Papier mit dem Anker im Kreise mit dem Sterne.
Sehr selten (Inv. No..4589).
“ 140. Dieselbe Darstellung (eine andre Platte), schoner alter Abdruck auf Papier mit
einem Wasserzeichen, welches zwei ubereinander gesetzten Kronen mit einem Kreuze gleicht.
Ebenso, der Kopf des Heilandes gerieben. Sehr selten (Inv. No. 4589).
“ Die Abdriicke der vorstehenden beiden einander sehr ahnlichen Flatten gelten offers als
Originale.
“ 141. Dasselbe Blatt. Die Nussbiegel ’sche Kopie (Inv. No. 4591).”
No. 140 is evidently the impression now at Berlin. No. 139 was sold as a duplicate in 1906
(Amsler & Ruthardt’s Auction 74, No. 301.—M.105).
141