DOI Heft:
Woodcuts
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61201#0014
Nine. The woodcut of Celtes and the Elector is placed on the back of the title, before the
dedication, while that of Roswitha and Otto follows the epigrams and faces Roswitha’s own preface
to the comedies. The five other woodcuts in the book, which illustrate the six comedies (one doing
duty twice), are by an inferior artist. The copyright in the book was the property of the Sodalitas
Rhenana. The printer is not named.
The attribution of the two dedication woodcuts to Durer has not yet found general acceptance.
Ignored by Bartsch, they are placed by Heller and Passavant among the doubtful cuts ; Tfiausing
rejects them; Retberg’s is the only catalogue in which they are positively given to Durer. The
roughness of their execution is certainly surprising at the stage in the development of Durer’s style to
which they have to be assigned : three years later than the publication of the Apocalypse and of the
other large signed woodcuts which resemble that series in dimensions and style. But the genuineness
of Durer’s monogram on the “ Philosophy ” in Celtes’ Quatuor Libri Amorum, printed with the same
type and published a year later, in 1502, is indisputable. The dedication woodcut of that volume,
which represents Celtes presenting his book to Maximilian I., is certainly drawn by the same artist
as the “ Philosophy,” and both are uniform in style and execution with the pair of woodcuts in
Roswitha. The explanation of the bad cutting may perhaps be that Durer did not give it the close
attention which he must have devoted to the preparation of the blocks of the Apocalypse, and that
the wood-engraver who was employed had not the benefit of the master’s instruction. It is possible,
even, that Durer did not actually draw the design on the block, but left it to be transferred by a
copyist. The attribution of the whole group of cuts to Durer is less startling now than it may have
seemed some ten or twenty years ago, for our knowledge of Durer’s early career has been greatly
increased by the publication of many drawings dating from the last decade of the fifteenth century,
and we even have a woodcut of the year 1492, attested by his signature on the block. There was
not another artist at Nuremberg who could have drawn the admirable group, so dignified and well-
proportioned, in which Roswitha kneels before the aged Emperor. The latter’s head is markedly
Diireresque in type : it may be compared with the “ Belisarius ” drawing recently acquired by the
Berlin Cabinet, with the Domitian of the first Apocalypse woodcut and with the fine turbaned head
on a large sheet of sketches in the Uffizi (Pl. VIII.). The two female figures are hardly less
suggestive of the master. But we are fortunate enough to possess something more than the internal
evidence of style for the attribution of this cut to Durer. On the back of an early drawing by Durer
in the collection of M. Leon Bonnat at Paris, formerly in the collection of Sir Thomas Lawrence
(Lippmann, 348), a pen and ink sketch of the Adoration of the Magi for the woodcut in the Life
of the Virgin, is a charcoal sketch (Pl. VIL), not reproduced in Dr. Lippmann’s work, but
described by him as follows: “ On the back is a charcoal sketch of the Coronation of the Virgin-
not by Durer’s hand.” Since it was quite a common thing for German artists to depict the Almighty
in the costume of an Emperor or a Pope—these two potentates being, according to mediaeval
doctrine, the temporal and spiritual vicegerents of God upon earth—the majestic figure with orb,
sceptre and imperial crown might well be taken for the Eternal Father. The pose of the kneeling
woman has a superficial resemblance to that of the Virgin in pictures of the Coronation. But it is
impossible to explain why the figure beside that of the Almighty should be feminine, or why the
scene should be placed under a Gothic arch with three coats of arms, one of which is clearly
recognisable as that of Saxony. Such an explanation, at any rate, may now be finally laid aside, since
in 1898 Dr. Karl Giehlow of Berlin (to whom the Durer Society is indebted for obtaining
M. Bonnat’s permission to reproduce the drawing) recognised in the composition a first sketch for the
Roswitha woodcut. The drawing, as we should expect, is in the reverse direction to the woodcut.
In the action of the three figures very little alteration has been made. The orb, sceptre and crown
of the Emperor are already clearly discernible in the drawing; the headdress of the Abbess,
originally a mitre, has been altered in the woodcut to the imperial crown, presumably because
Gerberga, as Otto’s niece, was a member of the imperial family ; the hastily-sketched object in her
left hand (which becomes the right hand in the woodcut) is seen to be a pastoral staff. In the
drawing there is no trace of the canopy or curtains, nor of the houses and landscape seen through the
open arch. The arch itself, originally a flattened ogee, has become round, and a single shield,
bearing the imperial eagle with the arms of Saxony displayed upon it, surmounted by the imperial
crown, has been substituted for the three originally proposed. It may be supposed that Dr. Lippmann
would not have dismissed so briefly the question of Durer’s authorship, had he recognised the true
subject of the composition. Unless we assume that the first sketch for the Adoration of the Magi on
the other side was made some years before the actual execution of the woodcut, the charcoal sketch
must have been made first; and Durer will have taken up a sheet which he had had about him for
11
dedication, while that of Roswitha and Otto follows the epigrams and faces Roswitha’s own preface
to the comedies. The five other woodcuts in the book, which illustrate the six comedies (one doing
duty twice), are by an inferior artist. The copyright in the book was the property of the Sodalitas
Rhenana. The printer is not named.
The attribution of the two dedication woodcuts to Durer has not yet found general acceptance.
Ignored by Bartsch, they are placed by Heller and Passavant among the doubtful cuts ; Tfiausing
rejects them; Retberg’s is the only catalogue in which they are positively given to Durer. The
roughness of their execution is certainly surprising at the stage in the development of Durer’s style to
which they have to be assigned : three years later than the publication of the Apocalypse and of the
other large signed woodcuts which resemble that series in dimensions and style. But the genuineness
of Durer’s monogram on the “ Philosophy ” in Celtes’ Quatuor Libri Amorum, printed with the same
type and published a year later, in 1502, is indisputable. The dedication woodcut of that volume,
which represents Celtes presenting his book to Maximilian I., is certainly drawn by the same artist
as the “ Philosophy,” and both are uniform in style and execution with the pair of woodcuts in
Roswitha. The explanation of the bad cutting may perhaps be that Durer did not give it the close
attention which he must have devoted to the preparation of the blocks of the Apocalypse, and that
the wood-engraver who was employed had not the benefit of the master’s instruction. It is possible,
even, that Durer did not actually draw the design on the block, but left it to be transferred by a
copyist. The attribution of the whole group of cuts to Durer is less startling now than it may have
seemed some ten or twenty years ago, for our knowledge of Durer’s early career has been greatly
increased by the publication of many drawings dating from the last decade of the fifteenth century,
and we even have a woodcut of the year 1492, attested by his signature on the block. There was
not another artist at Nuremberg who could have drawn the admirable group, so dignified and well-
proportioned, in which Roswitha kneels before the aged Emperor. The latter’s head is markedly
Diireresque in type : it may be compared with the “ Belisarius ” drawing recently acquired by the
Berlin Cabinet, with the Domitian of the first Apocalypse woodcut and with the fine turbaned head
on a large sheet of sketches in the Uffizi (Pl. VIII.). The two female figures are hardly less
suggestive of the master. But we are fortunate enough to possess something more than the internal
evidence of style for the attribution of this cut to Durer. On the back of an early drawing by Durer
in the collection of M. Leon Bonnat at Paris, formerly in the collection of Sir Thomas Lawrence
(Lippmann, 348), a pen and ink sketch of the Adoration of the Magi for the woodcut in the Life
of the Virgin, is a charcoal sketch (Pl. VIL), not reproduced in Dr. Lippmann’s work, but
described by him as follows: “ On the back is a charcoal sketch of the Coronation of the Virgin-
not by Durer’s hand.” Since it was quite a common thing for German artists to depict the Almighty
in the costume of an Emperor or a Pope—these two potentates being, according to mediaeval
doctrine, the temporal and spiritual vicegerents of God upon earth—the majestic figure with orb,
sceptre and imperial crown might well be taken for the Eternal Father. The pose of the kneeling
woman has a superficial resemblance to that of the Virgin in pictures of the Coronation. But it is
impossible to explain why the figure beside that of the Almighty should be feminine, or why the
scene should be placed under a Gothic arch with three coats of arms, one of which is clearly
recognisable as that of Saxony. Such an explanation, at any rate, may now be finally laid aside, since
in 1898 Dr. Karl Giehlow of Berlin (to whom the Durer Society is indebted for obtaining
M. Bonnat’s permission to reproduce the drawing) recognised in the composition a first sketch for the
Roswitha woodcut. The drawing, as we should expect, is in the reverse direction to the woodcut.
In the action of the three figures very little alteration has been made. The orb, sceptre and crown
of the Emperor are already clearly discernible in the drawing; the headdress of the Abbess,
originally a mitre, has been altered in the woodcut to the imperial crown, presumably because
Gerberga, as Otto’s niece, was a member of the imperial family ; the hastily-sketched object in her
left hand (which becomes the right hand in the woodcut) is seen to be a pastoral staff. In the
drawing there is no trace of the canopy or curtains, nor of the houses and landscape seen through the
open arch. The arch itself, originally a flattened ogee, has become round, and a single shield,
bearing the imperial eagle with the arms of Saxony displayed upon it, surmounted by the imperial
crown, has been substituted for the three originally proposed. It may be supposed that Dr. Lippmann
would not have dismissed so briefly the question of Durer’s authorship, had he recognised the true
subject of the composition. Unless we assume that the first sketch for the Adoration of the Magi on
the other side was made some years before the actual execution of the woodcut, the charcoal sketch
must have been made first; and Durer will have taken up a sheet which he had had about him for
11