Zitierlink:
https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/duerer_society1901/0012
made of the picture for his own collection/ and that Hollar, who reproduced so many of
Arundel’s works of art, intentionally included this among them, though one would think he might
have had access to the original in the royal collection in his capacity of drawing-master to the Prince
of Wales. Though he does not say so expressly, we can hardly doubt that the similar etching
of Diirer’s father was also taken from Arundel’s copy. That copy would be, presumably, the
picture now at Syon House.1 2
In default of any positive evidence as to the inscription on the original or the history of the
picture at Syon House, we are reduced to examining the latter on its merits, and testing its
correspondence with the description by Van der Doort of Charles I.’s picture.
Dr. Friedlander seems not to have seen the picture. Prof. Weizsacker, on the other hand,
who writes apparently from personal knowledge, condemns it. He considers it the worst of the three
copies, and believes that it was painted in the Netherlands in the 17th century, while he ascribes the
Frankfurt copy on technical grounds to about 1600, and believes the Munich copy to be the earliest.
That verdict on the relative merits of the three pictures is one in which I cannot concur. It is
difficult to trust the memory in such a matter, without any direct comparison and after a considerable
interval, but the Syon House picture, which I saw in April, 1901, impressed me much more
favourably than the Frankfurt and Munich pictures had done in September, 1899. At the same
time, I could not call the former a first rate Diirer, or one at all comparable to the Madrid portrait
of 1498, of which it ought to be a companion. The eyes are full of expression, but one misses
Diirer’s usual minuteness of execution in the hair, and the lining of the mantle lacks the precision
with which he was accustomed to render textures. The dullness of the colouring, which is hardly more
than monochrome, is also unusual. The difference in the panel, lastly, is sufficient to dispel any
illusion as to the identity of the picture with that in Charles I.’s collection, though the dimensions are the
same. It is painted on a dark oak board, in a good state of preservation; while the frame, a less
important detail, is an ordinary gilt moulded one. I find it impossible, moreover, to understand how
the costume could be called “ a dark yellow green.” It is a reddish, or yellowish, brown, with no
trace of green about it. I fear' that Charles I.’s “limning” of Diirer the Elder by his son is still to
be sought elsewhere than at Syon House.
DRAWINGS.
vm.
The Virgin and Child with St. John.
Collotype from the pen and ink drawing (62 hy 8iin.) in the Collection of M. Leon Bonnat,
Paris fL. 353).
IX.
Landscape. A River with Trees and Buildings.
Collotype from the silver point drawing (6 hy gin.) in the Collection of M. Leon Bonnat, Paris
349)-
The landscape is the same as that depicted in the early water-colour drawing entitled
“trotszich mull” (the wire factory), in the Berlin Cabinet (L. 4), but it is drawn from a slightly
different point of view, farther to the right. Traces of a head are visible in the lower corner
on the left.
1 This has been suggested both by Thausing and by Dr. Friedlander.
2 Can the portrait of Diirer now at Florence be Lord Arundel’s copy of the other original ? I do not find its history recorded.
It differs from the picture at Syon House in that it reproduces Diirer’s monogram and statement about the sitter’s name and age.
9
Arundel’s works of art, intentionally included this among them, though one would think he might
have had access to the original in the royal collection in his capacity of drawing-master to the Prince
of Wales. Though he does not say so expressly, we can hardly doubt that the similar etching
of Diirer’s father was also taken from Arundel’s copy. That copy would be, presumably, the
picture now at Syon House.1 2
In default of any positive evidence as to the inscription on the original or the history of the
picture at Syon House, we are reduced to examining the latter on its merits, and testing its
correspondence with the description by Van der Doort of Charles I.’s picture.
Dr. Friedlander seems not to have seen the picture. Prof. Weizsacker, on the other hand,
who writes apparently from personal knowledge, condemns it. He considers it the worst of the three
copies, and believes that it was painted in the Netherlands in the 17th century, while he ascribes the
Frankfurt copy on technical grounds to about 1600, and believes the Munich copy to be the earliest.
That verdict on the relative merits of the three pictures is one in which I cannot concur. It is
difficult to trust the memory in such a matter, without any direct comparison and after a considerable
interval, but the Syon House picture, which I saw in April, 1901, impressed me much more
favourably than the Frankfurt and Munich pictures had done in September, 1899. At the same
time, I could not call the former a first rate Diirer, or one at all comparable to the Madrid portrait
of 1498, of which it ought to be a companion. The eyes are full of expression, but one misses
Diirer’s usual minuteness of execution in the hair, and the lining of the mantle lacks the precision
with which he was accustomed to render textures. The dullness of the colouring, which is hardly more
than monochrome, is also unusual. The difference in the panel, lastly, is sufficient to dispel any
illusion as to the identity of the picture with that in Charles I.’s collection, though the dimensions are the
same. It is painted on a dark oak board, in a good state of preservation; while the frame, a less
important detail, is an ordinary gilt moulded one. I find it impossible, moreover, to understand how
the costume could be called “ a dark yellow green.” It is a reddish, or yellowish, brown, with no
trace of green about it. I fear' that Charles I.’s “limning” of Diirer the Elder by his son is still to
be sought elsewhere than at Syon House.
DRAWINGS.
vm.
The Virgin and Child with St. John.
Collotype from the pen and ink drawing (62 hy 8iin.) in the Collection of M. Leon Bonnat,
Paris fL. 353).
IX.
Landscape. A River with Trees and Buildings.
Collotype from the silver point drawing (6 hy gin.) in the Collection of M. Leon Bonnat, Paris
349)-
The landscape is the same as that depicted in the early water-colour drawing entitled
“trotszich mull” (the wire factory), in the Berlin Cabinet (L. 4), but it is drawn from a slightly
different point of view, farther to the right. Traces of a head are visible in the lower corner
on the left.
1 This has been suggested both by Thausing and by Dr. Friedlander.
2 Can the portrait of Diirer now at Florence be Lord Arundel’s copy of the other original ? I do not find its history recorded.
It differs from the picture at Syon House in that it reproduces Diirer’s monogram and statement about the sitter’s name and age.
9