DOI Artikel:
Popham, Arthur Ewart: A drawing by Francois Clouet?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6339#0008
Library at Windsor, No.
6445, is in black chalk and
measures 16-8 x 17-7 cm.
The engraving measures
17-9 x 18-2 cm. but it will
be noticed that the drawing
has been cut at the top and
bottom and very slightly
on the right which will ac-
count for the difference in
measurements. Otherwise
the correspondence between
drawing & engraving, allo-
wing for reversing, is so ex-
act that these can be no
reasonable doubt of the con-
nection between them, i. e.
that the drawing, although
it is not actually intended
for transfer, was used by
the engraver. Conversely,
what is more important, the
1. Drawing in black chalk after Francois Clouct. Windsor, Royal Library drawing appears to have
been made for the engra-
ver. If that is the case it must have been made in or about the year 1579 for at the top of the
curtain on the left (in the engraving) is what appears to be the date 1579. The first two figures
are partially erased in the British Museum impression of the print, which is in a later State
than that in the Bibliotheque Nationale, bearing as it does the name I. Honnervogt as
publisher in the place of that of Le Blon, but I think one can feel fairly certain that these two
figures, placed as they are, can be nothing except part of a date and 1579 is appropriate to the
style of the engraving and the known activity of Nicolas Le Blon.
But in spite of the appearance the drawing has of having been made for the engraver, might
it not really be by Frangois Clouet ? Is its style consistent with that of Franciois Clouet as we
know it and of a quality equal to his ? Discounting the absence of red chalk, which one has
learnt to expect in any Clouet, one is still left with the feeling that the drawing, sensitive as it
is, and near in handling to Clouet's, is not actually his. Compare the hands in the sketch for the
Seigneur de Boisdauphin in the British Museum with those of the doctor in our print. Undoub-
tedly the same artist conceived both pairs of hands — the comparison goes to reinforce M. Ad-
hemar's apt comparison with the nurse in the Diana in her bath and the connection with
Francois — but did he draw these as well as M. de Boisdauphin's ? I confess I doubt it, much
as I should like to believe that the drawing is actually Frangois Clouet's. No, I must conclude
that it is the engraver's drawing, but that it follows very closely and very intelligently a work
by Frangois Clouet. I am afraid that the existence of this drawing takes us no furthcr.
6445, is in black chalk and
measures 16-8 x 17-7 cm.
The engraving measures
17-9 x 18-2 cm. but it will
be noticed that the drawing
has been cut at the top and
bottom and very slightly
on the right which will ac-
count for the difference in
measurements. Otherwise
the correspondence between
drawing & engraving, allo-
wing for reversing, is so ex-
act that these can be no
reasonable doubt of the con-
nection between them, i. e.
that the drawing, although
it is not actually intended
for transfer, was used by
the engraver. Conversely,
what is more important, the
1. Drawing in black chalk after Francois Clouct. Windsor, Royal Library drawing appears to have
been made for the engra-
ver. If that is the case it must have been made in or about the year 1579 for at the top of the
curtain on the left (in the engraving) is what appears to be the date 1579. The first two figures
are partially erased in the British Museum impression of the print, which is in a later State
than that in the Bibliotheque Nationale, bearing as it does the name I. Honnervogt as
publisher in the place of that of Le Blon, but I think one can feel fairly certain that these two
figures, placed as they are, can be nothing except part of a date and 1579 is appropriate to the
style of the engraving and the known activity of Nicolas Le Blon.
But in spite of the appearance the drawing has of having been made for the engraver, might
it not really be by Frangois Clouet ? Is its style consistent with that of Franciois Clouet as we
know it and of a quality equal to his ? Discounting the absence of red chalk, which one has
learnt to expect in any Clouet, one is still left with the feeling that the drawing, sensitive as it
is, and near in handling to Clouet's, is not actually his. Compare the hands in the sketch for the
Seigneur de Boisdauphin in the British Museum with those of the doctor in our print. Undoub-
tedly the same artist conceived both pairs of hands — the comparison goes to reinforce M. Ad-
hemar's apt comparison with the nurse in the Diana in her bath and the connection with
Francois — but did he draw these as well as M. de Boisdauphin's ? I confess I doubt it, much
as I should like to believe that the drawing is actually Frangois Clouet's. No, I must conclude
that it is the engraver's drawing, but that it follows very closely and very intelligently a work
by Frangois Clouet. I am afraid that the existence of this drawing takes us no furthcr.