DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.67657#0418
314 Engravings of Miscellaneous and Uncertain Schools. [F. II.
between his Mantegnesque and later Roman style. One might compare
e.g. the modelling of the body with figures in the Abram and Melchisedeh
by da Brescia (P. v. 106, 26; in present catalogue, No. 18).
16. S. JEROME. B. xv. 472, 13 (Reverdino).—P. v. 18, 21.
S. Jerome kneels in the centre before a crucifix, beating his breast
with a stone held in his r. hand. The lion is seen open-mouthed to the 1.,
near the foot os the cross, which bears the legend i ■ n • r • i. Beyond, to
the 1., is a cave. In the background are buildings and rocks, and a river
with ships.
[220 x 170] Fair, but comparatively modern impression.
Inventory of 1837, K. k. 8.-34.*
Other impressions: Munich, Paris (B. N.), Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg.
There were impressions in the Buckingham Sale, 1834 (No. 3959, bought
by Ottley), and in the Sykes sale, 1824 (No. 1051, bought by Lloyd), perhaps
identical with the Museum impression.
An impression in the Wellesley sale (1860, No. 80) was purchased by
Drugulin.
It is the work of a third-rate craftsman of the early sixteenth century, and
almost defies classification. It comes nearest in style to a print like the David
blessed by Nathan (B. xv. 22, 1) which follows. Except for a certain kinship
in the irregular scheme of shading, and a corresponding dependence on
Filippinesque design, there is little to connect the present example with the
school of Robetta, where it formerly stood in the Museum collection.
17. DAVID BLESSED BY NATHAN BEFORE BATTLE.
Heinecken, Dictionnaire des Artistes, Vol. I. p. 392.—B. xv. 22,1.—Zani, Enciclo-
pedia, II. Vol. 3, p. 319.—P. v. 178, 3 (and vi. 80, 45).—Courajod, Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 2e per. X. 256.
On the 1. kneels a young warrior in Roman attire, his 1. hand on his
chest and holding a short sword in his r. An aged priest, or prophet,
in a long cloak, and bishop’s mitre, stands to his r., raising his r. hand,
apparently to bless. In the background 1. is a round building surmounted
by a dome and surrounded with a colonnade. Behind the building appears
a regiment of cavalry with lances and ssags.
[250 x 195] Good impression of the sirst state!(before Salamanca’s address), showing
the plate-line.
Purchased 1859. 8. 6. 310.
Other impression; Berlin (i and ii), Dresden (i).
The engraving is probably the work of some third-rate craftsman of the
Roman school during the first three decades of the sixteenth century. The
building in the background, adapted from Bramante’s chapel in S. Pietro in
Montorio at Rome,1 is a strong argument for its Roman origin. The presence
of this building has perhaps been the cause which led Zani to suggest Bramante
as the designer of the print, a supposition which is as unreasonable as it is
without foundation.
The title given is taken from Heinecken and Zani, but, as the latter argues
at some length, the subject is very uncertain. Bartsch’s title, S. Ambrose and'
the Emperor Theodosius (i.e. S. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, refusing the
emperor the entrance of the Church), has little in its favour except the bishop’s
mitre. The prophet’s attitude is essentially one of blessing or favour, not of
deprecation.
1 See drawing of the ‘ tempietto ’ in the sketch book of Andreas Coner
(T. Ashby, Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. II. 1904, plate 33).
between his Mantegnesque and later Roman style. One might compare
e.g. the modelling of the body with figures in the Abram and Melchisedeh
by da Brescia (P. v. 106, 26; in present catalogue, No. 18).
16. S. JEROME. B. xv. 472, 13 (Reverdino).—P. v. 18, 21.
S. Jerome kneels in the centre before a crucifix, beating his breast
with a stone held in his r. hand. The lion is seen open-mouthed to the 1.,
near the foot os the cross, which bears the legend i ■ n • r • i. Beyond, to
the 1., is a cave. In the background are buildings and rocks, and a river
with ships.
[220 x 170] Fair, but comparatively modern impression.
Inventory of 1837, K. k. 8.-34.*
Other impressions: Munich, Paris (B. N.), Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg.
There were impressions in the Buckingham Sale, 1834 (No. 3959, bought
by Ottley), and in the Sykes sale, 1824 (No. 1051, bought by Lloyd), perhaps
identical with the Museum impression.
An impression in the Wellesley sale (1860, No. 80) was purchased by
Drugulin.
It is the work of a third-rate craftsman of the early sixteenth century, and
almost defies classification. It comes nearest in style to a print like the David
blessed by Nathan (B. xv. 22, 1) which follows. Except for a certain kinship
in the irregular scheme of shading, and a corresponding dependence on
Filippinesque design, there is little to connect the present example with the
school of Robetta, where it formerly stood in the Museum collection.
17. DAVID BLESSED BY NATHAN BEFORE BATTLE.
Heinecken, Dictionnaire des Artistes, Vol. I. p. 392.—B. xv. 22,1.—Zani, Enciclo-
pedia, II. Vol. 3, p. 319.—P. v. 178, 3 (and vi. 80, 45).—Courajod, Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 2e per. X. 256.
On the 1. kneels a young warrior in Roman attire, his 1. hand on his
chest and holding a short sword in his r. An aged priest, or prophet,
in a long cloak, and bishop’s mitre, stands to his r., raising his r. hand,
apparently to bless. In the background 1. is a round building surmounted
by a dome and surrounded with a colonnade. Behind the building appears
a regiment of cavalry with lances and ssags.
[250 x 195] Good impression of the sirst state!(before Salamanca’s address), showing
the plate-line.
Purchased 1859. 8. 6. 310.
Other impression; Berlin (i and ii), Dresden (i).
The engraving is probably the work of some third-rate craftsman of the
Roman school during the first three decades of the sixteenth century. The
building in the background, adapted from Bramante’s chapel in S. Pietro in
Montorio at Rome,1 is a strong argument for its Roman origin. The presence
of this building has perhaps been the cause which led Zani to suggest Bramante
as the designer of the print, a supposition which is as unreasonable as it is
without foundation.
The title given is taken from Heinecken and Zani, but, as the latter argues
at some length, the subject is very uncertain. Bartsch’s title, S. Ambrose and'
the Emperor Theodosius (i.e. S. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, refusing the
emperor the entrance of the Church), has little in its favour except the bishop’s
mitre. The prophet’s attitude is essentially one of blessing or favour, not of
deprecation.
1 See drawing of the ‘ tempietto ’ in the sketch book of Andreas Coner
(T. Ashby, Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. II. 1904, plate 33).