DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52444#0035
INTRODUCTION.
work, and the contrast between it and No. 9, “ The Little Fortune,”
is positively jarring, while in No. 10, “The Little Courier,” there is
an apparently irreconcilable contradiction between the skilled although
simple workmanship and the very archaic conception. In assigning
positions to these plates, some influence has been allowed to the char-
acter of the monogram. The most serious difficulty, however, is caused
by the undoubtedly most beautiful of Diirer’s early plates, and, it might
perhaps be truthfully said, the most satisfactory of all his Madonnas,
“The Virgin and Child with the Monkey,” No. 13. It is quite impos-
sible to find a fitting place for it, and the one finally chosen, on the
evidence of the workmanship and the character of the monogram, brings
it into most uncongenial company. It would indeed harmonize better
with the surroundings if it were placed immediately after No. 6, “ St.
Jerome in Penance,” but that is inadmissible. The anomalous character
of this plate has also been recognized by other writers. Springer (“Zeit-
schrift fur bildende Kunst,” 1877, p. 7) says of it that it completely
“ drops out of the line ” of Diirer’s other Madonnas. It is this difficulty
which leads him to conjecture that the composition is not by Diirer,,
but was copied by him from some older original. (See below: IV.
Was Diirer a Copyist ?)
It may appear odd, also, to see the larger plates, Nos. 14-17, all deal-
ing with the nude and evidently influenced by Italy or the antique,
grouped together, to be followed immediately by quite a series of small
plates, all dealing either with religious subjects or with events of
Diirer’s own time. This sudden break is, however, quite natural. We
know that Diirer was deeply interested, even as a very young man,
not only in the problem of the human figure, but also in antiquity;
and we know, furthermore, that he was one of those dreamy yet ardent
natures which are capable of quite losing themselves in a favorite
pursuit, to the forgetting of everything else about them. We can
imagine, therefore, how he gave himself up to what his wife merely
considered his hobby, and how Frau Agnes, seeing her stores diminish
3 xvii
work, and the contrast between it and No. 9, “ The Little Fortune,”
is positively jarring, while in No. 10, “The Little Courier,” there is
an apparently irreconcilable contradiction between the skilled although
simple workmanship and the very archaic conception. In assigning
positions to these plates, some influence has been allowed to the char-
acter of the monogram. The most serious difficulty, however, is caused
by the undoubtedly most beautiful of Diirer’s early plates, and, it might
perhaps be truthfully said, the most satisfactory of all his Madonnas,
“The Virgin and Child with the Monkey,” No. 13. It is quite impos-
sible to find a fitting place for it, and the one finally chosen, on the
evidence of the workmanship and the character of the monogram, brings
it into most uncongenial company. It would indeed harmonize better
with the surroundings if it were placed immediately after No. 6, “ St.
Jerome in Penance,” but that is inadmissible. The anomalous character
of this plate has also been recognized by other writers. Springer (“Zeit-
schrift fur bildende Kunst,” 1877, p. 7) says of it that it completely
“ drops out of the line ” of Diirer’s other Madonnas. It is this difficulty
which leads him to conjecture that the composition is not by Diirer,,
but was copied by him from some older original. (See below: IV.
Was Diirer a Copyist ?)
It may appear odd, also, to see the larger plates, Nos. 14-17, all deal-
ing with the nude and evidently influenced by Italy or the antique,
grouped together, to be followed immediately by quite a series of small
plates, all dealing either with religious subjects or with events of
Diirer’s own time. This sudden break is, however, quite natural. We
know that Diirer was deeply interested, even as a very young man,
not only in the problem of the human figure, but also in antiquity;
and we know, furthermore, that he was one of those dreamy yet ardent
natures which are capable of quite losing themselves in a favorite
pursuit, to the forgetting of everything else about them. We can
imagine, therefore, how he gave himself up to what his wife merely
considered his hobby, and how Frau Agnes, seeing her stores diminish
3 xvii