DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52444#0083
DURER’S ENGRAVINGS, DRY-POINTS,
AND ETCHINGS.
¥
I THE RAVISHER.—B 92; H 893; R 1; M 1.—Without
EITHER MARK OR DATE.
a. Very vigorous impression, on bull’s-head paper. Intensely black
ink, very glossy in the heavy lines, clean wiped.
b. Heliotype reproduction of the copy which Bartsch describes as
“trompeuse,” and which is, indeed, misleading at first sight. On
closer inspection it is found, however, to differ in many details. To
the sign for the detection of the copy given by Bartsch may be added
the following: — In the original the little bush close to the left shoulder
of the man is fairly well separated from it, while in the copy it almost
touches it; the shading of the left thigh of the man in the original
consists of only one system of lines, running the long way of the limb,
while in the copy there is a second system of lines laid across the first.
The impressions from this plate in the Print Room of the British Museum,
London, the Departement des Estampes at the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris,
and the Royal Print Cabinets at Dresden and Berlin, are all similar to a, i. e.,
printed in strong black ink, clean wiped.
Very primitive handling, especially in the flesh of the woman, which is
modeled with little scratches (“feathery”). In this respect the copy also
differs, showing that it is by an at least somewhat later engraver, who could
not force himself to be as primitive as his original. Bartsch and Heller think
that the design is copied from some older master. Thausing doubts its being
by Diirer, as the style “ points to a period before that in which Diirer began
to work.” Harck says that it agrees in workmanship with “ The Great
9
1
AND ETCHINGS.
¥
I THE RAVISHER.—B 92; H 893; R 1; M 1.—Without
EITHER MARK OR DATE.
a. Very vigorous impression, on bull’s-head paper. Intensely black
ink, very glossy in the heavy lines, clean wiped.
b. Heliotype reproduction of the copy which Bartsch describes as
“trompeuse,” and which is, indeed, misleading at first sight. On
closer inspection it is found, however, to differ in many details. To
the sign for the detection of the copy given by Bartsch may be added
the following: — In the original the little bush close to the left shoulder
of the man is fairly well separated from it, while in the copy it almost
touches it; the shading of the left thigh of the man in the original
consists of only one system of lines, running the long way of the limb,
while in the copy there is a second system of lines laid across the first.
The impressions from this plate in the Print Room of the British Museum,
London, the Departement des Estampes at the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris,
and the Royal Print Cabinets at Dresden and Berlin, are all similar to a, i. e.,
printed in strong black ink, clean wiped.
Very primitive handling, especially in the flesh of the woman, which is
modeled with little scratches (“feathery”). In this respect the copy also
differs, showing that it is by an at least somewhat later engraver, who could
not force himself to be as primitive as his original. Bartsch and Heller think
that the design is copied from some older master. Thausing doubts its being
by Diirer, as the style “ points to a period before that in which Diirer began
to work.” Harck says that it agrees in workmanship with “ The Great
9
1