DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52444#0090
CATALOGUE OF DURER’S ENGRAVINGS,
it on the plate, instead of making the correction on his preliminary sketch or
drawing! Moreover, why should he have left the white line defining the head
so glaringly visible ? His skill was certainly equal to covering it with lines.
The gondola in the distance again points to Venice.
This plate is frequently, but erroneously, called “ St. Genevieve.” The story
of St. John Chrysostom, “the Golden-mouthed,” too long and too unsavory to
be recounted here, may be found in Heller.
8 THE VIRGIN ON THE CRESCENT, WITHOUT
CROWN.—B 30; H 489; R 9; M 18.—Monogram.
a. Very fine impression, in pure black ink, but with considerable
“smudging” (see below). Some touches of white on the crescent to
counteract the effect of the ink on the face of “the man in the moon.”
Paper somewhat stained. Duplicate from the Berlin Cabinet.
b. Another impression, not so good, but without “ smudging ” (see
below), and therefore interesting for comparison.
c. Bartsch’s “ copie trompeuse ” A.
The meaning of the term “ smudging,” as here used, has already been explained
(see Introduction, p. xxxix), but it may be well, for the prevention of misunder-
standings, to repeat the explanation here. It does not, necessarily, imply a criti-
cism, much less a condemnation, of the impression to which it applies. On the
contrary, it may, and generally does, give added interest to the proof in question.
“Smudging,” i. e., the presence of ink on the surface of the plate where, origi-
nally, there was no intention of having ink, was undoubtedly at first an accident,
but, as the art of the printer developed, it led to “ tinting,” which is “ smudg-
ing” under the control of the printer. An impression like a is, therefore, a
curious and interesting document in the history of printing, in which Diirer
and the printers of his plates play a conspicuous part. The “ smudging ” in
this case is, presumably, accidental, as it occurs not only in the dark parts of the
drapery, where it might be intentional, but it obscures also “ the man in the
moon,” which cannot be intentional. For an example of “ tinting ” see, for in-
stance, No. 95 of this catalogue. The fine impressions in Paris, London, and
Berlin are all clean wiped.
This very delicately and skilfully engraved little plate, in its placid beauty,
vividly recalls Schongauer, especially his “ Little Standing Madonna,” B 27,
and still more Wenzel von Olmiitz’s reversed copy of the print named. Schon-
gauer’s original and Wenzel’s copy can be compared in the reproductions given
8
it on the plate, instead of making the correction on his preliminary sketch or
drawing! Moreover, why should he have left the white line defining the head
so glaringly visible ? His skill was certainly equal to covering it with lines.
The gondola in the distance again points to Venice.
This plate is frequently, but erroneously, called “ St. Genevieve.” The story
of St. John Chrysostom, “the Golden-mouthed,” too long and too unsavory to
be recounted here, may be found in Heller.
8 THE VIRGIN ON THE CRESCENT, WITHOUT
CROWN.—B 30; H 489; R 9; M 18.—Monogram.
a. Very fine impression, in pure black ink, but with considerable
“smudging” (see below). Some touches of white on the crescent to
counteract the effect of the ink on the face of “the man in the moon.”
Paper somewhat stained. Duplicate from the Berlin Cabinet.
b. Another impression, not so good, but without “ smudging ” (see
below), and therefore interesting for comparison.
c. Bartsch’s “ copie trompeuse ” A.
The meaning of the term “ smudging,” as here used, has already been explained
(see Introduction, p. xxxix), but it may be well, for the prevention of misunder-
standings, to repeat the explanation here. It does not, necessarily, imply a criti-
cism, much less a condemnation, of the impression to which it applies. On the
contrary, it may, and generally does, give added interest to the proof in question.
“Smudging,” i. e., the presence of ink on the surface of the plate where, origi-
nally, there was no intention of having ink, was undoubtedly at first an accident,
but, as the art of the printer developed, it led to “ tinting,” which is “ smudg-
ing” under the control of the printer. An impression like a is, therefore, a
curious and interesting document in the history of printing, in which Diirer
and the printers of his plates play a conspicuous part. The “ smudging ” in
this case is, presumably, accidental, as it occurs not only in the dark parts of the
drapery, where it might be intentional, but it obscures also “ the man in the
moon,” which cannot be intentional. For an example of “ tinting ” see, for in-
stance, No. 95 of this catalogue. The fine impressions in Paris, London, and
Berlin are all clean wiped.
This very delicately and skilfully engraved little plate, in its placid beauty,
vividly recalls Schongauer, especially his “ Little Standing Madonna,” B 27,
and still more Wenzel von Olmiitz’s reversed copy of the print named. Schon-
gauer’s original and Wenzel’s copy can be compared in the reproductions given
8