DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52444#0091
DRY-POINTS, AND ETCHINGS.
by Lehrs on PL V of his “Wenzel von Olmiitz.” Thausing (I, pp. 225, 226)
mentions it as a “ small archaic figure,” in Wolgemut’s manner. An unpleasant
feature is the face in the crescent,— the “man in the moon,”—upon which the
Virgin stands, a detail abandoned by Diirer in later years. A fine example of
far-fetched interpretation is furnished in this instance by Von Eye, who detects a
symbolical meaning in the apple held by the child, which he declares to be the
fruit “ of the new tree of life.” If this view be accepted, it will be necessary,
also, to find symbolical meanings for the pears and even the sucking-bag which
occur similarly in other plates. Diirer evidently looked upon them merely as
creature-comforts which, in the innocence and “ gross materialism ” of his na-
ture, he considered quite appropriate in the hands of a child.
Called also “The Virgin with Long Hair, tied with a Ribbon.”
9 THE LITTLE FORTUNE— B 78; H 831; R 6; M 9.—
Monogram.
a. Very vigorous impression. Black ink, clean wiped, except in the
floating drapery in front of the figure, which shows “ smudging ” (see re-
marks under No. 8). Paper rubbed and spotted, especially about the head.
b. Good impression, in warmer ink, on warmer paper, clean wiped,
not quite sound. From the Buccleuch Collection.
Impression a is of special interest, as in the series of prints here shown, it is
the first undoubtedly conscious attempt at “ artificial ” printing, although not a
successful one. Accidental “smudging” (see the remarks under No. 8) occurs
often in old prints, but here it is evidently not an accident. The printer tried
to tint the drapery, so as to give it color, but as his ink was not of the right
kind, and his skill insufficient, he produced merely a smudge, which here and
there extends even beyond the drapery.
Called “The Little Fortune,” to distinguish it from “Nemesis” or “The
Great Fortune’’(see No. 33 of this catalogue). Fortune “stands on a globe,
and supports herself with her left hand on a reed, to express her inconstancy
and frailty,” says Bartsch. To this Heller adds that in the same hand “ she
holds a dangerous thistle.” Retberg sees in the “reed” a pilgrim’s staff, the
form of which it decidedly has, while Thausing (I, p. 230) finds in it evidence
that the figure was drawn from a living model, to whom the staff served as a
support. “ It seems,” he goes on to say, “ as if Diirer were here making a slight
attempt to see how far he could adapt engraving to his new ideas of nature
before he undertook the larger rendering of the same subject,” that is to say of
10
9
by Lehrs on PL V of his “Wenzel von Olmiitz.” Thausing (I, pp. 225, 226)
mentions it as a “ small archaic figure,” in Wolgemut’s manner. An unpleasant
feature is the face in the crescent,— the “man in the moon,”—upon which the
Virgin stands, a detail abandoned by Diirer in later years. A fine example of
far-fetched interpretation is furnished in this instance by Von Eye, who detects a
symbolical meaning in the apple held by the child, which he declares to be the
fruit “ of the new tree of life.” If this view be accepted, it will be necessary,
also, to find symbolical meanings for the pears and even the sucking-bag which
occur similarly in other plates. Diirer evidently looked upon them merely as
creature-comforts which, in the innocence and “ gross materialism ” of his na-
ture, he considered quite appropriate in the hands of a child.
Called also “The Virgin with Long Hair, tied with a Ribbon.”
9 THE LITTLE FORTUNE— B 78; H 831; R 6; M 9.—
Monogram.
a. Very vigorous impression. Black ink, clean wiped, except in the
floating drapery in front of the figure, which shows “ smudging ” (see re-
marks under No. 8). Paper rubbed and spotted, especially about the head.
b. Good impression, in warmer ink, on warmer paper, clean wiped,
not quite sound. From the Buccleuch Collection.
Impression a is of special interest, as in the series of prints here shown, it is
the first undoubtedly conscious attempt at “ artificial ” printing, although not a
successful one. Accidental “smudging” (see the remarks under No. 8) occurs
often in old prints, but here it is evidently not an accident. The printer tried
to tint the drapery, so as to give it color, but as his ink was not of the right
kind, and his skill insufficient, he produced merely a smudge, which here and
there extends even beyond the drapery.
Called “The Little Fortune,” to distinguish it from “Nemesis” or “The
Great Fortune’’(see No. 33 of this catalogue). Fortune “stands on a globe,
and supports herself with her left hand on a reed, to express her inconstancy
and frailty,” says Bartsch. To this Heller adds that in the same hand “ she
holds a dangerous thistle.” Retberg sees in the “reed” a pilgrim’s staff, the
form of which it decidedly has, while Thausing (I, p. 230) finds in it evidence
that the figure was drawn from a living model, to whom the staff served as a
support. “ It seems,” he goes on to say, “ as if Diirer were here making a slight
attempt to see how far he could adapt engraving to his new ideas of nature
before he undertook the larger rendering of the same subject,” that is to say of
10
9