DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52444#0111
DRY-POINTS, AND ETCHINGS.
The impressions in Paris, London, and Dresden (Cabinet), and one of those in
Berlin, are all printed in fine black ink, generally speaking clean wiped, yet with
more or less tinting in the close work. In the Collection Frederic Augustus II,
also in Dresden, there is an impression in warmish ink, very clean wiped, and
therefore delicate. The face, however, is defective, which may be due to the
wearing of the plate, or to the wiping of the ink out of the finest and shallowest
lines. Of the three impressions in Berlin,— one in the first state, two in the
second,— the two latter, although printed in black ink, are likewise defective
in the face.
In the first state, the tablet with the date and the tree on which it hangs are
wanting. It has been conjectured that these evidences of the second state were
artificially removed from the impression in the Berlin Cabinet, but careful ex-
amination fails to disclose evidences of scratching.
The date on this plate,— 1503,— is the second earliest to be found on Diirer’s
engravings, the earliest being 1497, on the “Four Naked Women” (No. 14).
It is an unsatisfactory and a puzzling plate, to which it is difficult to assign a
place, in spite of its date. In closeness of work, and in pictorial effect, except
for the sky, which is simply white paper, it strikes one as a forerunner of the
“Little Passion” (Nos. 46-61). But it is not as satisfactory artistically, and is
more archaic in feeling. The line work in the face is so mechanical that doubts
arise in the mind as to its authenticity. The most satisfactory way to dispose
of it would be to reject it as a forgery, together with the “ St. Sebastian
tied to a Column” (No. 20), but it would require courage to do that! Vasari
mentions it (Mrs. Foster’s translation, III, p. 487): “ In the year 1503, Albert
Diirer sent forth to the world a small figure of the Madonna, in which he sur-
passed both Martin and himself,” and there are copies by Zoan Andrea, Jan
Wierix, Ouerrat (Cologne, sixteenth century), and others. But the forgers
were early at work, and the fact that Diirer “surpassed” himself, that is to say,
that the plate is more “ set ” in workmanship than any of his other plates, as
well as the two “ states,” and the difficulty of reconciling the workmanship with
the other plates of the same period, are all against it. The place apart which
it holds is expressed even in Mr. Cust’s high praise (p. 36): “The Virgin and
Child [of 1503] is one of the sweetest and tenderest renderings of the subject
which Diirer produced, and also one of his best engravings.”
29
The impressions in Paris, London, and Dresden (Cabinet), and one of those in
Berlin, are all printed in fine black ink, generally speaking clean wiped, yet with
more or less tinting in the close work. In the Collection Frederic Augustus II,
also in Dresden, there is an impression in warmish ink, very clean wiped, and
therefore delicate. The face, however, is defective, which may be due to the
wearing of the plate, or to the wiping of the ink out of the finest and shallowest
lines. Of the three impressions in Berlin,— one in the first state, two in the
second,— the two latter, although printed in black ink, are likewise defective
in the face.
In the first state, the tablet with the date and the tree on which it hangs are
wanting. It has been conjectured that these evidences of the second state were
artificially removed from the impression in the Berlin Cabinet, but careful ex-
amination fails to disclose evidences of scratching.
The date on this plate,— 1503,— is the second earliest to be found on Diirer’s
engravings, the earliest being 1497, on the “Four Naked Women” (No. 14).
It is an unsatisfactory and a puzzling plate, to which it is difficult to assign a
place, in spite of its date. In closeness of work, and in pictorial effect, except
for the sky, which is simply white paper, it strikes one as a forerunner of the
“Little Passion” (Nos. 46-61). But it is not as satisfactory artistically, and is
more archaic in feeling. The line work in the face is so mechanical that doubts
arise in the mind as to its authenticity. The most satisfactory way to dispose
of it would be to reject it as a forgery, together with the “ St. Sebastian
tied to a Column” (No. 20), but it would require courage to do that! Vasari
mentions it (Mrs. Foster’s translation, III, p. 487): “ In the year 1503, Albert
Diirer sent forth to the world a small figure of the Madonna, in which he sur-
passed both Martin and himself,” and there are copies by Zoan Andrea, Jan
Wierix, Ouerrat (Cologne, sixteenth century), and others. But the forgers
were early at work, and the fact that Diirer “surpassed” himself, that is to say,
that the plate is more “ set ” in workmanship than any of his other plates, as
well as the two “ states,” and the difficulty of reconciling the workmanship with
the other plates of the same period, are all against it. The place apart which
it holds is expressed even in Mr. Cust’s high praise (p. 36): “The Virgin and
Child [of 1503] is one of the sweetest and tenderest renderings of the subject
which Diirer produced, and also one of his best engravings.”
29