GERMAN ENGRAVING: THE MASTER OFTHE AMSTERDAM CABINET ANDALBRECHT DÜRER

WITH the exception of Martin Schongauer, none of Dürer’s immediate predecessors better repays a thorough study, or exerts a more potent fascination, than theMaster of the Amsterdam Cabinet. The earlier writers, from Duchesne to Dutuit, were united in their opinion that this engraver was a Netherlander; but Max Lehrs, following the track opened up by Harzen, has proved conclusively that the Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet (so called because the largest collection of his engravings—eighty subjects out of the eighty-nine which are known—is preserved in the Royal Print Rooms in Amsterdam) was not a Netherlander but a South German, a native of Rhenish Suabia—the very artist, in fact, who designed the illustrations of the Planets and their influences and the various arts and occupations of men, for the so-called “Medieval House Book” in the collection of Prince von Waldburg-Wolfegg.

In subject-matter he owes little to his predecessors, and in technique he is an isolated phenomenon.St. Martin and the BeggarandSt. Michael and the Dragonshow that he was acquainted with the work of Martin Schongauer; theEcstasy of St. Mary Magdalenis obviously based upon a similar engraving by the Master E. S. of 1466; but for the most part he stands alone. He seems to have worked entirely in dry-point upon some soft metal—lead or pewter, perhaps—and the ink which he used, of a soft grayish tint, combines with the breadth and softness of the lines to impart to his prints much of the character of drawings in silver-point.

The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet has treated a wide range of subjects, his preference being for scenes of everyday life. His prints show appreciation of the beauties of landscape, his skill in the treatment of wide spaces is masterly, and there is a beauty and sweetness in the expression of his faces which makes him a worthy rival of Martin Schongauer himself. He has left us no purely ornamental designs, such as might serve in the decoration of vessels used in the church, and we may infer, from the character of his engravings, that he was a painter, who used the dry-point as a diversion, rather than a professional engraver, pursuing his craft as a means of livelihood. In power of composition he can hardly rank with Martin Schongauer, and in range of intellect hefalls short of the heights reached by Albrecht Dürer; but his very limitations, perhaps, render him a more companionable personage, and his modernity makes an immediate appeal to us all.

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. ECSTASYOF ST. MARY MAGDALENSize of the original engraving, 7⅝ × 5¼ inchesIn the Royal Print Room, Amsterdam

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. ECSTASYOF ST. MARY MAGDALEN

Size of the original engraving, 7⅝ × 5¼ inchesIn the Royal Print Room, Amsterdam

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. CRUCIFIXIONSize of the original engraving, 6 × 5¼ inchesIn the Royal Print Room, Amsterdam

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. CRUCIFIXION

Size of the original engraving, 6 × 5¼ inchesIn the Royal Print Room, Amsterdam

TheEcstasy of St. Mary Magdalenis one of his earliest plates and is a free translation of the same subject by the Master E. S. It would seem as though his dry-point was the immediate original of Dürer’s woodcut. The position of the Magdalen’s hands is the same in both compositions, but Dürer has added a landscape which, admirable though it be, detracts from the main interest of his print.

The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet, in a second rendering, herewith reproduced, has eliminated all superfluous or distracting details and imparted a surprising degree of grace and purity to the lovely design. Anything like a chronological arrangement of the master’s work would be difficult, but one may safely assume that this beautiful engraving belongs to the latest and most mature period of his art, to which period we also may assign theTwo Lovers.

As a rule, his least successful engravings are those dealing with religious themes. At times, however, as in theCrucifixion, he rises to heights of dramatic intensity, and Dürer may be indebted more than we realize to this rendering of the divine tragedy.Aristotle and PhyllisandSolomon’s Idolatryare satirical illustrations of the follies of sages in love. Both plates are illumined by a truly modern sense of humor, while the arrangement of the figures within the spaces to be filled is admirable.

Such subjects asThe Three Living and the Three Dead KingsandYoung Man and Deathare variations upon a theme which was uppermost in the minds of many men at this time, when theArs Moriendiand theDance of Deathwere constant reminders of man’s mortality. In agreeable contrast is the dry-point ofTwo Lovers—a little masterpiece—one of his most charming designs. “The sweet shyness of the maiden, the tender glances of the lover and the soft pressure of their hands are rendered with an inimitable grace, and the work is altogether of such exceptional quality that we may count this delightful picture as one of the rarest gems of German engraving in the fifteenth century.”[7]

[7]The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet. By Max Lehrs. International Chalcographical Society, 1893 and 1894. p. 7.

TheStag Huntis filled with the spirit of outdoor life, the exhilaration of the chase, and the joy of the hounds in pursuing their quarry. No other engraver of the fifteenth century has left us any such truthful rendering of a hunting scene, and the life-enhancing quality of this little dry-pointmakes even Dürer’s rendering of animal forms seem cold and relatively lifeless.

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. STAG HUNTSize of the original engraving, 3⅝ × 6¾ inchesIn the Royal Print Room, Amsterdam(If supported click figure to enlarge.)

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. STAG HUNT

Size of the original engraving, 3⅝ × 6¾ inchesIn the Royal Print Room, Amsterdam(If supported click figure to enlarge.)

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. ST. GEORGESize of the original engraving, 5⅝ × 4⅛ inchesIn the British Museum

MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAM CABINET. ST. GEORGE

Size of the original engraving, 5⅝ × 4⅛ inchesIn the British Museum

The master’s knowledge of the anatomy of the horse, and his treatment of that noble beast, unfortunately fall far short of his rendering of the dogs and stags in theStag Hunt. The figure ofSt. Georgeis sufficiently graceful and convincing, but the horse (seemingly of the rocking-horse variety) can hardly be proclaimed a complete success. In spite of this obvious defect it is one of the artist’s finest plates, remarkable for its exceptional force and animation. The unique proof, of which the British Museum is the fortunate possessor, is in splendid condition and rich in burr.

And now, with some trepidation of spirit, we approachAlbrecht Dürerand his engraved work. His many-sidedness foredooms to failure any attempt at an adequate and comprehensive treatment. His compositions, as Max Allihn justly says, may fittingly be likened to the Sphinx of the old legend; for “they attack everyone who, either as critic, historian or harmless wanderer, ventures in the realm of art, and propose to him their unsolvable riddles.”

Of his own work Dürer says: “What beauty may be I know not. Art is hidden in nature and whosoever can tear it out has it,” and his life-long quest of knowledge, his truly German reverence for fact,hangs like a millstone around his neck. “Of a truth,” writes Raphael, “this man would have surpassed us all if he had had the masterpieces of art constantly before him,” Raphael himself—“Raphael the Divine”—hardly paralyzed æsthetic criticism for a longer period than has Dürer, and in studying his engravings, if the student would see them for what they are, as works of art, and not through the enchanted, oftentimes stupefying, maze of metaphysics, he must be prepared for the gibes and verbal brick-bats of his contemporaries, who hold in reverence all that has the sanction of long-continued repetition by authority after authority.

“If you see it in a book it’s true; if you see it in a German book it’s very true,” applies with only too telling a force to a considerable share of Dürer speculation. For better or worse I cannot but think that Dürer’s prime intention in his engravings was an artistic one, though obviously this intention was often overlaid with a desire to supply an existing demand and to introduce, into otherwise simple compositions, traditional moralistic motives which should render his engravings more marketable at the fairs, where mostly they were sold. So many and so fascinating are the facets of Dürer’s personality, so interesting is he as a man in whose mind meet, and sometimes blend, the ideas of the Middle Ages with those almost of our own time,that if we are to study, even in the briefest and most cursory fashion, his engraved work, we must perforce confine ourselves strictly to the artistic content of his plates and not be seduced into the by-ways of speculation which lead anywhere—or, more often, nowhere.

Earliest of his authenticated engravings, without monogram and without date, crude in handling, possibly suggested by the work of some earlier master, and in all probability executed before his first journey to Venice (that is to say, before or in the year 1490) is theRavisher, susceptible of as many and as varied interpretations as there are authorities; from a man using violence, to the struggle for existence. It has even been connected in some way with a belief in witchcraft! TheHoly Family with the Dragonfly, to which Koehler gives second place in his chronological arrangement of Dürer’s engravings, shows an astonishing advance in technique and in composition. It is undated, but the monogram is in its early form. The galley and the two gondolas, in the distant water to the right, would seem to indicate that it was engraved in or about the year 1494, upon Dürer’s return from Venice, and it is probably his first plate after his return to Nuremberg. There is a sweetness and an attractiveness in the face of the Virgin which points to an acquaintance with Schongauer’s engraving,theVirgin with a Parrot. The poise of the head and the flowing hair lend color to this supposition.

To how great an extent not only the engravings, but the theories, of Jacopo de’ Barbari may have influenced Dürer in such plates asSt. Jerome in Penitence, theCarrying Off of Amymone,Hercules, or theFour Naked Women, is difficult to determine. It may have been considerable, though, at times, one cannot help wondering whether the theory of proportion of the human body, of which Jacopo spoke to Dürer, but concerning which he refused (or was unable) to give him further detailed particulars, may not have been more or less of a “bluff,” since there is no record of Jacopo having committed the results of his studies to writing, and in his engravings there is little evidence of any logical theory of proportion. That a potent influence was at work shaping Dürer’s development is clear, and the figure ofSt. Jeromeundoubtedly owes a good deal to Jacopo. The landscape is all Dürer’s own, the first of a long series finely conceived and admirably executed. The long, sweeping lines in the foreground recall the manner of Jacopo de’ Barbari, but otherwise the engraving owes little technically to that artist.

ALBRECHT DÜRER. VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH THEMONKEYSize of the original engraving, 7½ × 4¾ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH THEMONKEY

Size of the original engraving, 7½ × 4¾ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. FOUR NAKED WOMENSize of the original engraving, 7½ × 5¼ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. FOUR NAKED WOMEN

Size of the original engraving, 7½ × 5¼ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

The Virgin and Child with the Monkeyis the most brilliant of Dürer’s engravings in his earlier period. In the opinion of many students it is, likewise, themost beautiful and dignified, not only in the figures of the Virgin and Child, but also in the breadth and richness of the landscape. The loveliness of the background was early recognized, and several Italian engravers, including Giulio Campagnola, availed themselves of it. When Dürer’s drawings and water-colors are more generally known, he will be acclaimed one of the masters of landscape. There is a freshness, a breeziness, an “out-of-doors” quality in his water-color of theWeierhauswhich will surprise those who hitherto have known him only through his engraved work, wherein the landscape undergoes a certain formalizing process.

TheVirgin and Child with the Monkeyis so beautiful in simplicity of handling, so delightful in arrangement of black and white, that it is hard to reconcile oneself to the comparatively coarse line work, the insensitiveness to beauty of form, the disregard of anatomy, shown inFour Naked Womenof 1497—Dürer’s first dated plate—especially the woman standing to the left, who combines the slackness of Jacopo de’ Barbari at his worst with the heaviness and puffiness possible only to a Northerner unacquainted with the classic ideals of the Italian Renaissance.

Speculation is again rife as to the meaning, if it has a meaning, of the skull and bone on the ground, and the devil emerging from the flames atthe left. The engraving seems to be a straightforward, naturalistic study of the nude, with these accessories thrown in to give the subject a moralizing air which would make it palatable to the artist’s contemporaries. There could hardly be a greater contrast to this frankly hideous treatment of the human form thanHercules(called also theEffects of Jealousy, theGreat Satyr, etc.). In this plate we are able, as in few others—the one notable exception being theAdam and Eveof 1504—to follow out, step by step, Dürer’s upbuilding of the composition. The figures are, in this case, idealized according to the canons of classical beauty, rather than realistically rendered. Incidentally, the landscape is quite the most beautiful which appears in any of Dürer’s engravings. Its spaciousness instantly commands our admiration, and the gradation from light to dark, to indicate differing planes in the trees, is managed in a masterly manner.

ALBRECHT DÜRER. HERCULESSize of the original engraving, 13¾ × 8¾ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. HERCULES

Size of the original engraving, 13¾ × 8¾ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ANONYMOUS NORTH ITALIAN, XV CENTURY. DEATH OFORPHEUSSize of the original engraving, 5¾ × 8⅜ inchesIn the Kunsthalle, Hamburg(If supported click figure to enlarge.)

ANONYMOUS NORTH ITALIAN, XV CENTURY. DEATH OFORPHEUS

Size of the original engraving, 5¾ × 8⅜ inchesIn the Kunsthalle, Hamburg(If supported click figure to enlarge.)

ALBRECHT DÜRER. DEATH OF ORPHEUSSize of the original drawing, 11⅜ × 8⅞ inchesIn the Kunsthalle, Hamburg

ALBRECHT DÜRER. DEATH OF ORPHEUS

Size of the original drawing, 11⅜ × 8⅞ inchesIn the Kunsthalle, Hamburg

ALBRECHT DÜRER. BATTLE OF THE SEA-GODS. (After Mantegna)Size of the original drawing, 11½ × 15¼ inchesIn the Albertina, Vienna(If supported click figure to enlarge.)

ALBRECHT DÜRER. BATTLE OF THE SEA-GODS. (After Mantegna)

Size of the original drawing, 11½ × 15¼ inchesIn the Albertina, Vienna(If supported click figure to enlarge.)

Beginning with theDeath of Orpheus, engraved by some anonymous North Italian master working in the Fine Manner of the Tarocchi Cards, the next step is Dürer’s pen drawing, dated 1494. The figures of Orpheus and of the two Thracian Mænads remain unchanged, as does also the little child running towards the left. Dürer has, however, changed the lute into a lyre, as being more suited to Orpheus, and has added the beautiful group of treeswhich reappears, little changed, in his engraving ofHercules. There is a drawing of the Mantegna School which Dürer may, or may not, have seen; but the face of Orpheus in his drawing shows certain unmistakable Mantegna characteristics, far removed from the North Italian Fine Manner print. From Mantegna’s engraving, theBattle of the Sea-Gods(right-hand portion), Dürer has borrowed the figure of the reclining woman to the left and the Satyr. That he was acquainted with this engraving by Mantegna is attested by a drawing of 1494. The man standing to the right, with legs spread wide apart, wearing a fantastic helmet in the shape of a cock, recalls the work of Pollaiuolo, by whom there exists a similar drawing, now in Berlin. From these various elements Dürer builds up his composition. Its full meaning he alone knew. It has remained an unsolved riddle from his time to our own.

TheCarrying Off of Amymonebelongs to this same period. Here Dürer has again used the motive taken from Mantegna’s engraving, theBattle of the Sea Gods; but in this instance he follows his original much more closely. Dürer alludes to this print in the diary of his journey to the Netherlands asThe Sea Wonder(Das Meerwunder); and although the interpretations given to it are many and various, its true meaning, as in the case of the Hercules, remains a matter of conjecture.

By 1503, the year to which belongs theCoat-of-Arms with the Skull, and also, in all probability, the magnificentCoat-of-Arms with the Cock, Dürer seems to have overcome successfully all technical difficulties and is absolute master of his medium. From this time onwards, although his manner undergoes certain modifications in the direction of fuller color and of a more accurate rendering of texture, his language is adequate for anything he may wish to say, and he is free to address himself to the solution of scientific problems, such as are involved in the elucidation of his canon of human proportion, or the still deeper questions which stirred so profoundly the speculative minds of his time.

With the exception ofHercules,Adam and Eveis the only engraving by Dürer of which trial proofs, properly so-called, exist, whereby we can study Dürer’s method. First the outlines were lightly laid in; then the background was carried forward and substantially completed. In the first trial proof Adam’s right leg alone is finished; but in the second trial proof he is completed to the waist. This method of procedure is significant, in view of the endless controversies, based upon an incomplete study of Dürer’s technique, regarding the use of preliminary etching in many plates of his middle and later period.

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ADAM AND EVESize of the original engraving, 9¾ x 8⅝ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ADAM AND EVE

Size of the original engraving, 9¾ x 8⅝ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. APOLLO AND DIANASize of the original engraving, 4½ × 2¾ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. APOLLO AND DIANA

Size of the original engraving, 4½ × 2¾ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

InAdam and EveDürer has summed up the knowledge obtained by actual observation and by a series of drawings and studies extending over a number of years, and combined with it his theoretical working out of the proportions of the human figure, male and female. In no other plate has he lavished such loving care upon the representation of the human form. The flesh is, so to speak, caressed with the burin, as though, once and for all, the artist wished to prove to his contemporaries that the graver sufficed for the rendering of the most beautiful, the most subtle and scientific problems. That Dürer himself was satisfied with the result of his labors at this time is made manifest by the detailed inscription,ALBERTUS DURER NORICUS FACIEBAT, on the tablet, followed by his monogram and the date 1504. This plate proclaimed him indisputably the greatest master of the burin of his time; and along the lines which he laid down for himself it remains unsurpassed until our own day.

Adam and Eveis followed by a group of prints which, though interesting in treatment and charming in subject, such as theNativity,Apollo and Diana, and the first four plates of theSmall Passion, reveal nothing new in Dürer’s development as an artist or a man. In the year 1510, however, is made his first experiment in dry-point. Of the very smallplate ofSt. Veronica with the Sudariumtwo impressions only have come down to us, neither of them showing much burr. TheMan of Sorrows, dated 1512, likewise must have been very delicately scratched upon the copper, all existing impressions being pale and delicate in tone. Whether Dürer’s desire was to produce engravings which should entail less labor and be more quickly executed than was possible by the slower and more laborious method of the burin, or whether, as seems much more likely, he was influenced by an acquaintanceship with the dry-point work of the Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet, cannot be asserted with any degree of assurance. Dürer’s third dry-point, theSt. Jerome by the Willow Tree(like theMan of Sorrowsdated 1512), is treated in so much bolder and more painter-like a manner, is so rich in burr and so satisfying as a composition, that one can hardly account for such remarkable development unaided by any outside influence or stimulation. The British Museum’s impression of the first state, before the monogram,—the richest impression known—yields nothing in color effect even to Rembrandt. Thausing is inclined to think that Rembrandt must have been inspired by this plate to himself take up the dry-point—an interesting speculation and one which would do honor to both of these great masters.

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ST. JEROME BY THE WILLOW TREE(First State)Size of the original dry-point 8⅛ × 7 inchesIn the British Museum

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ST. JEROME BY THE WILLOW TREE(First State)

Size of the original dry-point 8⅛ × 7 inchesIn the British Museum

ALBRECHT DÜRER. HOLY FAMILYSize of the original dry-point, 8¼ × 7¼ inches

ALBRECHT DÜRER. HOLY FAMILY

Size of the original dry-point, 8¼ × 7¼ inches

TheHoly Family, though without monogram and undated, belongs so unmistakably, from internal evidence, to this period, that we may safely assign it to the year 1512. The background and landscape to the left are indicated in outline only. Did Dürer intend to carry the plate further? We can never know. It is his fourth and, unfortunately, his last dry-point. There is a beauty inSt. Jerome by the Willow Treeand in this Holy Family which leads us to read in these two masterpieces certain Italian influences. There is the largeness of conception of the Venetian School, and bothSt. JeromeandSt. Josephshow strong traces of such a master as Giovanni Bellini.

With the brief space at our disposal, what shall we say of the crowning works of those two wonderful years, 1513-1514—Knight, Death and the Devil,Melancholia, andSt. Jerome in his Study? Are they three of a proposed series of the four temperaments? Should they be considered as parts of a group—or is each masterpiece complete in itself? One thing at least they have in common: they are truly “Stimmungsbilder”—that is, the lighting is so arranged, in each composition, as directly to affect the mind and the mood of the beholder, and “the sombre gloom of theKnight, Death and the Devil, the weird, unearthly glitter of theMelancholia, with its uncertain, glinting lights, the soft, tranquilsunshine of theSt. Jerome, are all in accordance with their several subjects. These, whether or not originally intended to represent ‘classes of men’ or ‘moods,’ certainly call up the latter in the mind of the beholder—the steady courage of the valiant fighter for the right, undismayed by darkness and dangers; the brooding, leading well-nigh to despair, over the vain efforts of human science to lift the veil of the eternal secret; and the calm content of the mind at peace with itself and the world around it.”[8]

[8]A Chronological Catalogue of the Engravings, Dry-Points and Etchings of Albert Dürer, as exhibited at the Grolier Club. By Sylvester R. Koehler. New York; The Grolier Club. 1897. p. 65.

Dürer, unfortunately, sheds no light upon the inner and deeper meaning of theKnight, Death and the Devil. He speaks of it simply as “A Horseman.” The many and various titles invented for it since his time carry us very little further forward than where we began. The letter S, which precedes the date, the dog which trots upon the further side of the horse, even the blades of grass under the hoof of the right hind leg of the horse, have all been matters of speculation and controversy, and we choose the part of wisdom if, disregarding the swirling currents of metaphysical interpretation, we enjoy this masterpiece of engraving for its æsthetic content primarily, and for its potential meanings afterwards.

ALBRECHT DÜRER. KNIGHT, DEATH AND THE DEVILSize of the original engraving, 9⅝ × 7⅜ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. KNIGHT, DEATH AND THE DEVIL

Size of the original engraving, 9⅝ × 7⅜ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. MELANCHOLIASize of the original engraving, 9⅛ × 7¼ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. MELANCHOLIA

Size of the original engraving, 9⅛ × 7¼ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Melancholiafavors an even wider range of speculation than theKnight, Death and the Devil. This woman, who wears a laurel wreath and who, seated in gloomy meditation, supports her cheek in her left hand, while all the materials for human labor, for art, and for science lie scattered about her—does she symbolize human Reason in despair at the limits imposed upon her power? Or does the plate have a more personal and intimate meaning, reflecting Dürer’s deep grief at the death of his mother—the mother to whom he so often refers in his letters, always with heartfelt affection?

The so-called “magic square” lends color to the latter interpretation. Dürer’s mother died on May 17, 1514. The figures in the diagonally opposite corners of the square can be read as follows, 16 + 1 and 13 + 4, making 17, the day of the month; as do the figures in the center read crosswise, 10 + 7 and 11 + 6, and also the middle figures at the sides read across, 5 + 12 and 8 + 9. The two middle figures in the top line, 3 + 2, give 5, the month in question, and the two middle figures in the bottom line give the year, 1514.

Artistically the plate suffers from the multiplicity of objects introduced, and the loving care which Dürer has lavished upon them. He has wished to tell his story—whatever it may be—with absolute completeness in every particular, and in so doinghe has weakened and confused the effect of his plate. It were idle to speculate upon what might have happened had so sensitive a master as Martin Schongauer possessed adequate technical skill for the interpretation of such a subject. What a masterpiece of masterpieces might have resulted if he had subjected it to that process of simplification and elimination of which he was so splendid an exponent! However this may be,Melancholiahas been, and probably will continue to be, one of the signal triumphs in the history of engraving. We may never solve the riddles which she propounds; but is she less fascinating for being only partially understood?

St. Jerome in his Cell, all things considered, may be accounted Dürer’s high-water mark. There is a unity and harmony about this plate which is lacking inMelancholia. Nothing could be finer than the lighting; and, judged merely as a “picture,” it is altogether satisfying from every point of view. The accessories, even the animals in the foreground, take their just places in the composition. It is surprising that, although the plate is “finished” with minute and loving care, there is not the faintest evidence of labor apparent anywhere about it; but this is only one of its many and superlative merits. The light streaming in through the window at the left and bathing in its soft effulgence theSaint, intent upon his task, and the entire room in which he sits, has been for centuries the admiration of every art lover.

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ST. JEROME IN HIS CELLSize of the original engraving, 9½ × 7¼ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ST. JEROME IN HIS CELL

Size of the original engraving, 9½ × 7¼ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. VIRGIN SEATED BESIDE A WALLSize of the original engraving, 5¾ × 3⅞ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. VIRGIN SEATED BESIDE A WALL

Size of the original engraving, 5¾ × 3⅞ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

To this year, 1514, also belongs theVirgin Seated Beside a Wall, a plate in which the variety of texture has been carried further than in any other engraving by Dürer. The flesh is simply treated, in line for the most part; but the undergarment, the fur-trimmed wrapper, and the scarf which covers the head of the Virgin, hanging down the back and thrown over the knee, are all carefully differentiated. Again, the various planes in the landscape leading up to the fortified city are beautifully handled, as is also the wall to the right. It is hard to say what technical problems remained for Dürer to solve after such a little masterpiece as this.

His growing fame meanwhile had attracted the attention of the Emperor Maximilian, “the last of the Knights,” who in February, 1512, visited Nuremberg. Dürer is commissioned to design theTriumphal Arch, theTriumphal Car, and similar monumental records of the Emperor’s prowess; not to speak of such orders as the decoration of the Emperor’s Prayer-Book, etc. Such distraction absorbed the greater part of the artist’s time and energies, and there was left little opportunity for the development of his work along the lines he hadhitherto followed. It may be that we owe to this fact, and to the quick mode of producing a print such a process offers, the six etchings on iron which bear dates from 1515 to 1518. But, whatever the reason, we are glad that he etched these plates. Discarding, for the moment, the elaborate and detailed method of line work of his engravings on copper, he adopts a more open system, such as would “come well” in the biting—closer work than in his woodcuts, but perfectly adapted to that which he wished to say.

There is a tense and passionate quality inChrist in the Gardenwhich places this etched plate among the noteworthy works even of Dürer, while the wind-torn tree to the left of Christ gives the needed touch of the supernatural to the composition. TheCarrying Off of Proserpine—the spirited drawing for which is now in the J. Pierpont Morgan collection—is the working out, with allegorical accessories, of a study of a warrior carrying off a woman. The last of his plates, theCannon, of 1518, with its charming landscape, was doubtless executed to supply, promptly, a popular demand. It represents a large field piece bearing the Arms of Nuremberg, and the five strangely costumed men to the right, gazing upon the “Nuremberg Field Serpent,” obviously have some relation to the fear of the Turk, then strong in Germany.

ALBRECHT DÜRER. CHRIST IN THE GARDENSize of the original etching, 8¾ × 6⅛ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. CHRIST IN THE GARDEN

Size of the original etching, 8¾ × 6⅛ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAMSize of the original engraving, 9⅞ × 7⅝ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

ALBRECHT DÜRER. ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM

Size of the original engraving, 9⅞ × 7⅝ inchesIn the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

In 1519 we have the first of Dürer’s engraved portraits—Albert of Brandenburg, “The Little Cardinal”to distinguish it from the larger plate of 1523. Opinions as to Dürer’s importance as a portrait engraver vary considerably. Some students feel that in these later works the engraver has become so engrossed in the delight of his craft that he has failed to concentrate his attention upon the countenance and character of the sitter, bestowing excessive care upon the accessories and the minor accidents of surface textures—wrinkles and similar unimportant matters. On the other hand, such an authority as Koehler maintains that theAlbert of Brandenburg, preeminent for delicacy and noble simplicity among these portrait engravings by Dürer, “will always be ranked among the best portraits engraved anywhere and at any time.”

Frederic the Wise, Elector of Saxony, was one of the earliest patrons of Dürer, founder of the University of Wittenberg and a supporter of the Reformation, although he never openly embraced the doctrines of Martin Luther. Dürer’s drawing in silver-point gives a straightforward and characterful presentation of the man, and, in this instance, translation into the terms of engraving has nowise lessened the directness of appeal.

Erasmus of Rotterdambears the latest date (1526) which we find upon any engraving by Dürer, and itwell may be his last plate. Here the elaboration and finish bestowed upon the accessories certainly detract from the portrait interest. Erasmus was polite enough, when he saw this engraving, to excuse its unlikeness to himself by remarking that doubtless he had changed much during the five years which had intervened between Dürer’s drawing of 1521 and the completion of the plate. Technically, however, it is a masterpiece, a worthy close to the career of undoubtedly the greatest engraver Germany has produced.

GERMAN ENGRAVING: THE MASTER OF THE AMSTERDAMCABINET AND ALBRECHT DÜRER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet(flourished c. 1467-c. 1500)Zur Zeitbestimmung der Stiche des Hausbuch-meisters.By Curt Glaser.Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft, Vol. 3, pp. 145-156. Leipzig. 1910.The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet.By Max Lehrs.89 reproductions. London. 1894. (International Chalcographical Society. 1893 and 1894.)Bilder und Zeichnungen Vom Meister des Hausbuchs.By Max Lehrs.5 illustrations. Jahrbuch der königlichen preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Vol. 20, pp. 173-182. Berlin. 1899.The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet and Two New Works by His Hand.By Willy F. Storck.6 illustrations. The Burlington Magazine. Vol. 18, pp. 184-192. London. 1910.Dürer, Albrecht(1471-1528)Le Peintre-Graveur.By Adam Bartsch.Volume 7, pp. 5-197. Albert Durer, Vienna. 1803-1821.Literary Remains of Albrecht Dürer.By William Martin Conway.14 illustrations. Cambridge: University Press. 1889.The Engravings of Albrecht Dürer.By Lionel Cust.4 reproductions and 25 text illustrations. London: Seeley & Co. 1906. (The Portfolio Artistic Monographs. No. 11.)Albrecht Dürer; His Engravings and Woodcuts.Edited by Arthur Mayger Hind.65 reproductions. London and New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, n. d. (Great Engravers.)Dürer.By H. Knackfuss. Translated by Campbell Dodgson.134 illustrations. Bielefeld and Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1900. (Monographs on Artists.)Exhibition of Albert Dürer’s Engravings, Etchings and Dry-Points, and of Most of the Woodcuts Executed from his Designs.(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. November 15, 1888-January 15, 1889.)By Sylvester R. Koehler.Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. 1888.Chronological Catalogue of the Engravings, Dry-Points and Etchings Of Albert Dürer, as Exhibited at the Grolier Club.By Sylvester R. Koehler.9 reproductions on 7 plates. New York: The Grolier Club. 1897.Dürer; des Meisters Gemälde, Kupferstiche und Holzschnitte.Edited by Valentin Scherer.473 reproductions. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. (Klassiker der Kunst. Vol. 4.)Albert Dürer; His Life and Works.By William B. Scott.Illustrated. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1869.Albrecht Dürer; Kupferstiche in getreuen Nachbildungen.Edited by Jaro Springer.70 plates. Munich: Holbein-Verlag. 1914.Albert Dürer; His Life and Works.By Moritz Thausing. Translated from the German. Edited by Frederick A. Eaton.2 volumes. 58 illustrations. London: John Murray. 1882.Dürer Society. [Portfolios] With Introductory Notes by Campbell Dodgson and Others.Series 1-10 (1898-1908). 311 reproductions. Index of Series 1-10. London. 1898-1908.———. Publication No. 12. 24 reproductions. London. 1911.

Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet(flourished c. 1467-c. 1500)

Zur Zeitbestimmung der Stiche des Hausbuch-meisters.By Curt Glaser.Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft, Vol. 3, pp. 145-156. Leipzig. 1910.

The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet.By Max Lehrs.89 reproductions. London. 1894. (International Chalcographical Society. 1893 and 1894.)

Bilder und Zeichnungen Vom Meister des Hausbuchs.By Max Lehrs.5 illustrations. Jahrbuch der königlichen preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Vol. 20, pp. 173-182. Berlin. 1899.

The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet and Two New Works by His Hand.By Willy F. Storck.6 illustrations. The Burlington Magazine. Vol. 18, pp. 184-192. London. 1910.

Dürer, Albrecht(1471-1528)

Le Peintre-Graveur.By Adam Bartsch.Volume 7, pp. 5-197. Albert Durer, Vienna. 1803-1821.

Literary Remains of Albrecht Dürer.By William Martin Conway.14 illustrations. Cambridge: University Press. 1889.

The Engravings of Albrecht Dürer.By Lionel Cust.4 reproductions and 25 text illustrations. London: Seeley & Co. 1906. (The Portfolio Artistic Monographs. No. 11.)

Albrecht Dürer; His Engravings and Woodcuts.Edited by Arthur Mayger Hind.65 reproductions. London and New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, n. d. (Great Engravers.)

Dürer.By H. Knackfuss. Translated by Campbell Dodgson.134 illustrations. Bielefeld and Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1900. (Monographs on Artists.)

Exhibition of Albert Dürer’s Engravings, Etchings and Dry-Points, and of Most of the Woodcuts Executed from his Designs.(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. November 15, 1888-January 15, 1889.)By Sylvester R. Koehler.Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. 1888.

Chronological Catalogue of the Engravings, Dry-Points and Etchings Of Albert Dürer, as Exhibited at the Grolier Club.By Sylvester R. Koehler.9 reproductions on 7 plates. New York: The Grolier Club. 1897.

Dürer; des Meisters Gemälde, Kupferstiche und Holzschnitte.Edited by Valentin Scherer.473 reproductions. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. (Klassiker der Kunst. Vol. 4.)

Albert Dürer; His Life and Works.By William B. Scott.Illustrated. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1869.

Albrecht Dürer; Kupferstiche in getreuen Nachbildungen.Edited by Jaro Springer.70 plates. Munich: Holbein-Verlag. 1914.

Albert Dürer; His Life and Works.By Moritz Thausing. Translated from the German. Edited by Frederick A. Eaton.2 volumes. 58 illustrations. London: John Murray. 1882.

Dürer Society. [Portfolios] With Introductory Notes by Campbell Dodgson and Others.Series 1-10 (1898-1908). 311 reproductions. Index of Series 1-10. London. 1898-1908.

———. Publication No. 12. 24 reproductions. London. 1911.

Back to Index Next