A Re-evaluation of Two Mantegna Prints

Author(s): Shelley Fletcher

Source: Print Quarterly , MARCH 1997, Vol. 14, No. 1 (MARCH 1997), pp. 67-77
Published by: Print Quarterly Publications

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41824966

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Print Quarterly

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANSELM KIEFER 67
canvas, with 96. Das Rote
appliqué Meer (The Red Sea) (1984)
woodcut fragments, car
board pieces and lead objects
oil, emulsion (stick
and shellac on photograph, wood- and 2
strips) cut on canvas and appliqué lead strips
3,300 X 5,000 mm 2,740 X 4,180 mm

Shorter Notices

A Re-evaluation of Two Mantegna Prints

Shelley Fletcher

The engravings of Andrea Mantegna (c. 1431-1506) have

lated me to undertake a re-evaluation of the corpus of en-
elicited continuous debate among art historians from the
gravings attributed to Mantegna using new close-up photo-
mid-sixteenth century to the present.1 Did Mantegnagraphic technology developed at the National Gallery of Art
engrave his own plates? Which ones did he engrave? Whenspecifically for this purpose.2 My objective here is, however,
did he engrave them? These tantalizing questions stimu-to examine only two prints, the Virgin and Child and

I would like to thank the Robert H. Smith Fellowship program at 2. The relatively simple new system designed for close-up photo-
the National Gallery of Art for giving me the initial opportunity to graphy is essentially a modification of the standard 35 mm sin-
study these prints at various locations during 1994. A Samuel H. gle lens reflex (SLR) camera with a close-up attachment and
Kress Foundation Fellowship in 1995 permitted me to visit all major photographic copy stand. To capture the three-dimensional
collections of Mantegna prints and to document them. I am indebt- features of the engraving strokes and ink, a close-up attachment
ed to Suzanne Boorsch and David Landau for their early support of with side-mounted dual flash tubes, similar to a ring light, was
this project and for their generosity with scholarly material and attached to a custom-made extension ring that screws onto the
end of the lens. When only one flash tube is used, excellent
advice. Without the kind permission of print rooms, paper conser-
vation laboratories and the many people that staff them, this relief effects are produced by raking light. The extension ring
research would not have been possible; particular thanks to Dr Fritz brings the raking light close enough (5 cm. [approx. 2 in.]) to
Koreny, Curator at the Albertina, Vienna; Dr Barbara Dossi and the surface of the print to produce an image with topographi-
Mrs Elisabeth Thobois for all their help at the Albertina; Dr Hein- cal information that would be obscured were a standard ring
Th. Schulze Altcappenberg, Curator of Italian Drawings and light or both flash tubes used. The light source (a Nikon TTL
Prints, Mrs Eveline AJex, Head of Paper Conservation, Ms Cordula Macro Speedlight) emits a flash of 1/1500 of a second. The
Severit, Paper Conservator at the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, split-second amount of light received by any one site on the
Gillian Roy, Head of the Organic Materials Group, and the staff of print is infinitesimal. The portable photographic system equip-
the Paper Conservation Laboratory at the British Museum, for all ment and supplies are: Nikon F-3 camera body, 105 mm f/2.8D
their help and generosity. At the National Gallery of Art, I owe a AF Micro-Nikkor lens, Right Angle Finder DR-3 or Waist
great deal of thanks to Constance McCabe, Photograph Level Finder DW-3 (wearing glasses, I used the DW-3), Nikon
Conservator, who designed the photographic equipment to meet all Bellows Focusing Unit PB-6, Nikon AR-7 cable release, Nikon
of my needs and without whose advice and expertise this research TTL Macro Speedlight SB21A (or B depending on the hotshoe
could not have been carried out, and to Lorene Emerson, requirements of the camera body), Custom extension ring
Photographer, who oversaw the first-rate production of my slides. I threaded to the end of the 105 mm lens to allow Speedlight to
would also like to thank Andrew Robison, Mellon Senior Curator, extend approximately one inch from the lens fabricated by
Margaret Grasselli, Curator of Old Master Drawings, and Diane Scott Andrews, Technical Services Supervisor of Nikon, Inc.,
Russell, Curator of Old Master Prints, for reviewing the photo- auxiliary flash light (for focussing), such as Zelco Long Reach
graphic documentation for this paper and urging its publication. Flexible Flashlight Model 90003, portable copy stand fabricat-
Finally, I would like to thank Ross Merrill, Chief of Conservation, ed by Joseph Mears, Service Representative of Microscope
and the staff of the Paper Conservation department for their con- Services, Fujichrome Velvia 50 film, and Samsonite Fiberglass
tinuous and indispensable support of my research. rolling suitcase.
i. For discussions, see M.J. Zucker, Early Italian Masters , vol. xxv of All equipment used for this research was first tested and com-
The Illustrated Bartsch , ed. W. Strauss, New York 1984, pp. 73-78, pared to several other commercially available brands. For the
and S. Boorsch, 'Mantegna and his Printmakers', Andrea documentation objectives of this project and the ease of use by
Mantegna , exh. cat. ed. J. Martineau, London, Royal Academy the operator, the equipment and film cited were found to be the
of Arts, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992, pp. most suitable. Other variations of this model are, of course,
56-66. available.

PRINT QUARTERLY, XIV, 1 997, I

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 68 SHORTER NOTICES

56. The close-up photographic unit, attach

Entombment. I tunity for, possible

address and even invited, a new reasons
approach. for e
interpretations My research
and relies on experience using athat
conclusions stereomicro- may
on inaccurate observations and recollections of the unaidedscope for the examination of many kinds of works of art on
eye. The new technology that makes this re-evaluation pos- paper, including of course, engravings. This method of
examination enables one to observe a three-dimensional
sible reminds us of the fallibility of our eyes and our memo-
ries, and that false conclusions can be reached unless welandscape of raised strokes, paper and ink texture; therefore,
know absolutely what it is that we are seeing. it seemed the best way to observe the nuances of engraved
The magnificent Mantegna exhibition held in London line topography, idiosyncracies of burin work and printing
often seen in good early impressions of engravings attributed
and in New York in 1992 served as the direct impetus for this
research. Despite differences of opinion between the exhibi-to Mantegna. The new close-up photographic system (fig.
tion's two print scholars on attribution, dating and other 56) simulates the optical clarity and depth of field observed
issues, the significance of their research and presentation in a stereomicroscope. In order to deal with the numerous
impressions4 that would be photographed and the problems
cannot be overstated.3 Their willingness to air differences of
opinion and to address technical issues afforded the oppor-arising from the need to document the same detail or site on

3. In Martineau, op. cit.: Landau, 'Mantegna as Printmaker', pp.Museum of Art, New York; the British Museum, London; the
44-54, Boorsch, 'Mantegna and his Printmakers', pp. 56-66, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna, and the National
Boorsch and Landau, 'Appendix I: Engraved Plates', pp.Gallery of Art, Washington. In 1995-96, 133 of these prints (and
469-70, Boorsch and Landau, 'Appendix II: Watermarks', several drawings attributed to Mantegna) were photographed
pp. 471-72. at the above museums as well as at Chatsworth, Derbyshire;
4. During 1994 1 examined 190 impressions oí prints attributed toKupferstichkabinett, Berlin; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; and
Mantegna and his circle at the Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.
MA; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the Metropolitan

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SHORTER NOTICES 69

57. Andrea Mantegna, Virgin and Child, engraving, im

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
70 SHORTER NOTICES

58. Andrea Mantegna, Virgin and Child , engr

tently
a number of impressions of attributed to him6
the same print, it
'circle'
to develop a reliable but of Mantegna
simple procedure.5can
My overall goal in the technical
pursuing this goal,investig
I found
Mantegna engravings and Child
is to and Entombme
establish a set of cri
a careful examination extensively
of the seven reworked wit
engravings

5. The camera equipment used

made forin
it this
with research
sites to bew
document specific detailsat a
asvenue with an early
I photographed impreim
ferent venues (see note 4). The problem
impressions of docum
were made, at
in the
same detail or site on each Andrea Mantegna
impression of a print e w
communication
using clear polyester film (Mylar) templates, with
oneS.foB
most
Sites were initially chosen on easily
good accomplished
impressions at at
Gallery of Art (NGA) withservation facility with and
a stereomicroscope a ste
on the polyester template.The Ifmarked templates we
a good impression of
print was not in the NGA each venue,
collection,and a
used to po
blank te

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SHORTER NOTICES 71

Sammlung
of these two impressions - each inAlbertina,
its own way Vc
paradigm for the study of Mantegna
impressions engraving
are illustrated
tively.
tates a re-evaluation of Blocked
the prints, theareas onan
Virgin e
Entombment , as well. that will be discussed: 2
The Virgin and Child face). is the most difficult of
engravings attributed Comparison
to Mantegna of close-up details of the Berlin, to London,place in ch
and Vienna impressions
relation to the other six. Hind of the first
placedstate of the Virgin
it and first in h
but made it clear thatChild
he show that the Vienna impression
based his is heavily reworked
assumption sol
with brush and ink,qualities.7
of design, not on technical doubtiess in an effort to enrichKristeller
and a
enhance the
it to be the earliest of an early but flawed
group, printing of this butengraving. he based
totally on technical characteristics:
While most scholars of Mantegna prints realize that 'The many first s
have been reworked
development [Mantegna's style to varying degrees
ofwithengraving]
pen or brush, is e
in the seated "Madonnathe heavyandreworking ofChild" . of
this particular impression . the.,first in which
state is certainly
are laid on in a rougher, cause for reassessment of and
thicker, this print by less regu
and frequendy touched Mantegnaup by
scholars. In the lowerlater
left corner of theshadings,
engraving, giv
in the Virgin'swe
what blurred appearance; drapery, formayexample, the T-shape fold clearly
consequendy in
demonstrates
the first of the artist's the comprehensive reworking in the Vienna More rec
experiments'.8
seem to prefer a latersheet (fig. 59) as compared to an unreworked impression
chronological setting in for t
London (fig. 60). The
1973 Levenson, Oberhuber andfold in theSheehan
London sheet shows lines called it
most mature printsthatthat are 'printed out',Mantegna
i.e. the ink has only printed at theexecuted'
recently, in 1992, Landau
edges of the widest linesexpressed
and the rest of the ink presumably the view t
remained in the plate. This phenomenon in
Mantegna's greatest achievement is not uncommon,
printmaking
particularly at theassigned
ably his last print'.10 Dates corners of a plate where thebypressure dur-
these schol
print range from 1455ing to printing1491.
might be most uneven. Note, too, the granular
While each of them nature
undoubtedly
of the printing ink here in contrast to knew
that seen in the many im
of this print (in both Vienna
first impression.and
The fold in second
the Vienna sheet exhibits an
states), I bel
parity in opinion about the
obvious and heavy dating
reworking in a medium that hasof the flat, the Virg
among these scholars fluid character
may of a fine-grained
be water-based
theink.result While of th
focussed on differentthere is an obvious attempt
first state to make brush strokes simulate
impressions," fo
heavy engraving strokes with pointed
state impressions are known.12 Threeends (A), there isof
con- the five
will be discussed here: those
fusion about at
the original contour the
of the Kupferstic
fold (B). Compare
the curved ends of the 'T' and
Berlin; the British Museum, the clear burin strokes and
London; in the the G

Eventually, previously taken slides of other impressions were7. A. M. Hind, Early Italian Engraving: A Critical Catalogue with
also used to help in locating target sites. Complete Reproduction of All the Prints Described , Part 11, Vol. v,
The equipment was designed so that it could be readily set London 1948, pp. 6-7.
up in exacdy the same way at each venue. The only variation8. P. Kristeller, Andrea Mantegna , English edition, London 1901, p.
that could not be controlled, however, was the ambient lighting 392.
in each print room or conservation laboratory, so there are9. J. A. Levenson, K. Oberhuber and J. L. Sheehan, Early Italian
some minor variations in the tone of some slides. It should be Engravings from the National Gallery of Art, exh. cat., Washington,
noted, that for this publication, the original 35 mm colour slide DC, 1973, p. 194.
images (colour film was chosen because it could document 10. Landau in Martineau, op. cit., p. 219.
more detail, such as colour variations of inks, etc.) were 1 1 . That Hind and Kristeller consulted the British Museum impres-
converted to black and white prints by using 4 x 5 in. inter- sion is at least suggested by their using that impression as the
negatives, therefore some slight loss of resolution and three- illustration in each of their texts. Hind was the Keeper of Prints
dimensionality may have resulted. In the original 35 mm slide and Drawings at the British Museum for many years and cer-
format the magnification is 3X. The area of the photographed tainly would have known the first state impression there better
site is 8 x 12 mm. than any other. The impression in Berlin (accessioned into the
6. There are seven prints that have consistently been attributed to Kupferstichkabinett in the late nineteenth century and probably
Mantegna over the years: the Virgin and Child , Entombment (hori- well known to Kristeller) is severely trimmed and may be the
zontal plate), Risen Christ with St Andrew and Longinus , Bacchanal reason Kristeller illustrates the London sheet. It is interesting,
with Wine Vat , Bacchanal with Silenus, Battle of the Sea Gods, Left Half however, that neither Hind nor Kristeller chose to illustrate the
and Battle of the Sea Gods, Right Half However, the total number Vienna impression of which Hind notes the existence in his 1948
of prints attributed to Mantegna over time has changed consid- publication. More recently, Levenson, Oberhuber and Sheehan
erably. The first systematic approach to cataloguing the prints in Early Italian Engravings , pp. 168, 194, and Landau in Andrea
was undertaken by Adam Bartsch in 181 1 when he attributed 23 Mantegna , p. 219 discussed and illustrated the first state impres-
prints to Mantegna. In 1901 Kristeller eliminated all but the sion in Vienna.
'group of seven' listed above, and since then these seven engrav-12. Hind, op. cit., p. 10. In addition to the three impressions of the
ings constitute the entire list of engravings generally considered Virgin and Child discussed in this paper, Hind noted a poor
to be autograph. impression in Bologna and one in the Lugt collection, Paris.

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 SHORTER NOTICES

59. Detail of area 2.1 from the impression in V

60. Detail of area 2.1 from the impression in L

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SHORTER NOTICES 73

61. Detail of area 2.2 on the Virgin's face from

62. Detail of area 2.2 on the Virgin's face from

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 74 SHORTER NOTICES

63. Andrea Mantegna, Entombment , engravin

London sheet with the characterless brush marks in the

particles of a quartz-like material are visible, intermixed
with coarse black particles (C). Fuzzy edges of lines seen
Vienna sheet. That an engraved fold actually exists under
this reworking can be seen clearly in its grainy presence
throughout the Berlin detail are probably due to unscraped
along the outer edges of the drawn ink line at (C). burr remaining along the edges of burin lines. In the Vienna
While the drapery fold is a clear demonstration of sheetheavy the trailing (and abrupdy stopping) ends of brush
reworking in a corner of the Vienna impression, further strokes can be seen bearing a greyish-black watery ink at (D).
As one might expect, the overall effect of the reworking in
details indicate this type of reworking throughout this sheet.
the Vienna impression of the Virgin and Child is that it looks
In details showing the side of the Virgin's face, it is apparent
that the reworking in brush and ink is not just followinglike a more richly printed early impression than either the
faint
engraved lines that exist but is, in fact, fabricating newBerlin
ones or London sheets and may suggest a greater degree of
competence
(figs. 61 and 62). This fabrication that can be seen in the side and experience in the artist's handling of the
of the face, the lips, the nose and elsewhere notengraving only medium. Study of the Berlin and London impres-
enhances the 'strength' of the print but also in subtlesions,
waysby contrast, shows the engraver working in a draughts-
alters what we see as the engraver's implementation of man-like
par- manner that may suggest a certain lack of experi-
allel shading. In the Berlin impression, the shading enceisin the handling of the engraving medium.
extremely subde and the lines follow the contour of the Newlyface discovered watermark evidence also indicates the
(B), as opposed to the straight-lined rendering seen need in the for further study of this print and its relationship to the
Vienna sheet. Here, as in the T-shape fold (fig. 59), the other
re- six engravings generally attributed to Mantegna.
worked lines in the Vienna sheet seem to suggest aThere
later have been no watermarks previously published for
thethe
engraving style as a model. The coarse, granular quality of first state impressions of the Virgin and Child , but at my
request, paper conservators at the Albertina and the
ink seen in many early impressions of the 'seven engravings'
Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, were allowed to remove the
can be clearly seen in the Berlin detail, where clear-whitish

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SHORTER NOTICES 75

64. Detail of area 3.1 from the impression in New

65. Detail of area 3.1 from the impression in Vien

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 76 SHORTER NOTICES
backings from these impressions
seen in thisso detail)
that the watermar
with the sam
sions supports
present) could be identified.13 my belief
In both cases, that
the water
was the same, i.e. identical to the Basilisk
improperly pulledwatermark
impression al
identified in the Appendixthatinwas
thenot
1992re-inked).
exhibition cata
and found in the EntombmentFurther evidence
, Battle of the of
Sea change
Gods {Leo
engraved
and Right Half), the Bacchanal with lines present
Silenns and awere
numb t
drawings [see also the Note on p.
hended, can81].
be The
seenBasilisk
in figs. w6
mark information does notwayprove
comparison
that anyofof
the
thethigh
prints
of
ing this mark were made painted
within strokes
a short in
time
theofVienna
each o
ly curved
for the fact that the marks and other
are identical meansshorter st
only that
paper was made from the same papermaker's
highlight mould
along the contour. T
from around the same time, finishbefore
with thethewispy
watermark
ends o
could change or deform straight,
with use.crisply
That this particular
wrought burin
could have been purchased, bothstored and used at(fig.
the Washington various
67) a
at (B)
is a possibility. Nevertheless, theshow
fact a well
that thought-out
now, early im
sions of the above mentionedstyle. At (C)
prints, as the
welllight
as the so-calle
Virgin
Child , are seen on the angle
same to paper, meanslines)
the darker that that
we m
reconsider the possibility these
that theimpressions,
Virgin andare complet
Child was c
ed closer in time to the others.14
sion. Also lost in the Vienna s
It is worth noting that in short, fine strokes
the descriptions and(a assessm
third s
of the Entombment (fig. 63) Washington impressions,
by Kristeller in 1901 andright
Hi
1948, there is no mention Theof reason
a second for these
state. Asstrokes
far as
determine, the idea of
more
served
thanasone
'reference'
state for
strokes,
this print
pe
first discussed in 1973 in
thethe Washington
plate, exhibition
which marked wher
logue.15 There the they
authors simplypossible
discussed have been intend
states, the
state of which was describedthe highlight most convincingly along the thigh? by dif
ences in the rendering of burrthe central has been cross removed)in the upper show r
in the impression at the engraving
Albertina in tool. Vienna. It can Italso
now beapc
however, that those differences
and Washington in the sheets cross that betweeth
Vienna impression and all misnomer,
the othersfor (e.g. all New strokes York) ema
ar
engraved changes made in (from the plate the highlighted(and therefore edge not
of t
changes), but are due ratherparallel to extensive
strokes followed reworking by ain h
a slight edges
and ink (figs. 64 and 65). Watery angle to of the ink first. consistentIt is a
those found on ink drawings,lates a asdrawing
well as brush device into the
strokes,
seen at (A). On closer examination
engraving. and comparison with
New York impression, pale The reworking
printed with brushlines and ink (B)
done onthat
the exactly
respond to that part of Albertina's
the impressions
engraved of the Virgin andcross on the New
Child and Entombment
impression, extend up to
removes themand across
from consideration in defining the
the style andplaque of
Vienna impression. Either technique of the engravings
the retoucher attributed to Mantegna. Several
misunderstoo
detail to be enhanced and reworked,
questions arise or he
regarding the Albertina impressions: might created -
dentally or intentionally the reworking
- a new be by the same hand? I wouldCareful
state. be inclined to compar
say that the handlines
of some of the faint engraved appears to be the same. remain
that Might the unobst
ed by retouching in the engraver himself be the creator
Vienna of these extensive rework- (such as
impression

13. During a visit to the Albertina in 1994, 1 had an opportunity to
see early documentation of tracings of watermarks found in
their Mantegna engravings. The partial tracing of a watermark
for the first state impression of the Virgin and Child looked very
similar to the Basilisk watermark published in Martineau, op.
cit., Appendix II: Watermarks'. This was the basis on which the
backing was removed from the Albertina impression. I would
especially like to thank Mrs Elisabeth Thobois, Head of Paper
Conservation at the Albertina, and Ms Cordula Severit, Paper
Conservator at the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, for expeditious-
ly and safely removing the backings from their impressions of
this print so that the watermarks could be identified.
For a discussion about determining identical watermarks,
watermark research methodology and other terminology, see
Nancy Ash and Shelley Fletcher, 'Watermarks in Rembrandt's
Landscape Etchings' in Cynthia Schneider, ed., Rembrandt's
Landscapes: Drawings and Prints , exh. cat., Washington, DC, 1990,
pp. 263-81, and Nancy Ash and Shelley Fletcher, Watermarks in
Rembrandt's Prints (forthcoming).
14. Keith Christiansen, The Case for Mantegna as rnntmaker ,
The Burlington Magazine , cxxxv, 1993, pp. 604-12. Christiansen
makes a case for Mantegna having engraved these seven prints
in a 'single campaign'.
15. Levenson et al., op. cit., pp. 170-75.

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SHORTER NOTICES 77

66. Detail of area 3.2 67.

fromDetail
the of area 3.2 in
impression froV
DC, National Gallery of

ings? There is obviously

engraver's, but I find that
kind to restorations se
Furthermore, while an e
rections to proofs, the ex
impressions obliterates r
and highly creative linew
of this kind is a process th
than creative, and stems
Old Master prints to loo
number of faulty early im
of seven engravings still
is testament to their h
respect in the fifteenth
would find unacceptable.
of this essay to evaluate
drawn reworking in the A
and Child and Entombme
rather than these specifi
my research, and we are n
sus of early and unrewor

68. Detail of area 3.2 from the impressi

Kupferstichkabinett.

This content downloaded from

84.204.8.138 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:17:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms