Engraving, Anonymous, possibly Jacob Bink?, 42.5 x 34 P (Boston), 41.3 x 33.3 L (Oxford).

Two states:

I.  Inscribed in the upper left corner with the monogram: I-C-B.  At the lower left there may also be another very small inscription, possibly the number 13 or 15.¹

II.  The monogram has been rubbed from the plate and the area gone over with cross-hatching, but faint traces of the monogram can be seen, sometimes very clearly, sometimes faintly.

Fig.E.130, I (Paris, Ba 12)

Fig.E.130, I detail (monogram)

Fig.E.130, II (Paris, Ed 8b Rés.)

Fig.E.130, II detail (monogram scratched out)

Bartsch, V, 1813, 87-88, 51, as Caraglio after Rosso.  Le Blanc, 1854-1890, I, 589, 56, as Caraglio after Rosso.  Destailleur, 1895, 280, no. 48, and 283, nos. 192-193, all wrongly as B.52, the latter two as “gravé par Despèches?”.  Herbet, III, 1899, 48 (1969, 136), as Caraglio after Rosso and mentions that Rosso’s original drawing is in the Louvre.

COLLECTIONS (all II except Paris, Ba 12): Berlin, 212-18.  Boston, 59.397.  Florence, 2861ss.  London, 1871-8-12-24.  London, Kate Ganz Ltd., Anthony Roth (BM, 126, October, 1984, vi, Fig.; London, sale, Sotheby’s, Dec. 9, 1982, lot 562).  Lyons, exhibited (private coll., Dunand, 1973, no. 1, Fig. 1).  New York, 49.97.248.  Oxford.  Paris, Ba 12 (I, very slightly cut on all sides); II, Ed 8b Rés., Vol. II, no. 83.  Poughkeepsie, 82.19 (from Hill-Stone, Inc., New York, Cat. no. 7, 1982, no. 5, Fig.).  Vienna, It.I.25, p.41 (inscribed below: Primaticcio Rosso René Boyvin).

LITERATURE:

Vasari, 1550, 803 (Vasari-Ricci, IV, 250), states that Rosso “arrivò a Vinegia, dove da M. Pietro Aretino trattenuto, gli disegnò una Carta, che si stampa, quando Marte dorme con Venere, e gli Amori e le Grazie lo spogliano, e gli traggono la corazza.”

Vasari, 1568, II, 209-210 (Vasari-Milanesi, V, 167), says that Rosso “sen’ando à Vinetia.  Dove essendo da Messer Pietro Aretino trattenuto, gli disegno in una carta, che poi fu stampata, un Marte, che dorme con Venere, e gl’Amori, e le grazie che lo spogliano, e gli traggono la corazza.”

Vasari-Bottari, II, 1759, 300, n. 1, as after Rosso’s drawing.

Serie degli uomini, Florence, 1772, 201, n. 2, as by Caraglio.

Renouvier, II, 1854, 35, as by Caraglio after a drawing made for Pietro Aretino.

Mariette, Abécédario, 1858-1859, 21, as Caraglio after Rosso, there existing a very faithful copy by Jacob Bink with his monogram in the background.

Goldschmidt, 1911, 24, as Caraglio after Rosso.

Voss, 1920, 187-188, as Caraglio after Rosso, and as done during the latter’s stay in Rome.

Kauffmann, 1923, 194, Fig. 5, as Caraglio.

Antal, 1928-1929 (1966, 55f., n. 3, 56).

Kusenberg, 1931, 38-39, 102, 106, 160, 163, Pl. XXVIII, as Caraglio after Rosso, and dismisses Mariette’s identification of the monogram as Jacob Bink’s on a copy of Caraglio’s print and believes the monogram is Caraglio’s.

De Witt, 1938, 67, no. 2861, under Master L.D.

Becherucci, 1944 (1949, 31), as Caraglio after Rosso’s drawing made for Aretino.

Barocchi, 1950, 78, 128, as Caraglio.

Panofsky, 1958, 143, 150, Fig. 36, 157-158, 172, n. 72, 176, n. 110, as Caraglio.

Carroll, 1964 (1976), II, Bk. II, 329, 331, 334, n. 5, 336-337, ns. 8 and 10, under D. 34, Bk. III, Fig. 96, as probably by one of the engravers of the School of Fontainebleau.

School of Fontainebleau, Fort Worth, 1965, 9, Fig. (New York), 47-48.

Carroll, 1966, 169-170, n. 16, as by Boyvin or someone in his circle, after Rosso.

Oberhuber, 1966, 176-177, no. 297 (Vienna), as Caraglio.

Shearman, 1967, 195, n. 34, as engraved in France after Rosso’s drawing in the Louvre.

Berckenhagen, 1968, 13, n. 20, as Caraglio.

Fagiolo dell’Arco, 1970, Fig. 175, 497.

Thirion, 1971, 41, Fig. 30 (Paris, Ba 12), as Bink after Rosso, 42 and n. 64.

Cox-Rearick, 1972, 37, no. 43, as engraved in France before around 1545, when the first edition of Vasari’s Lives was completed.

Béguin, in EdF, 1972, 181, under no. 204, as possibly by Boyvin or his shop.

Zerner, “Caraglio,” 1972, 694, n. 14, as executed by Caraglio in Venice in 1529-1530.

Miles, 1973, 32, engraving probably misascribed to Caraglio.

Borroni and Kozakiewicz, 1976, 616-617, as by Caraglio.

Borea, 1980, 252, no. 636 (Vienna), as anonymous after Rosso.

Marianne Grivel, in Ronsard, 1985, 75, under no. 82, as by Boyvin or his shop.

Carroll, 1987, 9, 37, 42, 176-179, no. 58, with Fig. (Paris, Ba 12, p.58, I), as very probably by Bink, in France, in 1530.

E. Hevers, in Zauber der Medusa, 1987, 156, under no. I, 28, as attributed to Caraglio and to Boyvin.

Boorsch, 1988, 6, Fig. 1 (New York), 7, 8, did not accept my attribution to Bink and thought the technique of the engraving was almost identical to Milan’s The Three Fates, Nude and hence she suggests Milan as a far better bet as the engraver than Bink.

McCrory, 1988, 415, 416, Fig. 20 (New York), as attributed to Caraglio or to Bink.

Karpinski, 1988, 172, as Bink.

Carroll, 1989, 18-19, Fig. 36 (wrongly numbered 35; Paris, State I), as by Jacob Bink?

Ciardi, 1994, 53, Fig. (Paris, I).

Boorsch, in French Renaissance, 1994, 81, as quite possibly by Milan, who seems almost certainly to have had contact with Rosso in Paris in the 1530s.

Zerner, in French Renaissance, 1994, 26-27, as by Milan.

Acton, in French Renaissance, 1994, 303-307, no. 73, Fig. (Paris, Ba 12, State I), as one of Milan’s earlier prints, done in the early 1530s; notes Jacob Bink’s monogram at the upper left (in State I) but also that impressions he has seen [that would be of other States] seem all to be printed on French paper, hence it seems that another craftsman or publisher appropriated the monogram.

Carroll, 1995, 303, the monogram on the single impression of State I not used by Milan or Boyvin and should stand as prime evidence of the identity of the engraver.

This engraving is based on Rosso’s drawing of 1530 in the Louvre (Fig.D.42a), which is of the same size and direction as the print.  For the differences between the two, see the catalogue entry of the drawing.

At least since 1772 and, according to Kusenberg, going back to Mariette, the print has been attributed to Caraglio, probably because it was linked to the engravings that Caraglio had made after Rosso’s drawings in Rome between 1524 and 1527.  The history of the drawing would seem to indicate that in 1530 it was sent from Venice to France, very likely preceding Rosso’s arrival there.  Hence, if the print was engraved by Caraglio, it would have to have been made in 1530, and probably in Venice.  Caraglio may have been in Venice at this time (see Zerner, “Caraglio,” 1972, 694, and n. 14).  It seems strange that Vasari, who mentions all of Caraglio’s other prints after Rosso, did not indicate him as the engraver of the Mars and Venus.  He only says, when writing of the drawing, in 1550, “che si stampa,” and in 1568, “che poi fu stampata.”

One detail of the print itself could indicate that Caraglio is not its engraver.  At the top of the drawing a line marks the top of the scene; parts of the putti and their flowers extend upward over this line, while other small details stop as if they have passed behind a strip of which this line is the lower edge.  This line has been eliminated in the print and the area of the scene has been extended upward.  Flowers have been added, as well as one wing and slightly more of the arc of the Zodiac.  The kind of illusion that Rosso presents in the drawing would have been understandable to Caraglio, as similar illusions appear in some of the Hercules prints that he engraved after Rosso’s drawings.  Therefore, it might be asked why, if by Caraglio, he did not copy this illusion in the Mars and Venus print.

The technique of the print does resemble Caraglio’s manner of engraving.  But the monogram on the print composed of the initials I C B does not appear on any engraving certainly known to be by Caraglio.  Mariette thought that this monograph signified a copy of Caraglio’s original print made by the engraver whose prints bear this monogram: Jacob Bink, the monogram standing for Jacobus Binck Coloniensis, to indicate his place of birth, Cologne.  There is, however, no such copy, but only the original print, most impressions of which have this monogram effaced.  Kusenberg recognized this but refused to believe that Bink was the engraver.  For Kusenberg the monogram stood for Jacopo Caraglio, with the B yet to be explained.

Because it seemed unlikely that a print after an allegorical drawing sent as a flattering gift to Francis I would be engraved before he received it, I had thought that the print was executed in France by Boyvin or by someone in his shop.  But the monogram cannot be shown to be his.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that Boyvin was an engraver before the 1550s (on 14 November 1549 he contracted to work two years for Milan in Paris).  But the print must date before that time because it is mentioned in the first edition of Vasari’s Lives.  Vasari’s manuscript seems to have been completed several years earlier, suggesting that the print could have been done at any time between mid- or late 1530 and the mid-1540s.  As the drawing was in France and the print appears to be based specifically on it, it is logical to conclude that the engraving was made there.  Although Boorsch, Zerner, and Acton give the print to Milan, the engraving technique does not seem to me to resemble his much more precisely sculptural manner of engraving.  Milan seems to have been active in Paris already in the 1530s, although how much before the time of the first notice of him in August 1540 is not known to support Acton’s dating of the print as Milan’s to the early 1530s.  In any case, there would have been no reason for Milan to use at any time the monogram that appears on State I of the Mars and Venus.

Given the monogram on this print, it is necessary to take seriously Mariette’s suggestion that it identifies the engraver as Jacob Bink.²  At first this might seem unlikely, until it is remembered that Bink made copies of all of Caraglio’s twenty Gods in Niches after Rosso in 1530 (E.6, 1 – 20).  These prints very carefully imitate Caraglio’s manner of engraving but with a degree of preciseness and regularity of cutting that distinguish them from their Italian models.  As a result, the Bink copies have a sheen that replaces the greater variety of lights and darks found in Caraglio’s engravings.  The Mars and Venus is engraved in what appears to be an identical manner and very good impressions, such as the one in Paris of State I and another in Florence of State II, have a kind of glossy surface very much like that of Bink’s Gods in Niches.  It is very likely that the copies of Caraglio’s Labors of Hercules after Rosso (E.113, 1 – 6), which are engraved in a manner very much like that of Bink’s Gods in Niches, are also by that printmaker, although they bear neither his name nor monogram.

But transformed as Bink’s copies of Caraglio’s Gods in Niches are, they show a certain individuality in their technical virtuosity that is different from Milan’s more continually precise manner.  Boorsch thought the style of the engraving of the Mars and Venus almost identical to Milan’s in his Three Fates, Nude after Rosso (E.105).  But to my eyes the engraving of the Mars and Venus shows greater variety and certain graphic patterns as well that do not appear in the Three Fates, Nude.  I would point out the curving lines that define the breasts of the Graces in the Mars and Venus that do not appear in the other print by Milan.

Bink was a very imitative engraver and many of his prints are copies after Northern prints.  He also copied Marcantonio’s Massacre of the Innocents sans le chicot (Bartsch, VIII, 1808, 265, 11) in a manner that is remarkably similar to the original.  Of course, in his copies after Marcantonio and Caraglio he had engraved models to follow, while the engraver of the Mars and Venus had to work from Rosso’s drawing, which, as its technique shows, was not made as a disegno di stampa.  The experience of copying Caraglio’s Gods in Niches and possibly also his Labors of Hercules could have given Bink the training to engrave the Mars and Venus drawing in a sympathetic manner.

We do not know where Bink made his copies of 1530 after Caraglio’s Gods in Niches.  But it is almost imperative that we recognize that the engraving of the Mars and Venus was made in France.  According to Pauli (Thieme-Becker, IV, 1910, 36-37), Bink seems to have been active in the Netherlands in the 1520s.  In 1529 he engraved the portrait of the Brussels painter Lucas Gassel (Bartsch, VIII, 1808, 295, 93).  In 1525 he did the portraits of the King and Queen of Denmark (Bartsch, VIII, 294-295, 91-92).  The following year he engraved the portraits of the King and Queen of France (Bartsch, VIII, 293, 89-90).  At the beginning of the 1530s he became court artist in Copenhagen.  In 1542 he was in Sweden, and from 1543 to 1548 in Konigsberg.  No documents or inscriptions actually place Bink at any time in France.  But his portraits of Francis I and his wife of 1526 may well indicate that he was there.  Other portraits by him, as well as the events of his career, indicate his desire to find patronage at European royal courts such that he may well have attempted to gain the support of Francis I.  It is possible that Bink was there in 1530 when Rosso’s Mars and Venus arrived, perhaps accompanied by other evidence of Rosso’s work in the form of Caraglio’s prints after his designs.  In anticipation of Rosso’s arrival, and with the hope of gaining a position with him comparable to Caraglio’s, Bink may have made the copies of the Gods in Niches in 1530, and perhaps also the copies of the Labors of Hercules.  He may then also have made his engraving of Rosso’s Mars and Venus,imitating as closely as possible the manner he thought Caraglio would have used, but not understanding, as Caraglio would have, the arrangement at the very top of the drawing.  Or Bink could have made all these engravings immediately after Rosso arrived in the autumn of 1530, and perhaps with Rosso’s approval.  But one might also conjecture that Rosso did not like the print of the Mars and Venus because it did not quite match the subtlety of the chiaroscuro of the drawing or take account of the composition of the upper part of it.  In any case Bink, did not have a longer career in France, and his monogram was removed from the plate, which one might assume was left behind in France when Bink departed.  Only one impression with the monogram is known, and it is in Paris (Ba 12) where it may have been made.

The watermark of the impression in Poughkeepsie shows a jug with one handle holding a flower, as in Briquet 12517, 12519-12526, 12528, 12612-12640, 12863-12866, most of which are French and German with a few Belgian and Dutch.  None are Italian.  The impression exhibited in Lyons in 1973 is recorded as having a watermark showing an escutcheon surmounted by a flower.  The Ganz-Roth impression shows a small shield and flower (see The Print Collector’s Newsletter, XIV, 1, March-April, 1983, 32).  In spite of the different descriptions, these would seem to be the same watermark as that of the Poughkeepsie impression.  This strongly suggests that the Mars and Venus print was not engraved and printed in Italy.

Unless it can be shown that the monogram on the print refers to someone else who was in France between 1530 and the mid-1540s, it is reasonable to suppose that Bink is the author of this engraving.  A date for it in 1530 or only shortly thereafter would then be possible.

COPIES, PRINTS. E.131.  Large reversed copy.  Engraving, 42 (including lower margin of 0.7) x 33.4 S (Vienna, It.I.25).

Three states:

I.  Inscribed in margin below, at left: Typis Antonij laferi, at right: Romae MDLXXV.

II.  Inscribed as in State I but in the bottom center added: Petri de Nobilibus.

III.  Inscribed as in State II but added right of bottom center: a Paulo Gratiano quesita.

Fig.E.131 (London, State I)

Bartsch, XV, 1813, 87-88, under no. 51 (III, with a reversed reading of the center inscription).  Le Blanc, 1854-1890, I, 589, under 56.  Herbet, III, 1899, 48 (1969, 136).  COLLECTIONS: Berlin, 236-18; 224-18.  Bologna, Inv. C. 663 (445).  Chatsworth, Vol. 2, p.80 (149), no. 140.  London, 1871-8-12-761 (I).  Oxford, Christ Church, Vol. N13.  Paris, Ba 12 (II); Eb 6b Rés. (III).  Rome, Vol. 26 M 30, no. 05880 (III).  Vienna, It.I.25, p.2 (I); H.B.IV, p.97 (III).  LITERATURE: Kusenberg, 1931, 167.  Adhémar, 1954, 312.  Thirion, 1971, 42-43.  Ferrara and Gaeta Bertelà, 1975, no. 164, with Fig. (Bologna).  Borroni and Kozakiewicz, 1976, 617.  Borea, 1980, 252, under no. 636.  Carroll, 1987, 179, n. 5, under no. 58.

This is a finely engraved copy of the original print of the same size but in reverse, with the drawing very awkward.

E.132.  Small reversed copy.  Etching, 21.2 x 16.7 L (Paris, Ed 8b Rés.).  Herbet, III, 1899, 48 (1969, 136).  Herbet, IV, 1900, 309 (1969, 159), mentioned that this print has been attributed to Du Cerceau, and gives its measurements: 210 x 170 mm.  COLLECTIONS: Paris, Ba 12; Eb 6b Rés.; Ed 8b Rés., Vol. II, no. 82.  LITERATURE: Kusenberg, 1931, 168, as Du Cerceau?  Adhémar, 1954, 312 and n. 7.  Thirion, 1971, 41-42.  Borea, 1980, 252, under no. 636.  Carroll, 1987, 179, n. 5, under no. 58.

Possible second small copy: Adhémar, 1954, 312, states that there may be a second small copy of the original print.  Thirion, 1971, 42, says there is a second small copy.  I have been unable to locate an impression of this second small copy.  Boorsch, 1988, 6, mentioned an engraved reversed copy in New York, measuring 21 x 16.6, perhaps (Fig.E.130, Second small copy).  Berckenhagen, 1968, 13, no. 20, mentions a copy by Étienne Delaune.  He may mean Robert-Dumesnil, IX, 1865, 40, 95, which I have not seen.  But the description of this print by Delaune (see also Linzeler, 1932, 236, no. 102) does not sound like a copy of Rosso’s composition.

PARTIAL COPY, PRINT: Agostino Carracci, attributed to, MALE NUDE SEEN FROM THE FRONT AND A FEMALE NUDE SEEN FROM THE SIDE DERIVED FROM THE ENGRAVING OF ROSSO’S MARS AND VENUS.  Etching, 16.9 x 11.8 S (New York).  Bartsch, XVIII, 168, 72.  COLLECTIONS: New York, Vol. 47.79.1, p.103, upper right (no. 2).  Paris.  LITERATURE: Bohlin, IB, 39, 1980, 365 (Paris).

These two figures, depicted as statues with their legs broken off, are derived from the figures of Mars and the Grace at the left in the engraving (E.130) of Rosso’s Mars and Venus.  The etched figures are reversed, the head of Mars is sketchily indicated, and his loins are covered with drapery.

Although the print was catalogued by Bartsch under Agostino Carracci, he indicates that it was etched only under his guidance by Francesco Bricci.

COPIES, DRAWINGS: Formerly Amsterdam, Paul Cassirer and Co.  Pen and brown wash.  LITERATURE: Kusenberg, 1931, 148, no. 4, as a copy after the original print, and as possibly by a German artist.  Adhémar, 1954, 312, mentioned.

Berlin, Kunstbibliothek, no. 3392 (Fig.E.130, Copy, Berlin).  Pen and brown and blue inks and blue wash, 13.4 x 10.6.  Stamped, the number in ink, in the lower right corner: F.H.N^o.161.  PROVENANCE: Flury-Hérard (Lugt 1015); Marquis C. de Vallori (Lugt 2500); Destailleur, no. 107.  LITERATURE: Berckenhagen, 1968, 13.  Berckenhagen, 1970, 10, with Fig., as after the original print.  E. Hevers, in Zauber der Medusa, 1987, 155-156, no. I, 28, and Fig., as a copy of Rosso’s composition.

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, B.5 Rés., Dessins de l’École de Fontainebleau, Vol. I, no. 7 (Fig.E.130, Copy, Paris, BN).  Pen and ink, 37 x 27.1.  LITERATURE: Kusenberg, 1931, 148, no. 8, as a copy after the original print in the manner of Woerriot.  Adhémar, 1954, 312, mentioned.  Thirion, 1971, 42, n. 61.

A very detailed seventeenth century drawing imitating the technique of the original engraving.

Paris, Louvre, Inv. 1584 (Fig.E.130, Copy, Paris).  Pen and ink and brown wash, 44 x 34.  Inscribed in ink at the lower left: Rosso.  PROVENANCE: Saint-Morys.  LITERATURE: Saint-Morys, 1987, II, inv. no. 1584, giving Saint-Morys’s attribution to Rosso as well as Morel d’Arleux’s (511).  Scailliérez, 1992, 119, n. 3, under no. 49, as a reversed copy of Rosso’s drawing in the Louvre.

A French sixteenth century drawing derived from the original print, not Rosso’s drawing (Fig.D.42a), but with the figures rearranged and some reversed, and the background altered.

Madrid, Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, no. 263 (Fig.E.130, Copy, Madrid).  Pen and ink and wash, 33.1 x 42.  Inscribed in the lower right corner: Rosso; another inscription in the lower left corner.  LITERATURE: Catálogo de la Sala de Dibujos de la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, Madrid, 1941, 84, no. 263, as Rosso.

An accurate though somewhat roughly executed copy of the original print, of the sixteenth or possibly early seventeenth century.

COPIES, PAINTINGS: Montargis (Loiret), Musée Girodet, no. 864-2-2 (Fig.E.130, Copy, Montargis).  Oil on panel, 94 x 124.  PROVENANCE: Given to the museum in 1864 by Madame Bouhebent, probably the widow of a South France painter, according to Adhémar.  LITERATURE: Catalogue of 1874, 39, no. 128, as by Primaticcio.  Catalogue of 1885, no. 134, as the School of Giulio Romano.  Catalogue of 1937, no. 171, as by Giulio Romano.  Adhémar, 1954, 312, and n. 8.  Béguin, 1960, 37, 139, n. 20, as probably done by the same hand as a Mars, Venus, and Cupid on the art market (Tableaux de maîtres anciens, Paris, Galerie Heim, 1958, no. 3, attributed to Fréminet [?]).  Thirion, 1971, 41, Fig. 29, 42, and n. 62, as School of Fontainebleau, perhaps around 1600.

A sixteenth or early seventeenth century French painting derived rather faithfully from the lower two-thirds of the original engraving with a few passages of drapery added in appropriate places.  The musculature of Mars is specifically based on that in the print but his face appears almost to be a portrait.  On the possibility that this work was once identified as by Rosso himself, see D.42, n. 3.

Formerly? Dowdeswell (Edinburgh), Arthur Kay Collection (Fig.E.130, Copy, Dowdeswell).  Oil, bistre, and gold grisaille on panel, set in a painted frame with herms and strapwork, 80.2 x 70.  LITERATURE: Kusenberg, 1931, 209, n. 319.  Thirion, 1971, 42.

A sixteenth century and possibly French painting based specifically on the original print.  See D.42, n.  3, on the possibility that this work was once identified as Rosso’s.

COPY, RELIEF: Écouen, Château, Musée national de la Renaissance; formerly Paris, Musée Cluny, no. B. 754 (Fig.E.130, Copy, Écouen).  Carved door panel of a wardrobe.  Walnut, 57 x 45.  LITERATURE: E. Haraucourt, F. Montrémy, and E. Maillard, Catalogue des bois sculptés et meubles…du musée de Cluny, Paris, 1925, no. 754.  Kusenberg, 1931, 120, 210, n. 335.  Thirion, 1971, 41, Fig. 31, 42-43, suggests that it could have been done from the Lafréry reversed copy of the original print used to trace the design on the wood and hence produce a carved scene in the original direction, and as done after 1585 because its pendant is based on an engraving by Goltzius of that year.  Thirion, in EdF, 1972, 427, no. 595.  Raggio, 1974, 74, and in Fontainebleau, 1973, I, 192, Fig. 182, II, 127, no. 595.

Although Thirion’s comment on reproducing the design may indicate the method that was used, the relief closely resembles the original engraving in the same direction with changes largely due to the medium.

The museum at Écouen has also a larger framed relief of this scene but with the whole background filled with heavy drapery as though hanging from the canopy of the bed, which, however, is not visible; furthermore, it shows a very large putto at the upper right not related to any in Rosso’s composition.

COPY, SHELL CAMEO: Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, C. 1298.  German (?), first half of the sixteenth century.  LITERATURE: McCrory, 1988, 415, 416, Fig. 9.  The scene of the print has been extensively rearranged and the proportions of the figures so blunted that it is difficult to see the connection with Rosso’s art.