{"id":11962,"date":"2016-05-24T18:03:01","date_gmt":"2016-05-24T22:03:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/?page_id=11962"},"modified":"2016-05-24T18:03:01","modified_gmt":"2016-05-24T22:03:01","slug":"preface","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/catalogues\/engravings\/preface\/","title":{"rendered":"Preface"},"content":{"rendered":"

This catalogue presents those prints of the sixteenth century that I consider to have been done after designs by Rosso.\u00a0 All of these prints appear to have been made from drawings by Rosso or from copies of his drawings (on which, see below).1<\/sup><\/a> The prints are presented under the names of the printmakers, arranged alphabetically.\u00a0 For the purposes of this catalogue, mainly concerned with Rosso\u2019s images, the traditional identifications of the printmakers are generally accepted but with reservations for some prints.\u00a0 Short biographical introductions identify most of the important printmakers, with discussions of the attributions of the prints to them and of the attribution of the images to Rosso.\u00a0 A final group presents the anonymous prints.\u00a0 This group contains not only those prints for whom no authors have been determined with certainty but also those for whom the traditionally designated printmakers have been or can be seriously questioned. Within each of these groups the prints are arranged according to what may be the chronological order of their images by Rosso with this order modified under each printmaker to keep together the prints related to the decoration of the Gallery of Francis I. The arrangement of the contents of each entry is in general as follows, with changes called upon by the special circumstances of particular prints, and with prints that are copies of prints given separate numbered entries but fully catalogued under the original prints: E. and a number [E.1], the numbers running consecutively to E.163 from one printmaker to another, ending with the anonymous prints.\u00a0 Some prints, copies, and the cartouches of Du Cerceau that are part of sets or series are given a primary number and secondary numbers (as for series E.6, 1-20 and E.55, 1-3, with each print of a series given as E.55,1, E.55,2, etc.).\u00a0 The title follows.\u00a0 In several entries the title is followed by another designation: After Rosso?, Partially after Rosso, Possibly after Rosso, or Possibly in part after Rosso. Technique, the color of ink if not black, and the color of paper if not white; followed by the dimensions in centimeters, height by width, with L (outline), P (platemark), or S (sheet) to indicate where measurements were taken; margin indicates any area at the bottom separated from the image.\u00a0 The city and other indications in parentheses specify the location of the impression or, rarely, another source from which the measurements and other data were obtained.\u00a0 Dimensions taken from a publication can be without indication of L, P, or S, or location of impression.\u00a0 The watermark (wm.) is given if known and important. A single state or multiple states are listed, with states indicated by Roman numerals and differences of detail specified including fully transcribed inscriptions.\u00a0 States not seen but indicated by others are given, as well as probable states.\u00a0 In the case of Caraglio\u2019s Gods in Niches<\/i> (E.26-45<\/a>) states are indicated also as editions because states were created by the printing of new editions.\u00a0 Only the first print of this series, the Saturn,<\/i> bearing the printmaker\u2019s name and date, gives any clear evidence of one edition or another. \u00a0Impressions for illustrations have been selected on the basis of the completeness of an image together with the clarity of the reproduction that was scanned or that was available on the web.\u00a0 The quality of an illustration may be disappointingly less than that of the original.\u00a0 Enlarging the illustration on the computer may reduce its clarity but also on occasion make inscriptions clearer. A separate line gives the illustration LINK preceded by Fig. and followed in parentheses by the location (generally city only) of the impression used. References are then given in chronological order to the major print catalogues (see BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS). COLLECTIONS of known impressions are given in alphabetical order of location, followed by inventory numbers, and states in Roman numerals in parentheses.\u00a0 Condition and written inscriptions may be indicated.\u00a0 Most locations are abbreviated by the city of the collection only, and where necessary, by other details: Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, Rijkspretenkabinet Berlin: Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museen, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinet Berlin, Kb: Berlin-Charlottenberg, Kunstbibliothek Bologna: Pinacoteca Nazionale, Gabinetto delle Stampe Boston: Museum of Fine Arts Braunschweig: Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum Cambridge: Fitzwilliam Museum Edinburgh: National Galleries of Scotland Florence: Galleria degli Uffizi, Gabinetto degli disegni e stampe Hamburg: Hamburger Kunsthalle, Kupferstichkabinett London: Victoria and Albert Museum New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York Public: The New York Public Library Oxford: Ashmolean Museum Paris: Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes Paris, Arsenal: Biblioth\u00e8que de l’Arsenal Paris, Ensba: \u00c9cole nationale sup\u00e9rieure des Beaux-Arts Poughkeepsie: The Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center, Vassar College Rennes: Mus\u00e9e des Beaux-Arts. Rome: Gabinetto Nationale delle Stampe Stockholm: Kungliga Biblioteket Vienna: Graphische Sammlung Albertina The LITERATURE on the print (other than the major print catalogues) is presented chronologically (see BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS) with indications of the authors\u2019 opinions and comments.\u00a0 Where possible the collections of reproduced prints are given. In general the text of each entry discusses the attribution and date of the image of the print, based on documents, on other references, on inscriptions, on the relationship to Rosso\u2019s authentic drawings or copies of them, and to Rosso\u2019s paintings, and to his style in general and in particular works, together with a consideration of the degree of reliability of each print as representing an autograph invention.\u00a0 The identification of the printmaker is discussed if in question.\u00a0 Where possible and of special importance the date of an undated print is considered. From the evidence of the surviving material it can be\u00a0recognized that each sixteenth century print – engraving, etching, chiaroscuro woodcut – that is not a copy of another print was most likely made from one of four kinds of drawings:2<\/sup><\/a> 1.\u00a0 a disegno di stampa<\/i> by Rosso, the name given by Vasari (Vasari-Milanesi, 1906, V, 162) to a drawing made specifically as the model for the print and from which the printmaker worked.\u00a0 Disegni di stampe<\/i> are known with certainty only to have been made by Rosso in Italy for the engravers Caraglio and, for the earliest engraving, Agostino Veneziano. 2.\u00a0 a drawing by Rosso not specifically made as the model for a print (or not known to have been made to serve this purpose) but used by a printmaker as his immediate model. 3.\u00a0 a disegno di stampa<\/i> by a draughtsman other than Rosso copied from a drawing by him, or from a copy of a drawing by him. 4.\u00a0 a drawing made by a draughtsman other than Rosso copied from a drawing by him but not specifically copied to serve as the model for a print (or not known to have been made to serve this purpose). The source of each image is considered with references to the Catalogue of Drawings (D.) for models that are known.\u00a0 Although there is no evidence that any sixteenth century print was made from a painting by him, those few instances are noted where a relation between a print and a lost painting existed or may have existed. Under: COPY, PRINT or: COPIES, PRINTS are given copies, partial copies, and copies of copies, with indications of their states and editions, and their variations.\u00a0 While the copy is fully catalogued and discussed here, each has also a separate catalogue entry and number with a reference back to the discussion of it under the original print. Under: COPIES, NOT PRINTS are listed drawings, paintings, enamels, ceramics, furniture decoration, stained glass, etc., the designs of which are derived from the prints.\u00a0 The location and specifications of the works are given as specifically and with the same abbreviations for collections as with the prints. Notes follow each entry separately. There is no evidence that Rosso made any disegni di stampe<\/i> in France, nor are there any prints made in France of his inventions that can be dated with certainty before his death in November 1540.\u00a0 A document of 1536 (Arnauldet, 1861; Zerner, 1969, XXXIV) refers to one \u201cJehan Viset, graveur et tailleur d\u2019hystoires en cuivre de present \u00e0 Fontainbleau, on service de Mgr de la Vaugyon.\u201d\u00a0 Zerner believed that this must refer to an engraver because etching did not appear at Fontainebleau until 1542, this being also the earliest known date on an etching done in France.\u00a0 It is likely that etching did not appear in France before Primaticcio\u2019s return from his Italian trip in 1541.\u00a0 The earliest dated engraving is one by L\u00e9on Davent of 1540 (Zerner, 1969,\u00a0 L.D. 3), but this is not after a design by Rosso.\u00a0 But so many prints are undated that the value of these dates is uncertain as indicating the earliest moments of printmaking in France, especially in the light of the 1536 document. The earliest prints after Rosso\u2019s designs made outside Italy are Jacob Bink\u2019s engraved copies of 1530 (E.6, 1-20) of Caraglio\u2019s Gods in Niches<\/i> of 1526 (E.26-45<\/a>).\u00a0 However, it is not known where this peripatetic German engraver from Cologne made his copies.\u00a0 There is the possibility that he is the engraver of Rosso\u2019s Mars and Venus<\/i> (Fig.E.130, I<\/a>) made from Rosso\u2019s drawing in the Louvre (Fig.D.42a<\/a>).\u00a0 If true then Bink was active in France in the 1530s as the drawing seems never to have left the country and the print appears almost certainly to have been made from Rosso\u2019s drawing and not from a copy of it.\u00a0 It is just possible that Bink served Rosso\u2019s own intention to have his drawing engraved although the drawing, made in and sent to Francis I from Venice, was not created with printmaking in mind, as its complex draughtsmanship indicates.\u00a0 Domenico del Barbiere was an assistant of Rosso\u2019s between 1536 and late 1540 and it may be that this engraver\u2019s Fame<\/i> (Fig.E.5<\/a>), derived from Rosso\u2019s lost drawing for the Gallery of Francis I, was made before Rosso died.\u00a0 Thus, as Zerner suggested (1969, XXXVIII-XXXIX), Rosso may have encouraged engraving in France.\u00a0 We know from Vasari that Rosso did drawings for an anatomy book to be published in France (see L.60<\/a>).\u00a0 But while this indicates an interest in printing it is not known that the plates of this book would have been engravings.\u00a0 It is likely that they would have been woodcuts. If Bink did the engraving after Rosso\u2019s Mars and Venus<\/i> drawing there is some possibility that Rosso meant to establish a relation with this engraver similar to the one he had with Caraglio in Rome, an arrangement that, however, got no further in France than this one print (suggested by the plate from which the engraver\u2019s monogram must have been quickly removed, leaving only one impression with Bink\u2019s monogram intact but traces of it on some of the later impressions).\u00a0 Another engraver could just possibly have been acquainted with Rosso personally.\u00a0 Pierre Milan was in Paris in August 1540, and he could already have been active as an engraver there in the 1530s, as Wardropper (1985, 29) also thought.\u00a0 Four prints by him after Rosso were made before October 1545 but how much before cannot be determined.\u00a0 All of these prints would have been made from drawings by him, or from versions of them made to serve better as disegni di stampe <\/i>than the sheets made originally for other ends.\u00a0 Milan\u2019s prints are not as subtle as Barbiere\u2019s in their range of lights and darks, but in the Three Fates, Nude <\/i>(Fig.E.105<\/a>) and the Nymph of Fontainebleau<\/i> finished by Boyvin (Fig.E.103<\/a>) there is a broad definition of form that Rosso may have wanted around 1540 in prints after his inventions.\u00a0 This style was continued by Boyvin, Milan\u2019s pupil.\u00a0 Boyvin engraved several more images by Rosso but only after the time that he began his association with Milan late in 1549.\u00a0 Still, the very fact that he had drawings by Rosso to engrave so long after Rosso\u2019s death may indicate that he got them from Milan who could have had them directly from the artist. Several of Rosso\u2019s French drawings in red chalk graphically resemble the four surviving disegni di stampe<\/i> that were used by Caraglio for the Gods in Niches<\/i>.\u00a0 The St. Jerome<\/i> of 1531-1532 (Fig.D.45a<\/a>), the Dream of Hercules<\/i> (Fig.D.78a<\/a>), the Empedocles-St. Roch<\/i> (Fig.D.80a<\/a>), and the Judith and Holofernes<\/i> (Fig.D.84a<\/a>) all show complete scenes and all are done in a manner that could have served an engraver well.\u00a0 Two late drawings were engraved by Boyvin.\u00a0 But other Italian and French drawings by Rosso that were certainly not made as the models for prints show an identical draughtsmanship, making it impossible to be sure that any one drawing of this kind was made for a printmaker. There is no sure evidence that Rosso brought any of his drawings with him when he left Italy for France.\u00a0 The Mars and Venus <\/i>preceded him.\u00a0 Davis (1988, 14-15) thought that the contents of Rosso\u2019s studio were probably inherited by Primaticcio.\u00a0 Zerner (1969, XV) suggested that Fantuzzi had access to Rosso\u2019s drawings from Primaticcio.\u00a0 That Primaticcio obtained all of Rosso\u2019s drawings, or, in fact, any of them cannot be proved.\u00a0 Primaticcio was not in France when Rosso died and by the time of his return the dispersal of the contents of Rosso\u2019s studio could already have taken place.\u00a0 The loss of so many of Rosso\u2019s French drawings – not a single autograph drawing made for the Gallery of Francis I survives – and the present dispersal of the few that remain suggest that his drawings were scattered very soon after his death.\u00a0 It is also possible that some, perhaps many, were given away by Rosso himself.\u00a0 Vasari commented on his generosity in Italy in making drawings for the commissions of friends and this might have extended to unsolicited gifts as well.\u00a0 The collection of prints after Rosso\u2019s designs reveals that while a few printmakers had each a number of his drawings none had such a sizeable number as to constitute a majority of what may have existed at the time of his death.\u00a0 In spite of the fact that many prints were made from his drawings in France, the absence of so many prints related to the very large number of drawings that must have been made for the Gallery of Francis I and for other decorative projects at Fontainebleau suggests their unsystematic dispersal and their limited chance of survival. The study of the prints made from Rosso\u2019s drawings is essential to the reconstruction of his artistic ambitions and achievements.\u00a0 Without a full knowledge of them the extent and chronology of the last decade of his activity in France would not be known.\u00a0 Only through them could the study of his activity as a draughtsman be fulfilled.\u00a0 It is also through them that his artistic heritage was launched and disseminated throughout northern Europe.\u00a0 The prints are gathered here primarily to provide further visual evidence of his work and not for the very specialized curatorial responsibility of cataloguing them correctly.\u00a0 Some details may propose possibilities to the study of these prints that only further evidence would prove.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>1<\/sup> The earliest print derived from a painting is Garnier\u2019s seventeenth century engraving (Fig.E.89<\/a>) of the Revenge of Nauplius<\/em> in the Gallery of Francis I. <\/a>2<\/sup> See Carroll, 1987, 37-47, and Carroll, 1989. Herbet, IV, 1900, 346-347 (1969, 196-197), stated that the abb\u00e9 de Marolles is alone in his opinion that Rosso made prints himself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This catalogue presents those prints of the sixteenth century that I consider to have been done after designs by Rosso.\u00a0 All of these prints appear to have been made from drawings by Rosso or from copies of his drawings (on which, see below).1 The prints are presented under the names of the printmakers, arranged alphabetically.\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"parent":824,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-11962","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11962","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11962"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11962\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11963,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11962\/revisions\/11963"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/rosso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}