seum's Stag Beetle contradicts Diirer's normal practices
by following rather than preceding the finished work.
Moreover, Koreny has observed that the stag beetles rep-
resented in the Albertina drawing and in Diirer's painting
of the Adoration of the Kings (1504; Florence, Uffizi) are
more clearly defined and forceful in movement, and dif-
fer from the Museum's Stag Beetle in certain anatomical
details. Lastly, he has pointed out that Winkler's ex-
pressed faith in the authenticity of the monogram and
date (1937, vol. 2, no. 370) was unwarranted, since it was
based on a comparison with a drawing no longer ac-
cepted as by Diirer (Munich, Staatliche Graphische
Sammlung, inv. Mu.24; Strauss 1974, vol. 2, no. 15057
33). Koreny has also compared the date on the Stag Beetle
with the inscribed dates of 1505 on a group of disputed
drawings (Strauss 1974, vol. 2, nos. 1505/9, 1505/11-13,
1505/23), several of which are now widely accepted as the
work of Baldung. These arguments need to be consid-
ered individually since they carry the appearance of great
weight.
The issue of anatomical accuracy is of some interest,
but irrelevant to the matter of attribution. There is noth-
ing to indicate a consistent scientific accuracy in Diirer's
animal and plant studies, as is evident from Koreny's own
observation that the Wing of a Roller in the Albertina, Vi-
enna (inv. 4840 D 104; Koreny 1985, no. 22) is much too
bright coloristically and contrary in this respect to the
way the bird appears in nature. Similarly, M. A. Fischer
has pointed out botanical inaccuracies in the Great Piece
of Twrfand the Irises in the Albertina and the Kunsthalle
Bremen (inv. 3075 D 54, 35; Koreny 1985, nos. 61, 66) /
In addition it has been correctly observed by K.
Oberhuber^2 that the Stag Beetle and other Diirer animal
and plant drawings in watercolor and gouache were not
made en plein air, but in the studio, based on quick
sketches and memory. It is therefore neither surprising
nor significant with respect to the attribution that some
of them lack precision of scientific rendering.
It is, of course, true that the Stag Beetle postdates the
Madonna with a Multitude of Animals by two years, but
there is no reason to suppose that it must either be a study
for the latter or not by Diirer. In his discussion of the
Wing of a Roller, Koreny (1985, p. 70, no. 22) separates
that rendering from the finished wing in Diirer's Nemesis
engraving, with which it has been associated in past lit-
erature. There is no reason not to do the same with re-
spect to the Stag Beetle, which—like the Wing of a Roller—
was done independently, not as a preparatory study.
The difference in animation and anatomy between
this stag beetle and those in the Uffizi painting and the
Madonna with a Multitude of Animals is again predictable,not revealing or surprising. In each of those instances the
insect is shown in action, moving across a step or being
confronted by a dog (Koreny 1985, ills. pp. 112, 114),
whereas in the Museum's drawing the animal is studied
in a naturalistic space but in a contextual void. A com-
parison of the Studies of Hares in the British Museum,
London (inv. Sloane 5218/157; Koreny 1985, no. 42),
with the famous Hare in the Albertina (inv. 3073 D 49;
Koreny 1985, no. 43) yields an analogous difference, one
based on context and medium, not on the issue of au-
thorship. Indeed the two drawings of hares fully eluci-
date Oberhuber's excellent point, already mentioned,
that the finished watercolors and gouaches are works
made in the studio, presumably based on sketches and
memory. As for the fact that the stag beetles in the Uffizi
painting and Albertina drawing differ from the Stag Bee-
tle in anatomical terms, one should note that they also
differ from each other in the same respect and that, as Ko-
reny has noted, the beetle in the Albertina drawing is also
"incorrectly" divided into segments! Lastly, the effort to
make precise comparison between images of varying
scale, purpose, and medium is at best tendentious and at
worst forced and bound to be inconclusive.
The last question raised by Koreny is over the hand-
writing of the date; he does not discuss the monogram.
He has related the date to the 1505 inscriptions on five
other drawings, at least three of which he believes may
be by Baldung (Strauss 1974, vol. 2, nos. 1505/9, 1505/
11-13, 1505/23). He is certainly correct in noting that the
first four of these (nos. 1505/9, 1505/11-13) were in-
scribed by the same hand, and it indeed seems highly
probable that the draughtsman in these cases was Bal-
dung. However, the fifth drawing, the Head of a Man in
the British Museum, London (inv. Sloane 5218/31;
Strauss 1974, no. 1505/23), was quite obviously dated by
another hand, just as the drawing itself is by a different
artist. The dates on the first four differ entirely from that
on the Stag Beetle as well. The i in the dates on the first
four drawings is written much like a capital /, whereas in
the Stag Beetle it has an obvious loop at the top and only
a horizontal line forward at the bottom. The 0 in the first
four drawings appears to have been made with one con-
tinuous motion, whereas in the Stag Beetle it is clearly
composed of two separate halves, which barely meet at
top and bottom. Lastly, the 5 's are drawn in the first four
instances with less pronounced curvature in the lower
half and no comma-like motif at the bottom, as in the
second 5 inscribed on the Stag Beetle. By contrast the date
on the Stag Beetle is similar to that on the Head of a Man
in the British Museum, not only in the presence of vir-
tually every one of the characteristic mannerisms just288 GERMAN SCHOOL • DURER