130 Study of the Good Thief
Pen and brown ink; H: 26.8 cm (io^9 /i6 in.); W: 12.6 cm
(5 in.)
8s.GA.36o
MARKS AND INSCRIPTIONS: (Recto) in top right corner,
inscribed AD I ... in brown ink; in bottom right corner,
inscribed Ai :Duro in brown ink by a later hand; (verso)
collection mark of William Mitchell (L. 2638).
PROVENANCE: William Mitchell, London (sale, Prestel,
Frankfurt am Main, May 7, 1890, lot 22); H. von
Mumm, Frankfurt am Main; private collection, Ger-
many; art market, Munich.
EXHIBITIONS: None.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Ephrussi, Albert Diirer et ses dessins
(Paris, 1882), p. 228, n. i; F. Winkler, Die Zeichnungen
AlbrechtDurers, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1938), vol. 3, p. 50, under
no. 593; F. Winzinger, "Eine unbekannte Aktstudie Al-
brecht Diirers," Pantheon 22 (1962), pp. 275-279;
W. L. Strauss, The Complete Drawings of Albrecht Durer
(New York, 1974), vol. 2, no. 1505/7.
THIS DRAWING WAS FIRST PUBLISHED AS BY A DtJRER
student by Ephrussi (1882), who noted its connection to
a second study of the same subject, then also in the
Mitchell collection. This sheet then disappeared from
sight, and Winkler published the second Mitchell draw-
ing (1938, no. 593), by then in the Koenigs Collection,
Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam, as by
Durer. The second drawing disappeared in 1941 (Strauss
1974, vol. 2, no. 1505/8). The Museum's drawing was
first published fully by Winzinger in his fundamental ar-
ticle of I962.^1 There he argued that the relationship be-
tween it and the Koenigs drawing could not be that of
original and copy due to the lack of corresponding
strokes in both and the more frontal vantage point of the
former. Rather, he believed them to be the work of two
artists drawing from the same studio model. Pointing
out the superiority of the Museum's drawing, he con-
cluded that it, rather than the Koenigs drawing, was the
work of Durer.
A comparison between the two reveals that the Mu-
seum's Good Thief shows a complete comprehension of
the structure of the body and the integration of its var-
ious parts. By contrast, the Koenigs study is stiffer, copy-
ing some elements from its model, but failing to relate
individual forms to the whole. For example, the weight
of the figure in the Museum's drawing brings the body
fully forward, with straightened legs and taut arm mus-
cles, the effect accentuated by the bowing of the cross. In
the other study the cross remains upright, while the
knees are bent and the arm flaccid, eliminating much of
the physical coherence and expressive power of the im-
age. While not a copy, the Koenigs drawing does appear
to have presupposed a knowledge of the Museum's Good
Thief and therefore was probably a variant of the latter
made by an assistant in Diirer s workshop.
The Good Thief inspired still another representation
of the subject, dated 1505 and in the Albertina, Vienna
(inv. 3097; Strauss 1974, vol. 2, no. 1505/9), which de-
rives from it the general placement of the figure in space
as well as the expressive idea of having the good thief
look toward Christ, turning away from his own pain and
toward salvation. This and related studies (Strauss 1974,
vol. 2, nos. 1505/10-12) are no longer considered to be
by Diirer and may well be the work of Baldung. They
are among several depictions of the Crucifixion in var-
ious media which were made by the Diirer workshop in
the early years of the century. Two of those have special
relevance for the drawing of the Good Thief. First is the
woodcut of the subject (B. 59(127] v.io,7), in which the
bad thief is shown in a similar pose and with anatomy
very like that of the good thief in the drawing. He isDURER • GERMAN SCHOOL 291