Battle of the Nudes

engraving by several decades. It is more probable that there were multiple impres-
sions of the first state in circulation before the plate was reworked and that
Cleveland's impression is not a proof.
The probable existence of multiple first-state impressions could be taken as
evidence that someone else got hold of the plate after Pollaiuolo's initial printing
and made the changes. However, the Fogg impression shows little wear, has good
embossment of line, and is the only known impression of the second state without a
printed scratch on the back of the right chain man's thigh (fig. 15). Thus it must
have been printed early on, before the plate was scratched. In addition, the water-
marks on the Cleveland and Fogg impressions nearly match: the shape and size of
the Three Mounts correspond exactly, but the staff in the Fogg watermark has a
crossbar (see Appendix: Watermarks). The close correspondence of the Cleveland
and Fogg watermarks suggests that the papers were produced on the same mold (if
the crossbar fell off or was added), by the same mill, at around the same time. Al-
though there does not appear to be an exact known match for either version of the
watermark, which would secure a dating of the paper, similar watermarks date
from the 1420s to the 1490s. The congruence of watermarks combined with the lack
of plate wear in the Fogg impression further suggests that the Fogg and Cleveland
impressions are not separated by a wide span of years and could have been printed
around the same time. Despite Richards's awareness of the similar watermarks and
the apparently early printing of the Fogg impression, she suggested that the exist-
ence of the woodcut copies, possibly made after Pollaiuolo's death in 1498, imply
that the first state of the engraving was the form in which Pollaiuolo's print was
recognized and admired, and that the plate wore quickly and was re-engraved by
another hand. 13 She believed that if there were second-state impressions circulating
when the woodcuts were made, they would have been perceived as unrepresenta-
tive of the artist's work. This reasoning, however, does not take into account other
variables involved in the appearance of different impressions of this engraving. It
would seem more likely that Francfordia happened to copy a first-state impression
because that was what was available to him. The nature of the woodcut medium
automatically altered Pollaiuolo's image, increasing the black and white contrast
34