Battle of the Nudes

Louise Richards, Cleveland's curator of prints and drawings from 1967 to 1986, was
the first to note the existence of a first state when the museum acquired its Battle of
the Nudes in 1967. Based on her close examination of several second-state impres-
sions, and photographs and surveys of others, Richards concluded that "all other
known impressions of the engraving were printed after the plate had begun to
show wear—after the shallow thin shading lines that model the bodies had become
weaker and a number of areas of the plate were reworked (with an engraving tool)
by another hand." 7 The most easily recognizable difference between the first and
second states is the addition of shading on the inner thigh of the man wielding an
ax at far right (fig. 2). Richards also noted the less immediately obvious, more
"destructive" alteration in the significant darkening of the background, achieved
through the re-engraving of areas between plant stalks and added shading in some
foliage. She observed that, while the figures appear weaker in the second state as
the modeling lines began to wear, the background becomes distracting through in-
creased contrasts and heightened detail. Although the plant forms in the relatively
monochromatic gray background of the first state are carefully articulated, the foli-
age is generally subordinated, through a predominance of methodical diagonal
shading, to the fluid outline of the active foreground figures. Richards concluded
that Cleveland's first-state impression is the sole unadulterated version of
Pollaiuolo's engraving, in which the harmony of natural and formal design is pre-
served in a subtle equilibrium. In her view, the reworking of the plate destroyed the
quality of Pollaiuolo's line and his intentional play of the sinuous outline of the
warriors' bodies against the linear pattern that defines the background.
As Richards was aware, the study of Pollaiuolo's engraving is further compli-
cated by the considerable wear and tear of impressions, partly because of their age
and partly because of their large size. Areas that did not print well, or suffered abra-
sion or damage over the years, were often redrawn in pen and ink at some point.
Also, nearly all impressions show evidence of folding (a number have multiple fold
lines, both horizontal and vertical). Many were trimmed; the edges of the sheets
became creased, abraded, soiled, or torn, and tattered edges were cut off. Impres-
sions were cut to fit into albums, or in a few cases appear to have been cut down in
an effort to even out the otherwise asymmetrically shaped image. Thus comparison
of impressions must take into account a greater than usual consideration of restora-
tion and condition issues.
Richards's observations were remarkable considering her limited resources at
the time: she did not have the opportunity to compare multiple impressions side by
side and consequently relied on photographs that can distort tonal values; further,
she did not have access to beta radiography (a process that uses radioactive "beta"
plates to obtain clear images of watermarks), sophisticated microscopes, or other
technical equipment. It has become clear—through close scrutiny of the Cleveland
engraving and more than thirty second-state impressions, with the advantage of
direct comparisons, magnified slide details, and to-scale digital photographs—that
while some of Richards's observations were correct, others need modification.
27