DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0032
16
Early German and Flemish Woodcuts.
Date of the
blockbooks.
Dated
editions.
Dated copies.
or as subordinates* 1—or they competed witli it by issuing not
only broadsides but even books of their own, with test as well as
pictures cut on wood. This was the era of the blockbooks.
Eighty or a liundred years ago the historians of printing and of
wood-engraving used to date the early blockbooks 1420-1440.2
Though few critics of to-day 3 would date them much. if at all, before
1450, the opinion that the earliest, at least, preceded tlie in-
vention of printing, and that they represent a stage in the history
of that invention, is still so generally maintained, or taken for
granted, that it may seem rash to dispute it. To my mind, liowever,
Herr Sclireiber has sufiiciently proved 4 that there is no evidence,
external or internal, for dating any of the existing blockbooks much
before 1460. I cannot here enter into the details of his argument,
wliicli covers some fifty pages. A short statement of some of his
conclusions may, however, be of interest. He gives a table of 33
different works, the existence of whicli, in the form of blockbooks, is
certified. The number of editions, in all languages, of these block-
books amounts altogetlier to 101. The dates which occur on a few
of tliese editions (all German, except the latest, which are Italian)
range from 1468 to far on in the xvi century.5
In a few cases dates can be supplied by such external evidence as
a MS. note on a copy of the blockbook or a dated binding. Dates of
this kind are limited in range to the years 1467 to 1474.6
Strassburg edition of Ptolemy of 1525 (quoted by 0. Hase, “ Die Koberger,” 1885, pp.
130-135; see cilso W. Weisbach, “ Die Baseler Buckillustration des sv Jakrh.,” p. 65),
“ Kartenmalergemalde ” is Pirkheimer’s contemptuous term for certaiu tasteless wood-
cut decorations, borders, etc., of whick he disapproved.
1 The printers needed the services of rubricators and illuminators to finisk tkeir
books, wliich were never complete, in early days, witkout some kand-work. (See O.
Hase, op. cit., p. 113).
" See Jackson, “ Treatise on Wood-engraving,” 1S39, pp. 74-75, for quotations.
Sotkcby, “ Princ. Typ.,” iii, 179 (1858), dates the lirst edition of the Ars Memorandi
1420-1430. See Schr., op>. cit., p. 46, on tke legend of an album of blockbooks said to
liave been dated 142—(?).
3 Except M. Bouchot and the Eev. C. BI. Middleton-Wake, in wkose (privately
printed) Cambridge lcctures of 1897 on tlie “ Invention of Printing” the most obsolete
opinions concerning tlie early dates of the blockbooks are revived.
1 Op. cit., pp. 1-53. Herr Sckreibers catalogue of the blockbooks, forming the fourtli
volume of kis “Manuel de l'Amateur,” was published in 1902, too late to be noticed
in tkis Introduction. Two volumes of facsimiles with very brief notes had already
appeared (tome vii, 1895 ; tome viii, 1900).
5 Suck dates as 1440 on the Spirituale Pomerium, 1448 on the Chiromantia, refer to
tke composition of the works. The editions actually dated are Biblia Pauperum
(German), 1470 and 1471, Antichrist, 1472, Defensorium, 1470 and 1471, Ars Contem-
plativae Vitae, 1473(?), Ars Moriendi, 1473, Mirabilia Romae, 1471-14S4 (reign of
Sislus IV), Calendar of Johaunes Nider dc Gamundia, 1468. Giovanni Andrea Vavas-
sore publisked a bookblock at Venice after 1509 (1516?), and tkere is a belated
specimen, Libro di M. Giovanbattista Palatino, publislied at Rome in 1548.
6 Tlius, of tke first edition of tke Speculum Humanae Salvationis (Latin with type-
Early German and Flemish Woodcuts.
Date of the
blockbooks.
Dated
editions.
Dated copies.
or as subordinates* 1—or they competed witli it by issuing not
only broadsides but even books of their own, with test as well as
pictures cut on wood. This was the era of the blockbooks.
Eighty or a liundred years ago the historians of printing and of
wood-engraving used to date the early blockbooks 1420-1440.2
Though few critics of to-day 3 would date them much. if at all, before
1450, the opinion that the earliest, at least, preceded tlie in-
vention of printing, and that they represent a stage in the history
of that invention, is still so generally maintained, or taken for
granted, that it may seem rash to dispute it. To my mind, liowever,
Herr Sclireiber has sufiiciently proved 4 that there is no evidence,
external or internal, for dating any of the existing blockbooks much
before 1460. I cannot here enter into the details of his argument,
wliicli covers some fifty pages. A short statement of some of his
conclusions may, however, be of interest. He gives a table of 33
different works, the existence of whicli, in the form of blockbooks, is
certified. The number of editions, in all languages, of these block-
books amounts altogetlier to 101. The dates which occur on a few
of tliese editions (all German, except the latest, which are Italian)
range from 1468 to far on in the xvi century.5
In a few cases dates can be supplied by such external evidence as
a MS. note on a copy of the blockbook or a dated binding. Dates of
this kind are limited in range to the years 1467 to 1474.6
Strassburg edition of Ptolemy of 1525 (quoted by 0. Hase, “ Die Koberger,” 1885, pp.
130-135; see cilso W. Weisbach, “ Die Baseler Buckillustration des sv Jakrh.,” p. 65),
“ Kartenmalergemalde ” is Pirkheimer’s contemptuous term for certaiu tasteless wood-
cut decorations, borders, etc., of whick he disapproved.
1 The printers needed the services of rubricators and illuminators to finisk tkeir
books, wliich were never complete, in early days, witkout some kand-work. (See O.
Hase, op. cit., p. 113).
" See Jackson, “ Treatise on Wood-engraving,” 1S39, pp. 74-75, for quotations.
Sotkcby, “ Princ. Typ.,” iii, 179 (1858), dates the lirst edition of the Ars Memorandi
1420-1430. See Schr., op>. cit., p. 46, on tke legend of an album of blockbooks said to
liave been dated 142—(?).
3 Except M. Bouchot and the Eev. C. BI. Middleton-Wake, in wkose (privately
printed) Cambridge lcctures of 1897 on tlie “ Invention of Printing” the most obsolete
opinions concerning tlie early dates of the blockbooks are revived.
1 Op. cit., pp. 1-53. Herr Sckreibers catalogue of the blockbooks, forming the fourtli
volume of kis “Manuel de l'Amateur,” was published in 1902, too late to be noticed
in tkis Introduction. Two volumes of facsimiles with very brief notes had already
appeared (tome vii, 1895 ; tome viii, 1900).
5 Suck dates as 1440 on the Spirituale Pomerium, 1448 on the Chiromantia, refer to
tke composition of the works. The editions actually dated are Biblia Pauperum
(German), 1470 and 1471, Antichrist, 1472, Defensorium, 1470 and 1471, Ars Contem-
plativae Vitae, 1473(?), Ars Moriendi, 1473, Mirabilia Romae, 1471-14S4 (reign of
Sislus IV), Calendar of Johaunes Nider dc Gamundia, 1468. Giovanni Andrea Vavas-
sore publisked a bookblock at Venice after 1509 (1516?), and tkere is a belated
specimen, Libro di M. Giovanbattista Palatino, publislied at Rome in 1548.
6 Tlius, of tke first edition of tke Speculum Humanae Salvationis (Latin with type-