DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0046
30
Early German and Flemish Woodcuts.
Arguments
against tlie
use of metal.
1. Historical.
cuts in Division C of liis catalogue. The characteristics of these
alleged metal-cuts are as follows. The printing-ink has been
unevenly distributed over the surface of the hlock, so that it has run
into blots in some places and left others bare or marked with white
specks. (This is supposed to be caused by the metal surface refusing
to take the oily ink so evenly as the wood takes it.1) Where lines
stand ylose together the ink has run between them and confused the
outlines. The lines generally are thick, and sharp angles are avoided
or blurred in the printing if they occur. The hacks of such impres-
sions show little indentation, and prove, therefore, that less force was
used than in printing wood-blocks with the rubber. It is alleged,
further, tliat in some of these cuts the border lines are bent, which
could only liappen with soft metal: not with hard metal, which would
neither bend nor break ; nor with wood, which would break, not bend.
The inference that these prints are from metal-blocks is disputed
by Dr. Lippmann, first, on historical grounds; secondly, on the
evidence of the prints themselves.
There is no historical evidence for tlie theory that metal was used
in the first half of the xv century. Tliere are no documents which
prove it, and the only metal relief-blocks which exist—blocks, it is
important to observe, of copper, not of pewter or other soft metal—
date from about 1500 or later. Against tlie theory, on the otlier
hand, tliere are very strong presumptions from what we know of the
history of engraving. The earliest Formschneider, it is universally
admitted, used wood for the blocks with which they printed on
textiles. Why sliould they change to metal ? hfot to get clearer
impressions, for it is precisely the bad printing which is supposed to
betray the metal block. LTot to save themselves trouble, for bronze
or copper would he much harder, lead, tin, or pewter certainly
somewhat harder, to cut than wood. Metal, too, would be far more
expensive, while it would also be less durable; wood-blocks,it is known,
will yield a very large number of impressions, whereas metal is liable
to oxidisation from the action of certain ingredients in the printing-
ink, as well as from mere exposure to air or damp.
The earliest documentary evidence brought forward in favour of
metal-cuts is tlie colophon of the German Belial, printed at Augs-
burg by Bamler in 1473, “ Quem ereis figuris Johannes Bamler . . .
perfecit.” (In the German version of the colophon which follows,
there is no expression corresponcling to “ ereis figuris.”) It is certain
1 Linton says, on tlie contrary (op. cit., p. 75), “ An oil-inlc, wliich is requisite for
metal, will not run into blots; and metal will take it more readily than it will be taken
by wood.”
Early German and Flemish Woodcuts.
Arguments
against tlie
use of metal.
1. Historical.
cuts in Division C of liis catalogue. The characteristics of these
alleged metal-cuts are as follows. The printing-ink has been
unevenly distributed over the surface of the hlock, so that it has run
into blots in some places and left others bare or marked with white
specks. (This is supposed to be caused by the metal surface refusing
to take the oily ink so evenly as the wood takes it.1) Where lines
stand ylose together the ink has run between them and confused the
outlines. The lines generally are thick, and sharp angles are avoided
or blurred in the printing if they occur. The hacks of such impres-
sions show little indentation, and prove, therefore, that less force was
used than in printing wood-blocks with the rubber. It is alleged,
further, tliat in some of these cuts the border lines are bent, which
could only liappen with soft metal: not with hard metal, which would
neither bend nor break ; nor with wood, which would break, not bend.
The inference that these prints are from metal-blocks is disputed
by Dr. Lippmann, first, on historical grounds; secondly, on the
evidence of the prints themselves.
There is no historical evidence for tlie theory that metal was used
in the first half of the xv century. Tliere are no documents which
prove it, and the only metal relief-blocks which exist—blocks, it is
important to observe, of copper, not of pewter or other soft metal—
date from about 1500 or later. Against tlie theory, on the otlier
hand, tliere are very strong presumptions from what we know of the
history of engraving. The earliest Formschneider, it is universally
admitted, used wood for the blocks with which they printed on
textiles. Why sliould they change to metal ? hfot to get clearer
impressions, for it is precisely the bad printing which is supposed to
betray the metal block. LTot to save themselves trouble, for bronze
or copper would he much harder, lead, tin, or pewter certainly
somewhat harder, to cut than wood. Metal, too, would be far more
expensive, while it would also be less durable; wood-blocks,it is known,
will yield a very large number of impressions, whereas metal is liable
to oxidisation from the action of certain ingredients in the printing-
ink, as well as from mere exposure to air or damp.
The earliest documentary evidence brought forward in favour of
metal-cuts is tlie colophon of the German Belial, printed at Augs-
burg by Bamler in 1473, “ Quem ereis figuris Johannes Bamler . . .
perfecit.” (In the German version of the colophon which follows,
there is no expression corresponcling to “ ereis figuris.”) It is certain
1 Linton says, on tlie contrary (op. cit., p. 75), “ An oil-inlc, wliich is requisite for
metal, will not run into blots; and metal will take it more readily than it will be taken
by wood.”