DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0048
32
JEarly German and Flemish Woodcuts.
2. Technical.
Three
mcthods of
printing were
used in the
xv century for
woodcuts.
Passing to the tecknical arguments for the metal theory, basecl on
tlie appearance of the"prints themselves, the manner in which the ink
was spread on the block is no argument at all for metal. A page in
one of the earliest^printed books injwkich woodcut illustrations occur,
shows no difference in the inking of the wooden block and that of the
metal type. In dealing with cuts produced before tlie introduction
of the printing-press, the argument frorn the appearance of the print
to the material of j-tke^block is quite fallacious, because it is based
on a misapprehension of the early methods of printing, a subject to
which I shall presently return. The argument that sharp angles are
avoided and rounded forms preferred is no less fallacious, because the
fact is to be explained by the manner of drawing wliich prevailed at
this period, and the draughtsman, not the engraver, is responsible for
such forms. The assertion, which would be more important if it
could be proved, that bent lines occur lias been singularly unfortu-
nate in its defenders. One of Eumohr’s capital instances, a “ metal-
cut” in the Divisie-Cronycke (Leyden, 1517), turned out to be only
the half of a wood-block wliich lrad been cut for the Chevalier
Delibere (Gouda, 1486 ?), while the other half of the same block, also
reprinted in the Chronicle, had become badly worm-eaten. Linton,
who rejects Weigel’s arguments for metal from the effect of the
printing, finds a new reason for believing in metal in the fact that
the edges of the lines in certain cuts betray the action of the graver,
not the knife. ILe gives (p. 68) as an instance a cut frorn Turrecre-
mata’s Meditationes (Eome, 1467), which shows the clearest indication
of wood which anything short of a worm-hole could give, viz. several
pieces chipped out of the border-line, which ouglit, on the metal
theory, to have bent, not broken.
For all these reasons I prefer the old-fashioned view tliat all tlie
primitive cuts are woodcuts, to the theory which prevailed from
Eumohr’s time to Willskire’s. The cuts whicli those critics set apart
as a class by themselves liave strongly marked ckaracteristics in
common, and there is a certain loss in dispersing them among other
woodcuts on the system of Sclireiber’s “ Manuel ” and of my own
catalogue; but their explanation of these ckaracteristics was
mistaken.
Early Methods of Peinting Woodcuts.
It used to be said that two metliods of printing woodcuts were
in use in the xv century, and that the “ rubber,” the instrument
of the earlier method, was gradually superseded by the printing-
press.
JEarly German and Flemish Woodcuts.
2. Technical.
Three
mcthods of
printing were
used in the
xv century for
woodcuts.
Passing to the tecknical arguments for the metal theory, basecl on
tlie appearance of the"prints themselves, the manner in which the ink
was spread on the block is no argument at all for metal. A page in
one of the earliest^printed books injwkich woodcut illustrations occur,
shows no difference in the inking of the wooden block and that of the
metal type. In dealing with cuts produced before tlie introduction
of the printing-press, the argument frorn the appearance of the print
to the material of j-tke^block is quite fallacious, because it is based
on a misapprehension of the early methods of printing, a subject to
which I shall presently return. The argument that sharp angles are
avoided and rounded forms preferred is no less fallacious, because the
fact is to be explained by the manner of drawing wliich prevailed at
this period, and the draughtsman, not the engraver, is responsible for
such forms. The assertion, which would be more important if it
could be proved, that bent lines occur lias been singularly unfortu-
nate in its defenders. One of Eumohr’s capital instances, a “ metal-
cut” in the Divisie-Cronycke (Leyden, 1517), turned out to be only
the half of a wood-block wliich lrad been cut for the Chevalier
Delibere (Gouda, 1486 ?), while the other half of the same block, also
reprinted in the Chronicle, had become badly worm-eaten. Linton,
who rejects Weigel’s arguments for metal from the effect of the
printing, finds a new reason for believing in metal in the fact that
the edges of the lines in certain cuts betray the action of the graver,
not the knife. ILe gives (p. 68) as an instance a cut frorn Turrecre-
mata’s Meditationes (Eome, 1467), which shows the clearest indication
of wood which anything short of a worm-hole could give, viz. several
pieces chipped out of the border-line, which ouglit, on the metal
theory, to have bent, not broken.
For all these reasons I prefer the old-fashioned view tliat all tlie
primitive cuts are woodcuts, to the theory which prevailed from
Eumohr’s time to Willskire’s. The cuts whicli those critics set apart
as a class by themselves liave strongly marked ckaracteristics in
common, and there is a certain loss in dispersing them among other
woodcuts on the system of Sclireiber’s “ Manuel ” and of my own
catalogue; but their explanation of these ckaracteristics was
mistaken.
Early Methods of Peinting Woodcuts.
It used to be said that two metliods of printing woodcuts were
in use in the xv century, and that the “ rubber,” the instrument
of the earlier method, was gradually superseded by the printing-
press.