DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0056
40
Eavly German and Flemish Woodcuts.
The system
of numbering
compared
with tbose of
Willsbire and
of Sclrreiber.
Willsliire.
Scbreiber.
Catalogue of Early Prints in tlie British Museum,” vol. I. (London,
1879), and by W. L. Scbreiber in bis “Manuel de rAmateur,,!>
tom. i-iii (Berlin, 1891-93). Tbe references to Willshire’s'
catalogue have been retained and references to Scbreiber’s “ Manuel ”
liave been added on tbe mounts. They are, of course, also included
in tbe text. Tbe new system of numbering differs in some respects
from botb.
Willsliire’s system bas not only been rendered obsolete by
new accessions to tbe collection, but was originally based on wbat I
am bound to consider a wrong principle of division, treating a.
number of tbe coarser cuts, on account of peculiarities in tbe printing,
as metal-cuts, and placing tbem apart in Division C. Many of the
prints in Willshire’s Divisions A and E are not relief-cuts, and
consequently find no place in tbis catalogue at all. Willsbire’s A 2,
bis Division C and the greater part of bis Division D bave been
united to forin Division A of tbe new catalogue. Division B is, in
tbe main, tbe same in botb, but it now includes sucb prints as have
been retained from Willshire’s Division E. Tlie blockbooks included
by Willskire in D bave been treated now as a class by tbemselves in
Division C, wlrile tbe book-illustrations, wliicb were not included
at all, except by inadvertence, in eitber Willsliire’s or Scbreiber’s
catalogue, liold a prominent place in tbe new arrangement, and stand
alone, after tlie blockbooks, as Division D. The arrangement by
wbicli tbe dotted prints, Division B, now come between two classes
of woodcuts is not based on any logical principle, but is adopted
simply for convenience, for tbe sake of retaining as far as possible;
tbe numerical order of Scbreiber.
Tbe autbor of tbe “ Manuel de l’Amateur ” bas courageously
attempted to describe all tbe extant woodcuts and relief-cuts of every
kind produced in tlre xv century, witb tbe very large exception of
tbe book-illustrations. Lle bas actually described little sbort of 3000
cuts, exclusive of blockbooks, wbicb will form tbe subject of a
volume not yet publisbed. In describing eacb cut be bas mentioned
tbe place wbere every impression, in cases wbere more tban one
exist, is preserved, and an index of places at tbe end of eacb volurne
makes it possible witli a little trouble to take a survey of the
contents of every collection whicb be bas utilised.
Tbe advantages of tbis plan are great. Eacb print described
is brougbt into proper relations witb otbers akin to it in subject or
workinansbip. One collection may be compared witb anotber, and
tlie student who cannot travel need no longer ignore every collection
but the one to wbicb be bas access. Insularity and want of
Eavly German and Flemish Woodcuts.
The system
of numbering
compared
with tbose of
Willsbire and
of Sclrreiber.
Willsliire.
Scbreiber.
Catalogue of Early Prints in tlie British Museum,” vol. I. (London,
1879), and by W. L. Scbreiber in bis “Manuel de rAmateur,,!>
tom. i-iii (Berlin, 1891-93). Tbe references to Willshire’s'
catalogue have been retained and references to Scbreiber’s “ Manuel ”
liave been added on tbe mounts. They are, of course, also included
in tbe text. Tbe new system of numbering differs in some respects
from botb.
Willsliire’s system bas not only been rendered obsolete by
new accessions to tbe collection, but was originally based on wbat I
am bound to consider a wrong principle of division, treating a.
number of tbe coarser cuts, on account of peculiarities in tbe printing,
as metal-cuts, and placing tbem apart in Division C. Many of the
prints in Willshire’s Divisions A and E are not relief-cuts, and
consequently find no place in tbis catalogue at all. Willsbire’s A 2,
bis Division C and the greater part of bis Division D bave been
united to forin Division A of tbe new catalogue. Division B is, in
tbe main, tbe same in botb, but it now includes sucb prints as have
been retained from Willshire’s Division E. Tlie blockbooks included
by Willskire in D bave been treated now as a class by tbemselves in
Division C, wlrile tbe book-illustrations, wliicb were not included
at all, except by inadvertence, in eitber Willsliire’s or Scbreiber’s
catalogue, liold a prominent place in tbe new arrangement, and stand
alone, after tlie blockbooks, as Division D. The arrangement by
wbicli tbe dotted prints, Division B, now come between two classes
of woodcuts is not based on any logical principle, but is adopted
simply for convenience, for tbe sake of retaining as far as possible;
tbe numerical order of Scbreiber.
Tbe autbor of tbe “ Manuel de l’Amateur ” bas courageously
attempted to describe all tbe extant woodcuts and relief-cuts of every
kind produced in tlre xv century, witb tbe very large exception of
tbe book-illustrations. Lle bas actually described little sbort of 3000
cuts, exclusive of blockbooks, wbicb will form tbe subject of a
volume not yet publisbed. In describing eacb cut be bas mentioned
tbe place wbere every impression, in cases wbere more tban one
exist, is preserved, and an index of places at tbe end of eacb volurne
makes it possible witli a little trouble to take a survey of the
contents of every collection whicb be bas utilised.
Tbe advantages of tbis plan are great. Eacb print described
is brougbt into proper relations witb otbers akin to it in subject or
workinansbip. One collection may be compared witb anotber, and
tlie student who cannot travel need no longer ignore every collection
but the one to wbicb be bas access. Insularity and want of