DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0068
Earhj Gennan ancl Flemish Woodcuts.—Part 1.
the air r., tlie encl being concealed by St. John’s nimbus. Christ’s heacl
is turned towards the Virgin, who stands 1. with clasped hands and
downcast eyes, wearing a long mantle. A scroll descends from the 1. arm
of the cross to her left shoulder with the inscription, i/HuItfl* ffff ftltUS
X tltUS (Joh. xix. 26), in white Gothic letters on a black grouncl.
St. Johnstancls r. looking 1. towarcls the Virgin, with his 1. hancl raisecl to
his breast. He wears a long robe drawn in at the waist by a girdle, to
which his writing implements are attached, while he holcls a bag con-
taining a book in his r. hancl. A mantle is drapecl loosely over his
shoulders ancl gathered up infolds under his 1. arm. His 1. foot is unshoch
The r. foot is concealed by the robe. The nimbus worn by the Virgin
and St. John is of the same type as that of Martha ancl Mary in the
“Raising of Lazarus,” Schr. 145 (see above, A 6), liaving within the plain
rim a bancl of ornament composed of a series of arcs with the cusps directecl
inwards. The cross is supported by wedges at the foot, but there is no
skull or object of any sort on the plain foreground. The folds of the
drapery are angular. There is very little shading and no cross-hatching.
The background is filled in with flowerets, consisting of a centre and four
petals, in white on a black grounch The flowerets have been for the
most parfc so carelessly cut that the pattern is lost ancl the petals appear
as meaningless white patches. The best executed part of the design is
over the heacl of the Virgin. The border is double at the sides, single at
the bottom. The outer iine only of the clouble border passes across the
top, just touching the rim of the nimbus, but beyoncl this line an aclditional
space 7 mm. in width is enclosed, as though to contain an inscription.
[186 X 117.] Badly printed, but well preserved, withthe exception of a few worm-
holes. Coarse greyish paper without watermark. Margin [10-12], Colours: light
red, cinnabar, bright yellow, verdigris green, grey-brown, black.
Purchasecl from Mr. Tiffin, 1846. I.ot 1898 in tke Ottley sale, May, 1837.
Formerly described as a metal-cut.
The above cut is a copy on wood of a dotted print in the Lanna collection at Prague
(Singer 17; Schr. 2319), formerly in the Weigel collection (W. u. Z. 326). Herr v.
Lanna’s print is itself a copy of the unique engraving by the master of the St. Erasmus
in the same collection (Singer 101 ; Lehrs, “ Kat. d. Germ. Mus.,” p. 23. 72a.), ancl this
again is copied from an engraving by the master of tlie Banderoles (P. ii. 16. 13,
Dresden, K. Kupf. Kab., and collection Friedr. Aug. II). Both engravings arc repro-
duced in Lehrs, “Der Meister mit dcn Bandrollen,” Dresden, 1886, pl. vi. 17, 18. The
author has retracted the opinion there expressed (p. 18), that tho engraving by the
master of tlie St. Erasmus is the original, that of the master of the Banderoles the
copy.
The following are the deviations from the original design in the successive copies.
(1) As comparecl with the engraving, P. ii. 16. 13, the master of the St. Erasmus
omits the texts on the scroll nnd on the four borders of the print; he also omits the
title over the head of Christ, the Jower floating end of the loin-cloth and the cross on
St. John’s bag. He draws the cross-beam in perspective from the right instead of from
the left (the upright stem remaining as before), and reverses the skull in tlie foreground.
(2) As compared with the master of the St. Erasmus, the author of the dotted print
(see reproduction, after B 3) omits St. Jolm’s riglit foot, wliile lie inserts the words
“ Mulier ecce filius tuus ” on the scroll, an ornamental band on the nimbus of the Virgin
and St. Jolin, and rays withiu it, a flowered background, and tufts of grass in front.
The cross is drawn in the same way.
(3) As compared with the last print, the author of the present copy omits the skull,
the tufts of grass, and the rays on the nimbus. Of the peculiar teclmique of the
maniere cribJffe, the rude imitation of the flowered background already described is the
only trace, except the indistinct X between “filius” and “tuus,” whicli represents a
flower in the dotted print. The outlines of the latter are followed very closely
in tlie woodcut.
the air r., tlie encl being concealed by St. John’s nimbus. Christ’s heacl
is turned towards the Virgin, who stands 1. with clasped hands and
downcast eyes, wearing a long mantle. A scroll descends from the 1. arm
of the cross to her left shoulder with the inscription, i/HuItfl* ffff ftltUS
X tltUS (Joh. xix. 26), in white Gothic letters on a black grouncl.
St. Johnstancls r. looking 1. towarcls the Virgin, with his 1. hancl raisecl to
his breast. He wears a long robe drawn in at the waist by a girdle, to
which his writing implements are attached, while he holcls a bag con-
taining a book in his r. hancl. A mantle is drapecl loosely over his
shoulders ancl gathered up infolds under his 1. arm. His 1. foot is unshoch
The r. foot is concealed by the robe. The nimbus worn by the Virgin
and St. John is of the same type as that of Martha ancl Mary in the
“Raising of Lazarus,” Schr. 145 (see above, A 6), liaving within the plain
rim a bancl of ornament composed of a series of arcs with the cusps directecl
inwards. The cross is supported by wedges at the foot, but there is no
skull or object of any sort on the plain foreground. The folds of the
drapery are angular. There is very little shading and no cross-hatching.
The background is filled in with flowerets, consisting of a centre and four
petals, in white on a black grounch The flowerets have been for the
most parfc so carelessly cut that the pattern is lost ancl the petals appear
as meaningless white patches. The best executed part of the design is
over the heacl of the Virgin. The border is double at the sides, single at
the bottom. The outer iine only of the clouble border passes across the
top, just touching the rim of the nimbus, but beyoncl this line an aclditional
space 7 mm. in width is enclosed, as though to contain an inscription.
[186 X 117.] Badly printed, but well preserved, withthe exception of a few worm-
holes. Coarse greyish paper without watermark. Margin [10-12], Colours: light
red, cinnabar, bright yellow, verdigris green, grey-brown, black.
Purchasecl from Mr. Tiffin, 1846. I.ot 1898 in tke Ottley sale, May, 1837.
Formerly described as a metal-cut.
The above cut is a copy on wood of a dotted print in the Lanna collection at Prague
(Singer 17; Schr. 2319), formerly in the Weigel collection (W. u. Z. 326). Herr v.
Lanna’s print is itself a copy of the unique engraving by the master of the St. Erasmus
in the same collection (Singer 101 ; Lehrs, “ Kat. d. Germ. Mus.,” p. 23. 72a.), ancl this
again is copied from an engraving by the master of tlie Banderoles (P. ii. 16. 13,
Dresden, K. Kupf. Kab., and collection Friedr. Aug. II). Both engravings arc repro-
duced in Lehrs, “Der Meister mit dcn Bandrollen,” Dresden, 1886, pl. vi. 17, 18. The
author has retracted the opinion there expressed (p. 18), that tho engraving by the
master of tlie St. Erasmus is the original, that of the master of the Banderoles the
copy.
The following are the deviations from the original design in the successive copies.
(1) As comparecl with the engraving, P. ii. 16. 13, the master of the St. Erasmus
omits the texts on the scroll nnd on the four borders of the print; he also omits the
title over the head of Christ, the Jower floating end of the loin-cloth and the cross on
St. John’s bag. He draws the cross-beam in perspective from the right instead of from
the left (the upright stem remaining as before), and reverses the skull in tlie foreground.
(2) As compared with the master of the St. Erasmus, the author of the dotted print
(see reproduction, after B 3) omits St. Jolm’s riglit foot, wliile lie inserts the words
“ Mulier ecce filius tuus ” on the scroll, an ornamental band on the nimbus of the Virgin
and St. Jolin, and rays withiu it, a flowered background, and tufts of grass in front.
The cross is drawn in the same way.
(3) As compared with the last print, the author of the present copy omits the skull,
the tufts of grass, and the rays on the nimbus. Of the peculiar teclmique of the
maniere cribJffe, the rude imitation of the flowered background already described is the
only trace, except the indistinct X between “filius” and “tuus,” whicli represents a
flower in the dotted print. The outlines of the latter are followed very closely
in tlie woodcut.