DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0122
Bivision A.—Single Wooclcuts.
103
whicli was bouglit at tbe sale in 1872 by the Leipzig dealer, Boerner. It afterwards
passed into the liands of Dr. W. H. Willshire, who bequeatlied it, with the rest of his
eollection, to the Guildhall Library, London, in 1899. A comparison of our woodcut
with the reproduction (W. Schmidt, “ Interessante Fornschnitte,” 1886, Bl. ii.) of the
similar cut at Munich, Schr. 1679, leaves little doubt that the Munich cut is tho
original and this a copy. The two designs agree very closely, but where they differ
the evidence is all in favour of the priority of the Municli cut. The expression of the
faces, rudely as it is rendered, is finer, the hatching less coarse and mechanical. The
text of the two prayers is the same on both cuts, but they differ widely in the spelling.
Schr. 1679 is dated (11)72; the copy is therefore in all probability some years
later.
It is probable that other cuts of the same design may have existed, on the analogy
of the cut of the Sacred 31onogram witli the four Evangelists, one version of which,
»Schr. 1812, is cut on the back of tke samc block as Schr. 1678. Of this design, no less
than five versions exist, Schr. 1808-12. No old impression is known of 1812, which is
similar in execution to 1678, and is undoubtedly a copy.
With regard to these two impressions, Willshire is wrong in supposing tliat they
are reproductions by a mechanical process or processes. They are both modern im-
pressions from the crac-ked and worm-caten block, and the difference in their appear-
ance is only due to the fact that (a) is badly printed in a greasy ink which gives it the
appearance of a lithograpli, whereas (b) is earef'ully printed and gives as favourable an
impression as the state of the bloclc would permit, witli tlre exception of one detail, a
white line across the foot in r. lower corner, whicli is not due to any fiaw in the block,
but to a crease in the paper. (5) was purchased with the original block from Mr. Archer
in 1817. It is on stout modern paper of a yellowish tint. There is no record to show
whence (a) was derived. It must liave been printed before the block came into the
Museum, and seemsto have been produced with a fraudulent intention, being printed on
a leaf of old paper from a book, with liigh crown watermark. On the verso is printed
in red, in large Gothic characters ;
Sak ptt) hLct | Qrr ppbf) Ctttl | LMit <Sfo£rii43flt*<jn | unb Arlhstsdjuliirn.
Tlie block in its present state is broken in two by a crack, which starts from the 1.
side (in the impression) immecliately above the line over “ (£),” then descends between
“ intc” and “ jjrOSS,” passes between “hrldUCt” and “ iuci'frc,” ascends again
betwcen “ Hftt” and “ fur,” and passes across between the 2nd and 3rd lines to the
r. bordei'. The crack may have existed before tliese impressions were taken, as the two
pieces can be joined together so as to conceal it.
In 1. 6 of thetext as printed by >Schr., read “ martrrrs ” for “ martrrk.”
[266 x 190.]
A 104.
ST. SEBASTLAN.
Sclir. 1GS7 (= Schr. 1681).
St. Sebastian, who has long hair and a beard, a single nimbus round
his head, is bound to a tree in the midclle of the print, with his hands
behind his back. An archer, L, is aiming an arrow at him. A second, r.,
who wears a Phrygian cap, turns aside to take an arrow from his quiver,
while his cross-bow lies on the ground, which is covered with grass and
flowers. The saint’s body is already pierced by ten arrows. There is no
hatching. The border is single.
[136 X 80.] Very bad impression, tbe paper baving slipped, so that some of tlie
lines are printed twice over. Lolours (carelessly applied): crimson lake, ligbt brown,
yellow ocbre, green. Margiu [6-17] uncoloured, worm-eaten and torn.
In style, colouring and origin, tbis cut belongs to a series, of wbicb the rest bave
already been described, viz, Scbr. 786, 801, 1075, 1265, 1581, 1600 (A 28, 29,56,71,
97,98). Tbey were taken from a MS. Compendium thcologicm veritatis, and were
formerly described as metal cuts.
Purcbased from Mr. Rosenthal, 1879.
Schr. bas not observed that this cut is identical witb liis no. 1681, intbe Public
103
whicli was bouglit at tbe sale in 1872 by the Leipzig dealer, Boerner. It afterwards
passed into the liands of Dr. W. H. Willshire, who bequeatlied it, with the rest of his
eollection, to the Guildhall Library, London, in 1899. A comparison of our woodcut
with the reproduction (W. Schmidt, “ Interessante Fornschnitte,” 1886, Bl. ii.) of the
similar cut at Munich, Schr. 1679, leaves little doubt that the Munich cut is tho
original and this a copy. The two designs agree very closely, but where they differ
the evidence is all in favour of the priority of the Municli cut. The expression of the
faces, rudely as it is rendered, is finer, the hatching less coarse and mechanical. The
text of the two prayers is the same on both cuts, but they differ widely in the spelling.
Schr. 1679 is dated (11)72; the copy is therefore in all probability some years
later.
It is probable that other cuts of the same design may have existed, on the analogy
of the cut of the Sacred 31onogram witli the four Evangelists, one version of which,
»Schr. 1812, is cut on the back of tke samc block as Schr. 1678. Of this design, no less
than five versions exist, Schr. 1808-12. No old impression is known of 1812, which is
similar in execution to 1678, and is undoubtedly a copy.
With regard to these two impressions, Willshire is wrong in supposing tliat they
are reproductions by a mechanical process or processes. They are both modern im-
pressions from the crac-ked and worm-caten block, and the difference in their appear-
ance is only due to the fact that (a) is badly printed in a greasy ink which gives it the
appearance of a lithograpli, whereas (b) is earef'ully printed and gives as favourable an
impression as the state of the bloclc would permit, witli tlre exception of one detail, a
white line across the foot in r. lower corner, whicli is not due to any fiaw in the block,
but to a crease in the paper. (5) was purchased with the original block from Mr. Archer
in 1817. It is on stout modern paper of a yellowish tint. There is no record to show
whence (a) was derived. It must liave been printed before the block came into the
Museum, and seemsto have been produced with a fraudulent intention, being printed on
a leaf of old paper from a book, with liigh crown watermark. On the verso is printed
in red, in large Gothic characters ;
Sak ptt) hLct | Qrr ppbf) Ctttl | LMit <Sfo£rii43flt*<jn | unb Arlhstsdjuliirn.
Tlie block in its present state is broken in two by a crack, which starts from the 1.
side (in the impression) immecliately above the line over “ (£),” then descends between
“ intc” and “ jjrOSS,” passes between “hrldUCt” and “ iuci'frc,” ascends again
betwcen “ Hftt” and “ fur,” and passes across between the 2nd and 3rd lines to the
r. bordei'. The crack may have existed before tliese impressions were taken, as the two
pieces can be joined together so as to conceal it.
In 1. 6 of thetext as printed by >Schr., read “ martrrrs ” for “ martrrk.”
[266 x 190.]
A 104.
ST. SEBASTLAN.
Sclir. 1GS7 (= Schr. 1681).
St. Sebastian, who has long hair and a beard, a single nimbus round
his head, is bound to a tree in the midclle of the print, with his hands
behind his back. An archer, L, is aiming an arrow at him. A second, r.,
who wears a Phrygian cap, turns aside to take an arrow from his quiver,
while his cross-bow lies on the ground, which is covered with grass and
flowers. The saint’s body is already pierced by ten arrows. There is no
hatching. The border is single.
[136 X 80.] Very bad impression, tbe paper baving slipped, so that some of tlie
lines are printed twice over. Lolours (carelessly applied): crimson lake, ligbt brown,
yellow ocbre, green. Margiu [6-17] uncoloured, worm-eaten and torn.
In style, colouring and origin, tbis cut belongs to a series, of wbicb the rest bave
already been described, viz, Scbr. 786, 801, 1075, 1265, 1581, 1600 (A 28, 29,56,71,
97,98). Tbey were taken from a MS. Compendium thcologicm veritatis, and were
formerly described as metal cuts.
Purcbased from Mr. Rosenthal, 1879.
Schr. bas not observed that this cut is identical witb liis no. 1681, intbe Public