DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0150
128
Early German ancl Flemisli Woodcuts.—Part I.
is a copy of the original at London. He did not attempt to prove this statement—-
without the opportunity of a direct comparison, it was difficult, as he said, to do so—for
he only described those letters of the Basle set which are missing or defective in the
London set, and the difference of dimensions which he quotes, though decisive against
the identity of the two, does not in itself decide which is the original, any more than the
different arrangement of the letters on the sheet, an arrangement which Schreiber
perhaps would not admit to be different, since he says (wrongly, as we have seen) that
the London alphabet “ autrefois etait imprime probablement sur deux feuilles.”
The assertion of Schreiber, proved or not proved, should at least have put a Berlin
critic on his guard against committing the traditional blunder of regarding the two
alphabets as identical. I regret to find that this old mistake has obtained a fresh
currency by the sanction of the two most recent writers on the subject. Dr. L. Kaemmerer,
writing in the Berlin Jahrbuch, October 1897, describes the alphabet by the Master of
the Banderoles as “ eine genaue Kopie der kiinstlerisch weitaus hoher stehenden nieder-
landischen Holzschnittfolge.die in zwei Exemplaren in Basel und London
bekannt ist.” Professor Jaro Springer, in the text of the Chalcographical Society’s
publication for 1897 (which appeared in 1898), introduces his description of the
xylographic alphabet with the words: “ Another example of Gothic figure and animal
alphabets is engraved on wood. Two copies are in public collections, one in the Basle
Museum, on two uncut sheets, another, cut and incomplete, in the British Museum.”
Tlie latter publication contains an excellent facsimile of the Basle alphabet.
I will now comment on the two alphabets, letter by letter, with occasional remarks on
the later copies, in order to establish the two following propositions :—
1. The alphabet at London is the original, that at Basle a copy.
2. The alphabet engraved by the Master of the Banderoles, and the late woodcut
copy in the Bagford collection, are both based upon the London, not upon the Basle
alphabet.1
In what follows I shall call the London alphabet a, the Basle alphabet /S, the
engraved alphabet y, and the Bagford copies (treating the drawings and the woodcuts
as one) 5.
A. This is a fragment in a. The flower has a long narrow calyx, not a short, thick
one, as in /3. Tlie long form is copied by y and 5. The case hanging at the girdle of
the man 1. has four studs down the front in a, only three in y8. In y there appear to be
four, but they are indistinct; 8 omits them. The end of the rod 1. touches the outer
margin in a, but not in /3. With regard to the lost inscription, the evidence of 5
makes it probable that a originally liad two lines of writing below the men’s hands,
followed by the date mcccclxiiij. These two lines are represented in 13 by two straiglrt
lines, in y by two lines of illegible scribbling, in 8 by two straight lines. 0 and y also
preserve traces of writing between the hands, while 5 does not attempt to reproduce
these, but makes the hands touch.
B. In a the figures have more space than in /3. The upper figure to r. especially,
appears in /3 cramped under the frame, whereas in a he comes forward and has free play
outside it. In a both lower figures are clear of the lower margin,which they touch in 13.
13 omits several important fohis of the drapery, especially in the lower figure 1. In this
respect 8 follows a.
C. The horns of the lower grotesque liead in a touch the right inner margin, but not
the lower margin of tlie frame. In /3 this is reversed. The expression of the man’s face
and of the upper grotesque head is very superior in a.
D. The superiority of tlie two men’s heads in a is very markcd. The ornaments on
the horse’s trappings are more carefully drawn in a, and the hatching on the drapery is
more intelligent. The dress of tlie man to r. has a double hem in a (followed by y and
8), a single one in 13. Tlie lioof of the horse and tlie tail of the monster are quite clear
of the lower line in a, wliile they cross it in /S.
E. Tlie faces of the two men are again superior in a, and the action of the hand in
grasping tlie liorn is better drawn. The lower of tbe two men in a is looking away to
the 1. in the direction in which his head is turned (so also in y ancl 8); /S makes him
squint round to tlie r. Notice the sleeve of this man in a and £.
F. The face of tlie man blowing the trumpet is better drawn in a. $ omits liis ear,
y gives the ear badly drawn, wliile 8 liere follows a closely. The stooping mau has
smooth liair on the top of his head in a (followed by y and 8), d here gives him
1 As Professor Lehrs has observed (Repert. f. K. xxii, 378), a sufficient proof of this,
in the case of the Master of tlie Banderoles, is supplied by the identity of the arrange-
ment of the letters on the sheet.
Early German ancl Flemisli Woodcuts.—Part I.
is a copy of the original at London. He did not attempt to prove this statement—-
without the opportunity of a direct comparison, it was difficult, as he said, to do so—for
he only described those letters of the Basle set which are missing or defective in the
London set, and the difference of dimensions which he quotes, though decisive against
the identity of the two, does not in itself decide which is the original, any more than the
different arrangement of the letters on the sheet, an arrangement which Schreiber
perhaps would not admit to be different, since he says (wrongly, as we have seen) that
the London alphabet “ autrefois etait imprime probablement sur deux feuilles.”
The assertion of Schreiber, proved or not proved, should at least have put a Berlin
critic on his guard against committing the traditional blunder of regarding the two
alphabets as identical. I regret to find that this old mistake has obtained a fresh
currency by the sanction of the two most recent writers on the subject. Dr. L. Kaemmerer,
writing in the Berlin Jahrbuch, October 1897, describes the alphabet by the Master of
the Banderoles as “ eine genaue Kopie der kiinstlerisch weitaus hoher stehenden nieder-
landischen Holzschnittfolge.die in zwei Exemplaren in Basel und London
bekannt ist.” Professor Jaro Springer, in the text of the Chalcographical Society’s
publication for 1897 (which appeared in 1898), introduces his description of the
xylographic alphabet with the words: “ Another example of Gothic figure and animal
alphabets is engraved on wood. Two copies are in public collections, one in the Basle
Museum, on two uncut sheets, another, cut and incomplete, in the British Museum.”
Tlie latter publication contains an excellent facsimile of the Basle alphabet.
I will now comment on the two alphabets, letter by letter, with occasional remarks on
the later copies, in order to establish the two following propositions :—
1. The alphabet at London is the original, that at Basle a copy.
2. The alphabet engraved by the Master of the Banderoles, and the late woodcut
copy in the Bagford collection, are both based upon the London, not upon the Basle
alphabet.1
In what follows I shall call the London alphabet a, the Basle alphabet /S, the
engraved alphabet y, and the Bagford copies (treating the drawings and the woodcuts
as one) 5.
A. This is a fragment in a. The flower has a long narrow calyx, not a short, thick
one, as in /3. Tlie long form is copied by y and 5. The case hanging at the girdle of
the man 1. has four studs down the front in a, only three in y8. In y there appear to be
four, but they are indistinct; 8 omits them. The end of the rod 1. touches the outer
margin in a, but not in /3. With regard to the lost inscription, the evidence of 5
makes it probable that a originally liad two lines of writing below the men’s hands,
followed by the date mcccclxiiij. These two lines are represented in 13 by two straiglrt
lines, in y by two lines of illegible scribbling, in 8 by two straight lines. 0 and y also
preserve traces of writing between the hands, while 5 does not attempt to reproduce
these, but makes the hands touch.
B. In a the figures have more space than in /3. The upper figure to r. especially,
appears in /3 cramped under the frame, whereas in a he comes forward and has free play
outside it. In a both lower figures are clear of the lower margin,which they touch in 13.
13 omits several important fohis of the drapery, especially in the lower figure 1. In this
respect 8 follows a.
C. The horns of the lower grotesque liead in a touch the right inner margin, but not
the lower margin of tlie frame. In /3 this is reversed. The expression of the man’s face
and of the upper grotesque head is very superior in a.
D. The superiority of tlie two men’s heads in a is very markcd. The ornaments on
the horse’s trappings are more carefully drawn in a, and the hatching on the drapery is
more intelligent. The dress of tlie man to r. has a double hem in a (followed by y and
8), a single one in 13. Tlie lioof of the horse and tlie tail of the monster are quite clear
of the lower line in a, wliile they cross it in /S.
E. Tlie faces of the two men are again superior in a, and the action of the hand in
grasping tlie liorn is better drawn. The lower of tbe two men in a is looking away to
the 1. in the direction in which his head is turned (so also in y ancl 8); /S makes him
squint round to tlie r. Notice the sleeve of this man in a and £.
F. The face of tlie man blowing the trumpet is better drawn in a. $ omits liis ear,
y gives the ear badly drawn, wliile 8 liere follows a closely. The stooping mau has
smooth liair on the top of his head in a (followed by y and 8), d here gives him
1 As Professor Lehrs has observed (Repert. f. K. xxii, 378), a sufficient proof of this,
in the case of the Master of tlie Banderoles, is supplied by the identity of the arrange-
ment of the letters on the sheet.