DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0183
158
Early Qerman and Flemish Woodcuts.—Part I.
Some
ecgravers
recognisable
by peculi-
arities of style.
Copies from
line-
engravings.
Date of tbe
dotted prints.
on our own print, Schr. 2218, are the only signatures in full to be
found on “ dotted prints.” To these must he added nos. vi, xii, xlix,
lxviii, cxxii, cxxv, cxxvii, cxxxiii, cxxxiv and cl, of the table of
monograms and marks in Schreiber’s Manuel, tome iii. Of these,
nos. vi, cxxxiii and cxxxiv are represented in the British Museum.
Further than this, Schreiber’s review of all known and accessible
examples of this style of engraving has enabled him, not only to
recognise long connected suites (see under nos. 2171, 2172, etc.),
but to ascribe certain groups of single prints, connected by some
peculiarity of design or technique, to one anonymous engraver. For
the author of one of these groups (no. 2304 and eleven others) he
proposes the name of “ le maitre au fond maille ”; for another
engraver who produced the prints described under no. 2623, he
suggests “le maitre au fond noir,” and so on. Further criticism
may perhaps in time succeed in constructing a certain number of
individualities by the traces of a distinct style, but their names can
never be known.
Many of the “ dotted prints ” are copied from line engravings.
For instances in this collection see Schr. 2315, 2319 (reproduction),
2376, 2435 (reproduction). For instances of woodcuts which are
copied from “ dotted prints ” see Schr. 405, 878 (reproduction), 1537.
As to date, the evidence tends to show that this style of engraving
was confined practically to the second half of the xv century. The
only specimen actually dated is the S. Bernardino at Paris, Schr.
2567, with the date 1474 (not 1454). Such external evidence as is
derived from the provenance of particular examples, which liave heen
found attached to the bindings of books, is not worth much. A print
may he pasted or stitched into a book any number of years after it is
bound, and there may have been a further interval between the
k autre chose. Toutefois on voit qu’il offre une epreuve a Duchesne aine et a de Bure.)
II ajoute en post-scriptum: 1 Le nom de Bernbardinus Milnet en bas du fac-simile
pourrait etre mieux copie', mais j’espere cependant que vous le trouverez assez lizible
(sic).’ Cette lettre est conservee avec l’estampe dans le vol. E. a. 3 Be'serve.”
In his second letter, after observing that some persons still regard the Paris print as
an original, M. Bouchot continues: “II suffit, pour se convaincre du contraire, de
remarquer: 1. Le papier, qui est surement fabrique' au xix* siecle, tout au plus a la fin
du xviii0. 2. Les coloris. Les coloris jaunes de ces pieces sont dans les originaux
ordinaires en gomme-gutte transparente. Les bleus sont verdatres et non comme dans
notre e'preuve en cobalt moderne. Nos jauues sont d’ocre. 3. L’or. Dans notre e'preuve
l’or du nimbe est uue poudre appliquee sur un fixatif. Les vieux doraient en feuilles et
passaient au brunissoir. Mais si vous voulez la preuve mate'rielle incontestable et
formelle que notre e'preuve est bien la copie envoye'e en 1820 par M. Hill, la voici :
Elle est exactement plie'e en 4 comme la lettre dans laquelle elle a dte envoye'e (‘ au risque
meme de la de'teriorer’).”
The facsimile published by Ottley differs from tliat made for Hill, and was probably
made in England direct from the original, but Ottley unfortunately omitted to give any
particulars about it. It does not appear that the original has been 6tudied by any
competent critic.
Early Qerman and Flemish Woodcuts.—Part I.
Some
ecgravers
recognisable
by peculi-
arities of style.
Copies from
line-
engravings.
Date of tbe
dotted prints.
on our own print, Schr. 2218, are the only signatures in full to be
found on “ dotted prints.” To these must he added nos. vi, xii, xlix,
lxviii, cxxii, cxxv, cxxvii, cxxxiii, cxxxiv and cl, of the table of
monograms and marks in Schreiber’s Manuel, tome iii. Of these,
nos. vi, cxxxiii and cxxxiv are represented in the British Museum.
Further than this, Schreiber’s review of all known and accessible
examples of this style of engraving has enabled him, not only to
recognise long connected suites (see under nos. 2171, 2172, etc.),
but to ascribe certain groups of single prints, connected by some
peculiarity of design or technique, to one anonymous engraver. For
the author of one of these groups (no. 2304 and eleven others) he
proposes the name of “ le maitre au fond maille ”; for another
engraver who produced the prints described under no. 2623, he
suggests “le maitre au fond noir,” and so on. Further criticism
may perhaps in time succeed in constructing a certain number of
individualities by the traces of a distinct style, but their names can
never be known.
Many of the “ dotted prints ” are copied from line engravings.
For instances in this collection see Schr. 2315, 2319 (reproduction),
2376, 2435 (reproduction). For instances of woodcuts which are
copied from “ dotted prints ” see Schr. 405, 878 (reproduction), 1537.
As to date, the evidence tends to show that this style of engraving
was confined practically to the second half of the xv century. The
only specimen actually dated is the S. Bernardino at Paris, Schr.
2567, with the date 1474 (not 1454). Such external evidence as is
derived from the provenance of particular examples, which liave heen
found attached to the bindings of books, is not worth much. A print
may he pasted or stitched into a book any number of years after it is
bound, and there may have been a further interval between the
k autre chose. Toutefois on voit qu’il offre une epreuve a Duchesne aine et a de Bure.)
II ajoute en post-scriptum: 1 Le nom de Bernbardinus Milnet en bas du fac-simile
pourrait etre mieux copie', mais j’espere cependant que vous le trouverez assez lizible
(sic).’ Cette lettre est conservee avec l’estampe dans le vol. E. a. 3 Be'serve.”
In his second letter, after observing that some persons still regard the Paris print as
an original, M. Bouchot continues: “II suffit, pour se convaincre du contraire, de
remarquer: 1. Le papier, qui est surement fabrique' au xix* siecle, tout au plus a la fin
du xviii0. 2. Les coloris. Les coloris jaunes de ces pieces sont dans les originaux
ordinaires en gomme-gutte transparente. Les bleus sont verdatres et non comme dans
notre e'preuve en cobalt moderne. Nos jauues sont d’ocre. 3. L’or. Dans notre e'preuve
l’or du nimbe est uue poudre appliquee sur un fixatif. Les vieux doraient en feuilles et
passaient au brunissoir. Mais si vous voulez la preuve mate'rielle incontestable et
formelle que notre e'preuve est bien la copie envoye'e en 1820 par M. Hill, la voici :
Elle est exactement plie'e en 4 comme la lettre dans laquelle elle a dte envoye'e (‘ au risque
meme de la de'teriorer’).”
The facsimile published by Ottley differs from tliat made for Hill, and was probably
made in England direct from the original, but Ottley unfortunately omitted to give any
particulars about it. It does not appear that the original has been 6tudied by any
competent critic.