DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0278
School of Nuremherg. XV Gentury.
247
As lias been mentioned already, an attempt has been made by Prof'.
Henry Thode to separate the work of Pleydenwurff from that of Wolgemut
(see op. cit., pp. 154-5, for a list of the principal cuts which he gives to
the former). The writer, animated by a strong bias against Wolgemut,
has exalted Pleydenwurft' to a much more lofty rank than the few extant
notic-es of his work can justify—he makes him, among other things, the
true master of Diirer 1—and in criticising the Chronicle ill ustrations he
has done little more than pick out all the best woodcuts ancl call them
PleydenwurfFs work, Later writers, MM. Ephrussi and v. Loga, have
had little difficulty in disposing of such evidence as he adduces, There is
just as little ground, on the other hand, for holding the view that Wolge-
mut was the designer, while Pleydenwurff merely cut the blocks, since
both alike are spoken of as painters,
M. Ephrussi’s study of the Chronicle contains a very good analysis
of the text ancl a popular description of the illustrations. A detailed
criticism of one important class of the latter, the views of towns, is to be
found in Dr, Y. von Loga’s earlier article, while the later essay contains
a list (iJahrhuch, xvi, 227-8) of the cuts which have been recognised as
copies from Schongauer, the master
, the master F. Y. B., the
woodcuts in several earlier books (esjDecially Breydenbach), ancl in one
case a medal by Yittore Pisano. The decoration at the top of the
frontispiece—children climbing among foliage—was probably suggested
by the frontispiece of Breydenbach’s Travels. Of the cuts representing
towns, a large number are merely conventional, and are used repeatedly
with different names. The following have a better claim to be authentic
views : Augsburg, Bamberg, Basle, Breslau, Bucla, Cologne, Constanti-
nople, Constance, Cracow, Eichstiidt, Erfurt, Florence, Genoa, Jerusalem,
Lubeck, Munich, Neisse, Yuremberg, Passau, Prague, Ratisbon, PJiodes,
Rome, Salzbui’g, Strassburg, Ulm, Yenice, Yienna, Wtirzburg. No
earlier views of any of the German towns are known from which these
cuts could have been copied, and it seems, therefore, that sketches were
obtained expressly for this book, since Koberger had agents in all the
leacling towns. For the foreign towns existing woodcuts and engravings
were used as far as possible; where these failed invention suppliecl the
want. The other cuts comprise scenes from biblical ancl secular history,
pictures of saints, portraits (imaginary), pi-ocligies and monstrosities.
There was not as yet sufficient interest in natural history for pictures of
animals, birds ancl plants, or phenomena of a normal kind, to be intro-
duced, as they were so largely in some of the later Chronicles, especially
in Sebastian Mtinster’s Cosmographia. The majority of the smaE half-
length figures are rucle, inartistic cuts, which were usecl again and again
in the course of the book under different names.
} Prof. Thode still adheres to this opinion. See Bepertornm. xxii (1899), p. 369,
247
As lias been mentioned already, an attempt has been made by Prof'.
Henry Thode to separate the work of Pleydenwurff from that of Wolgemut
(see op. cit., pp. 154-5, for a list of the principal cuts which he gives to
the former). The writer, animated by a strong bias against Wolgemut,
has exalted Pleydenwurft' to a much more lofty rank than the few extant
notic-es of his work can justify—he makes him, among other things, the
true master of Diirer 1—and in criticising the Chronicle ill ustrations he
has done little more than pick out all the best woodcuts ancl call them
PleydenwurfFs work, Later writers, MM. Ephrussi and v. Loga, have
had little difficulty in disposing of such evidence as he adduces, There is
just as little ground, on the other hand, for holding the view that Wolge-
mut was the designer, while Pleydenwurff merely cut the blocks, since
both alike are spoken of as painters,
M. Ephrussi’s study of the Chronicle contains a very good analysis
of the text ancl a popular description of the illustrations. A detailed
criticism of one important class of the latter, the views of towns, is to be
found in Dr, Y. von Loga’s earlier article, while the later essay contains
a list (iJahrhuch, xvi, 227-8) of the cuts which have been recognised as
copies from Schongauer, the master
, the master F. Y. B., the
woodcuts in several earlier books (esjDecially Breydenbach), ancl in one
case a medal by Yittore Pisano. The decoration at the top of the
frontispiece—children climbing among foliage—was probably suggested
by the frontispiece of Breydenbach’s Travels. Of the cuts representing
towns, a large number are merely conventional, and are used repeatedly
with different names. The following have a better claim to be authentic
views : Augsburg, Bamberg, Basle, Breslau, Bucla, Cologne, Constanti-
nople, Constance, Cracow, Eichstiidt, Erfurt, Florence, Genoa, Jerusalem,
Lubeck, Munich, Neisse, Yuremberg, Passau, Prague, Ratisbon, PJiodes,
Rome, Salzbui’g, Strassburg, Ulm, Yenice, Yienna, Wtirzburg. No
earlier views of any of the German towns are known from which these
cuts could have been copied, and it seems, therefore, that sketches were
obtained expressly for this book, since Koberger had agents in all the
leacling towns. For the foreign towns existing woodcuts and engravings
were used as far as possible; where these failed invention suppliecl the
want. The other cuts comprise scenes from biblical ancl secular history,
pictures of saints, portraits (imaginary), pi-ocligies and monstrosities.
There was not as yet sufficient interest in natural history for pictures of
animals, birds ancl plants, or phenomena of a normal kind, to be intro-
duced, as they were so largely in some of the later Chronicles, especially
in Sebastian Mtinster’s Cosmographia. The majority of the smaE half-
length figures are rucle, inartistic cuts, which were usecl again and again
in the course of the book under different names.
} Prof. Thode still adheres to this opinion. See Bepertornm. xxii (1899), p. 369,