DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0591
530
Early Gerrnan and Flemish Woodcuts.—Part II.
It is very difficult to determine precisely wliat share in these 'woodcuts is to be
attributed to Flotner, who only signed three of them.1 Different opinions have been
expressed by Eeimers (pp. 49-58, 103), Schmidt (Eepert. f. Eunstw. xvii, 366) and
Lange (pp. 24-27). Tlie latter rightly observes that a number of the snbjects appear
to have been drawn on the block, not by the artist himself, but by some one in the
employment of the wood-engraver, working from a sketch. Others, again, were re-cut
on a second blocb, and it appears that in several cases only the copy and not Flotner’s
original has survived. The subjects which can be attributed with some probability to
him are scantily represented in this collection ; the claim which they have to a place
among his works will be discussed in the remarks on each.
1. YOUNG MAN IiOLDING THE SIIAFT OF A LANCE IN HIS 1. IIAND.
B.-E. i, 10. Eeimers 11.
[287 X 168.] Late chiaroscuro impression from two blocks, as in Becker (B 67).
Purchased from Mr. Evans, 1849.
The Berlin impression, reproduced by Eeimers (fig. 37), is printed from three
bloeks, the last of which contains the initials P F near tlie 1. knee. This third block
was lost before the imprtssions from the Derschau blocks were taben.
With the exception of the head, this is a copy of no. 34 in David de Necker’s series.
Lange denies that Flotner was ever a copyist, and thiuks that D. de Necker, about
1590, made up an imperfect set of blocks to the number of fifty by copying some of the
subjects originally issued by Guldenmund and Meldemann. That seems to me
impossible; the cutting of the whole Augsburg series is uniform, and of Jost de
Nocker’s time, and could not have been imitated so skilfully at the close of the century.
la. A COPY OF TPIE SAME SUBJECT.
[257 X 166 (cut).] Old impression on coarse, brownish paper.
In the inventory of 1837.
Tlie difference most readily pointed out is that the sheath of the sword is all black,
not broken up by white lines as in the signed woodcut.
2, A MAN CAEEYING A HALBEET OYEE HIS r. SPIOULDEE.
Eeimers 12.
[285 x 170.] Late chiaroscuro impression from two blocks, as in Becker (B 67).
Purchased from Mr. Evans, 1849.
Here, as in the case of no. 1, the Berlin impression has Flutner’s signature, printed
from a lost block. The impression reproduced by B.-E. (i, 14), with the heading
“ Feldtwaybel” and the name “ Hanns Guldenmundt ” at the foot, is evidently from a
different block—here, again, the sheath of the sword should be observed—and should
probably be described as a copy by Guldenmund from Flotner.
The two subjects, nos. 1, 2, were copied in reverse by D. Hopfer (B. 65).
3. A MAN WITH A SWOED OVEE HIS r. SFIOULDEE AND A PEA-
COCK’S FEATFIEE IN HIS CAP. Eeimers 14.
[260 x 150.] Modern impression, as in Becker (B 6S), printed on the same sheet
with nos. 4 and 5.
Purchased from Mr. Evans, 1849.
This, again, is not from the same block as the impression reproduced by B.-E.
(i, 24), with the heading “ Doppelsoldner ” and the name “ IJans Guldenmundt ” at the
foot. The most obvious difference is tlaat the stocking on the r. leg has lines running
down it, w'hich are wanting in tlie Derschau block. Tke end of the sword and the 1.
hand have been cut oft' the block.
A reversed copy of this subject was etched by D. Hopfer on the same plate as his
copies of 1 and 2.
1 Breunner-Enkevoerth, i, 8, 10, 14. The first of these, eigned with the mallet and
chisel, is entitled “ Yeyt Pildhawer,” and it kas been tkought that Flotner intended
this landsknecht for himself, and that he may have used the opportunity of the
campaign of Ckarles V for a visit to Italy. That is merely an attractive conjecture.
B.-E. 10 and 14 are signed only in the chiaroscuro impressions at Berlin.
Early Gerrnan and Flemish Woodcuts.—Part II.
It is very difficult to determine precisely wliat share in these 'woodcuts is to be
attributed to Flotner, who only signed three of them.1 Different opinions have been
expressed by Eeimers (pp. 49-58, 103), Schmidt (Eepert. f. Eunstw. xvii, 366) and
Lange (pp. 24-27). Tlie latter rightly observes that a number of the snbjects appear
to have been drawn on the block, not by the artist himself, but by some one in the
employment of the wood-engraver, working from a sketch. Others, again, were re-cut
on a second blocb, and it appears that in several cases only the copy and not Flotner’s
original has survived. The subjects which can be attributed with some probability to
him are scantily represented in this collection ; the claim which they have to a place
among his works will be discussed in the remarks on each.
1. YOUNG MAN IiOLDING THE SIIAFT OF A LANCE IN HIS 1. IIAND.
B.-E. i, 10. Eeimers 11.
[287 X 168.] Late chiaroscuro impression from two blocks, as in Becker (B 67).
Purchased from Mr. Evans, 1849.
The Berlin impression, reproduced by Eeimers (fig. 37), is printed from three
bloeks, the last of which contains the initials P F near tlie 1. knee. This third block
was lost before the imprtssions from the Derschau blocks were taben.
With the exception of the head, this is a copy of no. 34 in David de Necker’s series.
Lange denies that Flotner was ever a copyist, and thiuks that D. de Necker, about
1590, made up an imperfect set of blocks to the number of fifty by copying some of the
subjects originally issued by Guldenmund and Meldemann. That seems to me
impossible; the cutting of the whole Augsburg series is uniform, and of Jost de
Nocker’s time, and could not have been imitated so skilfully at the close of the century.
la. A COPY OF TPIE SAME SUBJECT.
[257 X 166 (cut).] Old impression on coarse, brownish paper.
In the inventory of 1837.
Tlie difference most readily pointed out is that the sheath of the sword is all black,
not broken up by white lines as in the signed woodcut.
2, A MAN CAEEYING A HALBEET OYEE HIS r. SPIOULDEE.
Eeimers 12.
[285 x 170.] Late chiaroscuro impression from two blocks, as in Becker (B 67).
Purchased from Mr. Evans, 1849.
Here, as in the case of no. 1, the Berlin impression has Flutner’s signature, printed
from a lost block. The impression reproduced by B.-E. (i, 14), with the heading
“ Feldtwaybel” and the name “ Hanns Guldenmundt ” at the foot, is evidently from a
different block—here, again, the sheath of the sword should be observed—and should
probably be described as a copy by Guldenmund from Flotner.
The two subjects, nos. 1, 2, were copied in reverse by D. Hopfer (B. 65).
3. A MAN WITH A SWOED OVEE HIS r. SFIOULDEE AND A PEA-
COCK’S FEATFIEE IN HIS CAP. Eeimers 14.
[260 x 150.] Modern impression, as in Becker (B 6S), printed on the same sheet
with nos. 4 and 5.
Purchased from Mr. Evans, 1849.
This, again, is not from the same block as the impression reproduced by B.-E.
(i, 24), with the heading “ Doppelsoldner ” and the name “ IJans Guldenmundt ” at the
foot. The most obvious difference is tlaat the stocking on the r. leg has lines running
down it, w'hich are wanting in tlie Derschau block. Tke end of the sword and the 1.
hand have been cut oft' the block.
A reversed copy of this subject was etched by D. Hopfer on the same plate as his
copies of 1 and 2.
1 Breunner-Enkevoerth, i, 8, 10, 14. The first of these, eigned with the mallet and
chisel, is entitled “ Yeyt Pildhawer,” and it kas been tkought that Flotner intended
this landsknecht for himself, and that he may have used the opportunity of the
campaign of Ckarles V for a visit to Italy. That is merely an attractive conjecture.
B.-E. 10 and 14 are signed only in the chiaroscuro impressions at Berlin.