DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28460#0627
Corrections ancl Additions.
567
en bois dont vous avez eu la bonte de m’envoyer une epreuve. Ce connoisseur
en estampes anciennes ne pense pas comme vous qu’elle est le produit de
l’artiste qui a grave le St. Bernard. Effectivement, en comparant ces
deux gravures ensemble, on voit evidemment que cette derniere est par
un graveur beaucoup plus habile.” A note written by Delmotte, notary
at Mons, in 1832, a copy of which, in Hill’s hand, accompanies the print,
says that forty copies of the facsimile were issued; they were numbered,
certified and signed by Hill. Six copies were coloured in imitation of tlxe
print itself. Yan Praet had a facsimile made of the St. Bernard at
Paris ; of this twenty-five copies were issued. Delmotte held the opinion
that both prints were by the same master, and wrote a tract, “Facsimile
du Saint-Bernardin de 1454 et de la premiere estampe gravee sur bois
avec nom de l’auteur.” Typographie de Hoyois-Derely, libraire, Mons,
1833 ; 4to, of which only five copies are said to have been printed.
P. 157, note, 1. 14, omit the words “supposed” and “in reality 1474."
The facsimile recently published by M. Boucliot (“ Les deux cents
incunables,” pl. 45, no. 86) proves that the earlier reading of the date is
correct. See p. 83, note 2, of M. Bouchot’s text.
P. 158, 1. 25, for “ 1474 (not 1454),” rectd “ 1454.”
P. 177, after Schr. 2334, adcl “ Another copy of B 7 [392x267], not
described by Schr., was included in Gutekunst’s auction no. 58, Stuttgart,
May 1903, lot 703, with a reproduction in collotype. The most obvious
difference is in the wood of the cross, which is veined, not dottecl. This
version is later than the two described by Schreiber, and fairly inde-
pendent. It was acquired by the Dresden Cabinet.”
P. 182, remarks on Schr. 2482, for “ original ” reacl “facsimile.”
P. 183, remarks on B 13, 1. 14, after “wood” add “ In his ‘ Pest-
blatter des xv. Jahrhunderts,’ Strassburg, 1901, Schreiber has correctly
described tbe St. Sebastian and the St. Roch in this series as ‘ Flamischer
Holzschnitt in Metallschnittmanier.’ ”
P. 185, at end of remarks on (6.) Schr. 2724, add “ Repr. in Schr.
‘ Pestblatter,’ Taf. 27.”
P. 186, at end of remarks on (7.) Schr. 2728, acld “ Repr. in Schr.
‘ Pestblatter,’ Taf. 10. The figure of the Saint is copied in reverse, with
modifications, from the St. Quirinus of the Master W 45 Lehrs 19’
‘ Pestblatter,’ Taf. 35.”
P. 200, remai’ks on B 30, aclcl “Repr. in Schr. ‘ Pestbliitter,’ Taf. 14.”
P. 224, 1. 15, for “ Weigendrucken ” read “ Wiegendrucken.”
P. 253, see p. 565, additional note on p. 28.
P. 266, after “ Doubtful Works” add “[LUCY, Saint, of Narni.]
Spiritualium personarum feminei sexus facta admiratioe digna. (Holzel,
Uuremberg, 1501.) 4to.” The frontispiece is probably by Diirer, to
whom I found it already attributed (in MS.) at Berlin. The same
woodcut occurs in the German edition, also in the library.
P. 266, after “Bridget,” etc., adcl “ [MARY], Der beschlossen gart des
rosenkrantz marie. Printed for Ulricli Pinder, Nuremberg, 1505; foJ.”
Two cuts illustrating the story of Juclith (part ii, fol. 42 r., 44 r.) may
be attributed to Diirer, the other two (fol. 52 v., 62 v.) to Plans von
Kulmbach (see p. 564). Repr. in Hirth’s “ Bilderbuch,” ii, 640, 641
(Diirer), 639, 642 (Kulmbach).
567
en bois dont vous avez eu la bonte de m’envoyer une epreuve. Ce connoisseur
en estampes anciennes ne pense pas comme vous qu’elle est le produit de
l’artiste qui a grave le St. Bernard. Effectivement, en comparant ces
deux gravures ensemble, on voit evidemment que cette derniere est par
un graveur beaucoup plus habile.” A note written by Delmotte, notary
at Mons, in 1832, a copy of which, in Hill’s hand, accompanies the print,
says that forty copies of the facsimile were issued; they were numbered,
certified and signed by Hill. Six copies were coloured in imitation of tlxe
print itself. Yan Praet had a facsimile made of the St. Bernard at
Paris ; of this twenty-five copies were issued. Delmotte held the opinion
that both prints were by the same master, and wrote a tract, “Facsimile
du Saint-Bernardin de 1454 et de la premiere estampe gravee sur bois
avec nom de l’auteur.” Typographie de Hoyois-Derely, libraire, Mons,
1833 ; 4to, of which only five copies are said to have been printed.
P. 157, note, 1. 14, omit the words “supposed” and “in reality 1474."
The facsimile recently published by M. Boucliot (“ Les deux cents
incunables,” pl. 45, no. 86) proves that the earlier reading of the date is
correct. See p. 83, note 2, of M. Bouchot’s text.
P. 158, 1. 25, for “ 1474 (not 1454),” rectd “ 1454.”
P. 177, after Schr. 2334, adcl “ Another copy of B 7 [392x267], not
described by Schr., was included in Gutekunst’s auction no. 58, Stuttgart,
May 1903, lot 703, with a reproduction in collotype. The most obvious
difference is in the wood of the cross, which is veined, not dottecl. This
version is later than the two described by Schreiber, and fairly inde-
pendent. It was acquired by the Dresden Cabinet.”
P. 182, remarks on Schr. 2482, for “ original ” reacl “facsimile.”
P. 183, remarks on B 13, 1. 14, after “wood” add “ In his ‘ Pest-
blatter des xv. Jahrhunderts,’ Strassburg, 1901, Schreiber has correctly
described tbe St. Sebastian and the St. Roch in this series as ‘ Flamischer
Holzschnitt in Metallschnittmanier.’ ”
P. 185, at end of remarks on (6.) Schr. 2724, add “ Repr. in Schr.
‘ Pestblatter,’ Taf. 27.”
P. 186, at end of remarks on (7.) Schr. 2728, acld “ Repr. in Schr.
‘ Pestblatter,’ Taf. 10. The figure of the Saint is copied in reverse, with
modifications, from the St. Quirinus of the Master W 45 Lehrs 19’
‘ Pestblatter,’ Taf. 35.”
P. 200, remai’ks on B 30, aclcl “Repr. in Schr. ‘ Pestbliitter,’ Taf. 14.”
P. 224, 1. 15, for “ Weigendrucken ” read “ Wiegendrucken.”
P. 253, see p. 565, additional note on p. 28.
P. 266, after “ Doubtful Works” add “[LUCY, Saint, of Narni.]
Spiritualium personarum feminei sexus facta admiratioe digna. (Holzel,
Uuremberg, 1501.) 4to.” The frontispiece is probably by Diirer, to
whom I found it already attributed (in MS.) at Berlin. The same
woodcut occurs in the German edition, also in the library.
P. 266, after “Bridget,” etc., adcl “ [MARY], Der beschlossen gart des
rosenkrantz marie. Printed for Ulricli Pinder, Nuremberg, 1505; foJ.”
Two cuts illustrating the story of Juclith (part ii, fol. 42 r., 44 r.) may
be attributed to Diirer, the other two (fol. 52 v., 62 v.) to Plans von
Kulmbach (see p. 564). Repr. in Hirth’s “ Bilderbuch,” ii, 640, 641
(Diirer), 639, 642 (Kulmbach).