Chapter V (4)

The original drawings for the Triumphal Procession,--or as the work is usually called, the Triumphs of Maximilian,--are preserved in the Imperial Library at Vienna. They are painted in water colours, on a hundred and nine sheets of vellum, each thirty-four inches long by twenty inches high, and containing two of the engraved subjects. Dr. Dibdin, who saw the drawings in 1818, says that they are rather gaudily executed, and that he prefers the engravings to the original paintings.[V-70] Whether those paintings are the work of Hans Burgmair, or not, appears to be uncertain. From the following extract from the preface to the Triumphs of Maximilian, published in 1796, it is evident that the writer did not think that the original drawings were executed by that artist. “The engravings of this Triumph, far from being servile copies of the paintings in miniature, differ from them entirely, so far as regards the manner in which they are designed. Most all the groups have a different form, and almost every figure a different attitude; _consequently Hans Burgmair appears in his work in the character of author [original designer], and so much the more, as he has in many points surpassed his model_. But whatever may be the difference between the engravings and the drawings on vellum, the subjects still so far correspond that they may be recognised without the least difficulty. It is, however, necessary to except eighteen of the engravings, in which this correspondence would be sought for in vain. Those engravings are, the twelve from No. 89 to 100, and the six from 130 to 135.” As the cuts appear to have been intentionally wrong numbered, it is not easy to determine from this reference which are actually the first twelve alluded to, for in most of the copies which I have seen, the numerals 91, 92, and 93 occur twice,--though the subjects of the cuts are different. In the copy now before me, I have to observe that there are _sixteen_[V-71] cuts designed in a style so different from those which contain Burgmair’s mark, that I am convinced they have not been drawn by that artist. Without enquiring whether the subjects are to be found in the paintings or not, I am satisfied that a considerable number of the engravings, besides those sixteen, were not drawn on the wood by Hans Burgmair. Both Breitkopf and Von Murr[V-72] have asserted that the drawings for the Triumphs of Maximilian were made by Albert Durer, but they do not say whether they mean the drawings on vellum, or the drawings on the blocks. This assertion is, however, made without any authority; and, whether they meant the drawings on vellum or the drawings on the block, it is unquestionably incorrect. The drawings on vellum are not by Durer, and of the whole hundred and thirty-five cuts there are not more than five or six that can be supposed with any degree of probability to have been of his designing.

[Footnote V-70: Bibliographical Tour, vol iii. p. 330.]

[Footnote V-71: The subjects of those sixteen cuts are chiefly the
statues of the emperor’s ancestors, with representations of
himself, and of his family alliances. Several of the carriages are
propelled by mechanical contrivances, which for laborious
ingenuity may vie with the machine for uncorking bottles in one of
the subjects of Hogarth’s Marriage à la Mode. In the copy before
me those engravings are numbered 89, 90, 91, 91, 92, 92, 93, 93,
94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103.]

[Footnote V-72: Breitkopf, Ueber Bibliographie und Bibliophile,
S. 4. Leipzig, 1793. Von Murr, Journal, 9er Theil, S. 1. At page
255 I have said: “Though I have not been able to ascertain
satisfactorily the subject of Durer’s painting in the Town-hall of
Nuremberg, I am inclined to think that it is the Triumphal _Car_
of Maximilian.” Since the sheet containing the above passage was
printed off I have ascertained that the subject _is_ the Triumphal
Car; and that it is described in Von Murr’s Nürnbergischen
Merkwürdigkeiten, S. 395.]

Forty of the blocks from which the Triumphs of Maximilian are printed were obtained from Ambras in the Tyrol, where they had probably been preserved since the time of the emperor’s death; and the other ninety-five were discovered in the Jesuits’ College at Gratz in Stiria. The whole were brought to Vienna and deposited in the Imperial Library in 1779. A few proofs had probably been taken when the blocks were engraved; there are ninety of those old impressions in the Imperial Library; Monsieur Mariette had ninety-seven; and Sandrart had seen a hundred. The latter, in speaking of those impressions, expresses a suspicion of the original blocks having been destroyed in a fire at Augsburg; their subsequent discovery, however, at Ambras and Gratz, shows that his suspicion was not well founded. On the discovery of those blocks it was supposed that the remainder of the series, as described in the manuscript, might also be still in existence; but after a diligent search no more have been found. It is indeed highly probable that the further progress of the work had been interrupted by Maximilian’s death, and that if any more of the series were finished, the number must have been few. About 1775, a few impressions were taken from the blocks preserved at Ambras, and also from those at Gratz; but no collection of the whole accompanied with text was ever printed until 1796, when an edition in large folio was printed at Vienna by permission of the Austrian government, and with the name of J. Edwards, then a bookseller in Pall-Mall, on the title-page, as the London publisher. It is much to be regretted that greater pains were not taken to afford the reader every information that could be obtained with respect to the cuts; and it says very little for the English publisher’s patriotism that the translation of the original German descriptions should be in French;--but perhaps there might be a reason for this, for, where no precise meaning is to be conveyed, French is certainly much better than English. From the fact of several of the subjects not being contained in the original drawings, and from the great difference in the style of many of the cuts, it is by no means certain that they were all intended for the same work. There can, however, be little doubt of their all having been designed for a triumphal procession intended to celebrate the fame of Maximilian.

The original blocks, now preserved in the Imperial Library at Vienna, are all of pear-tree, and several of them are partially worm-eaten. At the back of those blocks are written or engraved seventeen names and initials, which are supposed, with great probability, to be those of the engravers by whom they were executed. At the back of No. 18, which represents five musicians in a car, there is written, “Der kert an die Elland,--hat _Wilhelm geschnitten_:” that is, “This follows the Elks.--Engraved by William.” In the preceding cut, No. 17, are the two elks which draw the car, and on one of the traces is Hans Burgmair’s mark. At the back of No. 20 is written, “_Jobst putavit, 14 Aprilis 1517. Die gehert an die bifel, und die bifel halt Jos geschnitten._”[V-73] This inscription Mr. Ottley, at page 756, volume ii. of his Inquiry, expounds as follows: “Josse putavit (perhaps for _punctavit_), the 14th of April, 1517. This block joins to that which represents the Buffaloes.” This translation is substantially correct; but it is exceedingly doubtful if _putavit_ was written in mistake for _punctavit_. The proposed substitution indeed seems very like explaining an _ignotum per ignotius_. The verb _punctare_ is never, that I am aware of, used by any writer, either classical or modern, to express the idea of engraving on wood. A German, however, who was but imperfectly acquainted with Latin, would not be unlikely to translate the German verb _schneiden_, which signifies _to cut_ generally, by the Latin _putare_, which is specially applied to the lopping or pruning of trees. I have heard it conjectured that _putavit_ might have been used in the sense of _imaginavit_, as if Jobst were the designer; but there can be little doubt of its being here intended to express the cutting of the wood-engraver; for Burgmair’s mark is to be found both on this cut and on the preceding one of the two buffaloes, No. 19; and it cannot for a moment be supposed that he was a mere workman employed to execute the designs of another person. Were such a supposition granted, it would follow that the wood-engraver of that period--at least so far as regards the work in question--was considered as a much superior person to him who drew the designs; that the _workman_, in fact, was to be commemorated, but the _artist_ forgotten; a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to fact, for so little were the mere wood-engravers of that period esteemed, that we only incidentally become acquainted with their names; and from their not putting their marks or initials to the cuts which they engraved has arisen the popular error that Durer, Cranach, Burgmair, and others, who are known to have been painters of great repute in their day, were wood-engravers and executed themselves the wood-cuts which bear their marks.

[Footnote V-73: _Jobst_ and _Jos_, in this inscription, are
probably intended for the name of the same person. For the name
Jobst, Jost, Josse, or Jos--for it is thus variously spelled--we
have no equivalent in English. It is not unusual in Germany as a
baptismal name--it can scarcely be called _Christian_--and is
Latinized, I believe, under the more lengthy form of _Jodocus_.]

The following are the names and initial letters at the back of the blocks. 1. Jerome André, called also Jerome Resch, or Rösch, the engraver of the Triumphal Arch designed by Albert Durer. 2. Jan de Bonn. 3. Cornelius. 4. Hans Frank. 5. Saint German. 6. Wilhelm. 7. Corneille Liefrink. 8. Wilhelm Liefrink. 9. Alexis Lindt. 10. Josse de Negker. On several of the blocks Negker is styled, “engraver on wood, at Augsburg.” 11. Vincent Pfarkecher. 12. Jaques Rupp. 13. Hans Schaufflein. 14. Jan Taberith. 15. F. P. 16. H. F. 17. W. R. It is not unlikely that “Cornelius,” No. 3, may be the same as Corneille Liefrink, No. 7; and that “Wilhelm,” No. 6, and Wilhelm Liefrink, No. 8, may also be the same person. At the back of the block which corresponds with the description numbered 120, Hans Schaufflein’s name is found coupled with that of Cornelius Liefrink; and at the back of the cut which corresponds with the description numbered 121 Schaufflein’s name occurs alone.[V-74] The occurrence of Schaufflein’s name at the back of the cuts would certainly seem to indicate that he was one of the engravers; but his name also appearing at the back of that described under No. 120, in conjunction with the name of Cornelius Liefrink, who was certainly a wood-engraver,[V-75] makes me inclined to suppose that he might only have made the drawing on the block and not have engraved the cut; and this supposition seems to be partly confirmed by the fact that the cuts which are numbered 104, 105, and 106, corresponding with the descriptions Nos. 119, 120, and 121, have not Hans Burgmair’s mark, and are much more like the undoubted designs of Hans Schaufflein than those of that artist. That the cuts published under the title of the Triumphs of Maximilian were not all drawn on the block by the same person will, I think, appear probable to any one who even cursorily examines them; and whoever carefully compares them can scarcely have a doubt on the subject.

[Footnote V-74: The printed numbers on those two cuts are 105 and
106, though the descriptions are numbered 120 and 121 in the text.
The subjects are, No. 105, two ranks, of five men each, on foot,
carrying long lances; and No. 106, two ranks, of five men each, on
foot, carrying large two-handed swords on their
shoulders.--Perhaps it may not be out of place to correct here the
following passage which occurs at page 285 of this volume:
“Bartsch, however, observes, that ‘what Strutt has said about
there being two persons of this name [Hans Schaufflein], an elder
and a younger, seems to be a mere conjecture.’” Since the sheet
containing this passage was printed off, I have learnt from a
paper, in Meusel’s Neue Miscellaneen, 5tes. Stück, S. 210, that
Hans Schäufflein had a son of the same name who was also a
painter, and that the elder Schäufflein died at Nordlingen, in
1539. At page 281, his death, on the authority of Bartsch, is
erroneously placed in 1550.]

[Footnote V-75: The name of Cornelius Liefrink occurs at the back
of some of the wood-cuts representing the saints of the family of
Maximilian, designed by Burgmair, mentioned at page 278, note.]

Almost every one of the cuts that contains Burgmair’s mark, in the Triumphal Procession, is designed with great spirit, and has evidently been drawn by an artist who had a thorough command of his pencil. His horses are generally strong and heavy, and the men on their backs of a stout and muscular form. The action of the horses seems natural; and the indications of the joints and the drawing of the hoofs--which are mostly low and broad--evidently show that the artist had paid some attention to the structure of the animal. There are, however, a considerable number of cuts where both men and horses appear remarkable for their leanness; and in which the hoofs of the horses are most incorrectly drawn, and the action of the animals represented in a manner which is by no means natural. Though it is not unlikely that Hans Burgmair was capable of drawing both a stout, heavy horse, and a long-backed, thin-quartered, lean one, I cannot persuade myself that he would, in almost every instance, draw the hoofs and legs of the one correctly, and those of the other with great inaccuracy. The cut on the opposite page and the five next following, of single figures, copied on a reduced scale from the Triumphs, will exemplify the preceding observations. The numbers are those printed on the cuts, and they all, except one, appear to correspond with the French descriptions in the text. The preceding cut is from that marked No. 15. The mark of Hans Burgmair is on the ornamental breast-plate, as an English saddler would call it, that passes across the horse’s chest. This figure, in the original cut, carries a tablet suspended from a staff, of which the lower part only is perceived in the copy, as it has not been thought necessary to give the tablet and a large scroll which were intended to contain inscriptions.[V-76] The description of the subject is to the following effect: “After the chase, comes a figure on horseback, bearing a tablet, on which shall be written the five charges of the court,--that is, of the butler, the cook, the barber, the tailor, and the shoemaker; and Eberbach shall be the under-marshal of the household, and carry the tablet.”

[Footnote V-76: In all the blocks, the tablets and scrolls, and
the upper part of banners intended to receive verses and
inscriptions, were left unengraved. In order that the appearance
of the cuts might not be injured, the black ground, intended for
the letters, was cut away in most of the tablets and scrolls, in
the edition of 1796.]

The cut on page 295 is a reduced copy of a figure, the last, in No. 65, which is without Burgmair’s mark. In the original the horseman bears a banner, having on it the arms of the state or city which he represents; and at the top of the banner a black space whereon a name or motto ought to have been engraved. The original cut contains three figures; and, if the description can be relied on, the banners which they bear are those of Fribourg, Bregentz, and Saulgau. The other two horsemen and their steeds in No. 65 are still more unlike those in the cuts which contain Burgmair’s mark.

The above cut is a reduced copy of a figure on horseback in No. 33. Burgmair’s mark, an H and a B, may be perceived on the trappings of the horse. This figure, in the original, bears a large tablet, and he is followed by five men on foot carrying flails, the _swingels_[V-77] of which are of leather. The description of the cut,--which forms the first of seven representing the dresses and arms of combatants on foot,--is as follows: “Then shall come a person mounted and properly habited like a master of arms, and he shall carry the tablet containing the rhyme. Item, Hans Hollywars shall be the master of arms, and his rhyme shall be this effect: that he has professed the noble practice of arms at the court, according to the method devised by the emperor.”[V-78]

[Footnote V-77: That part of the flail which comes in contact with
the corn is, in the North of England, termed a _swingel_.]

[Footnote V-78: The substance of almost every rhyme and
inscription is, that the person who bears the rhyme-tablet or
scroll has derived great improvement in his art or profession from
the instructions or suggestions of the emperor. Huntsmen,
falconers, trumpeters, organists, fencing-masters, ballet-masters,
tourniers, and jousters, all acknowledge their obligations in this
respect to Maximilian. For the wit and humour of the jesters and
the natural fools, the emperor, with great forbearance, takes to
himself no credit; and Anthony von Dornstett, the leader of the
drummers and fifers, is one of the few whose art he has not
improved.]

The following is a reduced copy of a figure in the cut erroneously numbered 83, but which corresponds with the description that refers to 84. This figure is the last of the three, who, in the original, are represented bearing banners containing the arms of Malines, Salins and Antwerp.

The following figure, who is given with his rhyme-tablet in full, is copied from the cut numbered 27. This jovial-looking personage, as we learn from the description, is the Will Somers of Maximilian’s court, and he figures as the leader of the professed jesters and the natural fools, who appear in all ages to have been the subjects of “pleasant mirth.” The instructions to the painter are as follows: “Then shall come one on horseback habited like a jester, and carrying a rhyme-tablet for the jesters and natural fools; and he shall be Conrad von der Rosen.” The fool’s cap with the bell at the peak, denoting his profession, is perceived hanging on his left shoulder; and on the breast-plate, crossing the chest of the horse, is Burgmair’s mark.

The figure on page 299 of a horseman, bearing the banner of Burgundy, is from the cut numbered 74. The drawing both of rider and horse is extremely unlike the style of Burgmair as displayed in those cuts which contain his mark. Burgmair’s men are generally stout, and their attitudes free; and they all appear to sit well on horseback. The present lean, lanky figure, who rides a horse that seems admirably suited to him, cannot have been designed by Burgmair, unless he was accustomed to design in two styles which were the very opposites of each other; the one distinguished by the freedom and the boldness of the drawing, the stoutness of the men, and the bulky form of the horses introduced; and the other remarkable for laboured and stiff drawing, gaunt and meagre men, and leggy, starved-like cattle. The whole of the cuts from No. 57 to No. 88, inclusive,--representing, except three,[V-79] men on horseback bearing the banners of the kingdoms and states either possessed or claimed by the emperor,--are designed in the latter style. Not only are the men and horses represented according to a different standard, but even the very ground is indicated in a different manner; it seems to abound in fragments of stones almost like a Macadamized road after a shower of rain. There is indeed no lack of stones on Burgmair’s ground, but they appear more like rounded pebbles, and are not scattered about with so liberal a hand as in the cuts alluded to. In not one of those cuts which are so unlike Burgmair’s is the mark of that artist to be found; and their general appearance is so unlike that of the cuts undoubtedly designed by him, that any person in the least acquainted with works of art will, even on a cursory examination, perceive the strongly marked difference.

[Footnote V-79: Those three are the numbers 77, 78, 79,
representing musicians on horseback. The same person who drew the
standard-bearers has evidently drawn those three cuts also.]

The following cut is a reduced copy of that numbered 57; and which is the first of those representing horsemen bearing the banners of the several kingdoms, states, and cities subject to the house of Austria or to which Maximilian laid claim. It is one of the most gorgeous of the series; but, from the manner in which the horses and their riders are represented, I feel convinced that it has not been drawn by Burgmair. The subject is thus described in the emperor’s directions prefixed to the volume: “One on horseback bearing the banner of the arms of Austria; another on horseback bearing the old Austrian arms; another also on horseback bearing the arms of Stiria.” On the parts which are left black in the banners it had been intended to insert inscriptions. The instructions to the painter for this part of the procession are to the following effect: “One on horseback bearing on a lance a rhyme-tablet. Then the arms of the hereditary dominions of the house of Austria on banners, with their shields, helms, and crests, borne by horsemen; and the banners of those countries in which the emperor has carried on war shall be borne by riders in armour; and the painter shall vary the armour according to the old manner. The banners of those countries in which the emperor has not carried on war shall be borne by horsemen without armour, but all splendidly clothed, each according to the costume of the country he represents. Every one shall wear a laurel wreath.”

The cut on the next page is copied from that numbered 107, but which accords with the description of No. 122. The subject is described by the emperor as follows: “Then shall come riding a man of Calicut, naked, except his loins covered with a girdle, bearing a rhyme-tablet, on which shall be inscribed these words, ‘These people are the subjects of the famous crowns and houses heretofore named.’” In this cut the mark of Burgmair is perceived on the harness on the breast of the elephant. There are two other cuts of Indians belonging to the same part of the procession, each of which also contains Burgmair’s mark.

The cuts which were to follow the Indians and close the procession were the baggage-waggons and camp-followers of the army. Of those there are five cuts in the work published in 1796, and it is evident that some are wanting, for the two which may be considered as the first and last of those five, respectively require a preceding and a following cut to render them complete; and there are also one or two cuts wanting to complete the intermediate subjects. Those cuts are referred to in the French description under Nos. 125 to 129, but they are numbered 129, 128, 110, 111, 125. The last three, as parts of a large subject, follow each other as the numbers are here placed; and though the right side of No. 110 accords with the left of No. 128, inasmuch as they each contain the half of a tree which appears complete when they are joined together, yet there are no horses in No. 128 to draw the waggon which is seen in No. 110. The order of Nos. 110, 111, and 125, is easily ascertained; a horse at the left of No. 110 wants a tail which is to be found in No. 111; and the outline of a mountain in the left of No. 111 is continued in the right of No. 125. From the back-grounds, trees, and figures in those cuts I am very much inclined to think that they have been engraved from designs by Albert Durer, if he did not actually draw them on the block himself. There is no mark to be found on any of them; and they are extremely unlike any cuts which are undoubtedly of Burgmair’s designing, and they are decidedly superior to any that are usually ascribed to Hans Schaufflein. The following, which is a reduced copy of that numbered 110, will perhaps afford some idea of those cuts, and enable persons who are acquainted with Durer’s works to judge for themselves with respect to the probability of their having been engraved from his designs. One or two of the other four contain still more striking resemblances of Durer’s style.

Besides the twelve cuts which, in the French preface to the Triumphal Procession of Maximilian, are said not to correspond with the original drawings, there are also six others which the editor says are not to be found in the original designs, and which he considers to have been additions made to the work while it was in the course of engraving. Those six cuts are described in an appendix, where their numbers are said to be from 130 to 135. In No. 130 the principal figures are a king and queen, on horseback, supposed to be intended for Philip the Fair, son of the Emperor Maximilian, and his wife Joanna of Castile. This cut is very indifferently executed, and has evidently been designed by the artist who made the drawings for the questionable cuts containing the complicated locomotive carriages, mentioned at page 290. No. 131, a princess on horseback, accompanied by two female attendants also on horseback, and guards on foot, has evidently been designed by the same artist as No. 130. These two, I am inclined to think, belong to some other work. Nos. 132, 133, and 134, are from the designs of Hans Burgmair, whose mark is to be found on each; and there can be little doubt of their having been intended for Maximilian’s Triumphal Procession. They form one continuous subject, which represents twelve men, habited in various costume, leading the same number of horses splendidly caparisoned. A figure on horseback bearing a rhyme-tablet leads this part of the procession; and above the horses are large scrolls probably intended to contain their names, with those of the countries to which they belong. The cut on the opposite page is a reduced copy of the last, numbered 135, which is thus described in the appendix: “The fore part of a triumphal car, drawn by four horses yoked abreast, and managed by a winged female figure who holds in her left hand a wreath of laurel.” There is no mark on the original cut; but from the manner in which the horses are drawn it seems like one of Burgmair’s designing.

That the cuts of the Triumphal Procession of Maximilian were engraved by different persons is certain from the names at their backs; and I think the difference that is to be perceived in the style of drawing renders it in the highest degree probable that the subjects were designed, or at least drawn on the wood, by different artists. I am inclined to think that Burgmair drew very few besides those that contain his mark; the cuts of the banner-bearers I am persuaded are not of his drawing; a third artist, of inferior talent, seems to have made the drawings of the fanciful cars containing the emperor and his family; and the five cuts of the baggage-waggons and camp followers, appear, as I have already said, extremely like the designs of Albert Durer. The best engraved cuts are to be found among those which contain Burgmair’s mark. Some of the banner-bearers are also very ably executed, though not in so free or bold a manner; which I conceive to be owing to the more laboured style in which the subject has been drawn on the block. The mechanical subjects, with their accompanying figures, are the worst engraved as well as the worst drawn of the whole. The five cuts which I suppose to have been designed by Albert Durer are engraved with great spirit, but not so well as the best of those which contain the mark of Burgmair.

Though there are still in existence upwards of a hundred of the original blocks designed by Albert Durer, and upwards of three hundred designed by the most eminent of his contemporaries, yet a person who professes to be an instructor of the public on subjects of art made the following statement before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Arts and their Connexion with Manufactures, appointed in 1835. He is asked, “Do you consider that the progress of the arts in this country is impeded by the want of protection for new inventions of importance?” and he proceeds to enlighten the committee as follows. “Very much impeded. Inventions connected with the arts of design, of new instruments, or new processes, for example, are, from the ease with which they can be pirated, more difficult of protection than any other inventions whatever. Such protection as the existing laws afford is quite inadequate. I cannot better illustrate my meaning, than by mentioning the case of _engraving in metallic relief_, an art which is supposed to have existed three or four centuries ago; and the re-discovery of which has long been a desideratum among artists. Albert Durer, who was both a painter and engraver, _certainly possessed this art_, that is to say, the art of transferring his designs, after they had been sketched on paper, _immediately into metallic relief_, so that they might be printed along with letter-press. At present, the only sort of engravings you can print along with letter-press are wood engravings, or stereotype casts from wood engravings; and then those engravings are but copies, and often very rude copies, of their originals; while, in the case of Albert Durer, it is QUITE CLEAR _that it was his own identical designs that were transferred into the metallic relief_. Wood engravings, too, are limited in point of size, _because they can only be executed on box-wood_, the width of which is very small; in fact, we have no wood engravings on a single block of a larger size than octavo: when the engraving is larger, two or three blocks are joined together; but this is attended with so much difficulty and inconvenience, that it is seldom done. From the specimens of _metallic relief engraving_, left us by Albert Durer, there is every reason to infer that he was under no such limitation; that he could produce plates of any size.”[V-80] This statement abounds in errors, and may justify a suspicion that the person who made it had never seen the cuts designed by Albert Durer which he pretends were executed in “metallic relief.” At the commencement he says that the art of engraving in metallic relief is _supposed_ to have existed three or four centuries ago; and immediately afterwards he asserts that Albert Durer “certainly possessed this art;” as if by his mere word he could convert a groundless fiction into a positive fact. When he made this confident assertion he seems not to have been aware that many of the original pear-tree blocks of the cuts pretendedly executed in metallic relief are still in existence; and when, speaking of the difficulty of getting blocks of a larger size than an octavo, he says, “From the specimens of metallic relief engraving, left us by Albert Durer, there is every reason to infer that he was under no such limitation,--that he could produce plates of any size,” he affords a positive proof that he knows nothing of the subject on which he has spoken so confidently. Had he ever examined the large cuts engraved from Durer’s designs, he would have seen, in several, undeniable marks of the junction of the blocks, proving directly the reverse of what he asserts on this point. What he says with respect to the modern practice of the art is as incorrect as his assertions about Albert Durer’s engraving in metallic relief. Though it is true that there are few modern engravings on box-wood of a larger size than octavo, it is not true that the forming of a large block of two or more pieces is attended with much difficulty, and is seldom done. The making of such blocks is now a regular trade; they are formed without the least difficulty, and hundreds of cuts on such blocks are engraved in London every year.[V-81] When he says that wood engravings “can only be made on box-wood,” he gives another proof of his ignorance of the subject. Most of the earlier wood engravings were executed on blocks of pear-tree or crab; and even at the present time box-wood is seldom used for the large cuts on posting-bills. In short, every statement that this person has made on the subject of wood and pretended metallic relief engraving is incorrect; and it is rather surprising that none of the members of the committee should have exposed his ignorance. When such persons put themselves forward as the instructors of mechanics on the subject of art, it cannot be a matter of surprise that in the arts as applied to manufactures we should be inferior to our continental neighbours.

[Footnote V-80: Minutes of Evidence before the Select Committee on
Arts and Manufactures, p. 130. Ordered to be printed, 16th August
1836.]

[Footnote V-81: Among the principal modern wood-cuts engraved on
blocks consisting of several pieces the following may be
mentioned: The Chillingham Bull, by Thomas Bewick, 1789; A view of
St. Nicholas’ Church, Newcastle-on-Tyne, by Charlton Nesbit, from
a drawing by R. Johnson, 1798; The Diploma of the Highland
Society, by Luke Clennell, from a design by B. West, P.R.A. 1808;
The Death of Dentatus, by William Harvey, from a painting by B. R.
Haydon, 1821; and The Old Horse waiting for Death, left
unfinished, by T. Bewick, and published in 1832.]

The art of imitating drawings--called chiaro-scuro--by means of impressions from two or more blocks, was cultivated with great success in Italy by Ugo da Carpi about 1518. The invention of this art, as has been previously remarked, is ascribed to him by some writers, but without any sufficient grounds; for not even the slightest evidence has been produced by them to show that he, or any other Italian artist, had executed a single cut in this manner previous to 1509, the date of a chiaro-scuro wood engraving from a design by Lucas Cranach. Though it is highly probable that Ugo da Carpi was not the inventor of this art, it is certain that he greatly improved it. The chiaro-scuros executed by him are not only superior to those of the German artists, who most likely preceded him in this department of wood engraving, but to the present time they remain unsurpassed. In the present day Mr. George Baxter has attempted to extend the boundaries of this art by calling in the aid of aquatint for his outlines and first ground, and by copying the positive colours of an oil or water-colour painting. Most of Ugo da Carpi’s chiaro-scuros are from Raffaele’s designs, and it is said that the great painter himself drew some of the subjects on the blocks. Independent of the excellence of the designs, the characteristics of Da Carpi’s chiaro-scuros are their effect and the simplicity of their execution; for all of them, except one or two, appear to have been produced from not more than three blocks. The following may be mentioned as the principal of Da Carpi’s works in this style. A Sibyl reading with a boy holding a torch, from two blocks, said by Vasari to be the artist’s first attempt in this style; Jacob’s Dream; David cutting off the head of Goliah; the Death of Ananias; Giving the Keys to Peter; the miraculous Draught of Fishes; the Descent from the Cross; the Resurrection; and Æneas carrying away his father Anchises on his shoulders from the fire of Troy;[V-82] all the preceding from the designs of Raffaele. Among the subjects designed by other masters are St. Peter preaching, after Polidoro; and Diogenes showing the plucked cock in ridicule of Plato’s definition of man, “a two-legged animal without feathers,” after Parmegiano. The latter, which is remarkably bold and spirited, is from four blocks; and Vasari says that it is the best of all Da Carpi’s chiaro-scuros. Many of Da Carpi’s productions in this style were copied by Andrea Andreani of Milan, about 1580. That of Æneas carrying his father on his shoulders was copied by Edward Kirkall, an English engraver in 1722. Kirkall’s copy is not entirely from wood-blocks, like the original; the outlines and the greater part of the shadows are from a copper-plate engraved in mezzotint, in a manner similar to that which has more recently been adopted by Mr. Baxter in his picture-printing.

[Footnote V-82: At the foot of this cut, to the right, after the
name of the designer,--“RAPHAEL URBINAS,”--is the following
privilege, granted by Pope Leo X. and the Doge of Venice,
prohibiting all persons from pirating the work. “QUISQUE HAS
TABELLAS INVITO AUTORE IMPRIMET EX DIVI LEONIS X. ET IL͞L
PRINCIPIS VENETIARUM DECRETIS EXCOMINICATIONIS SENTENTIAM ET ALIAS
PENAS INCURRET.” Below this inscription is the engraver’s name
with the date: “Romæ apud Ugum de Carpi impressum. MDXVIII.”]

Lucas Dammetz, generally called Lucas van Leyden, from the place of his birth, was an excellent engraver on copper, and in this branch of art more nearly approached Durer than any other of his German or Flemish contemporaries. He is said to have been born at Leyden in 1496; and, if this date be correct, he at a very early age gave decided proofs of his talents as an engraver on copper. One of his earliest prints, the monk Sergius killed by Mahomet, is dated 1508, when he was only fourteen years of age; and at the age of twelve he is said to have painted, in distemper, a picture of St. Hubert which excited the admiration of all the artists of the time. Of his numerous copper-plate engravings there are no less than twenty-one which, though they contain no date, are supposed to have been executed previously to 1508. As several of those plates are of very considerable merit, it would appear that Lucas while yet a boy excelled, as a copper-plate engraver, most of his German and Dutch contemporaries. From 1508 to 1533, the year of his death, he appears to have engraved not less than two hundred copper-plates; and, as if these were not sufficient to occupy his time, he in the same period painted several pictures, some of which were of large size. He is also said to have excelled as a painter on glass; and like Durer, Cranach, and Burgmair, he is ranked among the wood engravers of that period.

The wood-cuts which contain the mark of Lucas van Leyden, or which are usually ascribed to him, are not numerous; and, even admitting them to have been engraved by himself, the fact would contribute but little to his fame, for I have not seen one which might not have been executed by a professional “formschneider” of very moderate abilities. The total of the wood-cuts supposed to have been engraved by him does not exceed twenty. The following is a reduced copy of a wood-cut ascribed to Lucas van Leyden, in the Print Room of the British Museum, but which is not in Bartsch’s Catalogue, nor in the list of Lucas van Leyden’s engravings in Meusel’s Neue Miscellaneen. Though I very much question if the original cut were engraved by Lucas himself, I have no doubt of its being from his design. It represents the death of Sisera; and, with a noble contempt of the unity of time, Jael is seen giving Sisera a drink of milk, driving the nail into his head, and then showing the body,--with herself in the act of driving the nail,--to Barak and his followers: the absurdity of this threefold action has perhaps never been surpassed in any cut ancient or modern. Sir Boyle Roach said that it was impossible for any _person_, except a _bird_ or a _fish_, to be in two places at once; but here we have a pictorial representation of a female being in no less than three; and in one of the localities actually pointing out to certain persons how she was then employed in another.

Heineken, in his account of engravers of the Flemish school, has either committed an egregious mistake, or expressed himself with intentional ambiguity with respect to a wood-cut printed at Antwerp, and which he saw in the collections of the Abbé de Marolles. His notice of this cut is as follows: “I found in the collections of the Abbé de Marolles, in the cabinet of the King of France, a detached piece, which, in my opinion, is the most ancient of the wood engravings executed in the Low Countries which bear the name of the artist. This cut is marked, _Gheprint t’ Antwerpen by my Phillery de figursnider_--Printed at Antwerp, by me Phillery, the engraver of figures. It serves as a proof that the engravers of moulds were, at Antwerp, in that ancient time, also printers.”[V-83]

[Footnote V-83: “J’ai trouvé dans les Recueils de l’Abbé de
Marolles, au Cabinet du Roi de France, une piece détachée, qui,
suivant mon sentiment, est la plus ancienne de celles, qui sont
gravées en bois dans les Païs-Bas, et qui portent le nom de
l’artiste. Cette estampe est marquée: _Gheprint t’ Antwerpen by my
Phillery de figursnider--Imprimé à Anvers, chez moi Phillery, le
graveur de figures_. Elle sert de preuve, que les graveurs de
moules étoient aussi, dans cet ancien tems, imprimeurs à
Anvers.”--Idée Générale d’une Collection complette d’Estampes,
p. 197.]

In this vague and ambiguous account, the writer gives us no idea of the period to which he refers in the words “cet ancien tems.” If he means the time between the pretended invention of Coster, and the period when typography was probably first practised in the Low Countries,--that is, from about 1430 to 1472,--he is wrong, and his statement would afford ground for a presumption that he had either examined the cut very carelessly, or that he was so superficially acquainted with the progressive improvement of the art of wood engraving as to mistake a cut abounding in cross-hatching, and certainly executed subsequent to 1524, for one that had been executed about seventy years previously, when cross-hatching was never attempted, and when the costume was as different from that of the figures represented in the cut as the costume of Vandyke’s portraits is dissimilar to Hogarth’s. The words “_graveurs de moules_,” I have translated literally “engravers of moulds,” for I cannot conceive what else Heineken can mean; but this expression is scarcely warranted by the word “_figuersnider_” on the cut, which is almost the same as the German “formschneider;” and whatever might be the original meaning of the word, it was certainly used to express merely a wood engraver. Compilers of Histories of Art, and Dictionaries of Painters and Engravers, who usually follow their leader, even in his slips, as regularly as a flock of sheep follow the bell-wether through a gap, have disseminated Heineken’s mistake, and the antiquity of “_Phillery’s_” wood-engraving is about as firmly established as Lawrence Coster’s invention of typography. One of those “straightforward” people has indeed gone rather beyond his authority; for in a “Dictionary of the Fine Arts,” published in 1826, we are expressly informed that “_Phillery, who lived near the end of the fourteenth century, was the first engraver on wood who practised in the Netherlands_.”[V-84] It is thus that error on the subject of art, and indeed on every other subject, is propagated: a writer of reputation makes an incorrect or an ambiguous statement; other writers adopt it without examination, and not unfrequently one of that class whose confidence in deciding on a question is in the inverse ratio of their knowledge of the subject, proceeds beyond his original authority, and declares that to be certain which previously had only been doubtfully or obscurely expressed. In Heineken’s notice of this cut there is an implied qualification under which he might screen himself from a charge of incorrectness with respect to the time of its execution, though not from a charge of ambiguity. He says that, in his opinion, it is “the most ancient of the wood engravings executed in the Low Countries _which bear the name of the artist_;” and with this limitation his opinion may be correct, although the cut were only engraved in 1525 or 1526; for I am not aware of any wood engraving of an earlier date, executed in the Low Countries, that contains the _name_ of the artist, though there are several which contain the artist’s mark. It also may be argued that the words “_cet ancien tems_” might be about as correctly applied to designate the year 1525 as 1470: if, however, he meant the first of those dates, he has expressed himself in an equivocal manner, for he is generally understood to refer the cut to a considerably earlier period. It has been indeed conjectured that Heineken, in speaking of this cut, might intentionally express himself obscurely, in order that he might not give offence to his friend Monsieur Mariette, who is said to have considered it to be one of the earliest specimens of wood engravings executed in the Low Countries. This is, however, without any sufficient reason, merely shifting the charge of ignorance, with respect to the difference of style in wood engravings of different periods, from Heineken to Monsieur Mariette. As there is no evidence to show that the latter ever expressed any such opinion as that ascribed to him respecting the antiquity of the cut in question, Heineken alone is answerable for the account contained in his book. Impressions of the cut by “_Phillery_” are not of very great rarity; there are two in the Print Room at the British Museum, and from one of them the reduced copy in the following page has been carefully made.

[Footnote V-84: In a work of a similar kind, and of equal
authority, published in 1834, we are informed that Ugo da Carpi
was a historical painter, and that he died in 1500. He was only
born in 1486.]

Any person, however, slightly acquainted with the progress of wood engraving could scarcely fail to pronounce that the original of this cut must have been executed subsequent to 1500, and in all probability subsequent to the cuts of the Triumphal Procession of Maximilian, to the general style of which, so far as relates to the manner of engraving, it bears considerable resemblance. The costume of the figures, too, also proves that it does not belong to the fifteenth century; and on carefully examining the inscription, a person accustomed to the old German or Dutch characters would be more likely to read “_Willem_” than “_Phillery_” as the name of the artist. To one of the impressions in the British Museum a former owner, after extracting Heineken’s account, has appended the following remark: “This is the print above described. There seems to be an inconsiderable mistake in the name, which I take to be D’villery.” It is to be observed that in the original, as in the preceding copy, the inscription is engraved on wood, and not set up in type; and that consequently the first character of the doubtful name is rather indistinct. It is however most probably a _W_; and the last is certainly an _m_, with a flourish at its tail. The intermediate letters _ille_ are plain enough, and if the first be supposed to be a _W_, and the last an _m_, we have the name _Willem_,--a very probable prenomen for a Dutch wood engraver of the sixteenth century. The inscription when carefully examined is literally as follows: “_Gheprint Tantwerpen Bij mij Willem de Figuersnider_.” Heineken’s mistake of _Phillery_ for _Willem_, or William, and thus giving a heretofore unheard-of name to the list of artists, is not unlike that of Scopoli the naturalist, who, in one of his works, has commemorated “Horace Head” as a London bookseller.[V-85]

[Footnote V-85: The sign of Mr. Benjamin White, formerly a
bookseller in Fleet Street, was Horace’s Head. In Scopoli’s
Deliciæ, Flora, et Fauna Insubriæ, plate 24 is thus inscribed:
“Auspiciis Benjamini White et Horatii Head, Bibliopol.
Londinensium.” The learned naturalist had mistaken Mr. White’s
sign for his partner in the business.]

Though the cut which bears the name of the supposed “Phillery” contains internal evidence of its not having been engraved in the fifteenth century, there is yet further reason to believe that it is merely a copy of part of a cut of the same size by a Swiss artist of the name of Urse Graff, which is dated 1524. There is an impression of Urse Graff’s cut [V-86] in the Print Room of the British Museum; in the fore-ground are the figures which have obviously been copied by _Willem de Figuersnider_, alias _Phillery_, and immediately behind the middle figure, who holds in his right hand a large Swiss espadon, is a leafless tree with a figure of Death clinging to the upper part of the trunk, and pointing to a hour-glass which he holds in his left hand. A bird, probably intended for a raven, is perched above the hour-glass; and on the trunk of the tree, near to the figure of Death, is Urse Graff’s mark with the date as is here given. The back-ground presents a view of a lake, with buildings and mountains on the left. The general character of Urse Graff’s subject is Swiss, both in the scenery and figures; and the perfect identity of the latter with those in the cut “printed at Antwerp by William the figure-cutter” proves, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that one of those two artists has copied the work of the other. Urse Graff’s subject, however, is complete, and corresponds both in the landscape and in the costume of the figures with the country of the artist; while the cut of William of Antwerp represents merely an unrelieved group of figures in the costume of Switzerland. Urse Graff was an artist of reputation in his time; of “Willem,” who was probably only an engraver of the designs of others, nothing more is known beyond what is afforded by the single cut in question. From these circumstances, though it cannot be positively decided which of those cuts is the original, it is almost morally certain that the Flemish figure-cutter has copied the work of the Swiss artist.--Urse Graff resided at Basle, of which city he was probably a native. In one of his engravings with the date 1523, he describes himself as a goldsmith and die-sinker. Wood-cuts containing his mark are not very common, and the most of them appear to have been executed between 1515 and 1528. A series of wood-cuts of the Passion of Christ, designed in a very inferior manner, and printed at Strasburg in 1509, are sometimes ascribed to him on account of their being marked with the letters V. G., which some writers have supposed to be the mark of an artist named Von Gamperlin. Professor Christ, in his Dictionary of Monograms, says that he can find nothing to determine him in favour of the name Gamperlin; and that he is rather inclined to think that those letters are intended for the name Von Goar, which he believes that he has deciphered on an engraving containing this mark. The mark of Urse Graff, a V and a G interlaced, occurs in the ornamented border of the title-page of several books printed at Basle, and amongst others on the title of a quarto edition of Ulrich Hutten’s Nemo, printed there by Frobenius in 1519. At the end of this edition there is a beautifully-designed cut of the printer’s device, which is probably the work of the same artist.[V-87]

[Footnote V-86: This cut of Urse Graff is described in Bartsch’s
Peintre-Graveur, tom. vii. p. 465, No. 16.]

[Footnote V-87: The device of Frobenius at the end of an edition
of the same work, printed by him in 1518, is much inferior to that
in the edition of 1519. In both, the ornamental border of the
title-page is the same.]

A painter, named Nicholas Emanuel Deutsch, a contemporary of Urse Graff, and who resided at Bern, is said, by Sandrart, to have been of a noble English family, and the same writer adds that he left his own country on account of his religion. The latter statement, however, is not likely to be correct, for there are wood-cuts, with this artist’s mark, dated “Bern, 1518;” which was before the persecution in England on account of the doctrines of Luther had commenced. In J. R. Füssli’s Dictionary of Artists it is stated that he was of a French family, of the name of Cholard, but that he was born at Bern in 1484, and died there in 1530. He was a poet as well as a painter, and held one of the highest offices in the magistracy of Bern.