That Hollar’s etchings are on wood.
“Black letter” is corrected to “Black letters.”
That the book would have been more complete if Lydgate’s stanzas had been quoted, in common with others in Piers Plowman. Now all the stanzas of Lydgate are given, and not a single one is to be found in Piers Plowman.
And they most ingeniously and scientifically denominate the skeleton figure of Death “the Gothic monster of Holbein!”
A short time after the completion of the present Dissertation, the author accidentally became possessed of a recently published German life of Holbein, in which not a single addition of importance to what has been gleaned from preceding writers can possibly be found. It contains a general, but extremely superficial account of the works of that artist, including the Dance of Death, which, as a matter of course, is ascribed to him. As the author, a Mr. Ulrich Hegner, who is said to be a Swiss gentleman and amateur, has not conducted himself with that urbanity and politeness which might have been looked for from such a character, and has thought proper, in adverting to the slight Essay by the present writer, prefixed, at the instance of the late Mr. Edwards, to his publication of Hollar’s etchings of the Dance of Death, to speak of it with a degree of contempt, which, even with all its imperfections, others may think it may not have deserved; the above gentleman will have but little reason to complain should he meet with a somewhat uncourteous retort in the course of the following remarks on his compilation.
Had Mr. Hegner written with a becoming diffidence in his opinions, his work might have commanded and deserved respect, though greatly abounding in error and false conceit. He has undertaken a task for which he has shown himself wholly unqualified, and with much unseemly arrogance, and its usual concomitant, ignorance, has assumed to himself a monopoly of information on the subject which he discusses. His arguments, if worthy of the name, are, generally speaking, of a most weak and flimsy texture. In support of his dogmatical opinion that the original designs for the Lyons Dance of Death exclusively belong to Holbein he has not adduced a single fact. He has not been in possession of a tenth part of the materials that were necessary for the proper investigation of his subject, nor does he appear to have even seen them. The very best judges of whatever relates to the history and art of engraving are quite satisfied that most of the persons who have written on them, with the exception of Mr. Ottley, and of the modest and urbane Monsieur Peignot, are liable to the charge of extreme inaccuracy and imperfection in their treatment of the Dance of Death, and the list of such writers may now be closed with the addition of Herr Hegner.
Some of his positions are now to be stated and examined.
He makes Holbein the author of a new Dance of Death in the Crozat or Gallitzin drawings in Indian ink which have been already described in the present dissertation, adding that he also engraved them, and suppressing any mention in this place of the monogram on one of the cuts which he elsewhere admits not to belong to Holbein. Soon afterwards, and with very good reason, he doubts the originality of the drawings, which he says M. de Mechel caused to be copied by Rudolph Schellenberg, a skilful artist, already mentioned as the author of a Dance of Death of his own invention; and proceeds to state, that from these copies De Mechel employed some inferior persons in his service to make engravings; advancing all this without the accompaniment of any proof whatever, and in direct contradiction to De Mechel’s authority of having himself engraved them. An apparently bitter enemy to De Mechel, whose posthumous materials, now in the library at Basle, he nevertheless admits to have used for his work, he invidiously enlarges on the discrepancies between his engravings and the Lyons wood-cuts, both in size and manner; and then concludes that they were copied from the wood-cuts, the copyist allowing himself the privilege of making arbitrary variations, especially in the figure of the Eve in the second cut, which, he says, is of the family of Boucher, who, in spite of Hegner’s opinion, is regarded by better judges as a clever painter. Whether the remarks on any deviations of De Mechel’s prints from the Crozat drawings are just or otherwise can now be decided by comparison only, and Hegner does not appear to have seen them, or at least does not tell us so. His criticisms on the merit of the engravings in De Mechel’s work cannot be justified, for though they may occasionally be faulty, they are very neatly, and many will think beautifully executed.
What Hegner has said respecting the alphabets of initial letters, is at once futile and inaccurate; but his comment on Hans Lutzenberger deserves the severest censure. Adverting to the inscription with the name of this fine artist on one of the sets of the initials, he terms him “an itinerant bookseller, who had bought the blocks and put his name on them;” and this after having himself referred to a print on which Lutzenberger is called FORMSCHNEIDER, i. e. woodcutter: making in this instance a clumsy and dishonest effort to get rid of an excellent engraver, who stands so recorded in opposition to his own untenable system.