Birckmann's Heirs
The fat hen (front page from the 1566 edition)
|
The fat hen
|
irckmann's heirs published the woodcuts in 1555 (Arnold Birckmann had died in 1542).
To the left is the front page from a later issue, which
sports Birckmann's logo: a fat hen in front of a tree.
The tree is a birch tree, of course,
and the fat hen is an allusion to Birckmann's address in Cologne on a street called zo vetterhennen
(since 1816 the name of the street has been Unter Fettenhennen).
The artist / woodcarver is unknown, but five of the woodcuts
(abbess,
canon,
judge,
old woman and
blind man)
bear a cutter's mark in the form of a capital, italic A or
maybe it's conjoined S and A:
Some think this mark belongs to Antonius Sylvius,
while others point at Arnaud Nicolai.
The book was issued by Birckmann's heirs at least ten times:
In Latin in 1555, 1557, 1566, 1567, 1572 and 1573;
in High German in 1557, 1560 and 1573;
in Low German in 1558.(1)
Maybe it's the great number of re-issues
that has given the book so much influence.
The later so popular artists, Kieser, Valvasor,
Hollar and Deuchar have in very high degree copied Birckmann.
In the German editions from 1560 and 1573 the same woodcut was used for abbess and nun.
|
In 1572 the nun had her old woodcut back.
|
Most of these editions were in Latin, but in 1557
came »Der Todten-dantz, durch alle Stende vnnd Geschlecht der Menschen« with German
text by Caspar Scheit from Worms.
Caspar Scheit had written the introduction and epilogue. For each woodcut he wrote
a verse with 6 lines (the last two cuts got 8 lines each).
In 1558 the book was translated into Low German, »De Doden-dantz, dorch alle stende vnd Geslechte der Minscken«,
and in 1560 and 1573 "Der Todten-dantz" was republished.
Strangely, these German editions do not indicate the name of the publisher, nor of the city
— neither a birch tree nor a fat hen.
In these German books,
nobleman was called
knight, and vice versa.
In the Low German version (1558) the woodcut of
the old man was used for illustrating
the blind man, and vice versa.
In the High German books
the woodcut of
the abbess was also used for illustrating
the nun
(picture to the left and right) —
while the
the countess,
noblewoman and
countess were mixed up.
The latter means that in the 1560-edition
the countess
is confusingly called "the two lovers":
»Die zwey liebhabenden«
(in 1573 it's only the countess and the duchess that are mixed up).
Birckmann and Kieser
berhard Kieser has not copied Birckmann's woodcuts. His woodcuts
are copies of Holbein's woodcuts, except
for the 7 that are copies of Aldegrever.
The High German text by Caspar Scheit, however, is copied from Birckmann's books.
Kieser has also copied the title:
»Todten Dantz Durch alle Stände und Geschlecht der Menschen. etc.«
from Birckmann.
Birckmann, Valvasor, Hollar, Deuchar and Wildridge
Birckmann's woodcuts became very popular and were often copied.
The print of the bishop is the one that clearest shows who copied whom.
Holbein lets the sun set over a hilltop.
Birckmann lets — presumably — the sun set over a lake,
but the mirror image is all wrong. Valvasor copies Birckmann with the bad mirror image.
Hollar copies Birckmann but fixes the image so the mirror image is bigger and placed
correctly. Deuchar copies Hollar with the correct mirror image.
In 1816 the worn-down plates for Hollar's etchings are "freshened up", and faces are added to the suns.
Wildridge copies the two suns with their faces, so it's no longer apparent
that it's supposed to be a mirror image in a lake.
The confusion is total. Small wonder the congregation are running bewildered away.
Holbein (original): The sun over the hill
|
Birckmann (shown reversed) adds a little sun in the lake
|
Valvasor copies the little sun
|
Hollar makes the sun look like a real mirror reflection
|
Deuchar (shown reversed) copies Hollar
|
Hollar 1816 is "improved", so the suns get faces
|
Wildridge copies the "improved" etching with faces
|
Birckmann and Hollar
Birckmann 1555: Fool
|
irckmann's pictures often deviate from Holbein's original woodcuts. He doesn't share Holbein's taste for heavy, dramatic clouds,
but he's fond of adding buildings in the background,
and he tries to include Death's hourglass in those scenes where Holbein has "forgotten" it.
Curiously enough, he is often followed by Hollar.
In at least 20 out of Hollar's 30 plates, Hollar shows that he has studied Birckmann:
The Expulsion from Paradise,
Life After the Fall,
the pope,
the queen,
the abbot,
the abbess,
the advocate,
the preacher,
the nun,
the physician,
the miser,
the merchant,
the count,
the countess,
the noblewoman,
the peddler (lack of sword)
the child,
the escutcheon of Death,
the soldier and
the gambler.
Birckmann: Death attacks with an arrow instead of a bone.
|
One may wonder why Hollar copies Birckmann's copy instead of going directly to the source and use
Holbein's originals. It has been suggested that maybe Hollar couldn't afford the genuine Holbein-prints
and therefore had to make do with a copy of Birckmann's inferior prints.
This explanation fails to account for why
Hollar has in many other cases ignored Birckmann's changes and copied Holbein:
In these 9 plates, Hollar ignores Birckmann's changes:
Temptation and Fall (Birckmann's copy is very different),
the emperor (extra people and direction of the emperor's glance),
the cardinal (espalier, disappearing money-box),
the empress (tower in horizon),
the duke (round tower with hourglass),
the monk (Hollar keeps the pillar),
the old woman (tree instead of stalks),
the old man (hourglass and background) and
the peddler (the dog's tail).
So Hollar was quite familiar with Holbein's originals and had access to them.
A much more obvious explanation then
is that Hollar in many cases has consciously preferred Birckmann's changes.
This wouldn't be a unique case: Eberhard Kieser
normally follows Holbein's originals very closely, but he has also had access to the 8 plates in
Aldegrever's dance of death, and in 7 out of 8 times, he has preferred
Aldegrever's copy to Holbein — just like Hollar in 20 out of 30 cases prefer Birckmann's copies
to Holbein's originals.
Birckmann and Valvasor
Birckmann: Creation
|
Valvasor: Creation
|
anez Vajkard Valvasor published his copy of Holbein's dance of death in 1682.
Valvasor seems to be even fonder of Birckmann than Hollar was.
Hollar had chosen to copy some of the pictures (e.g. The Creation) from Holbein, but
even in these cases, Valvasor prefers Birckmann to Holbein.
Do we know if
Valvasor has even looked at Holbein's original woodcuts? Well, Valvasor's picture of
the Expulsion
doesn't look like
Birckmann,
but then again it's not a close copy of
Holbein
either.
Birckmann and Deuchar
The fat hen
|
ll of Hollar's 30 copperplates were copied by Deuchar.
Deuchar follows Hollar's plates closely,
except when he introduces some changes of his own invention — for instance in the preacher, where Deuchar
follows neither Holbein nor Hollar, but instead gives Death a small bone in his hand.
This makes Deuchar a Birckmann-copyist twice removed.
Hollar: Death behind the preacher has empty hands.
|
But the weird part is that Deuchar
has 46 plates in his dance of death, i.e. 16 plates more than Hollar has.
And when one looks at these extra plates (where Deuchar has not copied Hollar),
then it looks as if Deuchar consequently has chosen to copy Birckmann instead of Holbein:
Deuchar copies Birckmann's woodcuts of
king,
duke,
canon,
judge,
senator,
priest,
astronomer,
sailors,
knight,
duchess,
peasant,
beggar,
drunkard,
fool and presumably also
the blind man. The Creation is Deuchar's own design.
The robber is the same with Holbein and Birckmann (so we can't tell who Deuchar has copied).
Not a single one of Deuchar's 16 additions
indicate that he has ever looked at Holbein's original woodcuts, and this is deeply ironic, since Holbein is the only artist
(except Deuchar himself, of course),
who's credited anywhere in the book.
Birckmann and the unknown English artist
Later, an unknown English artist made at least 11 woodcuts in a dance of death series
that was published by Tindall Wildridge.
He has evidently copied the 1816-edition of Hollar (see the example with the bishop above).
This means that he has followed the Birckmann-variations some 300 years after the first issue.
This unknown artist, who has copied Birckmann twice or thrice removed,
is a testament to the influence Birckmann's variations has had in Europa for many hundreds of years.
Resources
Der Todten-dantz
|
De Doden-dantz
|
Other interpreters of Holbein's dance of death
Birckmann was copied by Hollar.
|
Birckmann was copied by Deuchar.
|
Birckmann was copied (via Hollar) by an unknown English artist.
|
Footnotes:
(1)
These years are editions that can be studied on the Internet.
In Literatur der Todtentänze (1840, pp. 34-41) Massmann mentions even more editions,
but he has much of this information second-hand, and
he himself describes these issues as doubtful and as possible errors.
Two years in particular on Massmann's list, 1655 and 1657, are impossible,
because as Gunther Franz writes in
Huberinus - Rhegius - Holbein Bibliographische und druckgeschichtliche Untersuchung […] p. 141,
Arnold Mylius was the last person to publish books under the name Birckmann, and he died in 1604.
Dances of death
Holbein's dance of death
Birckmann
Some think this mark belongs to Antonius Sylvius,
while others point at Arnaud Nicolai.
