ublished in Antwerp with text by Geeraerdt van Wolsschaten (1603 - 1660).
The two editions contain very different illustrations.
his book starts with a well executed fronticpiece (to the left). The book itself consists of 18 chapters, and the title promises that these 18 chapters are "adorned by the clever pictures by the famous painter Hans Holbein": »verciert met de constighe Belden van den vermaerden Schilder Hans Holbeen«.
Most of these 18 woodcuts are very cleverly and detailed executed and this has led many experts to believe that they were Holbein's original woodcuts.
Francis Douce divides them into 14 genuine Holbein-woodcuts and 4 other, child, pope, emperor and countess, which he calls »copies, and very badly engraved«.(1) It's hard to see why he considers the child to be "very badly engraved".
The woodcuts can be divided in four groups:
Six woodcuts are marked with , viz. three children, peddler, judge, astrologer, monk and physician (picture to the right).
Seven woodcuts are not marked: Noblewoman, sailor, beggar, abbess, priest, abbot and duke.
As mentioned, six of the woodcuts have been marked with (see the physician to the right). This mark is a combined S and A, and it is very reminiscent of the mark on some of Birckmann's copies of Holbein.
When reading Douce one gets the impression that he thinks it was the same person, who first cut the woodcuts for Birckmann (that Douce loathed) in 1555, and who reappeared in 1654 to add his mark to the genuine Holbein-woodcuts. Douce first writes (page 109): »XI. In 1654 a Dutch work appeared with the following title, "De Doodt vermaskert met swerelts ydelheyt afghedaen […] The blocks of the originals appear to have fallen into the hands of an artist, who probably resided at Antwerp, and several of them have his mark, , concerning which more will be said under one of the ensuing articles«.
And on page 113 he returns, as promised, to this artist when expounding on Birckmann: »V. "Imagines Mortis, his accesserunt epigrammata è Gallico idiomate à Georgio Æmylio in Latinum translata, &c. Coloniæ apud hæredes Arnoldi Birckmanni, anno 1555. […] The cuts are by the artist mentioned in No. IX. of those originals, whose mark is which is here found on five of them«.
Warthin(2) seems to agree with Douce — both concerning the number of genuine woodcuts and the artist (page 71): »In 1654 under the title "De Doodt vermaskert" […] This contained 18 woodcuts, 14 of which were the original blocks retouched, preserved for more than a century after their first use. The other 4 engravings were very poor copies. As 7 of these blocks had the monogram as (thought to be Ant. Sylvius), they probably were blocks used for the Birkmann edition of 1555.«
In spite of this consensus among experts, it still sounds very unlikely that the man, who had created his own Holbein-copies in Cologne in 1555 should reappear in Antwerp a 100 years later in 1654 to add his mark on the genuine (so Douce thought) Holbein-cuts. And where does the enter into it?
Apart from the problem that the man would have been over 100 years old, adding details to a woodcut is a painstaking process. It's easy to add signatures to Hollar's copper plates, but a woodcutter cuts details away. If one wanted to add a printer's mark it would entail drilling a hole into the block, hammering a dowel into it, and then cutting a into the dowel.
This hardly sounds credible, and we are in the fortunate situation that one of these woodcuts has survived, making it easier to evaluate the claim. The picture to the right shows how the "sa" is an integral part of the block.
The woodcuts have been copied very skillfully and detailed, and for this reason experts like Douce and Warthin have been mistaken. If one looks at the images one by one, in natural size, and crabbed print, one can easily confound them. If on the other hand the images are enlarged and switched back and forth, lots of little differences will appear.
On the image to the left the peddler is compared with Holbein's original. One can see how the musical instrument (a marine trumpet) changes angle and breadth, and how the number of lines in the hatching vary. It is revealing that there are more hatchling-lines in the version from 1654, even though (as mentioned) it is very cumbersome to add details to a woodcut.
n the 1698-edition all the woodcuts were gone: The Holben-copies and the frontispiece. Instead Geeraerdt van Wolsschaten's text was illustrated with new copperplates.
There's not much to say about the copper plates. They are quite bland, and one wonders what happened to the old woodcuts. The picture of the peddler (to the left) has been combined with the background from the soldier.
Hans Holbein (1526) - so-called proofs
Hans Holbein (1538) - the originals
Heinrich Aldegrever (1541)
Heinrich Vogtherr (1544)
Vincenzo Valgrisi (1545)
Arnold Birckmann (1555)
Juan de Icíar (1555)
Valentin Wagner (1557)
Georg Scharffenberg (1576)
Leonhart Straub (1581)
David Chytraeus (1590)
Peter Paul Rubens (ca. 1590)
Fabio Glissenti (1596)
Eberhard Kieser (1617)
Rudolf and Conrad Meyer (1650)
Wenceslaus Hollar (1651)
→ De doodt vermaskert (1654) ←
Thomas Neale (1657)
Johann Weichard von Valvasor (1682)
Erbaulicher Sterb-Spiegel (1704)
Salomon van Rusting (1707)
T. Nieuhoff Piccard (1720)
Christian de Mechel (1780)
David Deuchar (1788)
John Bewick (1789)
Alexander Anderson (1810)
Wenceslaus Hollar (1816)
Ludwig Bechstein (1831)
Joseph Schlotthauer (1832)
Francis Douce (1833)
Carl Helmuth (1836)
Francis Douce (1858, 2. edition)
Henri Léon Curmer (1858)
Tindall Wildridge (1887)
Footnotes: (1) (2)
»This edition contains eighteen cuts, among which the following subjects are from the original blocks. 1. Three boys. 2. The married couple. 3. The pedlar. 4. The shipwreck. 5. The beggar. 6. The corrupt judge. 7. The astrologer. 8. The old man. 9. The physician. 10. The priest with the eucharist. 11. The monk. 12. The abbess. 13. The abbot. 14. The duke. Four others, viz. the child, the emperor, the countess, and the pope, are copies, and very badly engraved«.