What are the differences you can identify between these two woodcuts printed in a Titus Andronicus ballad by two different printers?
Comment with your best guesses and we’ll be back with an explanation next week!
Stay connected
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Comments
Hello,
It would appear that V.B.35(19) has attracted a considerable number of extra wormholes and would thus be an indeterminately later printing than the other. Obviously these holes show only in the inked areas. It is intriguing that even two lowest-end ballad printers could have thought such worm-damaged images would be commercially acceptable when the cost of a new woodblock of similar quality would surely have been very low ut this is not at all unusual.
It would be interesting to know from a surviving woodblock if the worming was random throughout the woodblock or attracted particularly to the inked areas. Worm-damage can be very quick – as evidenced by the moth-damage to my unused woollen suits during Covid lockdown – so, while it shows the time order of printing it is not a useful dating indicator.
I hope this is what you were looking for.
Robert Harding — October 29, 2024
No differences, because the woodblock was reused?
Philip Allfrey — October 29, 2024
The one on the left has more insect holes. E.g., in the window to the right of the seated king, and the top border above Lavinia
Deborah J. Leslie — October 30, 2024
The main difference, beside the quality of ink/paper, is the proportion, since it seems that the 4to version is vertically extended (while maintaining the same horizontal length). Also, is the ‘PR1181.B2 no.1 Cage’ (on the right) mislabeled as ‘Folio’, whereas it is actually a 4to?
Asta — October 31, 2024
While the right hand impression is evidently the earlier, going by the wormholes, the horizontal bar top right appears to have been tapered compared with the left hand impression.
Peter Criddle — November 1, 2024