Featured Copper engraving 17th century Ecce Homo (after) Hendrick Goltzius

Hello everyone,

I’m seeking help in identifying and understanding the origins of a print in my collection. The engraving is titled Ecce Homo, number 8 from a Passion series originally attributed to Hendrick Goltzius (monogram HG). However, upon closer inspection, I believe my version comes from a different plate altogether.

My copy


To support this, I’ve compared my print with two (maybe three) known versions published by Ludovicus Siceram and with an original attributed to Goltzius (see the attached comparison image).

Original by Hendrick Goltzius (1597)
Copy by Ludovici Siceram (mirrored, ~1623)
This version looks like Goltzius but is attributed to Abraham Hogenberg ()

Some key observations:

• My print bears Goltzius’ monogram (HG), unlike the Siceram versions, but the execution seems distinct from the original Goltzius print (and is mirrored).
• There are clear differences in line work, particularly in the texture of the ground and the details around the monogram and numbering.
• The overall quality of the engraving suggests it may have been produced by a different artist or workshop using a new plate, possibly later.

I suspect this engraving could be a reproduction or reinterpretation created in a different context or period, but I’d love to hear your thoughts! Could this be an overlooked or less-known variation of the series? Or perhaps a deliberate reproduction made in the 17th or 18th century?

I have put my copy, Siceram's and Goltzius' (mirrored) version next to each other for comparison.


If anyone recognizes this specific print, its potential origins, or has insight into similar cases, your expertise would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you so much in advance for your help.

Other versions

Abraham Hogenberg (~1623)


Christopher van Sichem (1649, woodcut)


Other Passion prints after Goltzius

 

Could they all (including the original Goltzius) have been based on another original? A painting perhaps?
The original could have been lost, as happens sometimes, in which case the search will be difficult but not necessarily impossible.

 

Yes that is always possible, but as it is a series of 12, it is more likely the picture started as an engraving in my opinion.

 

Hi Ex Libris. Firstly I would like to compliment you on your presentation with all of the different images by various artists which made it so easy to compare.This area would not be a forte of mine,but the most notable differences that appear to me, is of the sky over the Temple and the temple building itself on the left of your print as what is potrayed in the others.To the left of the spire would appear to be the face of an angel with wings ,where as in all the others there is just different variations of sky..Secondly the plinths on the Temple are not very well executed on the left side of the temple,with the lower looking like it is hanging off.My conclusion is that this print is of a later date than the original Henrick Goltzius,a more romantisized version,and secondly that it was by a student,or one who had not yet reached Goltzius's standards.

 

The precision of the line work, cross-hatching, and contour lines in the original are next-level, IMO.





Even in the shadows where things can get muddy, the line work is exceptional

 

Thank you for your insights! I do not see the angel face, do you mean the clouds here?

 

That is why I bought this engraving. It was in a lot together with another engraving and a 20th century etching.

If I compare your details with my copy of it I see not much difference in quality. The darker one is mine. I love the details of this print!

 

No the cloud to the right of temple spire in your copy.

 

Thanks for the close ups. The line quality looks so much better.

 

Sorry I can not help with this question.

It likely is after a painting. One of his best known prints, "The dragon devouring the Companions of Cadamus" is. It was common practice. I believe it was also common practice to make a reversed copy of the painting "en grisaille" (in black and white) for the engraver to work from. This helped to resolve any tonality issues and resulted in a print correctly oriented. There could be third party specialists involved in different aspects of the production of a print who never got credited on the final print. But then, Glotzius was also a painter, so it's possible he was working from his own design.

Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617) was severely burned in a fire at a young age. The story is that it left his right hand crippled in such a way that made it the perfect shape to hold an engraver's burin.

Goltzius' drawing of his own hand:
https://www.wikiart.org/en/hendrick-goltzius/the-artists-right-hand-1588

 

Thank you for this extra info!

Last October I posted a book from my collection that was made by his uncle Hubert.

Hendrick and Hubert were born in the same area (Venlo), I was born. That gives it for me a personal touch.


https://www.antiquers.com/threads/l...ereurs-by-hubert-goltzius-antwerp-1559.87369/

 

Interesting stuff.

 

I dont have any literature, but it is definitly a copy. I dont think Goltzius made the plate twice. In those days popular prints where often copied. If you use a print as a template for the plate you end up with a mirrored image.

Copyright laws were not the same as today. The original was by HG, why not leave his initials on the print. I would think its 17th century.