Period:Unknown Production date:1669
Materials:paper
Technique:etching, letterpress,
Subjects:architecture
Dimensions:Height: 53 millimetres (Anhing, cut) Height: 76 millimetres (Paoing, cut) Height: 157 millimetres (lower image, cut) Width: 172 millimetres (Anhing, cut) Width: 152 millimetres (Paoing, cut) Width: 64 millimetres (lower image, cut)
Description:
Three illustrations cut from Johannes Nieuhof’s ‘An Embassy from the East-India Company of the United Provinces, to the Grand Tartar Cham Emperor of China’ (London: 1669); the first two, each cut half off horizontally, the third on its own on p.91: ‘Anhing’ (top half): View of a pagoda in the right. View of an entrance to a fortified building from a river landing. ‘Paoing’: View of a city wall in the middle distance. Etching with letterpress
IMG
Comments:See comment for 1855,0512.225.+The three images are pasted together and registered under one number. The number stamped on the verso of the print is 1855,0512.233, however this is a duplicate number (not in the register). For that reason, 1855,0512.233.+ was given when catalogued.
Materials:paper
Technique:etching, letterpress,
Subjects:architecture
Dimensions:Height: 53 millimetres (Anhing, cut) Height: 76 millimetres (Paoing, cut) Height: 157 millimetres (lower image, cut) Width: 172 millimetres (Anhing, cut) Width: 152 millimetres (Paoing, cut) Width: 64 millimetres (lower image, cut)
Description:
Three illustrations cut from Johannes Nieuhof’s ‘An Embassy from the East-India Company of the United Provinces, to the Grand Tartar Cham Emperor of China’ (London: 1669); the first two, each cut half off horizontally, the third on its own on p.91: ‘Anhing’ (top half): View of a pagoda in the right. View of an entrance to a fortified building from a river landing. ‘Paoing’: View of a city wall in the middle distance. Etching with letterpress
IMG
Comments:See comment for 1855,0512.225.+The three images are pasted together and registered under one number. The number stamped on the verso of the print is 1855,0512.233, however this is a duplicate number (not in the register). For that reason, 1855,0512.233.+ was given when catalogued.
© Copyright
The copyright of the article belongs to the author, please keep the original link for reprinting.
THE END