Re: Utamaro:- Yes. But t

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Ukiyo-e Q & A ]

Posted by Guy Pepermans ( on October 16, 2014 at 09:39:28:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Utamaro:- Yes. But t posted by Hans Olof Johansson on October 15, 2014 at 16:49:08:

If I read it correct, it's seems that Kendō refers also to the 12th month of 1805 ('jūni' or 十é#24336) for the seal at the left (not shown in Marks). Did he consider it just as a variant of the seal at the right? On the other hand, the Waseda prints nrs. 1001-1270 and 001-1271 do refer to a performance of Bunka 2, 11th month ('jūichi' or 十弌); cfr. the image of the character 弌 in seal script in annex. See also Waseda nrs. 201-5792 for a specimen of the date seal Bunka 2, 12th month.

More confusingly, several prints that are dated as Bunka 2, 11th month in the Waseda, bear the date seal of Bunka 3, 1st month (1806/1)... ? The attribution of this specific seal by Marks to 1806/1 is in my opinion correct. See Waseda prints nrs. 001-0870, 001-0437, 001-0419. An explanation could be that these prints were published and sold after the performance - or - that either the Waseda or Marks are wrong in their attribution.

BTW: the publisher's seal on the Utamaro print is listed in Marks as nr 02-031, unidentified publisher U273 (Sen-Sa, p. 424). The British Museum refers to the publisher Yamadaya Sasuke. Auction houses Christie's and Drouot do mention also Yamadaya Sasuke for Eizan prints bearing this publisher's seal. I'm not sure if the explicit attribution to Yamadaya Sasuke is entirely correct. So, more stuff for additional research.


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Subject: Re: Utamaro:- Yes. But t


Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Ukiyo-e Q & A ]