The engraving as evidence: source-criticism
What to do with an engraving that has a date but no master? A short checklist for working with 16th–18th-century demonological iconography.
First step: the watermark. Paper is more often documented than the plate. If you are lucky, Briquet's catalogue gives a workshop name and a year-range.
Second: iconographic comparison. If the engraving contains a sigil or figure attested in published grimoires, use the Clotilde catalogue (Paris, 1938). It is organised by semantic cluster, not alphabetically.
Third: the burin. Direction and depth betray a school: Italian (Florentine) — fine parallel lines; Netherlandish — cross-hatching; Czech — a hybrid. These markers are not proof, but they sharply narrow the field.
Fourth: inscriptions. Any inscription, even ciphered, contributes a terminus ante quem: a cipher uses an alphabet, and the alphabet is datable.
Attribution without a master is not a verdict. It is a signal that the source demands slower reading.