"The name "bernhardinus milnit (et?)" occurs on a kind of label attached to the passe-partout of riband-like clouds, with the symbols of the four Evangelists at the corners, which surrounds a print of the Virgin and Child, half-length, standing, discovered at Frankfort in 1818, by Mr. N. Hill of Manchester. This print belonged some years ago to Mr. G.H. Rowbotham, of Manchester, and was photographed while in his possession, but it was lost in 1896. (Information kindly supplied by Mr. Gordon Duff, librarian of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, April 28th, 1900, and since confirmed by Mr. Rowbotham.) Schreiber was mistaken in asserting that this impression was at Althorp. (Schr. 2482. Reproduction, Ottley, 'Invention of Printing,' p. 197. Another impression without the passe-partout from the Weigel collection, passed from the hands of Mr. L. Rosenthal of Munich into private ownership.) Duchesne, who first published a transcript of the supposed signature, jumped to the hasty conclusion ('Essai sur les nielles,' 1826, p. 10) that the print of S. Bernardino of Siena at Paris with the supposed date 1454 (in reality 1174), was also by Bernardinus (or, as he calls him, Bernard) Milnet, for no better reason than that there are dots in both, and that Bernardino (whom he confuses with Bernard) was the engraver's patron-saint. He ascribed to him, further, two prints of St. Catherine and St. George (Schr. 2569 and 2633) at Paris, and others at Berlin (Schr. 2282, 2671 (?), 2743) ('Voyage d'un iconophile,' 1834, p. 223). From this it was a short step to the description of the dotted style in general as 'maniere de Bernard Milnet.” As a matter of fact, this engraving of the Virgin is far from being typical of the style in general. The dots and strokes are large and coarse, and the white lines leaving small black squares appear to have been produced by the knife rather than by the burin. Duchesne, not content with the reckless attribution of other dotted prints to the same eugraver, concluded that this engraver was a Frenchman, because his name ended in “et,”and St. Bernard (sic) was a French saint ('Essai,' p. 11). The "h" in "bernhardinus" points rather to a German origin, while the features of the Virgin and the style of the drapery suggests a rather late date (about 1480, Schr.) and the Lower Rhine as the locality. No readingof the inscription more plausible than "bernhardinus milnet" has been suggested. It should be observed that even if this be the name of an engraver (to which, it is true, the name “ bartholmeus” on Schr. 2218 affords a parallel), we are not strictly justified in attributing to him anything more than the passe-partout, which surrounds the print itself but may have been produced apart from it. In the passe-partout no dots occur. It is important to observe that the supposed impression of this print at Paris [E. a. 3. Réserve], which all the writers who have discussed the subject, from Duchesne to Schreiber, have described as an original, is merely one of the twenty-five impressions of the facsimile made at Antwerp in 1820 for Mr. Hill, from the original which is now lost. For the proof of this I am indebted to M. Henri Bouchot of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, from whose letters, dated 16 Nov. and 18 Nov. 1898 I quote the following passages : "L'’estampe representant la Vierge nous a été envoyée par M. Hill le 26 septembre 1820 par la poste d’Anvers. M. Hill écrivait a Van Praet, conservateur de la Bibliothèque Royale : 'L'artiste venant de me rendre le fac-simile de l'estampe de Bernard Milnet dont il n'a encore tiré que cinq epreuves, je m'empresse de vous en envoyer une par la poste, au risque meme de la detériorer. Je désire beaucoup qu'il remplisse vos vues [i.e. voeux?] ; dans tous les cas je vous sera très reconnaissant de me donner votre opinion bien detaillée sur cet objet.'(Le reste de la lettre a trait à autre chose. Toutefois on voit qu'il offre une épreuve à Duchesne ainé et à de Bure.) II ajoute en post-scriptum: 'Le nom de Bernhardinus Milnet en bas du fac-simile pourrait etre mieux copié, mais j'espère cependant que vous le trouverez assez lizible (sic).' Cette lettre est conservée avec l'estampe dans le vol. E. a. 3 Réserve." In his second letter, after observing that some persons still regard the Paris print as an original, M. Bouchot continues: "II suffit, pour se convaincre du contraire, de remarquer: 1. Le papier, qui est surement fabriqué au xix.e siècle, tout au plus à la fin du xviii.e. 2. Les coloris. Les coloris jaunes de ces pieces sont dans les originaux ordinaires en gomme-gutte transparente. Les bleus sont verdatres et non comme dans notre épreuve en cobalt moderne. Nos jaunes sont d'ocre. 3. L'or. Dans notre épreuve l'or du nimbe est une poudre appliquée sur un fixatif. Les vieux doraient en feuilles et passaient au brunissoir. Mais si vous voulez la preuve matérielle incontestable et formelle que notre épreuve est bien la copie envoyé en 1820 par M. Hill, la voici : Elle est exactement pliée en 4 comme la lettre dans laquelle elle a été envoyée ('au risque même de la détériorer')." The facsimile published by Ottley differs from that made for Hill, and was probably made in England direct from the original, but Ottley unfortunately omitted to give any particulars about it. It does not appear that the original has been studied by any competent critic."—Dodgson, op. cit., pp. 157-158
Dodgson subsequently corrected the above account as follows: "This print seems fated to mislead all who write about it. I have to acknowledge that, after correcting some of the errors of my predecessors, I have myself fallen into no less serious a blunder. I misinterpreted the words of Mr. Gordon Duff when I quoted his authority for the statement that Mr. Rowbotham possessed the original print till 1896. Mr. Rowbotham, did, in fact, possess one of the forty (not twenty-five) facsimiles printed in 1820. It was an uncoloured copy, and the photograph sent by Mr. Rowbotham ought not, therefore, to have deceived me. In the year following my supposed discovery, the true original came to light. It had always remained at Manchester. Mr. Nathan Hill, who found it on 15 September, 1818, on a stall in the Frankfort fair, gave it, shortly before his death in 1856, to Mr. F.R. Atkinson, of Oak House, Pendleton, Manchester, who died in 1901 [sic]. It remains in the possession of Mr. Atkinson's representatives. It is accompanied by specimens, both coloured and uncoloured, of the facsimile, and by letters which supplement the correspondence preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Mr. Hill wrote to M. Van Praet from Antwerp on 15 December, 1818, to announce his discovery, and to suggest that a lithographic facsimile should be made. Van Praet replied on 7 February, 1819, that he considered the new print to be by the same master as the St. Bernard. Hill noted in pencil on this letter, "Name of the engraver confirmed by his having engraved his patron St. Bernard." He also wrote, "Lithographier St. Bernard and my print, recommend Arnaut," and he seems to have replied to this effect on 21 August, 1819. Van Praet wrote on 19 November 1820, acknowledging letters from Hill of 24 September and 30 October. "J'ai communiqué dans le temps à M. Duchesne le facsimile de la gravure en bois dont vous avez eu la bonté de m'envoyer une épreuve. Ce connoisseur en estampes anciennes ne pense pas comme vous qu'elle est le produit de l'artiste qui a gravé le St. Bernard. Effectivement, en comparant ces deux gravures ensemble, on voit evidemment que cette dernière est par un graveur beaucoup plus habile." A note written by Delmotte, notary at Mons, in 1832, a copy of which, in Hill's hand, accompanies the print, says that forty copies of the facsimile were issued; they were numbered, certified and signed by Hill. Six copies were coloured in imitation of the print itself. Van Praet had a facsimile made of the St. Bernard at Paris ; of this twenty-five copies were issued. Delmotte held the opinion that both prints were by the same master, and wrote a tract, “Facsimile du Saint-Bernardin de 1454 et de la premiere estampe gravée sur bois avec nom de l'auteur." Typographie de Hoyois-Derely, libraire, Mons, 1833 ; 4to, of which only five copies are said to have been printed. …"--ibid, pp. 566-567
