glory of _Punch_, has in one or two instances had pulls taken from the
wood blocks upon special paper. These special proofs show all the charm
of wood engraving. In the case of the initial large C, reproduced on
page 91, Mr. Bradbury's specimen shows the beautiful quality which in
our own time Mr. Sturge Moore and Mr. Pissarro are at such pains to
secure in engravings made for love of the art. One only wishes that the
exigencies of book-production would allow us to attempt rivalry with Mr.
Bradbury's specimen in our reproduction. But we see no reason why
specimens of the wood-printing of du Maurier's work should not be on
view in the British Museum. The "impressions" in old volumes of _Punch_,
after the wear and tear, the opening and the shutting, and the effect of
time are not an adequate record of du Maurier's skill in accommodating
his art to the methods of reproduction of the period.

Moreover, du Maurier was better in securing an effect of painting than
of pure line work with his pen. It is just this effect which suited the
methods of engraving better than those of "process" work. And because it
demanded drawing to a smaller scale, with lines closer together, the
demands of engraving suited the nature of du Maurier's art better than
those of "process" work.

When the modern process came in artists enlarged their drawings so as to
secure delicacy of effect from the result of the reduction in printing.
In such a case they really work for the sake of a result upon the
printed page, and there is consequently less value to be attached to the
original drawing. It generally errs on the side of coarseness. And now
that a trade is driven in original drawings, artists are tempted to give
the purchaser as much in the matter of size for his money as he may
want. And, alas, it is true that many picture buyers do buy according to
measurement, or anything else on earth rather than merit.