of the productions of his master. At first he imitated Mantegna, then Albert Durer, and subsequently perfected himself in design under Raffaello d'Urbino. This last afforded him further assistance; he even permitted his own grinder of colours, Baviera, to manage the press, in order that Marc Antonio might devote himself wholly to engraving Raffaello's designs, to which we owe the number we meet with in different collections. He pursued the same plan with the works of antiquity, as well as those of a few moderns, of Bonarruoti, of Giulio Romano, and of Bandinelli, besides several others, of which he was both the designer and engraver. Sometimes he omitted every kind of mark, and every letter; sometimes he adopted the little tablet of Mantegna, either with letters or without. In some engravings of the Passion he counterfeited both the hand and the mark of Albert Durer: and not unfrequently he gave the initial letters of his own and of Raffaello's name, and that of Michel Angiolo Fiorentino upon those he engraved after Bonarruoti. He was assisted by his two pupils, Agostin Veneziano and Marco Ravignano, who succeeded him in the series of engravings from Raffaello; which led Vasari to observe, in his Life of Marc Antonio, that, "between Agostino and Marco nearly all Raffaello's designs and paintings had been engraved." These two executed works conjointly; till at length they parted, and each affixed to his productions the two initial letters of his name and country.
It was thus the art of engraving in the studio of Raffaello, and by means of Marc Antonio, and of his school, rose to a high degree of perfection, not many years after its first commencement. Since that period no artist has appeared capable of treating it with more knowledge of design, and with more precision of lines and contour; though in other points it has acquired much from the hand of Parmigianino, who engraved in aqua-fortis,[104] from Agostino Caracci, and from different foreigners of the last century, among whom we may notice Edelink, Masson, Audran, Drevet, and, in the present age, several, both Italians and strangers, of whom, in this place, we must refrain from speaking.
I may be permitted, in this place, to enter into a brief investigation of the long contested question of engraving upon copper, whether its discovery is to be attributed to Germany or to Italy; and if to Italy, whether to Florence or to some other place. Much has been written upon the subject, both by natives and foreigners, but, if I mistake not, it has scarcely been treated with that accuracy which is necessary for the attainment of truth. That it is quite requisite to divide this branch of art into three several states or stages, I trust I have already sufficiently shewn. In following up this division we shall have a better chance of ascertaining what portion of merit ought to be awarded to each country. Vasari, together with Cellini, in his "Treatise upon the Goldsmith's art," as well as most other writers, are inclined to refer its commencement to Florence, and to the artist Finiguerra. Doubts have since arisen; while so recent an author as Bottari, himself a Florentine, mentions it as a circumstance not yet ascertained. The epoch of Maso was altered through mistake, by Manni, who speaks of his decease as happening previous to 1424.[105] This has been corrected by reference to the authentic books of the Arte de' Mercanti, in which the pace already cited is mentioned as being paid for in the year 1452. About the same time, Antonio Pollaiuolo, still a youth, as we learn from Vasari, in his life, was the rival of Finiguerra in the church of S. Giovanni; and as Maso had at that period already acquired great celebrity, we may conclude that he was of a mature age, and experienced in the art. We have further a right to suppose, with Gaburri and Tiraboschi, that having then taken proofs "of all the subjects which he had engraved on silver," he had observed this custom from the year 1440, and perhaps earlier; and we thus discover the elements of chalcography in Florence, satisfactorily deduced from history.[106] For neither with the aid of history, monuments, nor reasoning, am I enabled to discover an epoch equally remote belonging to any other country; as we shall shew, in the first place, in regard to Germany. It possesses no annals so far back as that period. The credulity of Sandrart[107] led him to question the truth of this, by referring to a small print of uncertain origin, on which he believed he could read the date 1411, and upon another that of 1455. At this period, however, when the authority of Sandrart is of small account, no less from his frequent contradictions than his partiality, which has rendered him suspected even by his own countrymen, we may receive his two engravings as false coin, not valuable enough to purchase the credit of the discovery from us. Those two distinguished writers, Meerman,[108] and the Baron Heineken,[109] were equally bent upon refuting him. They do not pretend to trace any earlier engraver in Germany than Martin Schön, called by others Bonmartino, and by Vasari, Martino di Anversa,[110] who died in 1486. Some are of opinion that he had two brothers, who assisted him, but who are unknown; and not long after appear the names of Israel Meckeln,[111] Van Bockold, Michael Wolgemuth, master to Albert Durer, with many others who approached the sixteenth century. It is contended, however, that engraving on copper was known in Germany anterior to these; as there exist specimens by doubtful hands, which have the appearance of being much earlier. Meerman, on the authority of Christ,[112] adduces one with the initials C. E. and the date 1465, besides two described by Bar. Heineken, dated 1466, the first of which is signed f.
The cause is well pleaded, but it is not carried. Let us try to confront reasons with reasons. The Italians have the testimony of history in their favour; the Germans have it against them. The former, without any attempt at exaggeration, proceed as far back as 1440, and even farther;[113] the latter, by dint of conjecture, reach as far as 1450, and are only tempted to anticipate it by ten years date. The Italians commence the art with Maso, not from his master; the Germans are not content to date from Schön, but from his master, an advantage they either deny to Italy, and thus fail to draw an equal comparison; or if they concede the master, we still anticipate by ten years their origin of chalcography. The Italians, again, confirm the truth of their history by a number of authentic documents, proofs in niello, first impressions, and the progress of the art from its earliest stages to maturity. The Germans supply their historic deficiency by monuments, in part proved to be false, in part doubtful, and which are easily convicted of insufficiency for the proposed object. Because who can assure us that the prints of 1465 or 66, are not the production of the brothers or the disciples of Schön, since Heineken himself confesses that they were possibly the work of some contemporary artists, his inferiors? Do we not find in Italy that the followers of Botticelli are inferior to him, and appear to be of earlier date? Moreover, who can assure us that Schön was instructed by a master of his own nation; when all his engravings that have been hitherto produced, appear already perfect in their kind;[114] nor do we find mentioned in Germany either proofs in niello, or first essays in metals of a softer temper? The fact therefore, most probably is, what has invariably obtained credit—that the invention was communicated from Italy to Germany, and as a matter not at all difficult to the goldsmiths, was speedily practised there with success; I might even add, was greatly improved. For both the press and printer's ink being well known there, artists were enabled to add to the mechanic part of the art, improvements with
