which Italy was unacquainted; I will produce an example of what I mean, that cannot fail to convince. Printing of books was discovered in Germany: history and monuments alike confirm it, which are to be traced gradually from tabular prints to moveable types, still of wood, and from these to characters of metal. In such state was the invention brought to Italy, where, without passing through these intermediate degrees, books were printed not only in moveable characters of metal, but with tables cut in copper, thus adding to the art a degree of perfection which it wanted. Heineken objects that the Germans at that period had very little correspondence with the cities of Italy, with the exception of Venice, (p. 139). To this I answer that our universities of Pisa and Bologna, besides several others, were much frequented by young men from Germany, at that period; and that for the convenience both of strangers and of natives, a Dictionary of the German language was printed at Venice, in 1475, and in 1479, at Bologna; a circumstance sufficient of itself to prove that there was no little communication between the two nations. There are, besides, so many other reasons to believe that a great degree of intercourse subsisted, more particularly between Germany and Florence,[115] during the period we treat of; that we ought not to be at all surprised at the arts belonging to the one being communicated to the other. Hitherto I have pleaded, as far as lay in my power, the cause of my country; though without having been able, I fear, to bring the question to a close. Some time, it is possible, that those earliest essays and proofs of the art, which have hitherto eluded research, may be discovered: it is possible that some one of their writers, who are at once so truly learned and so numerous, may improve upon the hint thrown out by Heineken (p. 139), that the Germans and the Italians, without any kind of corresponding knowledge on the subject, struck out simultaneous discoveries of the modern art. However this may chance to be, it is my part to write from the information and authorities which I have before me.
It remains to be seen whether, on the exclusion of Germany, there is any other part of Italy that may have anticipated the discovery of Finiguerra at Florence. Some of his opponents have ventured to question his title on the strength of metallic impressions of seals, which are met with on Italian parchments from the earliest periods. This shews only that the art advanced during several ages on the verge of this invention; but it does not prove that the very origin of the discovery is to be sought for in seals; otherwise we should be bound to commence the history of modern typography from the seals of earthen-ware, with which our museums abound. No one will contend that certain immemorial and undigested elements that lay for many ages neglected and unformed, ought to have a place in the history of art; and this we are now treating on, ought not to date its commencement beyond the period when silversmiths' shops had been established, where, in fact, it took its origin and grew to maturity. We must then compare the proofs remaining to us of their labours, and see whether such proofs were in use at any other place, before the time of Finiguerra. I might observe that there are two threads, as it were, which may serve as a clue to this labyrinth, until we may somewhere or by some means ascertain the actual date; and these two are the character and the design. The character in all the proofs I have examined, is not at all (as we commonly call it) of a gothic description; it is round and roman, according to the observation before made (at p. 49), and does not lead us farther back than the year 1440. The design is more suspicious: in the Durazzo collection I have seen proofs of nielli with more coarse designs than are displayed in the works of Maso, but they are perhaps not the offspring of the Florentine school. I shall not here attempt to anticipate the judgment of those who may engage to illustrate these ancient remains; nor that of the public, in regard to the engravings correctly taken from them, which must pronounce their definitive sentence. If I mistake not, however, true connoisseurs will be cautious how they pass a final opinion. It will not be difficult for them to discern a Bolognese from a Florentine artist, in modern painting, after it is seen that each school formed its own peculiar character both in colouring and in design; but in regard to proofs of nielli,[116] to distinguish school from school, will not be so easy a task. For though it may be ascertained, for instance, that such a proof came from Bologna; can we pronounce from the fact of its being coarser and rawer than the designs of Finiguerra, that it is so far more ancient? Maso and the Florentines, after the time of Masaccio, had already softened their style towards the year 1440; but can we assert the same of the other schools of Italy? Besides, is it certain that the silversmiths, from whose hands proceeded the proofs, sought out the best designers;[117] and did not copy, for instance, the Bolognese, the design of a Pietà by Jacopo Avanzi, or the Venetians, a Madonna by Jacobello del Fiore? The more dry, coarse, and clumsy specimens therefore, cannot easily be adduced against Finiguerra as a proof of greater antiquity; otherwise we should run into the whimsical sophistry of Scalza, who affirmed that the Baronci were the most ancient men in Florence, and in the whole world, because they were the ugliest.[118] We must therefore permit Maso to rest quietly in possession of the discovery, until further and more ancient proofs are adduced, than are to be found in his cards and his zolfi.
In my account of the second state of engraving, I shall not make mention of the German masters, in regard to whom I have not dates that may be thought sufficient; I shall confine my attention to those of Italy. I shall compare the testimony of Vasari and Lomazzo; one of whom supposes the art to have originated in Upper, the other in Lower Italy. In his Life of Marc Antonio, Vasari observes, that Finiguerra "was followed by Baccio Baldini, a Florentine goldsmith, who being little skilled in design, every thing he executed was after designs and inventions of Sandro Botticello. As soon as Andrea Mantegna learned this circumstance at Rome, he first began to turn his attention to the engraving of his own works." Now in the life of Sandro he makes particular mention of the time when he applied himself to the art, which was at the period he had completed his labours in the Sistine chapel. Returning directly after to Florence, "he began to comment upon Dante, he drew the Inferno, and engraved it, which occupying a large portion of his time, was the occasion of much trouble and inconvenience in his future life." Botticelli is here considered an engraver from about 1474, at the age of thirty-seven years; and Baldini, who executed every thing from the designs of Sandro, also practised the art. At the same period flourished Antonio Pollaiuolo, who acquired a higher reputation than either of the last. Few of his impressions remain, but among these is the celebrated battle of the naked soldiers, approaching nearest in point of power to the bold style of Michelangiolo. The epoch of these productions is to be placed about 1480, because having acquired great celebrity by them, he was invited to Rome towards the close of 1483, to raise the monument of Sixtus IV., who died in that year.
According to Vasari, Mantegna having decorated the chapel of Innocent VIII. at Rome, about 1490,[119] from that or the preceding year is intitled to the name of engraver, computing it from about his sixtieth year. He flourished more than sixteen years after this period; during which is it to be believed that he produced that amazing number of engravings,[120] amounting to more than fifty, of which about thirty appear to be genuine specimens, on so grand a scale, so rich in figures, so finely studied and Mantegnesque in every part; that he executed these when he was already old, new to the art, an art fatiguing to the eye and the chest even of young artists; that he pursued it amidst his latest occupations in Mantua, which we shall, in their place, describe, and that he produced such grand results within sixteen or seventeen years. Either Vasari must have mistaken the dates, or wished to impose upon our credulity by his authority. Lomazzo leads us to draw a very different conclusion, when in his Treatise (p. 682) he adds this short eulogy to the name and merits of Mantegna, "a skilful painter, and the first engraver of prints in Italy;" but wherein he does not mention him as an inventor, meaning only to ascribe to him the merit of introducing the second state of the art at least in Italy; because he believed that it had already arisen in Germany. Such authority as this is worth our attention. I shall have occasion in the course of my narrative to combat some of Lomazzo's assertions; but I shall also feel bound to concur with him frequently in the epochs illustrated by him. He was born about twenty-five years subsequent to Vasari; he had more erudition, was a better critic, and on the affairs
