Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the latter to one of the former (which has continued to be the flux for glafs from the earliest to the prefent times) in furnaces, into maffes of a dull black colour. Thefe were again melted by the refiners, either into a colourlefs glafs, or tinged of any hue they thought proper. The grofs mafs, from the first fufion, feems to have been called ammonitrum, and probably did not differ much from the lapis obfidianus, which is faid to have been of Ethiopian or Egyptian origin. It is faid to have been a kind of black vitreous fubftance, but still pellucid, which was ufed for cafting into large works. Pliny fays, he faw folid ftatues of the emperor Auguftus made of this material; and the fame emperor dedicated four elephants of the fame fubftance in the Capitol. It appears to have been known from great antiquity, as Tiberius Cæfar, when he governed that country, found a ftatue of Menelaus of this compofition. Xenocrates likewife, according to Pliny, fpeaks of the fame compofition, as in ufe in India, Italy, and Spain. Sidon in Phoenicia had been, in early times, famous for glafs. In the time of Pliny, that of the Bay of Naples was preferred.

"The Romans were acquainted with the art of engraving upon, or cutting glafs, which is exprefly mentioned by Pliny, and confirmed by the antique gems fo frequently found. It was formed either by blowing it with a pipe, grinding it in a lathe, or catting it in a mould like metal. The colours principally in ufe were an obfcure red glafs, or perhaps rather earthen ware, called hæmatinon; one of various colours, called myrrhinum, a clear red, a white, a blue, and indeed most other colours.

"The perfectly clear glafs was, however, moft valued. Nero gave for two cups, of no very extraordinary fize, with two handles to each, upwards of fix thoufand feftertia, or above fifty thousand pounds fterling. But, though the finest kinds of glafs were fo valuable and rare, yet I apprehend, from the frequent mention of glafs in Martial, and from what Pliny fays, that glafs for drinking vefiels had nearly fuperfeded the ufe of gold and filver, that the inferior forts must have been common enough.

"Pliny likewife mentions the effects of hollow glass globes, filled with water, in concentrating the rays of light, fo as to produce flame in any combuflible fubitance upon which the focus fell, and relates, that fome furgeons in his time made ufe of it as a cauftic for ulcers and wounds.

"He was alfo acquainted with the comparative hardness of gems and glafs, as he obferves, that the lapis obfidianus would not scratch gems. And he likewife mentions the counterfeiting of the natural gems by glafs, as a very lucrative art, and in high perfection in his time; and the fame feems to be con firmed by Trebellius Pollio. Vopifcus fays, that Firmus furnished his houfe with fquare pieces of glafs, faftened together with bitumen or other fubftances; but whether they were to ferve for windows, or as reflectors of the light and objects, does not appear.

"As fpecula, or metal reflectors, in the prefent age, bear fome reference to glafs, and as they were in confiderable ufe among the ancients, I fhall here fubjoin a few words concerning them.

"The antiquity of fpecula, or metal reflectors, muft, according to Plutarch, have been very great.

other artists of that time. After which period it died away, and we hear no more of it. And that this ftyle of workmanship was not the moft ancient, we need only refer to the oldest dated prints, and beyond them to the brass plates on tombs, and other fpecimens of the art, for centuries paft, and we fhall find the ftrokes promifcuoufly laid upon them, forming the fhadows, and croffed or rectoffed without the leaft restraint.

"According to what has been faid, it appears, that 1465 is the carlieft date affixed to any print, produced by the Germans, except indeed one mentioned by Sandrart, in his Academy of Painting, which he fays he had feen, bearing date ten years earlier, and marked with a cypher, compofed of an H. and an S. joined to the cross-bar of the H. precifely in the fame manner as that ufed by Hans Schauflein. But even the moft fanguine of his own countrymen cannot help allowing their fufpicion of a mistake in the date; and fome have faid, it fhould have been written 1477, which o'thers think is ftill too early. It is readily allowed that an older mafter than Schauflein did exift, who ufed the fame monogram; but his prints in general bear the evident marks of being copies from others, and by no means, from the manner of their execution, justify the fuppofition of their being the works of a mafter, greatly anterior to the year 1500. The fubject of the print mentioned by Sandrart, is a girl careffing an old man while fhe fteals his purfe from him. This fubject, it is well known, was frequently engraved, both on copper and on wood, by a variety of ancient mafters; but, except Sandrart, I never heard of any one who had feen the print alluded

A fuller account of this artist,

with his works, may be feen in the fecond volume, under the article Schauflein. The story, that Peter Schoffer invented the art of engraving on copper, and taking impreffions from plates of that metal, does not bear any fimilitude to the truth; neither have we the leaft plausible reafon given, in fupport of fuch an affertion.

"With refpect to the edition of Ptolemy, printed at Rome in the year 1478, we must take notice, that the plates were not engraved by Italian artists, but by Conrad Sweynheym, and Arnold Buckinck, both of them Germans. The former, as appears from the dedication, first brought, not only the art of taking impreffions from engraved plates, but that of printing alfo, to Rome, where he died, three years after the commencement of the work, which was at length completed by the latter; and the plates for this book are fuppofed to have been begun about the year 1472. It will doubtless feem very extraordinary, that the art of engraving fhould have been difcovered at Florence fo early as 1460, and yet unknown twelve years afterwards at Rome, where it was first introduced by foreign artifts. It appears from this circum. ftance, that though Finiguerra, Boticelli, and Baldini, all of them Florentines, poffeffed the fecret, they did not divulge it fpeedily; and hence, as a good prefumptuous proof, it may be urged, that fuch Italian engravings, as are to be found prior to the year 1472, are by the hand of one or other of these artifts. If this be granted, and great plaufibility, at least, is on its fide, it will follow that the originals, from whence the plates II. and III. are taken, are fo. The fe curious and valuable fpecimens of ancient engravings, which, I be

lieve, are unique, must have been executed as early as the year 1464; a very fhort interval, from the time, which Vafara gives us for the invention of the art; and are confiderably more early than any hither. to produced, though all the great foreign libraries have been repeatedly fearched for that purpofe. Two of them, I thought, were fufficient to fhew the ftyle in which they are executed; but the fet confits of eight plates, namely, the feven planets, and an almanack by way of frontispiece, on which are directions for finding Eafter from the year 1465 to 1517 inclufive; and the dates regularly follow each other, which plainly proves, that there can be no mistake with refpect to the first; and we may be well af fured, in this cafe, the engravings were not antedated; for the almanack of courfe became lefs and lefs valuable every year. A full defcription of all thefe engravings will be given in the feventh chapter of this Effay.

"If we are inclined to refer thefe plates to either of the three Italian artists before mentioned, we fhall naturally fuppofe them to be the work of Finiguerra, or Baldini; for they are not equal, either in draw ing or compolition, to those ascribed to Boticelli; which we know at least were defigned by him; and as Bal dini is exprefly faid to have worked from the defigns of Boticelli, it will appear most probable, if they are to be attributed to any one of thefe three artists, they belong to the former. The reader must be left to judge for himself, whether he con. ceives them to be fufficiently well executed; for he is to remember, that Finiguerra is spoken of by Vafari, as a man of no fmall ability. I own, after all, if I could but tell to whom one might reasonably a

fcribe thefe curious plates, I fhould yet be tempted to fuppofe the original of the plate No. V. was really the production of Finiguerra's graver.

"We have now feen what pretenfions the Italians have laid to the invention of the art of engraving, and have proved, by producing undoubted fpecimens, that it did exift nearly about the time stated by Va-.. fari. With refpect to what he has faid concerning the art of taking impreffions from engraved plates being invented by Finiguerra, the ingenious obfervations of M. Heineken are well deferving of notice. "According to Vafari, fays he, and others, his countrymen, it was the goldfmith Finiguerra who invented this art, about the year 1460; and perhaps he was not miftaken, if he fpeaks of Italy only. It is very poffible, that the art of engraving fhould have been long practifed in Germany, and unknown in Italy. The Italians, thofe of Venice excepted, had very little correfpondence with the Germans. For this reafon, Finiguerra might difcover this art, without knowing that it had been already invented in Germany. All the merchandizes of this country were fent from Antwerp to the Italians, who were much better acquainted with the people of the Low Countries than thofe of the other provinces. For this caufe, Vafari fuppofed that Martin Schoen, who was born at Culmback, and refided at Colmar, was a Fleming, and constantly calls him Martin of Antwerp."

"We fhall now proceed to examine, what claim the Germans can bring, prior to that of the Italians; and in that cafe we fhall have recourse to their works. The earliest dated print I ever faw produced by this fchool, is copied, plate I. and

N 3

the

the date is evidently 1461. And we fhall fee, however faulty it may be with respect to the drawing, or defective in point of tafte, the mechanical part of the execution of it has by no means the appearance of being one of the first productions of the graver. We have alfo feveral other engravings, evidently the works of the fame mafter, and concerning which the fame obfervations may be justly made. Befides, the impreffions are fo neatly taken from the plates, and the engravings fo clearly printed in every part, that, according to all appearance, they could not be executed in a much better manner in the prefent day, with all the conveniences which the copper-plate printers now poffefs, and the additional knowledge they must neceffarily have acquired, in the course of more than three centuries. Hence we may fairly conclude, that, if they were not the first fpecimens of the engraver's workmanship, they were much lefs the first efforts of the copper plate printer's ability. Not that plates being badly printed is any certain proof of their antiquity; but we can hardly imagine, that the first attempts to take impreffions from engravings fhould immediately have arrived at perfection, and that at a time when we cannot fuppofe them to have been aware of every circumstance neceffary to infure fuc. cefs; especially when we find it no eafy matter, in the prefent day, at all times, to procure good impref fions from our plates.

The artist to whom we owe this fingular curiofity was, without doubt, a goldfmith. And indeed, it is certain, that the art of engraving plates, for the purpofe of printing, firft originated with thofe ingepious mechanics, or elfe with the engravers, who executed the brafs

plates for the monuments; but as I have faid before, I do by no means fuppofe, that this print is the first fpecimen of engraving, even if we fhould allow its author to have been the inventor of the art. There are other plates, fome of which I fhall fpecify hereafter, that, I think, bear evident marks of priority, particularly thofe of the master, who used the Gothic initials F. and S. feparated by a very fingular mark, and. who is called by abbé Marolles, Francois Stofs, or Stoltzhirs; but upon what authority does not appear.

"Martin Schoen, a painter, engraver, and goldfmith, who was born at Culmback, and refided chiefly at Colmar, is faid, with great appearance of truth, to have worked from 1460 to 1486, in which year he died. This artist was ap parently the difciple of Stoltzhirs; for he followed his ftyle of engrav ing, and copied from him a fet of prints, reprefenting the paffion of our Saviour. So that, allowing Stoltzhirs to have preceded his dif ciple only ten years, this carries the era of the art back to 1450, without having any recourfe to the fabulous relation of fome authors upon this fubject, who speak of one Luprecht Ruft, as the mafter of Martin Schoen, abfurdly declaring, that he was an engraver on wood. Admitting therefore, that fuch an artist really did exift, it is by no means reasonable to fuppofe, that he fhould teach the art of engraving on copper to another, when he was not, according to their own account, acquainted with it himself. Martin Schoen never engraved on wood, as far as I have heard; but his works on copper, it is well known, are very confiderable.

"Ifrael van Mechelen, or Meckenen, whofe engravings are

as

multifa

multifarious as thofe of Martin Schoen's, was born at Mecheln, a fmall village near Bocholt, where he chiefly refided. The latter is a town fituated upon the banks of the Aa, in the bishoprick of Munfter, in Weftphalia. He died, A. D. 1523. According to the tradition of the inhabitants of Bocholt, the father of this artist was a goldfmith, and his baptifmal name was Ifrael. Hence M. Heineken concludes, that he alfo was an engraver, and that a great part of the prints, attributed to the fon, belong to him. "An attentive examination (concludes that author) will make it appear, that all these prints are not by the fame hand. I am almoft certain, that Ifrael the father engraved feveral, those especially which have the greatest marks of antiquity, and are executed in a rude style, approaching nearest to the work of the goldfmith." "Nor (adds he) will I deny, but that the fon may have commenced originally as a goldfmith, by armorial bearings, foliages, croffes, and other ornamental works. But as he was a painter as well as an engraver, and a man of tolerable abilities in the art of defign, confidering the time in which he lived, it is not at all aftonishing, that among the prints produced by his graver, we fhould find fome by no means wanting in merit." How far thefe obfervations may be confidered as juft by the experienced collector, I cannot pretend to fay. for my own part, I fee no reason to divide the works of this artist; nor can I find, upon ftrict examination, any other difference in the prints, which I have feen at tributed to him, than what one might reasonably expect to find in the works of any one man, who with his own hand performed fo great a number of engravings. Of

courfe, his moft early productions are the rudeft, and manifeft the leaft fkill; but all of them are equally defective in point of drawing, efpecially when he attempted to exprefs the naked parts of the figure.

"It is certainly true, that the manner of engraving, adopted by Martin Schoen, differed exceedingly from that of Ifrael van Mechelen. The works of the former are more firm and determined, and, upon the whole, greatly fuperior. Let any one take the trouble of examining the print reprefenting St. Anthony carried into the air by the demons, which was firft engraved by Martin Schoen, and afterwards copied by Ifrael, and the question will be rea dily decided in favour of the for. mer, without adding the anecdote, recorded by Vafari, that Michael Angelo was fo pleased with this engraving, which is truly a masterpiece of Schoen's, that he copied it in colours. The inferiority of If rael van Mechelen, when compared to Martin Schoen as an artist, is by no means any proof of his priority in point of time. The only advantage which M. Heineken gains by making the father of van Mechelen an artist, as well as himself, is a greater length of time for the execution of thofe works attributed to him; and upon this fuppofition he fays, "I place the engravings of the two Ifraels between the years 1450 and 1503." The fon was certainly a more modern artist than Martin Schoen; and we have a print by him, which bears fo late a date as 1502. He was contemporary with Albert Durer; and fome have fuppofed, that he visited that artist at Nuremberg. Sandrart at tributes to Ifrael van Mechelen the invention of engraving, and tells us, that his first prints were exe

N 4

cuted

1

« PreviousContinue »