en enough, who from the mere Desire of
increasing their Wealth, would give him that Assistance, which, like
the artificial Heat of a Greenhouse, would bring that Art to a
Ripeness, which would otherwise languish and die under the Coldness
of the first Designer, and which in this Union of Riches and
Invention would yield mutual Advantage to both.

There are besides this amongst the Great, without Doubt, many who
would gladly lend their Patronage to rising Arts, if they knew their
Authors....

He gives as example the Duke of Cumberland, who had just sponsored a
tapestry plant at Fulham, and follows with an outline of the honorable
traditions of the woodcut, pointing out that Duerer, Titian, Salviati,
Campagnola, and other painters drew their work on woodblocks to be cut
by woodcutters, and adds that "even _Andrea Vincentino_ did not think it
in the least a Dishonour, though a Painter, to grave on Wood the
Landscapes of _Titian_." He builds up to the statement that Raphael and
Parmigianino drew on woodblocks to be cut in chiaroscuro by Ugo da
Carpi.

After having said all this, it may seem highly improper to give to
Mr. _Jackson_ [he speaks of himself throughout in the third person]
the Merit of inventing this Art; but let me be permitted to say,
that an Art recovered is little less than an Art invented. The Works
of the former Artists remain indeed; but the Manner in which they
were done, is entirely lost: the inventing then the Manner is really
due to this latter Undertaker, since no Writings, or other Remains,
are to be found by which the Method of former Artists can be
discover'd, or in what Manner they executed their works; nor, in
Truth, has the _Italian_ Method since the Beginning of the 16th
Century been attempted by any one except Mr. _Jackson_.

We cannot help concluding that Jackson was falsifying here. Taking
advantage of the public's ignorance, he was puffing up his historical
importance in order to sell wallpaper. If the _cognoscenti_ complained
that he had buried the chiaroscurists after da Carpi, he always had the
explanation that others did not work in the Italian style, which he
neglected to describe. Jackson knew what he was doing; he was not as
ignorant of art history as Hardie and Burch have surmised, although it
is true that he was not always certain as to dates, since he believed
Andreani worked as a contemporary of da Carpi. In the _Enquiry_,
published only