they are "in the manner of Hugo da Carpi but much
inferior in execution." But Huber, Rost, and Martini[45] noted Jackson's
independent approach:

Jackson's prints, which are certainly not without merit, are in
general less sought after by collectors than they deserve. His style
is original and is concerned entirely with broad effects.

[Footnote 44: Von Heinecken, 1771, p. 94.]

[Footnote 45: Huber, Rost, and Martini, 1808, vol. 9, pp.
121-123.]

Baverel[46] also had a high opinion of Jackson's work. Describing the
Venetian prints, he says that Jackson "had a skillful and daring attack,
and it is regrettable that he did not produce more work." Nagler's[47]
criticism typifies the academic preconceptions of some writers on the
subject of chiaroscuro:

Jackson's works are not praiseworthy throughout in drawing, and also
he was not thoroughly able to apply the principles of chiaroscuro
correctly.... Yet we have several valuable prints from Jackson....

[Footnote 46: Baverel, 1807, vol. 1, pp. 341-342.]

[Footnote 47: Kuenstler-Lexicon, op. cit.]

And Chatto[48] remarks:

They are very unequal in point of merit; some of them appearing
harsh and crude, and others flat and spiritless, when compared with
similar products by the old Italian wood engravers.

[Footnote 48: Chatto and Jackson, 1861, p. 455.]

With this verdict W. J. Linton[49] disagrees, saying, "...Chatto
underrates him. I find his works very excellent and effective. _The
Finding of Moses_ (2 feet high by 16 inches wide) and _Virgin Climbing
the Steps of the Temple_ (after Veronese), and others, are admirable in
every respect...." Duplessis[50] attacks the Venetian set heatedly and
at length, yet he devotes more space to expounding Jackson's
deficiencies than to discussing the work of any other woodcut artist,
even Duerer or da Carpi.

[Footnote 49: Linton, 1889, p. 214. The second print mentioned is
after Titian, not Veronese.]

[Footnote 50: Duplessis, 1880, pp. 314-315. Duplessis, who was
_conservateur-adjoint_ in the Cabinet des Estampes of the
Bibliotheque Nationale, no doubt based his judgment on the
impressions in that collection. Certainly few of these were
printed by either Jackson or Pasquali.]

On the evidence we have, the new conception Jackson brought to
printmaking was not fully understood until the 20th century. Pierre
Gusman[51] in 1916 probably first noted the