k tints.]

The drawings were reproduced in chiaroscuro while the paintings were
rendered in black-and-white by a corps of engravers. The chiaroscuros
were made by combining an etched outline, usually by de Caylus or
P. P. A. Robert, with superimposed tones, mainly in green or buff, from
one or two woodblocks cut in most cases by Nicolas Le Sueur, or under
his direction. This was not a new printing method. Hubert (not Hendrick)
Goltzius had first employed it in a set of Roman emperors after antique
medallions in 1557.[22] To reproduce drawings by Raphael, Parmigianino,
and himself, Abraham Bloemart, as well as Frederick and Cornelius
Bloemart in the early 1600's, had used this combination extensively, and
as described earlier, p. 11, Kirkall had used it between 1722 and
1724.[23] The combination method produced rather feeble prints that
lacked the vigor of straight woodblock chiaroscuro. The etched outline
was thin and ineffective, and the tints were pallid so as not to
overpower the drawing. Only Abraham Bloemart's prints in this style were
convincing, although Kirkall's chiaroscuros, in their soft, over-modeled
way, had individuality. But the _Cabinet Crozat_ lacked distinction
entirely. The chiaroscuros had a mechanical look, a fact not surprising
when we remember that they were produced by a team of engravers--
assembled, as it were, from several hands working in different media.
The best prints were a few chiaroscuros made entirely from woodblocks by
Nicolas Le Sueur, although these were also rather tepid, no doubt to
harmonize with the rest of the work.

[Footnote 22: _Imperatorum imagines_, Antwerp, 1557. The
woodblocks were cut by Josse Geitleugen.]

[Footnote 23: In the _Enquiry_ (p. 31) Jackson asserts that
Kirkall's tints were made from copper plates, not woodblocks.]

Jackson tells us that he worked on some tint blocks, first from a
drawing by Giulio Romano and later from a drawing by Raphael, _Christ
Giving the Keys to St. Peter_, the original _modello_ for one of the
famous tapestry cartoons. Count de Caylus, he says, liked the work and
wanted to employ him further on the project, but Crozat rejected him
flatly. De Caylus, according to Jackson, was embarrassed and distressed
and offered recompense for the lost time and labor, but Jackson, not to
be outdone in generosity by a nobleman, refused, explaining that the
honor of knowing the Count and receiving his approbation more than made
up