a decifive manner to prove, that his talents were not
inferior to thofe of his predeceffors. In order to diveft
his contemporaries of fo unreafonable a prejudice, he
engraved a plate reprefenting the circumcifion of ChrlJI^
in the ftyle of Albert Durer, which we are informed,
and, indeed, we can eafily credit the information, being
printed on foiled paper, and torn to give it the appear-
ance of antiquity, was really fold as a curious perform-
ance by that mafter. He then proceeded to engrave
the adoration of the wife men, in the ftyle of Lucas of
Leyden, and was equally fuccefsful. Thefe prints,
which confift of fix, are called his mafferpieces, and
they are by no means undeferving of that appellation.
The la ft of them reprefents a holy family^ and is in his
own ftyle. This admirable print is greatly fuperior to
any of the others ; and, without doubt, it was the ori-
ginal intention of the artift, that it fhould be fo.'
Thefe complaints againft Pi cart are repeated under
his article in the Dictionary.
Will Mr. S. permit us (by no means fo devoted to
the old matters as himfelf, though very fenhble of their
merits) to remark, that perhaps he may have fallen into
the fame error for which he has condemned Picart ?
we mean want of candour. Is it probable, that Pi-
cart fhould fuppofe a phantom, merely to combat it ?
or, that he fhould tell us, the advocates for the old
mafters fay, c< engraving has not been improved fmce
" their time," urtlefs fuch language was held by the
profound connoifTeors of his place and day ? It is un-
likely, any man fhould be fo unwife, efpecially one who
had very much better employment. But we find this
4 „. unrea-