DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.7597#0384
chap, v.] BARTSCH'S ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 347
no step whatever, towards perfecting the new art, when a Ger-
man artist surprised the world by the production of fine prints!!
Let me now be permitted to make a few observations upon this
specious tissue of garbled evidence, false premises, and unwarranted
conclusions; fabricated, with more ingenuity than fairness, for the
purpose of depriving Italy of the honours due to her as inventress
of chalcography, and transferring them to Germany.
Where, I would ask, did Mr. Bartsch learn that Baldini did not
make his appearance as an engraver, with any degree of certainty,
until 1477, in the prints of the Monte Santo di Dio? Where is
his authority for ascribing those prints to Baldini at all ? They
indeed may be by that artist, and probably are so : but neither
Vasari nor any other old writer says one word of the matter. Is
Baldini mentioned in the preface or in the colophon of that curious
book, as the author of the engravings which it contains ? No—on
the contrary, no mention whatever is made of those embellishments,
a circumstance which, of itself, seems sufficient to prove that prints
were, at that time, no new things at Florence. For had they been
the first public essays of the chalcographic art in that city, there
can be little doubt that Nicolo della Magna, the publisher, would
have made a merit of the introduction of such novel decorations;
dwelling on the utility and importance of the new art, as did the
publisher of the geography of Ptolemy, printed at Bologna, and
bearing date 1462; a date which probably requires amendment,
and, it is thought, ought to have been 1472.
How came Mr. Bartsch, upon this occasion, to forget to men-
tion the very curious Florentine almanack described by Strutt,
and accompanied by seven small folio prints, representing the
seven planets, with their attributes; a work which he himself
admits must have been engraved as early as 1464;—that is, two
years prior to the earliest date he had been able to discover on
any German engraving on metal—and whose magnitude certainly
opposes the idea of its having been a first essay of the art, or of
the artist, whoever he was ? The artist, indeed, Mr Bartsch, seems
2 y 2
no step whatever, towards perfecting the new art, when a Ger-
man artist surprised the world by the production of fine prints!!
Let me now be permitted to make a few observations upon this
specious tissue of garbled evidence, false premises, and unwarranted
conclusions; fabricated, with more ingenuity than fairness, for the
purpose of depriving Italy of the honours due to her as inventress
of chalcography, and transferring them to Germany.
Where, I would ask, did Mr. Bartsch learn that Baldini did not
make his appearance as an engraver, with any degree of certainty,
until 1477, in the prints of the Monte Santo di Dio? Where is
his authority for ascribing those prints to Baldini at all ? They
indeed may be by that artist, and probably are so : but neither
Vasari nor any other old writer says one word of the matter. Is
Baldini mentioned in the preface or in the colophon of that curious
book, as the author of the engravings which it contains ? No—on
the contrary, no mention whatever is made of those embellishments,
a circumstance which, of itself, seems sufficient to prove that prints
were, at that time, no new things at Florence. For had they been
the first public essays of the chalcographic art in that city, there
can be little doubt that Nicolo della Magna, the publisher, would
have made a merit of the introduction of such novel decorations;
dwelling on the utility and importance of the new art, as did the
publisher of the geography of Ptolemy, printed at Bologna, and
bearing date 1462; a date which probably requires amendment,
and, it is thought, ought to have been 1472.
How came Mr. Bartsch, upon this occasion, to forget to men-
tion the very curious Florentine almanack described by Strutt,
and accompanied by seven small folio prints, representing the
seven planets, with their attributes; a work which he himself
admits must have been engraved as early as 1464;—that is, two
years prior to the earliest date he had been able to discover on
any German engraving on metal—and whose magnitude certainly
opposes the idea of its having been a first essay of the art, or of
the artist, whoever he was ? The artist, indeed, Mr Bartsch, seems
2 y 2