Chapter I: Antiquity of Engraving (2)

One of the finest monumental brasses known in this country is that of Robert Braunche and his two wives, in St. Margaret’s Church, Lynn, where it appears to have been placed about the year 1364. Braunche, and his two wives, one on each side of him, are represented standing, of the size of life. Above the figures are representations of five small niches surmounted by canopies in the florid Gothic style. In the centre niche is the figure of the Deity holding apparently the infant Christ in his arms. In each of the niches adjoining the centre one is an angel swinging a censer; and in the exterior niches are angels playing on musical instruments. At the sides are figures of saints, and at the foot there is a representation of a feast, where persons are seen seated at table, others playing on musical instruments, while a figure kneeling presents a peacock. The length of this brass is eight feet eleven inches, and its breadth five feet two inches. It is supposed to have been executed in Flanders, with which country at that period the town of Lynn was closely connected in the way of trade.[I-30]

[Footnote I-30: An excellent representation of this celebrated
monument is given in Cotman’s “Engravings from the most remarkable
Sepulchral Brasses in Norfolk,” folio, 1819 (republished with
considerable additions in 2 vols. folio, 1839).]

It has frequently been asserted that the art of wood engraving in Europe was derived from the Chinese; by whom, it is also said, that the art was practised in the reign of the renowned emperor Wu-Wang, who flourished 1120 years before the birth of Christ. As both these statements seem to rest on equal authorities, I attach to each an equal degree of credibility; that is, by believing neither. As Mr. Ottley has expressed an opinion in favour of the Chinese origin of the art,--though without adopting the tale of its being practised in the reign of Wu-Wang, which he shows has been taken by the wrong end,--I shall here take the liberty of examining the tenability of his arguments.

At page 8, in the first chapter of his work, Mr. Ottley cautiously says that the “art of printing from engraved blocks of wood appears to be of very high antiquity amongst the Chinese;” and at page 9, after citing Du Halde, as informing us that the art of printing was not discovered until about fifty years before the Christian era, he rather inconsistently observes: “So says Father Du Halde, whose authority I give without any comment, as the defence of Chinese chronology makes no part of the present undertaking.” Unless Mr. Ottley is satisfied of the correctness of the chronology, he can by no means cite Du Halde’s account as evidence of the very high antiquity of printing in China; which in every other part of his book he speaks of as a well-established fact, and yet refers to no other authority than Du Halde, who relies on the correctness of that Chinese chronology with the defence of which Mr. Ottley will have nothing to do.

It is also worthy of remark, that in the same chapter he corrects two writers, Papillon and Jansen, for erroneously applying a passage in Du Halde as proving that the art of printing was known in the reign of Wu-Wang,--he who flourished Ante Christum 1120; whereas the said passage was not alleged “by Du Halde to prove the antiquity of printing amongst the Chinese, but solely in reference to their ink.” The passage, as translated by Mr. Ottley, is as follows: “As the stone Me” (a word signifying ink in the Chinese language), “which is used to blacken the _engraved_ characters, can never become white; so a heart blackened by vices will always retain its blackness.” The engraved characters were not inked, it appears, for the purpose of taking impressions, as Messrs. Papillon and Jansen have erroneously inferred. “It is possible,” according to Mr. Ottley, “that the ink might be used by the Chinese at a very early period to blacken, and thereby render more easily legible, the characters of engraved inscriptions.”[I-31] The _possibility_ of this may be granted certainly; but at the same time we must admit that it is equally _possible_ that the engraved characters were blackened with ink for the purpose of being printed, if they were of wood; or that, if cut in copper or other metal, they were filled with a black composition which would harden or _set_ in the lines,--as an ingenious inquirer might infer from ink being represented by the _stone_ ME; and thus it is _possible_ that something very like “niello,” or the filling of letters on brass doorplates with black wax, was known to the Chinese in the reign of Wu-Wang, who flourished in the year before our Lord, 1120. The one conjecture is as good as the other, and both good for nothing, until we have better assurance than is afforded by Du Halde, that engraved characters blackened with ink--for whatever purpose--were known by the Chinese in the reign of Wu-Wang.[I-32]

[Footnote I-31: At page 7, Mr. Ottley, borrowing from Du Halde,
has erroneously stated that the delicate nature of their paper
would not permit the use of a press. He must have forgot, for he
cannot but have known, that impressions on the finest India paper
had been frequently taken from wood-blocks by means of the common
printing-press many years previous to 1816, the date of the
publication of his book. I have never seen Chinese paper that
would bear printing by hand, which would not also bear the action
of the press, if printed without being wet in the same manner as
common paper.]

[Footnote I-32: It would appear that Chinese annalists themselves
were not agreed as to the period when printing by the hand from
wood-blocks was first practised in that country. “Nicholas
Trigaltius, a member of our order,” writes Herman Hugo, “who has
recently returned from China, gives the following information
respecting printing, which he professes to have carefully
extracted from the annals of the Chinese themselves. ‘_Typography
is of somewhat earlier date in China than in Europe, for it is
certain that it was practised in that country about five centuries
ago. Others assert that it was practised in China at a period
prior to the Christian era._’”--Hermannus Hugo, De Prima Origine
Scribendi, p. 211. Antwerpiæ, 1617.]

Although so little is positively known of the ancient history of “the great out-lying empire of China,” as it is called by Sir William Jones, yet it has been most confidently referred to as affording authentic evidence of the high degree of the civilization and knowledge of the Chinese at a period when Europe was dark with the gloom of barbarism and ignorance. Their early history has been generally found, when opportunity has been afforded of impartially examining it, to be a mere tissue of absurd legends; compared to which, the history of the settlement of King Brute in Britain is authentic. With astronomy as a science they are scarcely acquainted; and their specimens of the fine arts display little more than representations of objects executed not unfrequently with minute accuracy, but without a knowledge of the most simple elements of correct design, and without the slightest pretensions to art, according to our standard.

One of the two Mahometan travellers who visited China in the ninth century, expressly states that the Chinese were unacquainted with the sciences; and as neither of them takes any notice of printing, the mariner’s compass, or gunpowder, it seems but reasonable to conclude that the Chinese were unacquainted with those inventions at that period.[I-33]

[Footnote I-33: The pretensions of the Chinese to excellence in
science are ably exposed by the learned Abbé Renaudot in a
disquisition “Sur les sciences des Chinois,” appended to his
translation, from the Arabic, entitled “Anciennes Relations des
Indes et de la Chine, de deux Voyageurs Mahométans, qui y allèrent
dans le neuvième siècle.”--8vo. Paris, 1718.]

Mr. Ottley, at pages 51 and 52 of his work, gives a brief account of the early commerce of Venice with the East, for the purpose of showing in what manner a knowledge of the art of printing in China might be obtained by the Venetians. He says: “They succeeded, likewise, in establishing a direct traffic with Persia, Tartary, China, and Japan; sending, for that purpose, several of their most respectable citizens, and largely providing them with every requisite.” He cites an Italian author for this account, but he observes a prudent silence as to the period when the Venetians first established a _direct traffic_ with China and Japan; though there is little doubt that Bettinelli, the authority referred to, alludes to the expedition of the two brothers Niccolo and Maffeo Polo, and of Marco Polo, the son of Niccolo, who in 1271 or 1272 left Venice on an expedition to the court of the Tartar emperor Kublai-Khan, which had been previously visited by the two brothers at some period between 1254 and 1269.[I-34] After having visited Tartary and China, the two brothers and Marco returned to Venice in 1295. Mr. Ottley, however, does not refer to the travels of the Polos for the purpose of showing that Marco, who at a subsequent period wrote an account of his travels, might introduce a knowledge of the Chinese art of printing into Europe: he cites them that his readers may suppose that a direct intercourse between Venice and China had been established long before; and that the art of engraving wood-blocks, and taking impressions from them, had been thus derived from the latter country, and had been practised in Venice long before the return of the travellers in 1295.

[Footnote I-34: See the Travels of Marco Polo. (In Bohn’s Antiq.
Library).]

It is necessary here to observe that the invention of the mariner’s compass, and of gunpowder and cannon, have been ascribed to the Chinese as well as the invention of wood engraving and block-printing; and it has been conjectured that _very probably_ Marco Polo communicated to his countrymen, and through them to the rest of Europe, a knowledge of those arts. Marco Polo, however, does not in the account which he wrote of his travels once allude to gunpowder, cannon, or to the art of printing as being known in China;[I-35] nor does he once mention the compass as being used on board of the Chinese vessel in which he sailed from the coast of China to the Persian Gulf. “Nothing is more common,” says a writer in the Quarterly Review, “than to find it repeated from book to book, that gunpowder and the mariner’s compass were first brought from China by Marco Polo, though there can be very little doubt that both were known in Europe some time before his return.”--“That Marco Polo,” says the same writer, “would have mentioned the mariner’s compass, if it had been in use in China, we think highly probable; and his silence respecting gunpowder may be considered as at least a negative proof that this also was unknown to the Chinese in the time of Kublai-Khan.”[I-36] In a manner widely different from this does Mr. Ottley reason, respecting the cause of Marco Polo not having mentioned printing as an art practised by the Chinese. He accounts for the traveller’s silence as follows: “Marco Polo, it may be said, did not notice this art [of engraving on wood and block-printing] in the account which he left us of the marvels he had witnessed in China. The answer to this objection is obvious: it was no marvel; it had no novelty to recommend it; it was practised, as we have seen, at Ravenna, in 1285, and had perhaps been practised a century earlier in Venice. His mention of it, therefore, was not called for, and he preferred instructing his countrymen in matters with which they were not hitherto acquainted.” This “obvious” answer, rather unfortunately, will equally apply to the question, “Why did not Marco Polo mention cannon as being used by the Chinese, who, as we are informed, had discovered such formidable engines of war long before the period of his visit?”

[Footnote I-35: It has been conjectured that the following
passages in the travels of Marco Polo might suggest the idea of
block-printing, and consequently wood engraving: “Gradatim
reliquos belli duces in digniorem ponit statum, donatque illis
aurea et argentea vasa, tabulas, privilegia atque immunitatem. Et
hæc quidem privilegia tabulis vel bracteis per sculpturas
imprimuntur.” “Moneta magni Cham non fit de auro vel argento, aut
alio metallo, sed corticem accipiunt medium ab arbore mori, et
hunc consolidant, atque in particular varias et rotundas, magnas
et parvas, scindunt, atque regale imprimunt signum.”--M. Pauli
Veneti Itiner. lib. ii. capp. vii. & xxi. The mention of paper
money impressed with the royal stamp also occurs in the Eastern
History of Haython, an Armenian, whose work was written in 1307,
in Latin, and has been printed several times, of which the last
edition is by And. Müller, Colon. 1671, 4to.]

[Footnote I-36: An article on Marsden’s “Translation of the
Travels of Marco Polo,” in the Quarterly Review, No. xli. May,
1819, from p. 191 to 195, contains some curious particulars
respecting the early use of the mariner’s compass, and of
gunpowder and cannon in Europe.]

That the art of engraving wood-blocks and of taking impressions from them was introduced into Europe from China, I can see no sufficient reason to believe. Looking at the frequent practice in Europe, from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, of impressing inked stamps on paper, I can perceive nothing in the earliest specimens of wood engraving but the same principles applied on a larger scale. When I am once satisfied that a man had built a small boat, I feel no surprise on learning that his grandson had built a larger; and made in it a longer voyage than his ancestor ever ventured on, who merely used his slight skiff to ferry himself across a river.

In the first volume of Papillon’s “Traité de la Gravure en Bois,” there is an account of certain old wood engravings which he professes to have seen, and which, according to their engraved explanatory title, were executed by two notable young people, Alexander Alberic Cunio, _knight_, and Isabella Cunio, his twin sister, and finished by them when they were only sixteen years old, at the time when Honorius IV. was pope; that is, at some period between the years 1285 and 1287. This story has been adopted by Mr. Ottley, and by Zani, an Italian, who give it the benefit of their support. Mr. Singer, in his “Researches into the History of Playing Cards,” grants the truth-like appearance of Papillon’s tale; and the writer of the article “Wood-engraving” in the Encyclopedia Metropolitana considers it as authentic. It is, however, treated with contempt by Heineken, Huber, and Bartsch, whose knowledge of the origin and progress of engraving is at least equal to that of the four writers previously named.

The manner in which Papillon recovered his memoranda of the works of the Cunio is remarkable. In consequence of those curious notes being mislaid for upwards of thirty-five years, the sole record of the productions of those “ingenious and amiable twins” was very nearly lost to the world. The _three sheets of letter-paper_ on which he had written an account of certain old volumes of wood engravings,--that containing the cuts executed by the Cunio being one of the number,--he had lost for upwards of thirty-five years. For long he had only a confused idea of those sheets, though he had often searched for them in vain, when he was writing his first essay on wood engraving, which was printed about 1737, but never published. At length he accidentally found them, on All-Saints’ Day, 1758, rolled up in a bundle of specimens of paper-hangings which had been executed by his father. The finding of those three sheets afforded him the greater pleasure, as from them he discovered, by means of a pope’s name, an epoch of engraving figures and letters on wood for the purpose of being printed, which was certainly much earlier than _any_ at that period known in Europe, and at the same time a history relative to this subject equally curious and interesting. He says that he had so completely forgotten all this,--though he had so often recollected to search for his memoranda,--that he did not deign to take the least notice of it in his previously printed history of the art. The following is a faithful abstract of Papillon’s account of his discovery of those early specimens of wood engraving. The title-page, as given by him in French from Monsieur De Greder’s _vivâ voce_ translation of the original,--which was “en mauvais Latin ou ancien Italien Gothique, avec beaucoup d’abréviations,”--is translated without abridgment, as are also his own descriptions of the cuts.

“When young, being engaged with my father in going almost every day to hang rooms with our papers, I was, some time in 1719 or 1720, at the village of Bagneux, near Mont Rouge, at a Monsieur De Greder’s, a Swiss captain, who had a pretty house there. After I had papered a small room for him, he ordered me to cover the shelves of his library with paper in imitation of mosaic. One day after dinner he surprised me reading a book, which occasioned him to show me some very old ones which he had borrowed of one of his friends, a Swiss officer,[I-37] that he might examine them at his leisure. We talked about the figures which they contained, and of the antiquity of wood engraving; and what follows is a description of those ancient books as I wrote it before him, and as he was so kind as to explain and dictate to me.

[Footnote I-37: A Monsieur Spirchtvel, as Papillon informs us.
Tom. i. p. 92.]

“In a _cartouch_[I-38] or frontispiece,--of fanciful and Gothic ornaments, though pleasing enough,--nine inches wide, and six inches high, having at the top the arms, doubtless, of Cunio, the following words are coarsely engraved on the same block, in bad Latin, or ancient Gothic Italian with many abbreviations.

[Footnote I-38: _Cartouch._ “This word is used to denote those
fantastic ornaments which were formerly introduced in decorating
the wainscots of rooms; and frequently served the purpose of
frames, surrounding inscriptions, small paintings, or other
devices. These _cartouches_ were much in vogue in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries for the frontispieces of books of
prints; and indeed _Callot_ and _Della Bella_ etched many entire
sets of small subjects surrounded by similar ornaments. From the
irregularity of their forms, the terms tablet shield, or panel,
would be but ill expressive of their character.”--Ottley’s
Inquiry, vol. i. p. 12.]

“‘THE CHIVALROUS DEEDS, in figures, of the great and magnanimous Macedonian king, the courageous and valiant Alexander, dedicated, presented, and humbly offered to the most holy father, Pope Honorius IV. the glory and stay of the Church, and to our illustrious and generous father and mother, by us Alexander Alberic Cunio, knight, and Isabella Cunio, twin brother and sister; first reduced, imagined, and attempted to be executed in relief with a little knife, on blocks of wood, joined and smoothed by this learned and beloved sister, continued and finished together at Ravenna, after eight pictures of our designing, painted six times the size here represented; cut, explained in verse, and thus marked on paper to multiply the number, and to enable us to present them as a token of friendship and affection to our relations and friends. This was done and finished, the age of each being only sixteen years complete.’”

After having given the translation of the title-page, Papillon thus continues the narrative in his own person: “This _cartouch_ [or ornamented title-page] is surrounded by a coarse line, the tenth of an inch broad, forming a square. A few slight lines, which are irregularly executed and without precision, form the shading of the ornaments. The impression, in the same manner as the rest of the cuts, has been taken in Indian blue, rather pale, and in distemper, apparently by the hand being passed frequently over the paper laid upon the block, as card-makers are accustomed to impress their addresses and the envelopes of their cards. The hollow parts of the block, not being sufficiently cut away in several places, and having received the ink, have smeared the paper, which is rather brown; a circumstance which has caused the following words to be written in the margin underneath, that the fault might be remedied. They are in Gothic Italian, which M. de Greder had considerable difficulty in making out, and certainly written by the hand either of the Chevalier Cunio or his sister, on this first proof--evidently from a block--such as are here translated.”

“‘_It is necessary to cut away the ground of the blocks more, that the paper may not touch it in taking impressions._’”

“Following this frontispiece, and of the same size, are the subjects of the eight pictures, engraved on wood, surrounded by a similar line forming a square, and also with the shadows formed of slight lines. At the foot of each of those engravings, between the border-line and another, about a finger’s breadth distant, are four Latin verses engraved on the block, poetically explaining the subject, the title of which is placed at the head. In all, the impression is similar to that of the frontispiece, and rather grey or cloudy, as if the paper had not been moistened. The figures, tolerably designed, though in a semi-gothic taste, are well enough characterized and draped; and we may perceive from them that the arts of design were then beginning gradually to resume their vigour in Italy. At the feet of the principal figures their names are engraved, such as Alexander, Philip, _Darius_, Campaspe, and others.”

“SUBJECT 1.--Alexander mounted on Bucephalus, which he has tamed. On a stone are these words: _Isabel. Cunio pinx. & scalp._”

“SUBJECT 2.--Passage of the Granicus. Near the trunk of a tree these words are engraved: _Alex. Alb. Cunio Equ. pinx. Isabel Cunio scalp._”

“SUBJECT 3.--Alexander cutting the Gordian knot. On the pedestal of a column are these words: _Alexan. Albe. Cunio Equ. pinx. & scalp._ This block is not so well engraved as the two preceding.”

“SUBJECT 4.--Alexander in the tent of Darius. This subject is one of the best composed and engraved of the whole set. Upon the end of a piece of cloth are these words: _Isabel. Cunio pinxit & scalp._”

“SUBJECT 5.--Alexander generously presents his mistress Campaspe to Apelles who was painting her. The figure of this beauty is very agreeable. The painter seems transported with joy at his good fortune. On the floor, on a kind of antique tablet, are these words: _Alex. Alb. Cunio Eques, pinx. & scalp._”

“SUBJECT 6.--The famous battle of Arbela. Upon a small hillock are these words: _Alex. Alb. Equ. & Isabel. pictor. and scalp._ For composition, design, and engraving, this subject is also one of the best.”

“SUBJECT 7.--Porus, vanquished, is brought before Alexander. This subject is so much the more beautiful and remarkable, as it is composed nearly in the same manner as that of the famous Le Brun; it would seem that he had copied this print. Both Alexander and Porus have a grand and magnanimous air. On a stone near a bush are engraved these words: _Isabel. Cunio pinx. & scalp._”

“SUBJECT 8 AND LAST.--The glory and grand triumph of Alexander on entering Babylon. This piece, which is well enough composed, has been executed, as well as the sixth, by the brother and sister conjointly, as is testified by these characters engraved at the bottom of a wall: _Alex. Alb. Equ. et Isabel. Cunio, pictor. & scalp._ At the top of this impression, a piece about three inches long and one inch broad has been torn off.”

However singular the above account of the works of those “amiable twins” may seem, no less surprising is the history of their birth, parentage, and education; which, taken in conjunction with the early development of their talents as displayed in such an art, in the choice of such a subject, and at such a period, is scarcely to be surpassed in interest by any narrative which gives piquancy to the pages of the Wonderful Magazine.

Upon the blank leaf adjoining the last engraving were the following words, badly written in old Swiss characters, and scarcely legible in consequence of their having been written with pale ink. “Of course Papillon could not read Swiss,” says Mr. Ottley, “M. de Greder, therefore, translated them for him into French.”--“This precious volume was given to my grandfather Jan. Jacq. Turine, a native of Berne, by the illustrious Count Cunio, chief magistrate of Imola, who honoured him with his generous friendship. Above all my books I prize this the highest on account of the quarter from whence it came into our family, and on account of the knowledge, the valour, the beauty, and the noble and generous desire which those amiable twins Cunio had to gratify their relations and friends. Here ensues their singular and curious history as I have heard it many a time from my venerable father, and which I have caused to be more correctly written than I could do it myself.”

Though Papillon’s long-lost manuscript, containing the whole account of the works of the Cunio and notices of other old books of engravings, consisted of only three sheets of letter-paper, yet the history alone of the learned, beautiful, and amiable twins, which Turine the grandson caused to be written out as he had heard it from his father, occupies in Papillon’s book four long octavo pages of thirty-eight lines each. To assume that his long-lost manuscript consisted of brief notes which he afterwards wrote out at length from memory, would at once destroy any validity that his account might be supposed to possess; for he states that he had lost those papers for upwards of thirty five years, and had entirely forgotten their contents.

Without troubling myself to transcribe the whole of this choice morsel of French Romance concerning the history of the “amiable twins” Cunio,--the surprising beauty, talents, and accomplishments of the maiden,--the early death of herself and her lover,--the heroism of the youthful knight, Alexander Alberic Cunio, displayed when only fourteen years old,--I shall give a brief abstract of some of the passages which seem most important to the present inquiry.[I-39]

[Footnote I-39: Readers of French romances will find the tale of
the Cunio at p. 89, tom. i. of Papillon’s “Traité de la Gravure en
Bois,” or at p. 17, vol. i. of Mr. Ottley’s “History of
Engraving.”]

From this narrative,--which Papillon informs us was written in a much better hand, though also in Swiss characters, and with much blacker ink than Turine the grandson’s own memorandum,--we obtain the following particulars: The Count de Cunio, father of the twins, was married to their mother, a noble maiden of Verona and a relation of Pope Honorius IV. without the knowledge of their parents, who, on discovering what had happened, caused the marriage to be annulled, and the priest by whom it was celebrated to be banished. The divorced wife, dreading the anger of her own father, sought an asylum with one of her aunts, under whose roof she was brought to bed of twins. Though the elder Cunio had compelled his son to espouse another wife, he yet allowed him to educate the twins, who were most affectionately received and cherished by their father’s new wife. The children made astonishing progress in the sciences, more especially the girl Isabella, who at thirteen years of age was regarded as a prodigy; for she understood, and wrote with correctness, the Latin language; she composed excellent verses, understood geometry, was acquainted with music, could play on several instruments, and had begun to design and to paint with correctness, taste, and delicacy. Her brother Alberic, of a beauty as ravishing as his sister’s, and one of the most charming youths in Italy, at the age of fourteen could manage the great horse, and understood the practice of arms and all other exercises befitting a young man of quality. He also understood Latin, and could paint well.

The troubles in Italy having caused the Count Cunio to take up arms, his son, young Alexander Alberic, accompanied him to the field to make his first campaign. Though not more than fourteen years old, he was entrusted with the command of a squadron of twenty-five horse, with which, as his first essay in war, he attacked and put to flight near two hundred of the enemy. His courage having carried him too far, he was surrounded by the fugitives, from whom, however, he fought himself clear without any further injury than a wound in his left arm. His father, who had hastened to his succour, found him returning with the enemy’s banner, which he had wrapped about his wound. Delighted at the valour displayed by his son, the Count Cunio knighted him on the spot. The young man then asked permission to visit his mother, which was readily granted by the count, who was pleased to have this opportunity of testifying the love and esteem he still retained towards that noble and afflicted lady, who continued to reside with her aunt; of which he certainly would have given her more convincing proofs, now that his father was dead, by re-establishing their marriage and publicly espousing her, if he had not been in duty bound to cherish the wife whom he had been compelled to marry, and who had now borne him a large family.

After Alexander Alberic had visited his mother, he returned home, and shortly after began, together with his sister Isabella, to design and work upon the pictures of the achievements of Alexander. He then made a second campaign with his father, after which he continued to employ himself on the pictures in conjunction with Isabella, who attempted in reduce them and engrave them on wood. After the engravings were finished, and copies had been printed and given to Pope Honorius, and their relations and friends, Alexander Alberic proceeded again to join the army, accompanied by Pandulphio, a young nobleman, who was in love with the charming Isabella. This was his last campaign, for he was killed in the presence of his friend, who was dangerously wounded in defending him. He was slain when not more than nineteen; and his sister was so affected by his death that she resolved never to marry, and died when she was scarcely twenty. The death of this lovely and learned young lady was followed by that of her lover, who had fondly hoped that she would make him happy. The mother of those amiable twins was not long in following them to the grave, being unable to survive the loss of her children. The Countess de Cunio took seriously ill at the loss of Isabella, but fortunately recovered; and it was only the count’s grandeur of soul that saved him from falling sick also.

Some years after this, Count Cunio gave the copy of the achievements of Alexander, in its present binding, to the grandfather of the person who caused this account to be written. The binding, according to Papillon’s description of it, was, for the period, little less remarkable than the contents. “This ancient and Gothic binding,” as Papillon’s note is translated by Mr. Ottley. “is made of thin tablets of wood, covered with leather, and _ornamented with flowered compartments, which appear simply stamped and marked with an iron a little warmed, without any gilding_.” It is remarkable that this singular volume should afford not only specimens of wood engraving, earlier by upwards of a hundred and thirty years than any which are hitherto known, but that the binding, of the same period as the engravings, should also be such as is rarely, if ever, to be met with till upwards of one hundred and fifty years after the wonderful twins were dead.

As this volume is no longer to be found, as no mention is made of such a work by any old writer, and as another copy has not been discovered in any of the libraries of Italy, nor the least trace of one ever having been there, the evidence of its ever having existed rests solely on the account given of it by Papillon. Before saying a word respecting the credit to be attached to this witness, or the props with which Zani and Ottley endeavour to support his testimony, I shall attempt to show that the account affords internal evidence of its own falsehood.

Before noticing the description of the subjects, I shall state a few objections to the account of the twins as written out by order of the youngest Turine, the grandson of Jan. Jacq. Turine, who received the volume from Count Cunio himself, the father of the twins, a few years after their death, which could not well happen later than 1291; as Pope Honorius, to whom their work was dedicated when they were sixteen years old, died in 1287, and Isabella Cunio, who survived her brother, died when she was not more than twenty. Supposing that Count Cunio gave the volume to his friend, J. J. Turine, a native of Berne, in 1300, and that the grandson of the latter caused the history of the twins to be written out eighty years afterwards,--and we cannot fairly assume that it was written later, if indeed so late,--we have thus 1380 as the date of the account written “in old Swiss characters, in a better hand, and with much blacker ink,” than the owner’s own memorandum of the manner in which the volume came into his family, and his reasons for prizing it so highly. The probable date of the pretended Swiss history of the Cunio, Papillon’s advocates carefully keep out of sight; for what impartial person could believe that a Swiss of the fourteenth century could give utterance to the sentimental fustian which forms so considerable a portion of the account? Of the young knight Cunio he knows every movement; he is acquainted with his visit to his repudiated mother; he knows in which arm he was wounded; the number of men that he lost, when with only five-and-twenty he routed two hundred; the name of Isabella’s lover; the illness and happy recovery of Count Cunio’s wife, and can tell the cause why the count himself did not fall sick.

To any person who reflects on the doctrine of the church of Rome in the article of marriage, it certainly must appear strange that the parents of the Count Cunio and his first wife, the mother of the twins, should have had the power of dissolving the marriage and of banishing the priest by whom it was solemnized; and still more singular it is that the Count Cunio, whom we must suppose to have been a good Catholic, should speak, after his father’s death, of re-establishing his marriage with his first wife and of publicly espousing her; and that he should make such a communication to her through the medium of her son, who, as well as his sister, must have been declared illegitimate by the very fact of their mother’s divorce. It is also strange that this piece of family history should come to the knowledge of the grandson of Jan. Jacq. Turine. The Count Cunio’s second marriage surely must have been canonically legal, if the first were not; and if so, it would not be a sense of duty alone to his second wife that would prevent him divorcing her and re-marrying the first. On such subjects the church was to be consulted; and to such playing fast-and-loose with the sacrament of marriage the church said “NO.” Taking these circumstances into consideration, I can come to no other conclusion than that, on this point, the writer of the history of the Cunio did not speak truth; and that the paper containing such history, even if it could be produced, is not genuine, as every other part of it which has the slightest bearing on the point at issue, is equally, if not more, improbable.

With respect to the cuts pretended to be executed by the twins themselves, I shall waive any objections which might be urged on the ground of it being unlikely that they should be executed by a boy and a girl so young. Supposing that the twins were as learned and accomplished as they are represented, still it would be a very surprising circumstance that, in the thirteenth century, they should have executed a series of wood engravings of the actions of Alexander the Great as an appropriate present to the pope; and that the composition of one of those subjects, No. 7, should so closely resemble one of Le Brun’s--an artist remarkable for the complication of his designs--that it would seem he had copied this very print. Something like the reverse of this is more probable; that the description of the pretended work of the Cunio was suggested by the designs of Le Brun.[I-40] The execution of a set of designs, in the thirteenth century, illustrating the actions of Alexander in the manner described by Papillon, would be a rarity indeed even if not engraved on wood; but that a series of wood engravings, and not a saint in one of them, should be executed by a boy and a girl, and presented to a _pope_, in 1286, is scarcely short of miraculous. The twins must have been well read in Quintus Curtius. Though we are informed that both were skilled in the Latin language, yet it plainly appears on two occasions, when we might suppose that they would be least liable to trip, that their Latinity is questionable. The sixth and the eighth subjects, which were accomplished by their joint efforts, are described as being marked: _Alex. Alb. Equ. et Isabel, Cunio pictor. et scalp._

“Thus painters _did not_ write their names at Co.”

[Footnote I-40: Of Le Brun’s five subjects illustrative of the
actions of Alexander the Great, four of them are precisely the
same as four of those said to be executed by the Cunio:
1. Alexander passing the Granicus; 2. the battle of Arbela; 3. the
reception of Porus by Alexander; 4. Alexander’s triumphant entry
into Babylon. There certainly has been some copying here; but it
is more likely that Papillon or his informant had seen Le Brun’s
paintings, than that Le Brun had seen the original wood engravings
executed by the Cunio.]

Why do not the advocates of those early specimens of wood engraving in Italy point out to their readers that these two children were the first who ever affixed the words _pinx. et scalp._ to a woodcut? I challenge any believer in Papillon to point out a wood engraving on which the words _pinxit_ and _scalpsit_, the first after the painter’s name, and the second after the engraver’s, appear previous to 1580. This apparent copying--and by a person ignorant of Latin too--of the formula of a later period, is of itself sufficient to excite a suspicion of forgery; and, coupled with the improbable circumstances above related, it irresistibly compels me to conclude that the whole account is a mere fiction.

With respect to the credibility of Papillon, the sole evidence upon which the history of the wonderful twins rests, I shall have occasion to say very few words. That he was credulous, and excessively vain of what he considered his discoveries in the history of wood engraving, is admitted by those who profess to believe him. He appears also from an early age to have been subject to mental hallucination; and in 1759, the year after he found his papers containing the account of the Cunio, he had a fit of decided insanity which rendered it necessary to convey him to a mad-house, where by copious bleeding he soon recovered his senses.[I-41] To those interested in the controversy I leave to decide how far the unsupported testimony of such a person, and in such a case, ought to be relied on. How easily he might be deceived on a subject relating to the early history of his art, it is not difficult to comprehend; and even allowing him to be sincere in the belief of what he related, he was a person very likely to occasionally deceive both himself and others.[I-42]

[Footnote I-41: From the age of sixteen, cruel and secret
annoyances interrupted his studies; shortly after his marriage, in
1723, his absent manner was a source of uneasiness to his wife;
and in 1759 he fairly lost his senses. See Papillon, Traité de la
Gravure en Bois, 8vo. 1766, Preface, p. xi.; & p. 335, tom. i. et
Supplement, p. 39.]

[Footnote I-42: It is worthy of remark that Papillon, when
questioned by Heineken, who called on him in Paris after the
publication of his work, respecting the account of the Cunio, did
not produce his three sheets of original memoranda. He might thus
have afforded a proof of his own good faith, by producing the
manuscript written by him in 1720 from the dictation of Captain de
Greder.]

Papillon’s insanity had been previously adverted to by Heineken; and this writer’s remarks have produced the following correction from Mr. Ottley: “Heineken takes some pains to show that poor Papillon was not in his right mind; and, amongst his other arguments, quotes a passage from his book, t. i. p. 335, in which he says, ‘_Par un accident et une fatalité commune à plusieurs graveurs, aussi bien qu’à moi, Le Fevre est devenu aliéné d’esprit_:’ as if a little pleasantry of expression, such as the French writers, especially, have ever felt themselves at full liberty to indulge in, could really constitute fit grounds for a statute of lunacy.”[I-43] Had Mr. Ottley, instead of confidently correcting Heineken when the latter had stated nothing but the fact, turned to the cited page of Papillon’s volume, he would there have found that Papillon was indulging in no “little pleasantry of expression,” but was seriously relating a melancholy fact of two brother artists losing their senses about the same time as himself; and had he ever read the supplement, or third volume, of Papillon’s work, he would have seen, at p. 39, the account which Papillon himself gives of his own insanity.

[Footnote I-43: Inquiry into the Early History of Engraving, vol.
i. p. 23.]

Having disposed of the story as told by Papillon, it remains now to notice “the learning and deep research” with which it has been supported by Zani, and some of the arguments which have been alleged in its favour by Mr. Ottley.

In the first place, Zani has discovered that a family of the name of Cunio, in which the name of Alberico more than once occurs, actually resided in the neighbourhood of Ravenna at the very period mentioned in the title-page to the cuts by the Cunio, and in the history written in old Swiss characters. Upon this, and other similar pieces of evidence, Mr. Ottley remarks as follows: “Now both these cities [Ravenna and Imola] are in the vicinity of Faenza, where the family, or a branch of it, is spoken of by writers of undoubted credit in the twelfth, the thirteenth, and the fourteenth centuries. These circumstances, therefore, far from furnishing any just motive of additional doubt, form together such a phalanx of corroborative evidence in support of the story, as, in my opinion, those who would impeach the truth of Papillon’s statement can never break through.” “_Argal_,” Rowley’s poems are genuine, because such a person as “Maistre William Canynge” lived at Bristol at the period when he is mentioned by the pseudo Rowley. Zani, however, unfortunately for his own argument, let us know that the names and residence of the family of the Cunio might be obtained from “Tonduzzi’s History of Faenza,” printed in 1675. Whether this book appeared in French, or not, previous to the publication of Papillon’s works, I have not been able to learn; but a Swiss captain, who could read “old Gothic Italian,” would certainly find little difficulty in picking a couple of names out of a modern Italian volume.

The reasoning faculties of Signor Zani appear to have been very imperfectly developed, for he cites the following as a case in point; and Mr. Ottley, who gives it in his text, seems to concur in its applicability. He is noticing the objections which have been made to Papillon’s account, on the ground of no previous author mentioning the existence of such a work, and that no person subsequently had ever seen a copy. Zani’s argument, as given by Mr. Ottley,[I-44] is as follows: “He, however, who should reason in this manner, might, upon the same grounds, deny the loss of many manuscripts, and even of printed books, which, according to the testimony of credible authors, have become a prey to the flames, or have perished during the anarchy of revolutions, or the distresses occasioned by wars. The learned part of my readers will not require examples. Nevertheless, let him who wants such conviction search throughout all the libraries of Europe for the work entitled ‘Meditationes Reverendissimi patris Domini Johannis de Turre-cremata,’ printed at Rome by Ulrich Hahn, in 1467, and he will presently be informed by the learned librarians, that of that edition there exists but one copy, which is preserved in the library of Nuremberg. This book is, therefore, unique.[I-45] Now let us suppose that, by some accident, this book should perish; could our descendants on that account deny that it ever had existed?” And this is a corroborative argument in support of the truth of Papillon’s tale! The comment, however, is worthy of the text. It is to be observed that Ulrich Hahn’s edition of Turre-cremata appeared ten years after Faust and Scheffer’s Psalter, of the date 1457, was printed; and that the existence of several hundred volumes printed before 1467 proves that the art of printing was then practised to a considerable extent. That Ulrich Hahn was a printer at Rome in 1468 and subsequent years is proved by many copies of works which proceeded from his press; and the existence of the identical “unique” copy, referred to by Zani, is vouched for by upwards of fifty learned men who have seen it; and, what is more, mentioned the place where it was preserved, so that, if a person were sceptical, he might satisfy himself by the evidence of his own senses. But who, except Papillon, has ever seen the engravings of the Cunio, executed upwards of a hundred and thirty years prior to the earliest authentic specimen of the art, and who has ever mentioned the place where they were to be seen? Had any person of equal credibility with Papillon described a volume printed at Rome in 1285, the date of the pretended wood-cuts of the Cunio, the case would then have been in point, and the decision of every person in the slightest degree acquainted with the subject, and not rendered blind to simple truth by the vivid brightness of his own speculations, would be inevitably the same; that is, the evidence in both cases would not be relied on.

[Footnote I-44: History of Engraving, vol. i. p. 28.]

[Footnote I-45: Three copies of this supposed unique book have
long been known to bibliographers; one in the public library of
Nuremberg, another in the Imperial library of Vienna, and the
third in Lord Spenser’s library.]

“It is possible,” says Zani, “that at this moment I may be blinded by partiality to my own nation; but I would almost assert, that _to deny the testimony of the French writer, would be like denying the existence of light on a fine sun-shiny day_.” His mental optics must have been of a peculiar character, and it can be no longer doubtful that he

“Had lights where better eyes are blind,
As pigs are said to see the wind.”

Mr. Ottley’s own arguments in support of Papillon’s story are scarcely of a higher character than those which he has adopted from Zani. At page 40, in answer to an objection founded on the silence of all authorities, not merely respecting the particular work of the Cunio, but of the frequent practice of such an art, and the fact of no contemporary specimens being known, he writes as follows: “We cannot safely argue from the silence of contemporaneous authorities, that the art of engraving on wood was not practised in Europe in those early times; however, such silence may be an argument that it was not an art in high repute. Nor is our ignorance of such records a sufficient proof of their non-existence.” The proof of such a negative would be certainly difficult; but, according to this mode of argument, there is no modern invention which might not also be mentioned in “certain ancient undiscovered records.” In the general business of life, that rule of evidence is a good one which declares “_de non-apparentibus et non-existentibus eadem est ratio_;” and until it shall be a maxim in logic that “we ought readily to believe that to be true which we cannot prove to have been impossible,” Mr. Ottley’s solution of the difficulty does not seem likely to obtain general credence.

At page 41, speaking of the probability of wood-engraving, for the purpose of taking impressions, being practised at an earlier period than has been generally supposed, Mr. Ottley expresses himself as follows: “Nor is it any proof or strong argument against the antiquity of such a practice, that authentic specimens of wood-engraving of those early times are not now to be found. They were, it may be supposed, for the most part, detached pieces, whose merits, as works of art, were not such as to render their preservation at all probable. They were the toys of the day; and, after having served the temporary purpose for which they were manufactured, were, no doubt, swept away to make room for others of newer fashion.” He thus requires those who entertain an opinion contrary to his own to prove a negative; while he assumes the point in dispute as most clearly established in his own favour.

If such wood engravings--“the toys of the day”--had been known in the thirteenth, or even the fourteenth century, is it not likely that some mention would be made of them in the writings of some one of the minstrels of the period to whom we are indebted for so many minute particulars illustrative of the state of society at the period referred to? Not the slightest allusion to anything of the kind has hitherto been noticed in their writings. Respecting such “toys” Boccaccio is silent, and our countryman Chaucer says not a word. Of wood-cuts not the least mention is made in Petrarch; and Richard de Bury, bishop of Durham, who lived in the reign of Edward III., in his curious Essay on the Love of Books, says not a syllable of wood-cuts, either as toys, or as illustrations of devotional or historical subjects. Upon this question, affirmed by Papillon, and maintained as true by Zani and Ottley, contemporary authorities are silent; and not one solitary fact bearing distinctly upon the point has been alleged in support of Papillon’s narrative.