impressions taken from a copperplate. See the last article, and Engraving.

From the facility of being multiplied, prints have derived an advantage over paintings by no means considerable. They are found to be more durable; which may, however, in some degree be attributed to the different methods in which they are preserved. Many of the best paintings of the early masters have generally had the misfortune to be either painted on walls, or deposited in large and unfrequented, and consequently damp and destructive, buildings; whilst a print, passing, at distant intervals, from the porte-feuille of one collector to that of another, is preserved without any great exertion of its owner: And hence it happens, that whilst the pictures of Raphael have mouldered from their walls, or deserted their canvas, the prints of his friend and contemporary Mark Antonio Raimondi continue in full perfection to this day, and give us a lively idea of the beauties of those paintings, which, without their assistance, had been lost to us for ever; or at least, could have been only known to us, like those of Zeuxis and Apelles, by the descriptions which former writers on these subjects have left us.

Independent of the advantages which prints afford us, when considered as accurate representations of paintings, and imitations of superior productions, they are no less valuable for their positive merit, as immediate representations of nature. For it must be recollected, that the art of engraving has not always been confined to the copying other productions, but has frequently itself aspired to originality, and has, in this light, produced more instances of its excellence than in the other. Albert Dürer, Goltzius, and Rembrandt, amongst the Dutch and Germans; Parmigianino and Della Bella amongst the Italians, and Callot amongst the French, have published many prints, the subjects of which, there is great reason to suppose, were never painted. These prints may therefore be considered as original pictures of those matters, deficient only in those particulars in which a print must necessarily be inferior to a painting.

The preceding distinction may perhaps throw some light on the proper method of arranging and clasping a collection of prints, which has been a matter of no small difficulty. As an art imitating another, the principal should take the lead, and the design, composition, and drawing, in a print, being previous requisites to the manner of execution and finishing; prints engraved after paintings should be arranged under the name of the painter; and every person who looks upon engraving only as auxiliary to painting, will consequently adopt this mode of arrangement. But when engraving is considered as an original art, as imitating nature without the intervention of other methods, then it will certainly be proper to regulate the arrangement according to the names of the engravers.