contemporary documents. We know also that Guido’s son Orazio also had a manufactory of his own, and the fact is established, that between 1565 and 1571 there were two distinct Fontana manufactories,--those of father and son. What became of Orazio’s establishment after his death, whether continued by his brother Camillo, or reunited to that of the father, there is no evidence to show. With respect to the remaining members of the family, our information is of the scantiest kind. Camillo, who was inferior in reputation as a painter only to his elder brother, appears to have been invited to Ferrara by duke Alfonso II., and to have introduced the Maiolica manufacture into that city. Of Nicola, the third (?) son, we have only incidental mention in a legal document, showing that he was alive in the year 1570. Guido, son of Camillo, lived till 1605; and of Flaminio, who may either have been son of Camillo or of Nicola, Dennistoun’s vague notice asserting his settlement in Florence is all I have been able to collect. No signed pieces of Camillo, Flaminio, Nicola the second, or Guido the second, have as yet been observed. “A considerable proportion of the Fontana maiolica is doubtless still extant; and it is desirable to endeavour to identify the works of the individual members of the family, without which the mere knowledge of their existence is of very little moment; but this is no easy task; although specimens from the hands of one or other of them are to be undoubtedly found in almost every collection, the work of comparison and collation has as yet been scarcely attempted. The similarity of style and technical characteristics of the several artists moreover, working as they did with the same colours on the same quality of enamel ground, and doubtless in intimate communication with each other, resolves itself into such a strong family resemblance, that it will require the most minute and careful observation, unremittingly continued, ere the authorship of the several specimens can be determined with anything like certainty. The evidence of signed specimens is of course the most to be relied on, and is indeed indispensable in giving the clue to complete identification in the first instance; but in the case of the Fontana family a difficulty presents itself which should be noticed in the outset. This difficulty arises in determining the authorship of the pieces signed ‘_Fatto in botega_,’ &c. &c.; a mode of signature, in fact, which proves very little in determining individual characteristics, inasmuch as apparently nearly all the works so inscribed are painted by other hands than that of the proprietor of the Vaseria. In cases, however, in which the artist has actually signed or initialed pieces with his own name, of course no such difficulty exists, but the certainty acquired by this positive evidence is as yet confined in the case of the Fontana family to their greatest name, Orazio.” We regret that our limits prevent further quotation from Mr.