collection I have seen proofs of nielli with more coarse designs than are displayed in the works of Maso, but they are perhaps not the offspring of the Florentine school. I shall not here attempt to anticipate the judgment of those who may engage to illustrate these ancient remains; nor that of the public, in regard to the engravings correctly taken from them, which must pronounce their definitive sentence. If I mistake not, however, true connoisseurs will be cautious how they pass a final opinion. It will not be difficult for them to discern a Bolognese from a Florentine artist, in modern painting, after it is seen that each school formed its own peculiar character both in colouring and in design; but in regard to proofs of nielli,[116] to distinguish school from school, will not be so easy a task. For though it may be ascertained, for instance, that such a proof came from Bologna; can we pronounce from the fact of its being coarser and rawer than the designs of Finiguerra, that it is so far more ancient? Maso and the Florentines, after the time of Masaccio, had already softened their style towards the year 1440; but can we assert the same of the other schools of Italy? Besides, is it certain that the silversmiths, from whose hands proceeded the proofs, sought out the best designers;[117] and did not copy, for instance, the Bolognese, the design of a Pietà by Jacopo Avanzi, or the Venetians, a Madonna by Jacobello del Fiore? The more dry, coarse, and clumsy specimens therefore, cannot easily be adduced against Finiguerra as a proof of greater antiquity; otherwise we should run into the whimsical sophistry of Scalza, who affirmed that the Baronci were the most ancient men in Florence, and in the whole world, because they were the ugliest.[118] We must therefore permit Maso to rest quietly in possession of the discovery, until further and more ancient proofs are adduced, than are to be found in his cards and his zolfi.