He proceeds in this bitter vein for a time, then brings into the open the main purpose of the book:
Another Reason perhaps is, that the Artist being totally engaged in the Pursuit of his Discovery, has but little Time to apply to the Lovers and Encouragers of Art for their Patronage, Protection, and Supplies necessary for the carrying on such a Design, or he has not Powers to set the Advantage which would result from it in a true Light; nor communicate in Words what he clearly conceived in Idea: for certainly there are Men enough, who from the mere Desire of increasing their Wealth, would give him that Assistance, which, like the artificial Heat of a Greenhouse, would bring that Art to a Ripeness, which would otherwise languish and die under the Coldness of the first Designer, and which in this Union of Riches and Invention would yield mutual Advantage to both.
There are besides this amongst the Great, without Doubt, many who would gladly lend their Patronage to rising Arts, if they knew their Authors....
He gives as example the Duke of Cumberland, who had just sponsored a tapestry plant at Fulham, and follows with an outline of the honorable traditions of the woodcut, pointing out that Dürer, Titian, Salviati, Campagnola, and other painters drew their work on woodblocks to be cut by woodcutters, and adds that “even Andrea Vincentino did not think it in the least a Dishonour, though a Painter, to grave on Wood the Landscapes of Titian.” He builds up to the statement that Raphael and Parmigianino drew on woodblocks to be cut in chiaroscuro by Ugo da Carpi.
After having said all this, it may seem highly improper to give to Mr. Jackson [he speaks of himself throughout in the third person] the Merit of inventing this Art; but let me be permitted to say, that an Art recovered is little less than an Art invented. The Works of the former Artists remain indeed; but the Manner in which they were done, is entirely lost: the inventing then the Manner is really due to this latter Undertaker, since no Writings, or other Remains, are to be found by which the Method of former Artists can be discover’d, or in what Manner they executed their works; nor, in Truth, has the Italian Method since the Beginning of the 16th Century been attempted by any one except Mr. Jackson.
We cannot help concluding that Jackson was falsifying here. Taking advantage of the public’s ignorance, he was puffing up his historical importance in order to sell wallpaper. If the cognoscenti complained that he had buried the chiaroscurists after da Carpi, he always had the explanation that others did not work in the Italian style, which he neglected to describe. Jackson knew what he was doing; he was not as ignorant of art history as Hardie and Burch have surmised, although
it is true that he was not always certain as to dates, since he believed Andreani worked as a contemporary of da Carpi. In the Enquiry, published only two years earlier, he had shown familiarity with the prints of Goltzius, Coriolano, Businck, Nicolas and Vincent Le Sueur, Moretti, and Zanetti, all of whom had worked to some extent in the Italian manner.
Some writers have reacted strongly to this paragraph. Losing their sense of proportion, they have been led to the conclusion that Jackson was little better than a charlatan and that his work as a whole reflected his low ethics. In some instances his culpability has been magnified: Bénézit has even charged him with claiming to have invented color printing.
The worst result of Jackson’s insistence on re-inventing the Italian manner was that it made a major issue of what was at best a minor honor. It minimized such technical contributions as the following, which did not follow traditional recipes: