The bow window below leads into a little parlour hung with a stone-colour Gothic paper and Jackson’s Venetian prints, which I could never endure while they pretended, infamous as they are, to be after Titian, &c., but when I gave them this air of barbarous bas-reliefs, they succeeded to a miracle; it is impossible at first sight not to conclude that they contain the history of Attila or Tottila done about the very era.
Von Heinecken[44] says they are “in the manner of Hugo da Carpi but much inferior in execution.” But Huber, Rost, and Martini[45] noted Jackson’s independent approach:
Jackson’s prints, which are certainly not without merit, are in general less sought after by collectors than they deserve. His style is original and is concerned entirely with broad effects.
Baverel[46] also had a high opinion of Jackson’s work. Describing the Venetian prints, he says that Jackson “had a skillful and daring attack, and it is regrettable that he did not produce more work.” Nagler’s[47] criticism typifies the academic preconceptions of some writers on the subject of chiaroscuro:
Jackson’s works are not praiseworthy throughout in drawing, and also he was not thoroughly able to apply the principles of chiaroscuro correctly.... Yet we have several valuable prints from Jackson....
And Chatto[48] remarks:
They are very unequal in point of merit; some of them appearing harsh and crude, and others flat and spiritless, when compared with similar products by the old Italian wood engravers.
With this verdict W. J. Linton[49] disagrees, saying, “...Chatto underrates him. I find his works very excellent and effective. The Finding of Moses (2 feet high by 16 inches wide) and Virgin Climbing the Steps of the Temple (after Veronese), and others, are admirable in every respect....” Duplessis[50] attacks the Venetian set heatedly and at length, yet he devotes more space to expounding Jackson’s deficiencies than to discussing the work of any other woodcut artist, even Dürer or da Carpi.
On the evidence we have, the new conception Jackson brought to printmaking was not fully understood until the 20th century. Pierre Gusman[51] in 1916 probably first noted the technical distinction between Jackson’s work and earlier chiaroscuros.