The Great Masters

in Painting and Sculpture

Edited by G. C. Williamson

PERUGINO

THE GREAT MASTERS IN PAINTING AND SCULPTURE.

The following Volumes have been issued, price 5s. net each.

BERNARDINO LUINI. By George C. Williamson, Litt.D., Editor of the Series.

VELASQUEZ. By R. A. M. Stevenson.

ANDREA DEL SARTO. By H. Guinness.

LUCA SIGNORELLI. By Maud Cruttwell.

RAPHAEL. By H. Strachey.

CARLO CRIVELLI. By G. McNeil Rushforth, M.A., Classical Lecturer, Oriel College, Oxford.

CORREGGIO. By Selwyn Brinton, M.A., Author of "The Renaissance in Italian Art."

DONATELLO. By Hope Rea, Author of "Tuscan Artists."

PERUGINO. By G. C. Williamson, Litt.D.

In preparation

SODOMA. By the Contessa Lorenzo Priuli-Bon.

MEMLINC. By W. H. James Weale, late Keeper of the National Art Library.

DELLA ROBBIA. By the Marchesa Burlamacchi.

EL GRECO By Manuel B. Cossio, Litt.D., Ph.D., Director of the Musee Pédagogique, Madrid.

GIORGIONE. By Herbert Cook, M.A.

MICHAEL ANGELO. By Charles Holroyd, Keeper of the National Gallery of British Art.

THE BROTHERS BELLINI. By S. Arthur Strong, M.A., Librarian to the House of Lords

REMBRANDT. By Malcolm Bell.

Others to follow.

LONDON: GEORGE BELL & SONS

Private photo. Marseilles.

The Family of St. Anne.

PIETRO VANNUCCI
CALLED
PERUGINO

BY
GEORGE C. WILLIAMSON, LITT.D.

AUTHOR OF
"JOHN RUSSELL, R.A.," "RICHARD COSWAY, R.A., AND HIS WIFE AND PUPILS," "PORTRAIT MINIATURES," "BERNARDINO LUINI," ETC.

LONDON

GEORGE BELL & SONS

1900

PREFACE

The following pages contain what is, I believe, the only full account of the life and works of Perugino in the English language. It is based upon a careful examination of almost every one of his works to be found in Europe, and upon a critical study of their characteristics. The labours of other investigators have, however, been laid under contribution, and I am especially indebted to the works of Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Morelli, Mariotti, Orsini, and Vasari, and also to the works and advice of Mr. Bernhard Berenson, Mrs. Herringham, and Dr. Laurie, and to the writings and researches of M. Broussolle. To the Archbishop of Trebizond (Monsignore Stonor) I am most grateful for obtaining permission for me to study the Albani altar-piece, and to Prince Torlonia for kindly granting my request, and also to His Excellency Lord Currie for constant and never-failing aid in regard to all the other Italian galleries. Signor Cecchetti has helped me to obtain good photographs of the pictures in and near to Città della Pieve, Miss Fearon has kindly re-measured some of the Italian pictures for me, and the Rev. H. R. Ware, and the Rev. T. C Robson, have given me much help in rendering the Latin verse of Perugino into English verse. To each and all of these I offer my hearty thanks. I have also to thank the Directors of the Vatican and Perugia galleries for special facilities afforded me; Mr. Murray for permission to quote from his handbooks, and the photographers for the use of their photographs, and finally to beg that if by chance I have made use of other material without the fullest acknowledgment, the omission may be forgiven me inasmuch as I have endeavoured to avoid so serious a fault. My own divergences from the accepted views will be found fully recorded in these pages, and are in every case founded upon personal study, and for them I alone am responsible.

G. C. W.

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Austin, Alfred. "Notes made in Perugia." (An article.)

Bell, N. "Tourists' Art Guide to Europe." London, 1893.

Bonacci Brunamonti. "Pietro Perugino" in "Rivista Contemperanea," i. 1889. Fasc. 2.

Brachirolli. "Notizie e documenti inediti intorno a Pietro Vannucci." Perugia, 1874.

Burckhardt. "Art Guide to Painting in Italy." London, 1879.

Bryan. "Dictionary of Painters." London, 1893.

Berenson, B. "Central Italian Painters." London, 1897.

Broussolle, J. C. "Pèlerinages Ombriens." Paris, 1896.

Cennino Cennini. "Trattato della Pittura." Italian, sixteenth century.

"Cennino Cennini, The Book of the Art of." Translated by Mrs. Herringham. London, 1899.

Crowe and Cavalcaselle. "Renaissance in Italy." London, 1877.

Church, A. H. "Cantor Lectures on Colours." London, 1890.

Eastlake, Sir C. "History of Painting."

Gaye. "Carteggio."

Galetti, G. "Lo Stile di Pietro Perugino e l'indirizzo dell' Arte Moderna." Bologna, 1887.

"Gazette des Beaux Arts."

Hare, A. "Cities of Central Italy." London, 1876.

Heaton, Mrs. "History of Painting." London, 1873.

Hoefer. "Bibliographical Dictionary." Paris, 1860.

Jameson, Mrs. All her works. London, 1872.

Kugler. "Handbook of Painting." London, 1855.

Lanzi, Luigi. "Storia Pittorica della Italia." Bassano, 1809.

Lomazzo. "Idea del tempio della Pittura." Rome, 1844.

Lafenestre. "Les Maitres anciens." 1882.

Lafenestre. "La Peinture Italienne."

Lafenestre and Richtenburger. "The Louvre." Paris, 1898.

Luebke, W. "History of Art." London, 1868.

Laurie, A. P. "Cantor Lectures on Vehicles and Pigments." London, 1892.

Lupattelli, A. "Storia della Pittura in Perugia." Foligno, 1895.

Lupattelli, A. "Petit Guide de Pérouse." Paris, 1895.

Lee, Vernon. "In Umbria." (Articles.)

Muntz, E. "Raphael." Translated by Armstrong. London, 1882.

Muntz, M. "La fin de la Renaissance."

Marchesi. "Il Cambio di Perugia." Prato, 1853.

Mezzanotte. "Della vita e delle opere di Pietro Vannucci." Perugia, 1836.

Morelli. "Italian Painters in German Galleries." London, 1882.

Morelli. "Italian Painters," Vols. i. and ii. London, 1892-3.

Morelli. "Della Pittura Italiana." Milan, 1897.

Mariotti. "Lettere Pittoriche Perugine." 1788.

Orsini. "Vita e Elegio dell' egregio pittore Perugino e degli Scolari di esso." Perugia, 1804.

Pascoli. "Vite de Pittori Perugini."

Passavant, J. D. "Raphael d' Urbin et son père." Appendix, 445-461. "Essai sur les Peintres de l'Ombrie." Paris, 1860.

Poynter, Sir E. J. "Classical and Italian Painting." 1897.

Phillips, Claud. "Perugino" in the "Portfolio." London, 1893.

Rio, A. F. "De l'Art Chrétien." Paris, 1874.

Ris, Clement De. "Les Musées de Province de France."

Rosini. "Storia della Pittura Italiana." Pisa, 1847.

Rumohr. "Italienische Forschungen," ii.

Rossi, A. "Storia artistica del Cambio di Perugia." Perugia, 1874.

Rossi-Scotti. "Guida Illustrata di Perugia." Perugia, 1878.

Rea, Hope. "Tuscan Artists." London, 1898.

Symonds and Gordon. "Story of Perugia." London, 1898.

Symonds, J. A. "Italian Byeways."

Symonds, J. A. "Sketches and Studies in Southern Europe."

Symonds, J. A. "Renaissance in Italy." London, 1877.

Vasari, G. "Delle Vite de piu Eccelenti Pittori." Firenze, 1550

Vasari, G. Mrs Foster's Translation. London, 1894.

Vasari, G. Blashfield and Hopkin's Edition. London, 1897.

Vermiglioli. "Memorie di Ber. Pinturicchio."

Viardot. "Les Merveilles de la Peinture." Paris, 1870.

Woltman and Woerman. "History of Painting." 1880.

Yriarte, C. "Isabella d'Este et les artistes de son temps."

ERRATUM

The Illustration facing page 100 should be described as The Beckford Altar-piece, and not as The Schiavone Altar-piece of 1507.

The Schiavone Altar-piece named on pages 99 and 100 is not illustrated in the volume.

G. C. W.

PERUGINO

CHAPTER I
BIRTH, MASTERS, AND ENVIRONMENT

It is not quite certain when Pietro Vannucci (called from the name of his adopted town Perugino) was born, but the place of his birth he himself announces in his signature. Probably his birth took place in 1446 or 1447 at the little town of Castello della Pieve, now called Città della Pieve, as it was raised to the dignity of a city in 1601 by Clement VIII. His signature preserves, in the words "Petrus de Castro Plebis," the older name of his birthplace. Vasari gives his father's name as Christofano, and tells us that he was a poor man; but Mariotti reminds[A] his correspondent that the family, although a poor one, was not of low condition, as it had enjoyed the rights of citizenship since 1427. He also mentions that one Pietro Vannucci was in 1424 a member of the Guild of Stone-workers, and that in 1428 a member of the family signed himself proudly as citizen of Perugia. It is probable that Vasari's story of the boy having been brought into Perugia at a tender age and put as shop drudge with a painter in that city is correct. Città della Pieve is not more than some twenty-five miles from Perugia, and although the town is near to Chiusi, yet Perugia, as the capital of the district of Umbria, is the more important place, and to it naturally would the lad be taken. Vasari speaks of the unknown painter to whom the youthful Pietro Vannucci was sent as one who "was not particularly distinguished in his calling, but who held the art in great veneration and highly honoured the men who excelled therein."

It would be very interesting to know the name of this painter, as, according to Vasari, he had great influence upon Pietro. "He did not cease," Vasari continues, "to set before Pietro the great advantages and honours that were to be obtained from painting by all who acquired the power of labouring in it effectually, and kindled in the mind of his pupil the desire to become one of those masters." We enter upon a curious speculation when we begin to surmise the name of this master. Lanzi speaks of an artist known as Pietro of Perugia, but conjectures that Niccolò of Foligno (known also as Niccolò Liberatore, and incorrectly as Niccolò Alunno) may have been Perugino's first master. Mariotti attaches much more importance to the early teaching of Bonfigli. Fanelli, quoted by Lupattelli,[B] speaks of "a poor and obscure youth from Città della Pieve in the school of Alunno receiving instruction from Niccolò Alunno and becoming eventually the immortal Perugino, master of Raffaello." Crowe and Cavalcaselle take Bonfigli as this early master, while later writers, notably Mr. Berenson, attach far more importance to the training of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo.

Leaving out of consideration for a space the question of what Perugino learned from Piero della Francesca and in the botegas of Florence, it maybe well to briefly glance at the influences already named.

Niccolò da Foligno was perhaps the originator of the school of Umbrian painters in which Perugino thereafter took so important a place. He was clearly a pupil of Benozzo Gozzoli, who derived his training from Beato Angelico; but into the sweetness, harmony, and tender feeling of these earlier masters Niccolò forced a fiercer spirit, an uncompromising realism, which is at times almost painful in its stress. Niccolò was a man of forceful spirit, earnest and powerful, and with a certain dry technique and rigid definition that is in full accord with the penetrating spirit that composed the pictures. Foligno is quite close to Perugia, and there is no difficulty in realising the presence of Niccolò at times in that city. His influence is marked in Perugino's early work, but it does not stand alone, and has associated with it characteristics that could not have come from the Folignate botega. Bonfigli (Benedetto Buonfiglio), to whom Vasari once refers at the conclusion of his life of Pinturicchio, was the prominent painter of Perugia. He was greatly esteemed in that city, and so largely confined his labours to his native place that even now it is impossible, save in the gallery of that city, to gain anything like an adequate knowledge of his art.

It was not, however, from Bonfigli that we consider the strong influence came that affected Perugino's work. Much of Bonfigli's work was quite beautiful; there is a fascinating grace about many of his figures; there is a tenacious hold upon the laws of perspective, rich, varied, and charming colouring, and a general pleasing result in composition and in effect. There is, however, little virile force, very slight depth of feeling, and, above all, an absence of the open space which is so characteristic of later Umbrian art, and which has such a wondrous effect in the pictures of the great Umbrian artists. Bonfigli's pictures are crowded, Perugino's never were crowded. Bonfigli's are illustrations, records, decorative effects ever full of figures, and of detail, and with the beauty of certain single faces or separate groups swamped by the crowd of ordinary objects. Perugino's pictures, whatever may be their faults, never deserve this condemnation.

Fiorenzo di Lorenzo on the contrary, must certainly have been a master from whom Perugino received no slight influence.

Once again it is needful to go to Perugia in order to study the works of this artist, as away from the hill-top city the pictures of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, are few and far between.

In England there is one that is noteworthy, a "Virgin and Child," belonging to Mr. George Salting.

In the works of this artist we are at once struck by the aloofness that distinguished Perugino. Single figures stand apart one from the other, each slightly connected as by a thread of thought, and similarly each with the central feature of the picture, but in every other way self-contained. Here again are the placid Umbrian landscapes with which later on we shall become so familiar, and the tall slender youths and sweet women full of tender grace, that make their first appearance in Umbrian art. There is a grace and charm in the work of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, that is far removed both from the fierce truth of the Folignate's pictures and from the crowded stress of Bonfigli, and those panels that tell the story of Bernardino in the Accademia at Perugia, and which represent the artist at his very best, are possessed of a fascination both in line, in colouring, and in movement that are impressive to the highest degree.

Occasionally the artist was able to attach two or more of his figures to one another by a gesture or a movement that formed a distinct and noticeable link; but it was left for Perugino to still further develop this power and to link his figures one by one into a single group when he so desired, or at his will to keep them aloof one from the other, and to the successors of Perugino to complete this power which Fiorenzo so slightly commenced and which Perugino so greatly improved. In another way can be seen the influence of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. The typical Umbrian landscapes which are so important a feature in Perugino's pictures first make their appearance in the works of this artist. The special treatment of the landscape will be referred to in fuller detail later on; but we may here mention that those expansive broad landscapes, with distant hills bathed in a blue mist and revealing long stretches of level fertile land on either side, with single trees, standing silhouetted against the sky, which, like a vast arch of blue, frames in the lovely scene, are noteworthy in Fiorenzo's pictures.

Finally, there is the pale golden sunlight to be seen in his works, a sunlight which bathes all purely Umbrian art, but which does not appear to any marked extent in the works of the Foligno school.

Having now briefly glanced at the leading characteristics of these artists, it will be well to examine the work of one who was far greater than either of those already named, and whose influence on Perugino is very marked. I allude to Piero della Francesca. Whether, as Morelli suggests, Perugino journeyed to Arezzo, where Piero was at work, and aided him in his work, or placed himself under his tuition, or whether Perugino met Piero at Borgo San Sepolcro or in Perugia, is immaterial. It will suffice to understand that, somewhere near at home, and in the early days of his training before Perugino journeyed to Florence, the two men must have met, and Perugino learned much from the Tuscan-Umbrian master and profited largely by his instruction.

One of the main features of Piero's art was his accurate knowledge of perspective. He was, above all, a mathematician, well versed in arithmetic and geometry, and the author of several treatises on the science.

He rejoiced in complicated problems of perspective, in long vistas of columns stretching away into the far distance, in mysterious hollows, in exquisite alcoves, curves, and embrasures, in the perfectly accurate drawing of roofs and rooms, and in the grouping of his figures in such geometric array and such careful receding proportion as made clear the charm that such mathematical arrangements had over the mind of the artist.

There are, however, other characteristics of Piero's work, that must be carefully noted in making a survey of his style. There is a wonderful gravity and solemnity about his figures, a preoccupied look in most of their faces, and we trace also the very beginning of that power already mentioned, of linking figure to figure and group to group.

Certainly, in the long processions that form so essential a part of the frescoes at San Francesco in Arezzo, there is a certain connection running through the group of figures which are arranged in processional order especially in the "Visit of the Queen of Sheba," the "Invention of the Cross," and the "Exaltation of the Cross," but individually the figures composing these groups are separate and distinct from one another, engaged in their own concerns and holding no converse one with the other. In these respects it was left for the later men, beginning with Perugino, to pull the picture together and make it one harmonious whole.

When to this aloofness, this curious want of sympathy between the central group or scene in the picture and all the attendant groups or figures, we add a severe absence of emotion, an impassiveness in the faces of all the figures, together with a simple dignity of style and a power of delineation that is very attractive, we begin to understand Piero della Francesca. He never considered whether the faces of his figures were specially suited to the group in which he used them. He is quite unmoved by any ideas that the spectator may have as to fitness in the picture, and he never reveals his own views as to the scene and its appropriate presentation. Rage, pity, scorn, amazement, jealousy, passion, or even the depth of devotion, are no part of Piero's repertoire, but a quiet self-contained hauteur, a learned solemnity, and a religious calm characterise his figures, both men and women. There is abundance of dignity, stately form, earnest but impassive determination, but, even in the battle scenes, nothing of the Sturm und Drang which would have been expected.

All these characteristics had direct influence upon Perugino, but even beyond them can be seen other marks of this master's tuition. The fantastic head-dresses that are to be seen in Piero's frescoes find their counterpart in the frescoes of the Cambio; the very same scheme of composition in "The Resurrection of Christ" in the Borgo San Sepolcro Gallery is to be seen in one of Perugino's pictures; and the long vistas of arches and careful geometric proportion and the absolutely accurate drawing of arches and columns are to be equally realised in Piero's picture in the Gallery at Perugia and in Perugino's altar-piece in the Villa Albani. Even in the shape of the hand, the clear cameo-like profile of the faces, and the detail of the feathers on the angels' wings, the relationship between these painters is marked, and comparison between the frescoes at Arezzo and the paintings in the Accademia will be found to reveal these and other points of close contact.

In these early days of Perugino's life, it is therefore to the influence of Niccolò Liberatore, of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, and, above all, of Piero della Francesca, that we attribute the growth of his art and the success of his later life.

One more artist he must have met in these days, as Luca Signorelli, who was some five years his senior, was probably at Arezzo with Piero della Francesca. Certain pictures of Perugino, notably the "Crucifixion," at La Calza, and the similar scene painted around a carved crucifix now at Perugia, the "Pietà" in the Accademia, and the "Love and Chastity" in Paris, betray in their vigour, hardness, and movement some of Signorelli's influence, an influence that only occasionally was to be seen in the great Umbrian master.

Morelli[C] considers that Perugino's journey to Florence after his Perugian training, of which Vasari speaks, took place in 1470, at which time Perugino would be about twenty-five years old. His name is recorded in the roll of St. Luke in 1472, and in the roll of the Physicians in 1499.

Vasari states that it was to Verrocchio that he went. Lanzi and Orsini confirm this; Morelli gravely doubts it; Resta distinctly denies it; Berenson rejects it; and certainly there is but little trace of such a tutor in Perugino's work.

In the "Baptism" at the Accademia, which is an absolutely authentic picture, although perhaps partly the work of Leonardo, and in the "Madonna and Child" in the Uffizi, also attributed to Verrocchio, we find nothing that would appear to have influenced Perugino, or that can be recalled by his work, but if the magnificent bronze panel in the Carmine Church at Venice is accepted as the work of Andrea del Verrocchio then there is evidently a feeling in this work such as Perugino would naturally have appreciated, and which does appear many times in pictures by the Umbrian master. The position of the Christ on the ground, and that of the women who bend over Him, the silent meditative devotion of the two men and of the child who kneel on the right, the attitude, wings, drapery, and movement of the flying angels, and their very position with regard to the cross, all find answering echoes in Perugino's work that are unmistakable in their clearness. What is, however, of special importance to notice at this juncture is that Perugino did not go to Florence in 1472 as a mere pupil or scholar. Young in years as he undoubtedly was, he must have also been mature in experience and in knowledge; for otherwise it is inconceivable that so sagacious a Pontiff as Sixtus IV. should have sent for him eight years afterwards and engaged him upon work in the Sistine Chapel.

Vasari specially states that the invitation was given because of Perugino's great fame throughout Italy, and it is clear that a request to work side by side with such men as Ghirlandajo, Cosimo Rosselli, and Botticelli was so high a compliment that it would not be given to one who was merely a student in Verrocchio's botega. There is no question about the date of this invitation, as the original contract between the Holy Father and the artists has been published, and it contains an undertaking to furnish "ten stories" between October 27, 1481, and March 15, 1482.

Prior to these dates we hear of two other works executed by Perugino. The earliest of all is recorded by Milanesi in his notes to the life in Vasari. He states that in 1475 Perugino was commissioned to paint certain frescoes in the Palazzo Publico in Perugia; but of these works not a trace remains, and there is no evidence to support the learned author's statement[D] Milanesi, moreover, further records the fact that in 1478 Perugino worked at Cerqueto, painting some frescoes in a chapel there, and one solitary figure of "San Sebastian" bearing that date only now remains out of the entire decoration.

Private photo] [Cerqueto

SAINT SEBASTIAN, 1478

To this interesting figure, the earliest known work of the master, a reference will be made later on when consideration is given to other representations of the same saint, but a record must here be made to the Foligno, and to the Signorelli influence that this figure betrays. In direct truth the figure might well be the work of Niccolò Liberatore, and is conceived on the lines of his school. In nervous, tense muscular representation, and in the movement of the limbs, it is strikingly Signorellesque, and the realism of its wounds bespeaks the same characteristic; but the silky treatment of the skin, the roundness of the limbs, the upturned piteous face, the locks of hair, the extraordinarily exaggerated size of the great toe, and, above all, the intricate puckered folds of the drapery, are Perugino's and Perugino's alone.

The painting of the drapery which becomes a mannerism, and one of the most accurate of tests here in the very early days of the artist, takes certain definite forms, and the dark hollows and curious hook-like folds are to be seen in this "San Sebastian," not certainly as freely but quite as definitely, as they appear in later days. The picture is but a fragment of what must have been an important fresco, but it is eloquent of better work to come, and shows promise of masterly execution that only three years afterwards was to be revealed at Rome in the Sistine Chapel. No other work exists to bridge over the time between Perugino's early training in Umbria, his sojourn in Florence, and his return as a well-known artist to the town and neighbourhood of Perugia, although there is said to be a picture near Naples dated 1460, but the date is probably apocryphal.

In Florence the artist would probably have met Leonardo da Vinci and Lorenzo di Credi. If he attended at Verrocchio's studio he certainly would have met them. In Florence also, Resta tells us, he studied Masaccio's work, and we may be quite sure he used every endeavour to perfect himself in his art; and it is to this period of residence that Giovanni Santi refers in his oft quoted lines:

"Due giovin par d'etate e par d'amori
Leonardo da Vinci e P Perusino
Pier della Pieve."

—"Two youths alike in age and love Leonardo di Vinci and the Perugian Peter of Pieve." He is mentioned in Florence in 1490 in one of the books relating to the Cathedral, and there is a story of his having been fined for fighting in Florence in 1488.

In the only picture that remains to us of the series executed by Perugino in Rome for Sixtus IV. we see the result of all this Florence training, but we are also confronted at once by the great characteristic of the Umbrian school—free open space.

In considering this great feature, the most noteworthy characteristic of Umbrian art, it is impossible to avoid reference to Mr. Bernhard Berenson's pages and to his definition of what he terms "space composition," which he defines in this way: "Space composition differs from ordinary composition in the first place most obviously in that it is not an arrangement to be judged as extending only laterally, or up and down, on a flat surface, but as extending inwards in depth as well. It is composition in three dimensions and not in two, in the cube and not merely on the surface."[E]

Farther on he remarks: "This art comes into existence only when we get a sense of space not as a void, as something merely negative such as we customarily have, but on the contrary as something very positive and definite, able to confirm our consciousness of being, to heighten our feeling of vitality."

It is the wonderful art of space compositions which so distinguishes Perugino from his Sistine Chapel days down to the end of his life.

The power is so well expressed by Mr. Berenson that nothing is needed to further define it but he still further emphasises "space composition" when he states that it is an "intrinsically religious art" capable of "communicating the religious emotion" and able to "awaken in those who looked at the pictures a consciousness of preference for a life holy and refined."

In this first great picture "Christ giving the Keys to St. Peter," all the power of this marvellous capability is at once apparent.

It produces a sense of vastness, of spaciousness, of broad, free, open air enclosed only by the blue arch of Heaven, and therefore gathers up and retains all the higher emotions of the spectator.

There are the grand figures in the foreground, majestic and wonderful in their dignity; beyond them are others in the receding distance, smaller and smaller as the eye notes the vast distance expressed in the picture. In the centre rises the wonderful temple. Bramantesque and stately, and beyond it, disappearing away into the horizon are the everlasting hills that bound and yet seem to extend the broad space of the Umbrian landscape the utmost distance of which is lost in the blue haze of the sky.

The two triumphal arches at the sides serve to emphasise the great space that the picture embraces and the effect is that of gazing through an open window in Perugia or at Montefalco.

There is no sense of crowding, the space is so vast that the populace of a country could not crowd it, and the air circulates in and around every group and serves to give the greater plein-air charm.

There is a soothing quiet about the whole, a self-restraint and a stillness, and even though figure stands apart from figure and each one hardly notices the other, yet there is a fine thread of common interest to be seen connecting the whole of the foreground group and linking the spectators to the two central persons, Christ and the Foundation of His Church.

Alinari photo] [Sistine Chapel, Rome

THE DELIVERY OF THE KEYS TO ST. PETER

It is well when mentioning this great picture to state as a personal opinion that it is not possible to appreciate Perugino adequately, or even to understand him properly, without a visit to Umbria itself.

The country differs so much from other parts of Italy that mere comparison with parts better known is useless, but when once the student has sojourned in the country the charm of its landscape is felt and understood. There is a vastness about its open spaces, an immensity of view, boundless and yet enclosed, that must be seen to be understood.

To linger on the fortifications of Montefalco, to look out from the public square of Trevi, to wander along the road that divides San Girolamo from Spello, to drive along the plains of Foligno, to stay at Nervi, Deruta, or Bettona, to gaze out over the plains around Assisi, or to appreciate the wonderland that is mapped out around lofty Perugia—all these are so many lessons to the right understanding of Perugino. Away and away in the rolling distance are those vast plains, not flat surfaces, but a luxuriant country-side, irregularly marked by the contours of hills and valleys, dotted with tiny fortified towns crowning each its own hill and looking down upon its neighbour. Great white winding roads meander hither and thither, single trees stand out in sharp tall silhouette against the intense blue of the sky, and around as far as eye can reach stretch the half-hidden, half-revealed mountains clothed in a purple haze while the golden glare of sunlight bathes all the intervening space in its mystic light, tinging with gold the very grass of the fields, the grey drab of the roads, the ruddy brown of the buildings, and the radiance of the distant towers and houses.

All the Umbrian artists felt the charm of this scenery, but no one save Perugino so fully and so consistently expressed it.

It is in all his works, and as one gazes out upon this "buoyant spaciousness" of view, the wondrous creatures of his conceptions, holy women, saints, prophets, apostles, religious guilds, praying populace, seem once more to people the earth, and away in the eternal immeasurable sky can be seen the Assumption, the angels, the mandorla of cherub faces, the comforting seraphim and the glowing cherubim, as Perugino saw them, and the sky is again the scene of the glories which faith enabled Perugino to visualise and depict.

It is the knowledge of his own country and the wonderful power of space composition that marks Perugino's pictures so emphatically as to enable us to determine that the "Delivery of the Keys to St. Peter" is the only fresco from the master's hand in the Sistine Chapel. It was Morelli who first pointed out that Crowe and Cavalcaselle were in error in attributing "Moses and Zipporah" and the "Baptism of Christ" to Perugino, and I accept his teaching in this matter quite readily. A careful study of the Sistine frescoes has convinced me that Morelli was right and Crowe and Cavalcaselle wrong. Even the two central figures in the disputed "Baptism," those of Christ and St. John, which are compared with the two similar figures in the predella at Rouen, which is undoubtedly authentic, and with the same scene in the National Gallery, which I consider a copy only of the master's work, betray the hand of Pinturicchio rather than that of Perugino.

In the fresco at Rome, the two figures are crowded closely together; the arm of Our Lord almost rests on St. John's head, the face of the saint is weak and feeble, the limbs are skinny and badly drawn, there is no sense of security in the feet, the hands are out of proportion and the draperies entirely lack the hook folds of Perugino, and are loose and inadequate. Above all, neither figure stands upon its two feet; in the case of the Christ one foot alone supports the whole body, a mistake that Perugino never makes. The whole picture is crowded with figures and hemmed in with hills. It is pictorial certainly, and effective, but it entirely lacks the spaciousness of Perugino. There is a feeling of crush and crowd such as Perugino never gives, and a total absence even in the landscape of that extensive vista of scenery, that breadth of treatment which is so important. Even the representation of the Eternal Father within the mandorla of cherubs and attended by angels is not placed high up in the illimitable aerial space, but almost touches a neighbouring hill, and serves but to overfill the picture and make its crowded composition a wearisome burden. Compare for a moment the predella at Rouen. The two central figures stand apart one from the other, and therefore stand out clearly and distinctly, while yet near enough for their mutual actions to be closely connected. They stand firmly and well balanced on their feet, the slight exaggeration of one of St. John's feet, being due to an accurate understanding on Perugino's part of the distortion apparently given to the limb by its being below the surface of the water. Around are the kneeling angels and attendant figures, eight only in number, carefully graduated in size according to position, aloof, serious, quiet, and still. Away and beyond is the rolling landscape, with its exquisite hills and dainty detached trees standing out clear against the sky. On and on the eye travels, eager to reach the limits of this limitless vision, and impressed more and more by the skill that painted in so tiny a compass so vast a scene. Above is the sky free from any crowd of spirits, and reaching up to unimagined heights.

Here is undoubtedly Perugino's work; but at Rome we see merely a clever overcrowded picture, an illustration simply, and most evidently the work of Pinturicchio. Three other frescoes in this chapel Perugino did undoubtedly paint for Sixtus IV., covering the eastern wall. They depicted the "Assumption," into which he introduced the kneeling figure of the Pope, the "Nativity," and the "Finding of Moses," but all these works were swept away during the Pontificate of Pope Paul III. to make way for the tremendous work of Michel Angelo, "The Last Judgment." It is infinitely to be regretted that no replica of these frescoes was retained, as the "Delivery of the Keys" is so superb a composition, that it but increases the desire of the spectator to know what Perugino's other frescoes were in the same chapel.

The payment for the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel was not authorised till August 8th, 1489, as Mariotti[F] records that at that time Perugino was entitled to draw on the Apostolic camera at Perugia for 180 ducats, being the balance of money due for pictures in the Apostolic chapel. On the 5th of March 1490 Perugino gave a receipt in Perugia for that money.

Petiton photo] [Rouen

THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST
(A predella panel from the San Pietro (Perugia) altar-piece)

CHAPTER II
EARLY DAYS

There are three pictures, one of which is especially named by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, which seem to belong to the early days of Perugino.

Not that they should be ascribed to the Cerqueto period, or to the Sistine Chapel time, but it is probable that they were painted between 1480, when the master was in Rome, and 1491, when he produced on his second journey to the Eternal City the magnificent altar-piece now in the Villa Albani. Crowe and Cavalcaselle refer to the tondo in the Louvre, and to it we add the somewhat similar work at Verona and the "Baptism" at Vienna.

There is a certain immaturity in these three pictures, a straining after effect, a poorness in colouring, and a rigidity in the draperies, together with a niggling technique, with hard tight outlines, that was to give place so speedily to far more breadth. At the same time, thus early, if my surmise as to date is correct, can be seen the characteristics of Perugino. All three pictures are full of plein-air effect, the one at Verona especially. The group in Paris of "Madonna and Child" with two saints and two angels is a little cramped and crowded. The Verona one omits the two saints and introduces as another child St. John Baptist.

In the Vienna "Baptism," which has been repainted in places, there is a hardness in the draperies, a stiffness in the attendant figures, and an unfinished character to the landscape; but in each of the three there is sweetness, calm, and devotion, and they mark the beginning of quite a new movement in Italian art. It will be noticed that both in Paris and Verona the under draperies are regular and hard in their pleating, that the head-dresses are merely conventional and stiffly angular and that ornaments, decoration, and jewellery have received an amount of fine laborious detail work, which renders them somewhat too conspicuous, and shows that the artist had not yet realised the sense of proportion in the various parts of his pictures that distinguished him later on.

From consideration of these three pictures, remarkably interesting and thoroughly typical as they are of the new school of work just unfolding, it will be well to pass on to more definite ground and consider some dated pictures which follow in due course.

There is an amusing story in Mariotti respecting one masterpiece that should be mentioned here. The Priori of Perugia desired to have an important altar-piece for their Capella dell' Magistrato, and in the predella of the picture, or else introduced into the altar-piece itself, were to be the portraits of the worthy Priori.

A local artist, one Pietro di Maestro Galeotto, was selected for the work, and on the 7th of June 1479 a contract was made with him for it, the price to be 200 florins, and the picture to be completed in two years under a fine for non-compliance of 50 golden ducats. Galeotto from time to time drew payments on account from the Priori, and three years passed away and yet there were no signs of the altar-piece and no mention of the fine. On June 29th, 1482, another year's grace was granted to Galeotto on the plea that there had been some contagious disease in Perugia and he had struck work and absented himself; but in May 1483 Galeotto died, whether from this plague or not is not recorded, but when inquiry was made of his heirs as to the picture nothing could be found of it but the frame. Shortly after this time Perugino visited Perugia, and to him the Magistrates turned for help; and, bringing much pressure to bear upon him, prevailed upon the artist to sign a contract dated 28th November 1483 binding himself to produce the picture in four months for 100 florins. The details of the picture are all given in the contract, and the names of the four Saints, who were to surround the Madonna and Child, and, above all, the portraits of the Priori were not to be omitted. But by this time Perugino had received the commands of Pope Sixtus IV. to come to Rome, and so a few days after signing the contract Perugino left Perugia without giving any further consideration to the wishes of the worthy Priori or the text of the contract. Even the first section of the work, containing the portraits which he had faithfully promised should be ready in December 1483, was quite forgotten.

The term of office, however, for which the Priori were elected was rapidly nearing its close, and there were still no signs of the portraits of these eminent men. In despair the Priori turned to a third artist, Santi di Polonio del Celandro, and in a contract dated 31st December 1483 they bound him to supply the picture and complete it within a year, but inserted a clause that all the portraits together with that of their notary were to be painted within a fortnight.

For the whole work he was to have one hundred florins. This time the Priori kept their eye on the artist; there was no time to lose. Shortly they would go out of office, and then the chance of having their portraits forever adorning their chapel walls would be gone, and so the poor Celandro had to paint the eleven portraits within fifteen days, under pain of a very heavy fine. Somehow or other he accomplished the work; the portraits were done, and temporarily remained in the chapel standing against the wall waiting for the completion of the rest of the pictures. But, having accomplished this part of the work, Celandro took no further heed of the contract, and the Priori having obtained their desire, troubled no further as to the Madonna and saints, or were powerless to force Celandro to complete the work. Twelve years actually passed away, and the chapel still lacked its altar-piece, and Celandro, like Galeotto, died.[G] In 1495 Perugino was again at Perugia, full of honour and fame; and once more the decoration of the Capella was resolved on. The Priori—quite a new body to the one which had originally planned the picture, entered into another contract with Perugino, dated 6th March 1495—for him to paint the altar-piece on the same scheme as before, but with far higher remuneration. Perugino was to do the work in six months, was to receive one hundred gold ducats in three payments, and, in lieu of the Mother of Mercy in the lunette, was to paint a Pietà, and for that purpose—alas for the poor Priori—the portraits in fresco by Celandro which filled the space allotted to the Pietà were to be removed, broken up, and carted away. All, therefore, that remains concerning these notable Priori of 1483 whose portraits were to have been handed down to perpetuity, are their ten names recorded by Mariotti, and the name of Rubino di Giacomo, their notary; but of their portraits nothing is left.

Alinari photo] [Vatican, Rome

THE MADONNA ENTHRONED, WITH FOUR SAINTS

Perugino at last set to work, and the beautiful altar-piece now in the Vatican is the result. There is the Madonna and Child on the throne, and near by there are the four great saints. The picture is exquisitely beautiful, full of Perugino's special charm, and bearing marks of the Piero della Francesca influence in the arches that support the canopy, while below the feet of the Madonna, to make quite clear as to who painted the picture, is the signature in somewhat remarkable form:

HOC PETRUS DE CHASTRO PLEBIS PINXIT.

Inasmuch as consideration of this finished picture brings our chronological survey up to 1495, it will be desirable for us to retrace our steps to the time that Perugino spent in Florence.

Vasari records many works executed in that city, but his chronology is so perplexing that it is difficult to say whether they were all executed at the time to which we refer, or later in the artist's career.

Probably the frescoes in the Convent of the Frati-Gesuati beyond the Pinti Gale, a house that was destroyed in the siege of Florence in 1529, were early works, inasmuch as the panel pictures that were saved from the church, and which now rest in the Accademia, were painted in 1492-93.

There were, however, as already mentioned, three pictures on panel executed for the same convent, and these, fortunately, are still in existence. They were carried, at the time of the siege, to the gate of San Pier Gattolini, where the monks were provided with a refuge in the church and convent of San Giovannino, now known as La Calza. These three pictures are the "Crucifixion," now in La Calza, the "Pietà," in the Accademia, dated 1493, and the "Christ in the Garden," also in the Accademia. Of these three early pictures the one in La Calza is in some ways the most interesting. It is a very puzzling picture. Vasari describes it so clearly that there is no possibility of error as to the picture he names. He speaks of the "infinite care" with which it is executed. He refers to its being carried for safety to the church, where it still rests, and he mentions its condition as injured by numerous cracks, but the difficulty is that, while much of the picture is distinctly Peruginesque, three of the figures might have been painted by Luca Signorelli, so great a resemblance in general characteristics do they bear to his work. Crowe and Cavalcaselle hesitate to ascribe it to either master, inclining more to the view that Raffaelino del Garbo may have painted it, but with this last ascription I cannot at all agree. The composition is that of Perugino, the open air effect and the distance, the single detached trees and the high rocks are all Umbrian. The draperies of the four standing figures and of the Christ have the distinctive folds that are so thoroughly characteristic of our painter, and the borders to the garments are equally noteworthy. The attitude of St. Francis and of S. Giovanni Columbini are thoroughly in accordance with Perugino's methods, but when we turn to St. Jerome and St. John Baptist the case is very different. In these figures the fierce strength and muscular development is foreign to Perugino's ordinary work, and he appears to have been painting under Signorelli's influence, and even endeavouring to introduce into faces and limbs the virile power and movement of Signorelli, which at that time was specially attractive to him. The figure of the Magdalen (strangely termed by Crowe and Cavalcaselle the best figure in the picture) is, I consider, a much later addition by quite another hand. The picture composes perfectly without it, and a very close inspection convinced me that it was not originally in the design, and that the draperies of S. Giovanni Columbini can be traced through the draperies of the Magdalen. In no way does the Magdalen recall Perugino. The attitude is not his; the draperies have entirely different folds; the hands are quite different in their structure; and the hair is painted with entirely altered technique.

Alinari photo] [La Calza, Florence

THE CRUCIFIXION

I look upon this La Calza "Crucifixion" as one of the earliest, if not the very first of Perugino's works in Florence that survives.

In the Accademia (two pictures) we are on quite different ground. Here can be seen the hand of Perugino in every part and the wonderful power of space composition can be realised to the full. The receding arches in the "Pietà," bespeaking the influence of Piero della Francesca, the exquisite landscape in the background, the curious aloofness of each figure, and the delicate chain of sympathy that binds them all together, the tender sorrowful face of the Madonna seated in the midst bearing on her knees the dead body of her Son, all of Perugino's best.

Alinari photo] [Accademia, Florence

THE DEAD CHRIST

The third picture, the "Christ in the Garden," is fuller still of the genius of space composition. Far off are the hills that girdle the landscape, and the eye is carried on from one to the other, each step revealing new beauties, till in the extreme distance the sky and land melt into one another. In the immediate foreground are the three disciples sound asleep in the attitudes that convince you of heavy slumber. In the centre of the picture is Our Lord kneeling on a hillock deeply engaged in prayer, and above is an angel flying toward Him bearing the chalice of sorrow. Below and still further removed from the eye of the spectator are groups of soldiers on the one hand and of priests and people on the other rapidly moving toward the central figure. Their proportions are finely adjusted to their distance and position, and there is an admirable sense of movement in all. Beyond them are the distant town, the hills, the country, and above, with its depth and arch and vastness, suggested in most subtle manner by the light fleecy clouds and by the very curves of the angel's figure and the movement of his wing rises the blue vault of the heaven.

Alinari photo] [Accademia, Florence

CHRIST IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE

All the genius of Perugino exists in this picture. Later on there is a greater sweetness in some of the faces, there are more figures, there is a purer and more exquisitely sunny colouring, but in composition this early work contains all the characteristics of the master.

These two must be attributed, however, to a later period than the frescoes and La Calza picture already mentioned, which were for the same convent, and in the interval between painting the frescoes for the Gesuati and the La Calza picture and these two Accademia pictures, Perugino had declined a commission at Orvieto, and had been to Rome and painted there for Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, afterwards Julius II.

Once more we must retrace our steps and tell the story of the Orvieto contract.

It is unnecessary to refer to the work done in Orvieto Cathedral by Beato Fra Angelico; but after his death the work remained unfinished, and the authorities of the cathedral could not find anyone who was prepared to complete the scheme of decoration and whose work appeared to them worthy of its place. Forty-four years had passed away, and then Perugino visited Orvieto. He was asked to examine the chapel and give a price for its decoration. He did so; at 1500 gold ducats for the whole chapel, provided that scaffolding, lime, gold, and ultramarine were furnished to him. He agreed to use such subjects as were submitted to him, and to personally execute the hands and faces of all the figures. His offer was not accepted in its entirety; but a contract was made for him to do the ceilings and spaces above the capitals for 200 gold ducats, ten of which were paid him, on the understanding that he began the work in April 1490 and continued it through the whole of the following summer. Perugino, however, having secured the contract, was in no hurry to fulfil it, and as the question was being discussed in Florence as to the completion of the cathedral west front, he left Orvieto, and hurried on to Florence to compete in the proposed work.

The work in Florence, however, did not come off, and Perugino proceeded to Perugia and went on again to Rome. Here he commenced the work for his patron Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, almost all of which has since perished, one notable picture only being left.

The artist seems to have dreaded lest the canons of Orvieto should demand his presence in their cathedral, and it is clear that they made strenuous efforts to lay hold of him.

The Cardinal, very desirous of retaining his services for himself, protected the artist, and when the Orvieto authorities determined to cancel the contract, he wrote to the Priori an exceedingly strong letter, telling them to await the convenience of the artist and himself. This letter of June 2, 1492, was in reply to one sent to Perugino stating that the Priori would appoint some one else in his stead.

Anderson photo] [Villa Albani, Rome

THE ALBANI ALTAR-PIECE, 1491

The Cardinal reminded the authorities that they had promised, in reply to a previous letter from Perugino, to wait a few months, and he adds: "Now Maestro Pietro has stated that, contrary to your word, you intend to substitute for him another painter who shall do your work. This is indeed truly remarkable conduct. We laboured under the impression that you were to be compliant as best suits the love we have ever borne to your community. So we now again exhort and pray that you do reserve this place, which is his due, to Maestro Pietro, and refrain from molesting him for the short time during which he has to expedite our affairs."

The Orvietans had, however, meantime, been in correspondence with Pinturicchio, but fearing to offend so great a dignitary as the Cardinal, they retained the chapel of S. Brizio for Perugino, giving Pinturicchio work in another part of the cathedral.

Perugino, however, never kept his promise, though it does not appear whether he returned to the Priori of Orvieto, the ten ducats they had advanced him, and eventually, as is well known, Luca Signorelli was employed to decorate the chapel in question.

As already mentioned, but one picture remains of the work done for the Cardinal at Rome. This is the wonderful altar-piece, dated 1491, now the property of Prince Torlonia, and to be seen in the Villa Albani.

It is in six compartments, and is a most beautiful work, full of brilliant colour. In the centre is "The Nativity," represented as having taken place beneath a sort of temple with open sides, its roof resting on a series of beautiful arches forming a centre and two aisles and springing from square pillars with rich capitals.

The three divisions above contain the "Annunciation" and "Crucifixion." On either side of the cross are St. John the Divine and the Virgin, and at its foot kneels the Magdalen. If with this figure of Mary Magdalen is compared the similar one in the La Calza picture the difference will be apparent. There is a beauty and nobility of face and a grace of posture wholly lacking in the La Calza picture, and the draperies, so sure a mark of Perugino's hand, are here as true to his method as in the Florence picture they are manifestly different. On one side of the lunette is a panel representing the Virgin kneeling beneath the open arcading of a temple, and on the opposite side a similar panel containing the Archangel Gabriel.

The altar-piece is full of the influence of Piero della Francesca, the fine drawing of the receding arches, the architectural details, the marble of the pavement and the proportion of all the figures mark in unmistakable form the teaching of the man of Arezzo, but beyond all this there is that marvellous charm of open air and composition in depth that is so marked in the best works of our Umbrian master. The lunette gives Perugino at his best in this period, and the distance, with its rocks, pools of water, cities, plains, and hills, is of fascinating beauty, and fills the spectator with amazement. The whole picture is bathed in a haze of golden colouring. The tones, in places almost jewel-like in their transparent brilliancy, are tender and expressive, and there is a serenity and quiet about the work that is quite wonderful and expressive of complete peace and masterful resignation. The picture is signed:

PETRVS DE PERVSIA PINXIT 1491.

Now for a while we return to Florence, picking up the threads that we dropped a few pages back.

Alinari photo] [Uffizi Palace, Florence

THE FIESOLE ALTAR-PIECE, 1493

In 1493 Perugino was balloted, so Orsini says, into the municipal council at his native place, Città della Pieve, for May and June, and is said to have served his time there, but in the same year he was painting at Florence, and, according to Mariotti, had a botega in that city and accepted many commissions. To this period belong two notable pictures, one in Florence and the other in Vienna. The face of the Virgin in each picture is identical, and the infant Christ in each is painted from the same model. The picture in the Uffizi was painted for San Domenico in Fiesole, and was the second altar-piece Perugino did for that church, the first, painted in 1488, having disappeared.

It represents the Virgin on a throne bearing the infant Christ on her knees. On one side stands St. Sebastian (to whom reference will be made later on) and on the other, St. John the Baptist. The group stands under the vaulted arching resting on square pillars, of which Perugino was so fond. In the distance is the customary landscape. The picture is signed:

PETRVS PERVSINVS PINXIT AN 1493.

The other work is at Vienna, and bears an inscription denoting the name of the priest who commissioned its execution.

The Blessed Virgin is on a throne in this picture also, but the group is enclosed by high stone walls only open to the sky. On one side stand St. John the Baptist and St. Paul, on the other, St. Jerome and St. Peter. The St. Jerome is the same face as appears in the Albani altar-piece of 1491, and the curious long white beard which he wears, and which hangs in two divisions, will be noticed many times in later works notably at Trevi and Montefalco, and constitutes a mark of Perugino's own handiwork.

CHAPTER III
TECHNIQUE : PIGMENTS : VEHICLES

We now come to the year 1494; but before dealing seriatim with the pictures painted at that time it will be well to refer briefly to a question of technique. Crowe and Cavalcaselle make a definite statement to which I can give no adherence. They speak of Pietro's work changing from tempera to oil work, and they allude to his inability at this time to use the new medium in all its complexity, and later on to his complete mastery over oil-painting and his constant use of it. Mr. Herbert Horne, on the other hand, states with an equal assurance that "all Perugino's pictures were painted in tempera on a gesso background,"[H] and I find it as difficult to accept this statement as that of Crowe and Cavalcaselle as a sufficient explanation of the question.

It is quite clear to a careful observer that the technique of the Albani picture differs from that of the triptych in the National Gallery, for example; but the difficulty is then only stated. It is an extremely puzzling question to determine from an old master painting whether it was painted in tempera or not. Even Ruskin once admitted that he had for a long time been holding up for admiration as the finest oil-painting what he finally discovered to be tempera. The repeated oiling and varnishing to which Italian pictures have been submitted renders the task of discriminating the original medium one of the greatest perplexity. When to this is added the further statement that in some pictures it would appear that the under-painting which gives the shadows is in tempera and the glazes in oil colour, the danger of making such dogmatic statements as those already mentioned, is still more apparent.

The information which we possess as to tempera painting in the fourteenth century is derived from the "Trattato" of Cennino Cennini, and this has just been re-translated by the one person in England, who, more than anyone else has practised and understands tempera work. Mrs. Herringham, who has for years worked in tempera and copied the Quatrocento pictures in the National Gallery, has discussed this abstruse question, and to her knowledge, derived both from personal conversation and from her invaluable book,[I] I have obtained much information, and have coupled it with close personal examination of the pictures, and some interesting experiments. I think, in considering tempera painting, one factor, that of climate, has not always received sufficient attention. Mr. Spencer Stanhope has expressed to Mrs. Herringham that tempera never dries completely in this country, and should not be varnished, but that has not been her experience. It, however, expresses in crude statement, the difficulty there is in this moist climate in using tempera satisfactorily, and there is little doubt that part of the success of Italian tempera work is due to the climate in which the artists worked. It is quite clear from Mrs. Herringham's work, that tempera painting, by which I mean strictly yolk-of-egg painting, is capable of the soft transparent effects which are to be seen in Perugino's pictures, and that no admixture of another vehicle with the egg is needful. It is not, however, clear whether the whole of many of his pictures were painted with yolk of egg alone.

I was in hopes at one time that a careful study of cracking and a comparison of the shape and formation of the cracks on different pictures would give me some definite formulæ by which the medium used could be detected, but a very careful examination only gave inadequate results. There appear to be certain thick ridge-like formations in the darker colours especially at the very edges of the draperies, which it is very difficult to imitate in tempera, and while the landscape is most clearly put in quite lightly in tempera, yet the draperies are so different in handling as to give the impression that another medium was used for them. There is also a curious variety in Perugino's pictures as to hatching, especially after 1500, and the hatching which till then only appears in the flesh, is later on to be seen in other parts of the picture. Blending of one colour with another is also to be seen in some of the later pictures to an extent that the earlier pictures never show, as with pure tempera painting the paint "cannot be moved and blended as in oil work," but "it must be put on and left alone till it is dry." I do not pretend to have touched more than the fringe of this subject, but my opinion is that Perugino did many of his pictures wholly in tempera, and that with others he used tempera for the under-painting and oil for the glazes, and that there are also pictures where size has been used as a medium for the draperies when great solidity and heavy cordy outline was desired. The question of oil colours cannot be dismissed in a sentence. Perugino probably learned a good deal as to the use of colours from the Gesuati, who were, as Vasari informs us, well practised in the art of colours, and conversant with glass-painting and enamel work, but the mystery remains as to how it is that the very fugitive colours he used have stood and remained as brilliant as ever.

For his Cantor Lectures in 1892,[J] Dr. A. P. Laurie carried out some remarkable experiments with certain fugitive colours and certain oils and balsams, with a view to ascertaining whether any oil varnishes were impervious to moisture, and securely locked up the colours against change. Some of these experiments I have repeated, and I have had some interesting conversation with Dr. Laurie, and I agree with him absolutely that the only vehicles which lock up the colours against moisture and against the action of sulphuretted hydrogen are those composed of balsams. The stickiness of colour ground in balsam to which he alludes can, I have ascertained, be overcome by a few drops of pure linseed oil and a morsel of wax, and the result can then be used easily with a brush. Experimenting with the balsams of the larch and of the silver fir, I have been able to protect verdigris, orpiment, and kermes lake securely, and the experiments have been mainly conducted with verdigris and orpiment as notoriously fugitive colours and yet colours which it is quite clear Perugino used.

It may be well perhaps to allude here to Vasari's story respecting the artist's use of ultramarine. The colour was so costly that in several of his contracts Perugino expressly stated that his patron was to provide it, and Vasari states that when he was painting in the cloister of the Ingesuati, the Prior, who himself prepared and supplied the ultramarine, was mean and mistrustful as to Perugino's use of it, and would always be present when it was used. The artist took the Prior's distrust to heart, and by constantly washing his brush in a bowl of water allowed more colour to be precipitated than he was using in his fresco. Having punished the Prior in this way, he gathered up the blue from the water and returned it to him with the words, "This belongs to you, father; Learn to trust honest men, for such never deceive those who confide in them, although they well know how to circumvent distrustful persons like yourself when they desire to do so." Pliny records a singular story about vermilion. Perugino's skies were painted with this colour, and put on very thinly, and they have a peculiar formation of cracking which is quite recognisable.

As regards grounds, I believe that all Perugino's panel pictures are upon gesso laid upon panel, but in many of them it seems to me that linen has been used between the panel and the gesso as if to bind them together. Verdigris is, I believe, the only colour that will produce some of Perugino's greens, and, as far as I have experimented, the balsams, as Venice turpentine and olio d' abezzo, are the only varnishes that protect it unchanged against the action of sulphuretted hydrogen and moisture.

These few statements as to technique are only suggestive. I am not a chemist, and the subject demands prolonged experiments in a laboratory; and such experiments should result in most interesting discoveries. Resta calls Perugino's colouring dry and sparing; Lanzi alludes to what he terms its skimpiness, but the very thinness of it is but proof of the artist's complete mastery of his medium, and that this medium was always mainly tempera, and was never what we know as oil painting is my distinct opinion, based upon an examination of almost every one of his works in Italy.

CHAPTER IV
WANDERINGS

Crowe and Cavalcaselle, in speaking of the beautiful picture at Cremona dated 1494, refer to it as executed in Florence and sent to Cremona, but there are grave reasons against accepting this statement. It is quite clear that in that year Perugino was in Venice,[K] and it is more natural to believe that he painted the picture in Cremona itself. The picture is one of great beauty, but is singularly unlike most of the painter's other creations in a sturdy robustness of pose and countenance, both in the Madonna and in the Child, unlike the calm and slightly insipid composure of other works. This characteristic may perhaps be attributed to the recent influence of the works of Giovanni Bellini and Antonello da Messina.

The picture represents the Blessed Virgin and Child on a throne, while St. James is on one side, St. Augustine on the other of the central figures. It is signed 1494, and still hangs in St. Augustine's Church, Cremona, on the altar of the Roncadelli family.

In 1496 the Duke Il Moro of Milan was anxious to obtain the services of another painter for the rooms at the Castello, and he wrote to his envoy in Florence for information. The envoy replied, giving to the Duke information as to the leading characteristics of each of the greater Florentine artists. Of Perugino he wrote: "He is a rare and singular artist, most excellent in wall painting. His faces have an air of the most angelic sweetness." The Duke Lorenzo at once decided to employ Perugino, and wrote to his friend Guido Arcimboldo, Archbishop of Milan, who was then in Venice, begging him to inquire about Perugino, and, if possible, engage him. The Archbishop replied on June 14th to say that Perugino had left Venice. Unable to secure his services himself at that time, the Duke recommended Perugino to the monks of the Certosa at Pavia, and commissioned a great altar-piece from him. Accordingly, in October 1496, we hear of Perugino being at Pavia working at the altar-piece. In the following year, 1497, Il Moro again tried to secure the services of Perugino for the Castello, and wrote to one of the Baglioni, who at that time ruled over Perugia, begging him to send Perugino to him; but the artist was then at work in Perugia, and so full of commissions that he declined Il Moro's offer, and never went to the Castello.

The two years, 1494 and 1495, saw the completion of the altar-piece for the Magistrates' Chapel in Perugia—now in the Vatican Gallery and already mentioned,—the great "Entombment" in the Pitti Palace, the "Ascension" altar-piece for San Pietro, Perugia, the portrait of Francesco delle Opere in the Uffizi, and the commencement of the greatest work of all, which was finished in 1496, the "Crucifixion" at Sta. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi.

Alinari photo] [Uffizi Palace, Florence

PORTRAIT OF FRANCESCO DELLE OPERE, 1494

The "Ascension" altar-piece is the first one that we have to consider of that group of Perugino's altar-pieces which have been divided, the component parts being scattered throughout Europe. To this division and scattering fuller attention is given in the next chapter, and it will suffice here to state that the centre part is at Lyons, the lunette at St. Gervais, Paris, the predella in three panels at Rouen, and the surrounding saints divided, three in the Vatican Gallery and five in the church of S. Pietro, where at one time the complete work rested. The picture at Borgo San Sepolcro is usually spoken of as a replica of the centre piece of this great picture, but I am strongly disposed to take an opposite view of the case.

Vasari records the painting of the Borgo picture, which was, he says, "executed for the Abbot Simone de' Graziani and transported to the church of San Gilio at Borgo on the backs of porters at very heavy cost." He also records the painting of the picture for S. Pietro, naming it almost at the close of his biographical notes on the artist; and of this picture he says: "The whole of it is replete with evidences of thought and care, insomuch that it is one of the best paintings in oil executed by Pietro in Perugia." It is quite impossible to accept the chronology Vasari gives, as he mixes up dates in the most hopeless confusion; but in this instance I think he is right in putting the Borgo picture before the Lyons one rather than vice versâ.

The picture at Borgo is in bad condition: the one at Lyons has been transferred to canvas and very much repainted, and still shows signs of two vertical splits in the panel; but, despite all these injuries, the Borgo picture is, I consider, the finer of the two, and the Lyons one, although by the same hand, a later and more careless replica.

In the Borgo picture the Virgin is in religious garb and has the head covered: in the Lyons picture there is a more secular garb, the head uncovered and short hair to be seen. In the Borgo picture the angels carry loosely looped narrow ribbon carefully and gracefully drawn: the ribbon in the Lyons picture is broader, more coarsely painted, lettered throughout, and falling in awkward folds. The wings of the cherubs in the mandorla at Borgo are painted with exquisite detail, every little scale and feather being carefully represented; these details are almost entirely absent in the Lyons picture, where the wings of the cherubs appear to be hurriedly painted and lacking altogether in finish. There is far greater sweetness in the faces at Borgo, especially those of the Redeemer, the Virgin, St. Peter, and St. Paul, than at Lyons, where all these four important faces are roughly and even coarsely delineated. In some of the attendant disciples, the hair, which at Borgo is daintily painted in, and flows in slightly ringletted form, hangs loosely at Lyons and is of a harsher texture, and the wonderful trees sharply delineated against the sky and full of exquisite foliage at Borgo, are hardly to be seen at Lyons, and are represented by half-a-dozen dwarfish shrubs.

The mandorla in the Borgo picture is a deep luminous band of mysterious colour, out of which, and against the light fleecy clouds, rise the cherub faces: at Lyons it is a flat band of heavy colour, the clouds are woolly and thick, and the cherub faces, instead of rising from the wondrous depth, lay superimposed upon the mandorla as upon a piece of board.

Alinari photo] [Borgo San Sepolcro

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST

I am strongly of opinion that the Borgo picture was the original work, the Lyons one, for which he contracted to the monks of Cassino, March 6th, 1495, being either a somewhat hurried replica of it in which the master grew tired of the monotony of repetition, or else that it was a picture in which a certain amount of labour was left to assistants and pupils. There is an important study for three apostles, in the Uffizi, which was clearly prepared for the Borgo picture and not for the Lyons one, as, while closely resembling the former, it differs from the latter in one or two important details. This is not the accepted theory, I know, and it is one that will probably not meet with universal acceptance, but a careful comparison of the pictures leads me to a clear opinion in the matter. With regard to the pilaster saints the case is different. Those at the Vatican are all genuine work of the master and are extremely fine, and the same may be said of three of the five at Perugia, but two of them are not entirely Perugino's work, and bear traces of a pupil's hand. The three predella pictures on the other hand, which are at Rouen, are charming examples of the master's work, and are bathed in that wonderful golden sunlight which is so distinctive of his finest work. In each picture a strip of the foreground which was damaged in transit has had to be restored: in the "Adoration" it is the very slightest bit along the front of the whole picture; in the "Resurrection" it is a wider piece, embracing part of the feet of three of the sleeping soldiers and the edge of the stone slab on which the tomb rests; but in the third picture, the "Baptism," the damage is serious, as the foreground strip includes the feet of Our Lord and one foot of the Baptist. In all other respects these three panels are exquisite specimens of Perugino's fine and discriminative work.

With respect to the lunette it must be noted that Crowe and Cavalcaselle and many other writers are in error in stating that it hangs in St. Germain l'Auxerrois in Paris, whereas it is in St. Gervais, a very different church. It is not in good condition, having suffered much from cleaning and repair, and it has a horizontal split which nearly divides it into two pieces. It is nevertheless clearly discernible as a fine work from the master's hand. There is neither predella nor lunette at Borgo S. Sepolcro. There is no question as to the date of the S. Pietro altar-piece, as the original contract for painting it is still in existence and appears in full in Orsini.[L] It is dated 8th March 1496, and recites how the abbot and chapter of the monastery gave out on contract to Perugino the picture of the High Altar for the price of 500 gold ducats. The Borgo picture was therefore, I contend, a little earlier, but perhaps only a year in advance of the other. The picture of Francesco delle Opere belongs to this same period, but as in the chapter on the Cambio it will be further discussed, it may well be passed with brief mention at this place. Finally, as part of the work of these two prolific years, comes one of our artist's masterpieces, the "Entombment," now in the Pitti Palace. Space composition is seen in this picture in its full vigour. How quiet is the atmosphere of the scene, how reverent and tender a mood it creates. How vast is the space in which the episode is placed, and how marvellously is the sense of immeasurable distance produced.

Brogi photo] [Pitti Palace, Florence

THE ENTOMBMENT OF CHRIST, 1495

The picture is one of the most beautiful that Perugino ever painted. The composition is very clever, well balanced and well grouped, while the faces are of a serene beauty that was never surpassed in later works. It is well to notice that the dead body of Our Lord retains much of the flexibility of life, while quite as clearly is seen the weight and the looseness of death. The mourners around are full of tender pity, while the grief of the Virgin is too great for words, and evinces itself in the look of deep affection that fills that wonderful face. Each figure is, however, distinct, self-centred, and enfolded in its own grief. It is only the fact that each one is thinking of the great central figure that gives to the picture, as a whole, any real completeness. It is a sober, thoughtful composition, full of sentiment, but lacking any of the strong moving force that other schools gave to a similar representation, and, although the forerunner of Fra Bartolommeo's greater work, it has none of the intensity that his more emotional nature could present.

Some delightful studies for this picture appear in the Uffizi, marked by most careful study. The clenched hands of one of the two persons who stand close to Nicodemus are very noteworthy. The action is so expressive of intense, but restrained sorrow, and the drawing of the fine, delicate, but muscular hands, is particularly excellent. In the studies the richly-ornamented cap of the youth in the group does not appear. The cap in the drawing is quite plain, and the face, which in the picture is very expressive, is hard and uninteresting. Another large pen drawing for this picture exists, and is in Christ Church, Oxford. By some critics it is not accepted as a work of Perugino's. It is ascribed to one of his pupils, or to a later man altogether, especially because several of the faces are hard and unimpressive. Let, however, the drapery be closely examined, and the curious formation with dark hollows and oval curves will be recognised at once. The large projecting great toe, and the manner in which it sets away from the other toes, leaving a clear space between it and them, is noticeable, while the limp flexibility of the bare flesh of the Christ is also an important criterion in deciding on the origin of the drawing. To me it appears as a thoroughly genuine work, marking out the general grouping of the picture. The positions of Nicodemus, Mary Cleophas, and the youth, underwent some slight changes, and the other figures near to Nicodemus were introduced, but the picture preserves very closely the original suggestions of the drawing.

The finished picture was executed for the nuns of Santa Chiara, but when they had obtained it, so highly was it admired, that Vasari records that a rich Florentine, Francesco del Pugliese, offered them three times the price that they had paid for it, as well as a replica from the master's own hand, but the tempting offer was declined, as Pietro had told them that he did not think he could equal the one they possessed.

CHAPTER V
THE STORY OF THE PILLAGE