THE

HISTORY OF PAINTING

IN

ITALY.

VOL. I.

THE

HISTORY OF PAINTING

IN

ITALY,

FROM THE PERIOD OF THE REVIVAL OF

THE FINE ARTS

TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY:

TRANSLATED

From the Original Italian

OF THE

ABATE LUIGI LANZI.

By THOMAS ROSCOE.

IN SIX VOLUMES.

VOL. I.

CONTAINING THE SCHOOLS OF FLORENCE AND SIENA.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR

W. SIMPKIN AND R. MARSHALL,

STATIONERS'-HALL COURT, LUDGATE STREET.

1828.

J. M'Creery, Tooks Court,
Chancery Lane, London.

ADVERTISEMENT.

After the very copious and excellent remarks upon the objects of the present history contained in the Author's Preface, the Translator feels that it would be useless on his part to add any further explanation.

It would not be right, however, to close these volumes without some acknowledgment of the valuable assistance he has received. Amongst others, he is particularly indebted to Dr. Traill, of Liverpool, who after proceeding to some length with a translation of this work, kindly placed what he had completed in the hands of the Translator, with liberty to make such use of it as might be deemed advantageous to the present undertaking. To Mr. W. Y. Ottley, who also contemplated, and in part executed, a version of the same author, the Translator has to express his obligations for several explanations of terms of art, which the intimacy of that gentleman with the fine arts, in all their branches, peculiarly qualifies him to impart.[1] Similar acknowledgments are due to an enlightened and learned foreigner, Mr. Panizzi, of Liverpool, for his kind explanation of various obscure phrases and doubtful passages.

Notwithstanding the anxious desire and unremitting endeavours of the Translator to render this work, in all instances, as accurate as the nature of the subject, and the numerous difficulties he had to surmount would allow, yet, in dismissing it from his hands, he cannot repress the feeling that he must throw himself upon the indulgence of the public to excuse such errors as may be discoverable in the text. He trusts, however, that where it may be found incorrect, it will for the most part be in those passages where doubtful terms of art lay in his way, intelligible only to the initiated, and which perhaps many of the countrymen of Lanzi themselves might not be able very readily to explain.

[1] The following are among the valuable works which have been given to the public by Mr. Ottley:—The Italian School of Design, being a series of Fac-similes of Original Drawings, &c.—An Inquiry into the History of Engraving.—The Stafford Gallery.—A Series of Plates engraved after the Paintings and Sculptures of the most eminent masters of the early Florentine School, during the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries. This work forms a complete illustration of the first volume of Lanzi.—A Catalogue of the National Gallery.—Fac-similes of Specimens of Early Masters, &c.

CONTENTS

OF

THE FIRST VOLUME.

HISTORY OF PAINTING IN LOWER ITALY.

BOOK I.

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

BOOK II.

SIENESE SCHOOL.

PREFACE.

When detached or individual histories become so numerous that they can neither be easily collected nor perused, the public interest requires a writer capable of arranging and embodying them in the form of a general historical narrative; not, indeed, by a minute detail of their whole contents, but by selecting from each that which appears most interesting and instructive. Hence it mostly happens, that the diffuse compositions of earlier ages are found to give place to compendiums, and to succinct history. If this desire has prevailed in former times, it has been, and now is, more especially the characteristic of our own. We live in an age highly favourable, in one sense at least, to the cultivation of intellect: the boundaries of science are now extended beyond what our forefathers could have hoped, much less foreseen; and we become anxious only to discover the readiest methods of obtaining a competent knowledge, at least, of several sciences, since it is impossible to acquire them all. On the other hand, the ages preceding ours, since the revival of learning, being more occupied about words than things, and admiring certain objects that now seem trivial to the generality of readers, have produced historical compositions, the separate nature of which demands combination, no less than their prolixity requires abridgment.

If these observations are applicable to other branches of history, they are especially so to the history of painting. Its materials are found ready prepared, scattered through numerous memoirs of artists of every school which, from time to time, have been given to the public: and additional articles are supplied by dictionaries of art, letters on painting, guides to several cities, catalogues of various collections, and by many tracts relating to different artists, which have been published in Italy. But these accounts, independent of want of connexion, are not useful to the generality of readers. Who, indeed, could form a just idea of painting in Italy by perusing the works of certain historians of latter ages, and some even of our own time, which abound in invectives, and in attempts to exalt favourite masters above the artists of all other schools; and which confer eulogies indiscriminately upon professors of first, second, or third-rate merit?[2] How few are there who feel interested in knowing all that is said of artists with so much verbosity by Vasari, Pascoli, or Baldinucci; their low jests, their amours, their private affairs, and their eccentricities? What do we learn by being informed of the jealousies of the Florentine artists, the quarrels of the Roman, or the boasts of the Bolognian schools? Who can endure the verbal accuracy with which their wills and testaments are recorded, even to the subscription of the notary, as if the author had been drawing up a legal document; or the descriptions of their stature and physiognomy, more minute than the ancients afford us of Alexander or Augustus?[3] Not that I object to the introduction of such particulars in the lives of the great luminaries of art: in a Raffaello or a Caracci minute circumstances derive interest from the subject; but how intolerable do they become in the life of an ordinary individual, where the principal incidents are but little interesting? Suetonius has not written the lives of his Cæsars and his grammarians in the same manner: the former he has rendered familiar to the reader; the latter are merely noticed and passed over.

The tastes of individuals, however, are different, and some people delight in minutiæ, as it regards both the present and the past; and since it may be of utility to those who may hereafter be inclined to give a very full and perfect history of every thing relating to Italian painting, let us view with indulgence those who have employed themselves in compiling lives so copious, and let those who have time to spare, beguile it with their perusal. At the same time, due regard should be paid to that very respectable class of readers, who, in a history of painting, would rather contemplate the artist than the man; and who are less solicitous to become acquainted with the character of a single painter, whose solitary and insulated history cannot prove instructive, than with the genius, the method, the invention, and the style of a great number of artists, with their characteristics, their merits, and their rank, the result of which is a history of the whole art.

To this object there is no one whom I know who has hitherto dedicated his pen, although it seems to be recommended no less by the passion indulged by princes for the fine arts, than by the general diffusion of a knowledge of them among all ranks. The habit of travelling, rendered more familiar to private persons by the example of many great sovereigns, the traffic in pictures, now become a branch of commerce important to Italy, and the philosophic genius of this age, which shuns prolixity in every study, and requires systematic arrangement, are additional incentives to the task. It is true that very pleasing and instructive biographical sketches of the most celebrated painters have been published by M. d'Argenville, in France; and various epitomes have since appeared, in which the style of painting alone is discussed.[4] But without taking into account the corruptions of the names of our countrymen in which their authors have indulged, or their omission of celebrated Italians, while they record less eminent artists of other countries, no work of this sort, and still less any dictionary, can afford us a systematic history of painting: none of these exhibit those pictures, if we may be allowed the expression, in which we may, at a glance, trace the progress and series of events; none of them exhibit the principal masters of the art in a sufficiently conspicuous point of view, while inferior artists are reduced to their proper size and station: far less can we discover in them those epochs and revolutions of the art, which the judicious reader most anxiously desires to know, as the source from which he may trace the causes that have contributed to its revival or its decline; or from which he may be enabled to recollect the series, and the arrangement of the facts narrated. The history of painting has a strong analogy to literary, to civil, and to sacred history; it too requires, from time to time, the aid of certain beacons, some particular distinction in regard to places, times, or events, that may serve to divide it into epochs, and mark its successive stages. Deprive it of these, and it degenerates, like other history, into a chaos of names more calculated to load the memory than to inform the understanding.

To supply this hitherto neglected branch of Italian history, to contribute to the advancement of the art, and to facilitate the study of the different styles in painting, were the three objects I proposed to myself when I began the work which I am now about to lay before the indulgent reader. My intention was to form a compendious history of all our schools, in two volumes; adopting, with little variation, Pliny's division of the country into Upper and Lower Italy. It was my design to comprehend in the first volume the schools of Lower Italy; because in it the reviving arts came earlier to maturity; and in the second to include the schools of Upper Italy, which were more tardy in attaining to celebrity. The first part of my work appeared at Florence in 1792: the second I was obliged to defer to another opportunity, and the succeeding years have so shaken my constitution, that I have scarcely been able to bring it to a conclusion, even with the assistance of many amanuenses and correctors of the press.[5] One advantage, however, has been derived from this delay; and that is, a knowledge of the opinion of the public, a tribunal from which no writer can appeal; and I have been thus enabled to prepare a new edition conformable to its decision.[6] I have understood through various channels, that an additional number of names and of notices were necessary to afford satisfaction to the public; and this I have accomplished, without abandoning my plan of a compendious history. Nor does the Florentine edition on this account become useless: it will even be preferred by many to that published at Bassano; the inhabitants, for instance, of Lower Italy will be pleased to possess a work on their most illustrious painters, without concerning themselves about accounts of other places.

To a new work, then, so much more extensive than the former, I prefix a preface almost entirely new. The plan is not wholly my own, nor altogether that of others. Richardson[7] suggested that some historian should collect the scattered remarks on art, especially on painting, and should point out its progress and decline through successive ages. He has not even omitted to give us a sketch, which he brought down to the time of Giordano. Mengs[8] accomplished the task more perfectly in the form of a letter, where he judiciously distinguished all the periods of the art, and has thus laid the foundations of a more enlarged history. Were I to follow their example, the chief masters of every school would be considered together, and we should be under the necessity of passing from one country to another, according as painting acquired a new lustre from their talents, or was debased by a wrong use of the great example of those artists. This method might be easily pursued, if the subject were to be treated in a general point of view, such as Pliny has considered and transmitted it to posterity; but it is not equally adapted to the arrangement of a history so fully particular as Italy seems to require. Besides the styles introduced by the most celebrated painters, such infinite diversities of a mixed character, often united with originality of manner, have arisen in every school, that we cannot easily reduce them to any particular standard: and the same artists at different periods, and in different pictures, have adopted styles so various, that at one time they appear imitators of Titian, at another of Raffaello, or of Correggio. We cannot, therefore, adopt the method of the naturalist, who having arranged the vegetable kingdom, for example, in classes more or less numerous, according to the systems of Tournefort or of Linnæus, can easily reduce a plant, wherever it may happen to grow, to a particular class, adding a name and description, at once precise, characteristic, and permanent. In a complete history it is necessary to distinguish each style from every other: nor do I know any more eligible method of performing this task, than by composing a separate history of each school. In this I follow Winckelmann, the best historian of ancient art in design, who specified as many different schools as the nations that produced them. A similar plan seems to me to have been pursued by Rollin, in his History of Nations, who has thus been enabled to record a prodigious mass of names and events within the compass of a few volumes, in the clearest order.

The method I follow in treating of each school is analogous to that prescribed to himself by Sig. Antonio Maria Zanetti,[9] in his Pittura Veneziana, a work of its kind highly instructive, and well arranged. What he has done, in speaking of his own, I have attempted in the other schools of Italy. I accordingly omit the names of living painters, and do not notice every picture of deceased artists, as it would interrupt the connexion of the narrative, and would render the work too voluminous, but content myself with commending some of their best productions. I first give a general character of each school; I then distinguish it into three, four, or more epochs, according as its style underwent changes with the change of taste, in the same way that the eras of civil history are deduced from revolutions in governments, or other remarkable events. A few celebrated painters, who have swayed the public taste, and given a new tone to the art, are placed at the head of each epoch; and their style is particularly described, because the general and characteristic taste of the age has been formed upon their models. Their immediate pupils, and other disciples of the school, follow their great masters; and without a repetition of the general character, reference is made to what each has borrowed, altered, or added to the style of the founder of the school, or at most such character is cursorily noticed. This method, though not susceptible of a strict chronological order, is, on account of the connexion of ideas, much better adapted to a history of art than an alphabetic arrangement, which too frequently interrupts the notices of schools and eras; or than the method pursued in annals, by which we are often compelled to make mention of the scholar before the master, should he survive the former; or that of separate lives, which introduces much repetition, by obliging the writer to bestow praises on the pupil for the same style which he also commends in the master, and to notice in each individual that which was the general character of the age in which he lived.

For the sake of perspicuity, I have generally separated from historical painters artists in inferior branches, such as painters of portraits, of landscape, of animals, of flowers and of fruit, of sea-pieces, of perspectives, of drolls, and all who merit a place in such classes. I have also taken notice of some arts which are analogous to painting, and though they differ from it in the materials employed, or the manner of using them, may still be included in the art; for example, engraving of prints, inlaid and mosaic work, and embroidering tapestry. Vasari, Lomazzo, and several other writers on the fine arts, have mentioned them; and I have followed their example; contenting myself with noticing, in each of those arts, only what has appeared most worthy of being recorded. Each might be the subject of a separate work; and some of them have long had their own peculiar historians, and in particular the art of engraving. By this method, in which I may boast such great examples, I am not without hopes of affording satisfaction to my readers. I am, however, more apprehensive in regard to my selection of artists; the number of whom, whatsoever method is adopted, may to some appear by far too limited, and to others too greatly extended. But criticism will not so readily apply to the names of the most illustrious artists, whom I have included, nor to those of very inferior character, whom I trust I have omitted; except a few that have some claim to be mentioned, from their connexion with celebrated masters.[10] The accusation then of having noticed some, and omitted others, will apply to me only on account of artists of a middle class, that can be neither well reckoned among the senate, the equestrian order, nor vulgar herd of painters; they constitute the class of mediocrity. The adjustment of limits is a frequent cause of legal contention; and the subject of art now under discussion, may be considered like a dispute concerning boundaries. It may often admit of doubt whether a particular artist approaches more nearly to the class of merit or of insignificance; which is, in other words, whether he should or should not obtain a place in a history of the art. Under such uncertainty, which I have several times encountered, I have more usually inclined to the side of lenity than of severity; especially when the artist has been noticed with a degree of commendation by former authors. We ought to bow to public opinion, which rarely blames us for noticing mediocrity, but frequently for passing it over in silence. Books on painting abound with complaints against Orlandi and Guarienti, for their omissions of certain artists. Still more frequently are authors censured, when the Guide to a city points out some altar-piece by a native artist, who is not named in our Dictionaries of Painting. The describers of collections repeat similar complaints in regard to every painting bearing the signature of an artist whose name appears in no work of art. Collectors of prints do the same when they discover the name of some designer, of whom history is silent, affixed to an engraving. Thus, were we to consult the opinion of the public, the majority would be inclined to recommend copiousness, rather than to express satisfaction at a more discriminating selection of names. Almost all artists and amateurs belonging to every city, would be desirous that I should commemorate as many of their second rate painters as possible; and our selection, therefore, in this respect, nearly resembles the exercise of justice, which is generally applauded as long as it visits only the dwellings of others, but is cried down by each individual when it knocks at his own door. Thus a writer who is bound to observe impartiality towards every city, can scarcely shew great severity to artists of mediocrity in any. This too is not without reason; for to pass mediocrity in silence may be the study of a good orator, but not the office of a good historian. Cicero himself, in his treatise De claris Oratoribus, has given a place to less eloquent orators, and it may be observed that, after this example, the literary history of every people does not merely include its most classic writers, and those who approached nearest to them; but it adds short and concise accounts of authors less celebrated; and in the Iliad, which is a history of the heroic age, there are a few eminent leaders, many valiant soldiers, and a prodigious crowd of others, whom the poet has transiently noticed. In our case, it is still more incumbent on the historian to give mediocrity a place along with the eminent and most excellent. Many books describe that class in terms so vague, and sometimes so discordant, that to form a proper estimate of their claims, we must introduce them among superior artists, as a sort of performers in third-rate parts. Such, however, I am not solicitous to exhibit very minutely, more especially when treating of painters in fresco, and generally of other artists, whose works are now unknown in collections, or add more to the bulk than the ornament of a gallery. Thus also in point of number, my work has maintained the character of a compendium: but if any of my readers, adopting the rigid maxim of Bellori, that, in the fine arts, as in poetry, mediocrity is not to be tolerated,[11] should disdain the middle class of artists, he must look for the heads of schools, and for the most eminent painters: to these he may dedicate his attention, and turn his regard from the others like one,

"Cui altra cura stringa e morda Che quella di colui che gli è davante."[12]

Having described my plan, let us next consider the three objects originally proposed, of which the first was to present Italy with a history that may prove important to her fame. This delightful country is already indebted to Tiraboschi for a history of her literature, but she is still in want of a history of her arts. The history of painting, an art in which she is confessedly without a rival, I propose to supply, or at least to facilitate the attempt. In some departments of literature, and of the fine arts, we are equalled, or even surpassed by foreigners; and in others the palm is yet doubtful: but in painting, universal consent now yields the triumph to Italian genius, and foreigners are the more esteemed in proportion to their approach towards us. It is time then, for the honour of Italy, to collect in one point of view, those observations on her painting, scattered through upwards of a hundred volumes, and to embody them in what Horace terms series et junctura; without which the work cannot be pronounced a history. I will not conceal, that the author of the "History of Italian Literature" above mentioned, frequently animated me to this undertaking, as a sequel to his own work. He also wished me to subjoin other anecdotes to those already published, and to substitute more authentic documents for the inaccuracies abounding in our Dictionaries of painting. I have attended to both these objects. The reader will here find various schools never hitherto illustrated, and an entire school, that of Ferrara, now first described from the manuscripts of Baruffaldi and of Crespi; and in other schools he will often observe names of fresh artists, which I have either collected from ancient MSS.[13] and the correspondence of my learned friends, or deciphered on old paintings. Although such pictures are confined to cabinets, it cannot prove useless to extend a more intimate acquaintance with their authors. The reader will also meet with many new observations on the origin of painting, and on its diffusion in Italy, formerly a fruitful subject of debate and contention; and likewise here and there with some original reflections on the masters, to whom various disciples may be traced; a branch of history, the most uncertain of any. Old writers of respectability often mention Raffaello, Correggio, or some other celebrated artist, as the master of a painter, without any better foundation than a similarity of style; just as the credulous heathens imagined one hero to be the son of Hercules, because he was strong; another of Mercury, because he was ingenious; a third of Neptune, because he had performed several long voyages. Errors like these are easily corrected when they are accompanied by some inadvertency in the writer; as for instance, where he has not been aware that the age of the disciple does not correspond with that of his supposed master. Occasionally, however, their detection is attended with more difficulty; and in particular when the artist, whose reputation is wholly founded upon that of his master, represented himself in foreign parts, as the disciple of men of celebrity, whom he scarcely knew by sight. Of this we have an example in Agostino Tassi, and more recently in certain soidisant disciples of Mengs; to whom it scarcely appears that he ever so much as said, "Gentlemen, how do you do?"

Finally, the reader will find some less obvious notices relating to the name, the country, and the age of different artists. The deficiency of our Dictionaries in interesting names, together with their inaccuracy, are common subjects of complaint. I can excuse the compilers of these works; I know how easily we may be misled in regard to names which have been often gathered from vulgar report, or even from authors who differ in point of orthography, some giving opposite readings of the same name. But it is quite necessary that such mistakes should once for all be cleared up. The index of this work will form a new Dictionary of Painters, certainly more copious, and perhaps more accurate than usual, although it might be still further improved, especially by consulting archives and manuscripts.[14]

The second object which I had in view was to advance the interests of the art as much as lay in my power. It was of old observed that examples have a more powerful influence on the arts than any precepts can possess; and this is particularly true in respect to painting. Whoever writes history upon the model of the learned ancients, ought not only to narrate events, but to investigate their secret sources and their causes. Now these will be here developed, tracing the progress of painting as it advanced or declined in each school; and these causes being invariable, point out the means of its improvement, by shewing what ought to be pursued and what avoided. Such observations are not of importance to the artist alone, but have a reference also to other individuals. In the Roman school, during its second epoch, I perceive that the progress of the arts invariably depends on certain principles universally adopted in that age, according to which artists worked, and the public decided. A general history, by pointing out the best maxims of art, may contribute considerably to make them known and regarded; and hence artists can execute, and others approve or direct, on principles no longer uncertain and questionable, nor deduced from the manner of a particular school, but founded on maxims unerring and established, and strengthened by the uniform practice of all schools and all ages. We may add, that in a history so diversified, numerous examples occur suited to the genius of different students, who have often to lament their want of success from this circumstance alone, that they had neglected to follow the path in which nature had destined them to tread. On the influence of examples I shall add no more: should any one be desirous also of precepts under every school, he will find them given, not indeed by me, but by those who have written more ably on the art, and whom I have diligently consulted with regard to different masters, as I shall hereafter mention.

My third object was to facilitate an acquaintance with the various styles of painting. The artist or amateur indeed, who has studied the manner of all ages and of every school, on meeting with a picture can very readily assign it, if not to a particular master, at least to a certain style, much as antiquarians, from a consideration of the paper and the characters, are enabled to assign a manuscript to a particular era; or as critics conjecture the age and place in which an anonymous author flourished, from his phraseology. With similar lights we proceed to investigate the school and era of artists; and by a diligent examination of prints, drawings, and other relics belonging to the period, we at length determine the real author. Much of the uncertainty, with regard to pictures, arises from a similitude between the style of different masters: these I collect together under one head, and remark in what one differs from the other. Ambiguity often arises from comparing different works of the same painter, when the style of some of them does not seem to accord with his general manner, nor with the great reputation he may have acquired. On account of such uncertainty, I usually point out the master of each artist, because all at the outset imitate the example offered by their teachers; and I, moreover, note the style formed, and adhered to by each, or abandoned for another manner; I sometimes mark the age in which he lived, and his greater or less assiduity in his profession. By an attentive consideration of such circumstances, we may avoid pronouncing a picture spurious, which may have been painted in old age, or negligently executed. Who, for instance, would receive as genuine all the pictures of Guido, were it not known that he sometimes affected the style of Caracci, of Calvart, or of Caravaggio; and at other times pursued a manner of his own, in which, however, he was often very unequal, as he is known to have painted three or four different pieces in a single day? Who would suppose that the works of Giordano were the production of the same artist, if it were not known that he aspired to diversify his style, by adopting the manner of various ancient artists? These are indeed well known facts, but how many are there yet unnoted that are not unworthy of being related, if we wish to avoid falling into error? Such will be found noticed in my work, among other anecdotes of the various masters, and the different styles.

I am aware that to become critically acquainted with the diversity of styles is not the ultimate object to which the travels and the eager solicitude of the connoisseur aspire. His object is to make himself familiar with the handling of the most celebrated masters, and to distinguish copies from originals. Happy should I be, could I promise to accomplish so much! Even they might consider themselves fortunate, who dedicate their lives to such pursuits, were they enabled to discover any short, general, and certain rules for infallibly determining this delicate point! Many rely much upon history for the truth. But how frequently does it happen that the authority of an historian is cited in favour of a family picture, or an altar-piece, the original of which having been disposed of by some of the predecessors, and a copy substituted in its place, the latter is supposed to be a genuine painting! Others seem to lay great stress on the importance of places, and hesitate to raise doubts respecting any specimen they find contained in royal and select galleries, assuming that they really belong to the artists referred to in the gallery descriptions and catalogues. But here too they are liable to mistake; inasmuch as many private individuals, as well as princes, unable to purchase ancient pictures at any price, contented themselves with such copies of their imitators as approached nearest to the old masters. Some indeed were made by professors purposely despatched by princes in search of them; as in the instance of Rodolph I., who employed Giuseppe Enzo, a celebrated copyist. (See Boschini, p. 62, and Orlandi, on Gioseffo Ains di Berna.) External proofs, therefore, are insufficient, without adding a knowledge of different manners. The acquisition of such discrimination is the fruit only of long experience, and deep reflection on the style of each master: and I shall endeavour to point out the manner in which it may be obtained.[15]

To judge of a master we must attend to his design, and this is to be acquired from his drawings, from his pictures, or, at least, from accurate engravings after them. A good connoisseur in prints is more than half way advanced in the art of judging pictures; and he who aims at this must study engravings with unremitting assiduity. It is thus his eye becomes familiarized to the artist's method of delineating and foreshortening the figure, to the air of his heads and the casting of his draperies; to that action, that peculiarity of conception, of disposing, and of contrasting, which are habitual to his character. Thus is he, as it were, introduced to the different families of youths, of children, of women, of old men, and of individuals in the vigour of life, which each artist has adopted as his own, and has usually exhibited in his pictures. We cannot be too well versed in such matters, so minute or almost insensible are the distinctions between the imitators of one master, (such as Michelangiolo, for example,) who have perhaps studied the same cartoon, or the same statues, and, as it were, learned to write after the same model.

More originality is generally to be discovered in colouring, a branch of the art formed by a painter rather on his own judgment, than by instruction. The amateur can never attain experience in this branch who has not studied many pictures by the same master; who has not observed his selection of colours, his method of separating, of uniting, and of subduing them; what are his local tints, and what the general tone that harmonizes the colours he employs. This tint, however clear and silvery in Guido and his followers, bright and golden in Titiano and his school, and thus of the rest, has still as many modifications as there are masters in the art. The same remark extends to middle tints and to chiaroscuro, in which each artist employs a peculiar method.

These are qualities which catch the eye at a distance, yet they will not always enable the critic to decide with certainty; whether, for instance, a certain picture is the production of Vinci, or Luini, who imitated him closely; whether another be an original picture by Barocci, or an exact copy from the hand of Vanni. In such cases judges of art approach closer to the picture with a determination to examine it with the same care and accuracy as are employed in a judicial question, upon the recognition of hand-writing. Fortunately for society, nature has granted to every individual a peculiar character in this respect, which it is not easy to counterfeit, nor to mistake for any other person's writing. The hand, habituated to move in a peculiar manner, always retains it: in old age the characters may be more slowly traced, may become more negligent or more heavy; but the form of the letters remains the same. So it is in painting. Every artist not only retains this peculiarity, but one is distinguished by a full charged pencil; another by a dry but neat finish; the work of one exhibits blended tints, that of another distinct touches; and each has his own manner of laying on the colours:[16] but even in regard to what is common to so many, each has a peculiar handling and direction of the pencil, a marking of his lines more or less waved, more or less free, and more or less studied, by which those truly skilled from long experience are enabled, after a due consideration of all circumstances, to decide who was the real author. Such judges do not fear a copyist, however excellent. He will, perhaps, keep pace with his model for a certain time, but not always; he may sometimes shew a free, but commonly a timid, servile, and meagre pencil; he will not be long able, with a free hand, to keep his own style concealed under the manner of another, more especially in regard to less important points, such as the penciling of the hair, and in the fore- and back-grounds of the picture.[17] Certain observations on the canvas and the priming ground may sometimes assist inquiry; and hence some have endeavoured to attain greater certainty by a chemical analysis of the colours. Diligence is ever laudable when exerted on a point so nice as ascertaining the hand-work of a celebrated master. It may prevent our paying ten guineas for what may not be worth two; or placing in a choice collection pictures that will not do it credit; while to the curious it affords scientific views, instead of creating prejudices that often engender errors. That mistakes should happen is not surprising. A true connoisseur is still more rare than a good artist. His skill is the result of only indirect application; it is acquired amidst other pursuits, and divides the attention with other objects; the means of attaining it fall to the lot of few; and still fewer practise it successfully. Among the number of the last I do not reckon myself. By this work I pretend not, I repeat it, to form an accomplished connoisseur in painting: my object is to facilitate and expedite the acquisition of such knowledge. The history of painting is the basis of connoisseurship; by combining it, I supersede the necessity of referring to many books; by abbreviating it I save the time and labour of the student; and by arranging it in a proper manner on every occasion, I present him with the subject ready prepared and developed before him.

It remains, in the last place, that I should give some account of myself; of the criticisms that I, who am not an artist, have ventured to pass upon each painter: and, indeed, if the professors of the art had as much leisure and experience in writing as they have ability, every author might resign to them the field. The propriety of technical terms, the abilities of artists, and the selection of specimens of art, are usually better understood, even by an indifferent artist, than by the learned connoisseur: but since those occupied in painting have not sufficient leisure to write, others, assisted by them, may be permitted to undertake the office.[18]

By the mutual assistance which the painter has afforded to the man of letters, and the man of letters to the artist, the history of painting has been greatly advanced. The merits of the best painters are already so ably discussed that a modern historian can treat the subject advantageously. The criticisms I most regard are those that come directly from professors of the art. We meet with few from the pen of Raphael, of Titian, of Poussin, and of other great masters; such as exist, however, I regard as most precious, and deserving the most careful preservation; for, in general, those who can best perform can likewise judge the best. Vasari, Lomazzo, Passeri, Ridolfi, Boschini, Zanotti, and Crespi, require, perhaps, to be narrowly watched in some passages where they allowed themselves to be surprised by a spirit of party: but, on the whole, they have an undoubted right to dictate to us, because they were themselves painters. Bellori, Baldinucci, Count Malvasia, Count Tassi, and similar writers, hold an inferior rank; but are not wholly destitute of authority: for though mere dilettanti, they have collected both the opinions of professors and of the public. This will at present suffice, with regard to the historians of the art: we shall notice each of them particularly under the school which he has described.

In pronouncing a criticism upon each artist I have adopted the plan of Baillet, the author of a voluminous history of works on taste, where he does not so frequently give his own opinion as that of others. Accordingly, I have collected the various remarks of connoisseurs, which were scattered through the pages of history; but I have not always cited my authorities, lest I should add too much to the dimensions of my book;[19] nor have I regarded their opinion when they seemed to me to have been influenced by prejudice. I have availed myself of the observations of some approved critics, like Borghini, Fresnoy, Richardson, Bottari, Algarotti, Lazzarini, and Mengs; with others who have rather criticised our painters than written their lives. I have also respected the opinions of living critics, by consulting different professors in Italy: to them I have submitted my manuscript; I have followed their advice, especially when it related to design, or any other department of painting, in which artists are almost the only adequate judges. I have conversed with many connoisseurs, who, in some points, are not less skilful than the professors of the art, and are even consulted by artists with advantage; as, for instance, on the suitableness of the subject, on the propriety of the invention and the expression, on the imitation of the antique, on the truth of the colouring. Nor have I failed to study the greatest part of the best productions of the schools of Italy; and to inform myself in the different cities what rank their least known painters hold among their connoisseurs; persuaded, as I am, that the most accurate opinion of any artist is formed where the greatest number of his works are to be seen, and where he is most frequently spoken of by his fellow citizens and by strangers. In this way, also, I have been enabled to do justice to the merits of several artists who had been passed over, either because the historian of their school had never beheld their productions, or had merely met with some early and trivial specimens in one city, being unacquainted with the more perfect and mature specimens they had produced elsewhere.

Notwithstanding my diligence I do not presume to offer this as a work to which much might not be added. It has never happened that a history, embracing so many objects, is at once produced perfect; though it may gradually be rendered so. The history earliest in point of time, becomes, in the end, the least in authority; and its greatest merit is in having paved the way to more finished performances. Perfection is still less to be expected in a compendium. The reader is here presented with the names of many artists and authors; but many others might have been admitted, whom want of leisure or opportunity, but not of respect, has obliged us to omit. Here he will find a variety of opinions; but to these many others might have been added. There is no man, of whom all think alike. Baillet, just before mentioned, is a proof of this, with regard to writers on literary subjects; and he who thinks the task worthy of his pains might demonstrate it much more fully with respect to different painters. Each judges by principles peculiar to himself: Bonarruoti stigmatized as drivelling, Pietro Perugino and Francia, both luminaries of the art; Guido, if we may credit history, was disapproved of by Cortona; Caravaggio by Zucchero; Guercino by Guido; and, what seems more extraordinary, Domenichino by most of the artists who flourished at Rome, when he painted his finest pictures.[20] Had these artists written of their rivals they either would have condemned them, or spoken less favourably of them than unprejudiced individuals. Hence it is that connoisseurs will frequently be found to approach nearer the truth, in forming their estimate, than artists; the former adopt the impartial feelings of the public, while the latter allow themselves to be influenced by motives of envy or of prejudice. Innumerable similar disputes are still maintained concerning several artists, who, like different kinds of aliment, are found to be disagreeable or grateful to different palates. To hold the happy mean, exempted from all party spirit, is as impossible as to reconcile the opinions of mankind, which are as multifarious as are the individuals of the species.

Amid such discrepancy of opinion I have judged it expedient to avoid the most controverted points; in others, to subscribe to the decision of the majority; to allow to each his particular opinion;[21] but not, if possible, to disappoint the reader, desirous of learning what is most authentic and generally received. Ancient writers appear to have pursued this plan when treating of the professors of any art, in which they themselves were mere amateurs; nor could it arise from any other circumstance that Cicero, Pliny, and Quintilian, express themselves upon the Greek artists in the same manner. Their opinions coincide, because that of the public was unanimous. I am aware that it is difficult to obtain the opinion of the public concerning the more modern artists, but it is not difficult with regard to those on whom much has been already written. I am also aware that public opinion accords not at all times with truth, because "it often happens to incline to the wrong side of the question." This, however, is a rare occurrence in the fine arts,[22] nor does it militate against an historian who aims more at fidelity of narrative, and impartiality of public opinion, than the discussion of the relative merit or correctness of tastes.

My work is divided into six volumes; and I commence by treating in the two first volumes of that part of Italy, which, through the genius of Da Vinci, Michelangiolo, and Raffaello, became first conspicuous, and first exhibited a decided character in painting. Those artists were the ornaments of the Florentine and Roman schools, from which I proceed to two others, the Sienese and Neapolitan. About the same time Giorgione, Tiziano, and Coreggio, began to flourish in Italy; three artists, who as much advanced the art of colouring, as the former improved design; and of these luminaries of Upper Italy I treat in the third and fourth volumes; since the number of the names of artists, and the many additions to this new impression, have induced me to devote two volumes to their merits. Then follows the school of Bologna, in which the attempt was made to unite the excellences of all the other schools: this commences the fifth volume; and on account of proximity it is succeeded by that of Ferrara, and Upper and Lower Romagna. The school of Genoa, which was late in acquiring celebrity, succeeds, and we conclude with that of Piedmont, which, though it cannot boast so long a succession of artists as those of the other states, has merits sufficient to entitle it to a place in a history of painting. Thus the five most celebrated schools will be treated of in the order in which they arose; in like manner as the ancient writers on painting began with the Asiatic school, which was followed by the Grecian, and this last was subdivided into the Attic and Sicyonian; to which in process of time succeeded the Roman school.[23] The sixth and last volume contains an ample index to the whole, quite indispensable to render the work more extensively useful, and to give it its full advantage. In assigning artists to any school I have paid more regard to other circumstances than the place of their nativity; to their education, their style, their place of residence in particular, and the instruction of their pupils: circumstances, indeed, which are sometimes found so blended and confused, that several cities may contend for one painter, as they are said to have done for Homer. In such cases I do not pretend to decide; the object of my labours being only to trace the vicissitudes of the art in various places, and to point out those artists who have exercised an influence over them; not to determine disputes, unpleasant in themselves, and wholly foreign to my undertaking.

[2] See Algarotti, Saggio sopra la Pittura, in the chapter Della critica necessaria al Pittore.

[3] For this fault, which the Greeks used to call Acribia, Pascoli has been sharply reproved. He has, in fact, informed us which among the several artists could boast a becoming and proportionate nose, which had it short or long, aquiline or snubbed, very sharp or very hollow. He most generally observes that such an artist was neither tall nor large of stature, neither handsome nor plain in his physiognomy; and who would have thought it worth his while to inquire about it? The sole utility that can possibly attend such inquiries is, the chance of detecting some impostor, who might attempt to palm upon us for a genuine portrait the likeness of some other individual. Engravings, however, are the best security against similar impositions.

[4] In the Magasin Encyclopédique of Paris, (An. viii. tom. iv. p. 63), there is a work in two volumes, edited in the German language at Gottingen, announced as well as commended. The first volume is dated 1798, the second 1801, from the pen of note the learned Sig. Florillo, the title of which we insert in the second index. It consists of a history of painting upon the plan of the present one; but there is some variation in the order of the schools.

[5] It was finished in the year 1796, and it is now given, with various additions and corrections throughout. Many churches, galleries, and pictures, are here mentioned which are no longer in existence; but this does not interfere with its truth, inasmuch as the title of the work is confined to the before mentioned year. Numerous friends have lent me their assistance in the completion of this edition, and in particular the cavalier Gio. de' Lazara, a gentleman of Padua, who possesses a rich collection, both in books and MSS., and displays the utmost liberality in affording others the use of them. To this merit, in regard to the present work, he has likewise added that of revising and correcting it through the press, a favour which I could not have more highly estimated from any other hand, deeply versed as he is in the history of the fine arts.

[6] "Ut enim pictores, et qui signa faciunt, et vero etiam poetæ suum quisque opus à vulgo considerari vult, ut si quid reprehensum sit à pluribus id corrigatur ... sic aliorum judicio permulta nobis et facienda et non facienda, et mutanda et corrigenda sunt." Cicero De Officiis, ii. c. 41.

[7] Treatise on Painting, tom. ii. p. 166.

[8] Opere, tom. ii. p. 108.

[9] A learned Venetian, skilled in the practice of design and of painting. He must not be confounded with Antonio Maria Zanetti, an eminent engraver, who revived the art of taking prints from wooden blocks with more than one colour, which was invented by Ugo da Carpi, but afterwards lost. He also wrote works, serviceable to the fine arts; and several of his letters may be seen in the second volume of Lettere Pittoriche. They are subscribed Antonio Maria Zanetti, q. Erasmo; but this is an error of the editor: it ought to be q. Girolamo, to distinguish him from the other, who was called del q. Alessandro. This mistake was detected by the accurate Vianelli, in his Diario della Carriera, p. 49.

[10] An amateur, who happens to be unacquainted with the fact, that there were various artists of the same name, as the Vecelli, Bassani, and Caracci, will never become properly acquainted with these families of painters; neither will he be competent to judge of certain pictures, which only attract the regard of the vulgar, because they truly boast the reputation of a great name.

[11] I do not admit this principle. Horace laid it down for the art of poetry alone, because it is a faculty that perishes when it ceases to give delight. Architecture, on the other hand, confers vast utility when it does not please, by presenting us with habitations; and painting, and sculpture, by preserving the features of men, and illustrious actions. Besides, let us recollect, that Horace denounces the production of inferior verses, because there is not space enough for them; "Non concessere columnæ," but it is not so with paintings of mediocrity. In any country Petrarch, Ariosto, and Tasso, may be read, and he who has never read a poor poet, will write better than if he had read a hundred. But it is not every one who can boast either in the houses or temples of his country, of possessing the works of good artists; and for purposes of worship or of ornament, the less excellent ones may suffice; wherefore these also produce some advantage.

[12] Like one who thinks of some other person than he that is before him.

[13] For the improvement of my latest edition, I am greatly indebted to the Prince Filippo Ercolani, who, having purchased from the heirs of Signor Marcello Oretti fifty-two manuscript volumes, which that indefatigable amateur, in the course of his studies, journeys, and observations, had compiled respecting the professors of the fine arts, their eras, and their labours, allowed materials to be drawn from them for various notes, by the Sig. Lazara, who superintended the edition. To the devoted attachment of these gentlemen to the fine arts, the public are indebted for much information, either wholly new, or hitherto little known.

[14] Vasari, from whom several epochs are taken, is full of errors in dates, as may be every where perceived. See Bottari's note on tom. ii. p. 79. The same observation applies generally to other authors, as Bottari remarks in a note on Lettere Pittoriche, tom. iv. p. 366. A similar objection is made to the Dictionary of P. Orlandi in another letter, tom. ii. p. 318, where it is termed "a useful work, but so full of errors, that one can derive no benefit from it without possessing the books there quoted." After three editions of this work, a fourth was printed in Venice, in 1753, corrected and enlarged by Guarienti, "but enough still remains to be done after his additions, even to increase it twofold." Bottari, Lett. Pitt. tom. iii. p. 353. See also Crespi Vite de' Pittori Bolognesi, p. 50. No one, who has not perused this book, would believe how often he defaces Orlandi in presuming to correct him; multiplying artists for every little difference with which authors wrote the name of the same man. Thus Pier Antonio Torre, and Antonio Torri, are with him two different men. Many of the articles, however, added by him, relating to artists unknown to P. Orlandi, are useful; so that this second Dictionary ought to be consulted with caution, not altogether rejected. The last edition, printed at Florence, in two volumes, contains the names of many painters, either lately dead, or still living, and often of very inferior merit, and on this account is little noticed in my history. This Dictionary, moreover, affords little satisfaction to the reader concerning the old masters, unless he possess a work printed at Florence in twelve volumes, entitled Serie degli Uomini più illustri in Pittura, to which the articles in it often refer. The Dizionario Portatile, by Mr. La Combe, is also a book of reference, not very valuable to those who look for exact information. We give a single instance of his inaccuracy in regard to the elder Palma; but our emendations have been chiefly directed towards the writers of Italy, from whom foreigners have, or ought to have borrowed, in writing respecting our artists.

[15] See Mr. Richardson's Treatise on Painting, tom. ii. p. 58; and M. D'Argenville's Abrégé de la Vie des plus fameux Peintres, tom. i. p. 65.

[16] "Some made use of pure colours, without blending one with the other; a practice well understood in the age of Titiano: others, as Coreggio, adopted a method totally opposite: he laid on his admirable colours in such a manner, that they appear as if they had been breathed without effort on the canvas; so soft and so clear, without harshness of outline, and so relieved, that he seems the rival of nature. The elder Palma and Lorenzo Lotto coloured freshly, and finished their pictures as highly as Giovanni Bellini; but they have loaded and overwhelmed them with outline and softness in the style of Titiano and Giorgione. Some others, as Tintoretto, to a purity of colour not inferior to the artists abovementioned, have added a boldness as grand as it is astonishing;" &c. Baldinucci, Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 126.

[17] See Baldinucci in Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 126, and one by Crespi, tom. iv. lett. 162.

[18] We must recollect that "de pictore, sculptore, fusore, judicare nisi artifex non potest," (Plin. Jun. i. epist. 10); which must be understood of certain refinements of the art that may escape the eye of the most learned connoisseur. But have we any need of a painter to whisper in our ear whether the features of a figure are handsome or ugly, its colouring false or natural, whether it has harmony and expression, or whether its composition be in the Roman or Venetian taste? And where it is really expedient to have the opinion of an artist, which we therefore report as we have either read it or heard it, will that opinion have less authority in my pages than on his own tongue?

[19] Abundance of quotations, and descriptions of the minutest particulars from rarer works is a characteristic of the present day, to which I think I have sufficiently conformed in my second Index. But in a history expressly composed to instruct and please, I have judged it right not to interrupt the thread of the narrative too frequently with different authorities. The works from which I draw my account of each artist are indicated in the body of the history and in the first index: to make continual allusion to them might please a few, but would prove very disagreeable to many.

[20] Pietro da Cortona told Falconieri that when the celebrated picture of S. Girolamo della Carità was exhibited, "it was so abused by all the eminent painters, of whom many then flourished, that he himself joined in its condemnation, in order to save his credit." See Falconieri, Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 17. He continues: "Is not the tribune of the church of S. Andrea della Valle, ornamented by Domenichino, among the finest specimens of painting in fresco? and yet they talked of sending masons with hammers to knock it down after he had displayed it. When Domenichino afterwards passed through the church, he stopped with his scholars to view it; and, shrugging up his shoulders, observed, 'After all, I do not think the picture so badly executed.'"

[21] The most singular and novel opinions concerning our painters are contained in the volumes published by M. Cochin, who is confuted in the Guides to the cities of Padua and Parma, and is often convicted of erroneous statements in matter of fact. He is reproved, with regard to Bologna, by Crespi, in Lett. Pittor. tom. vii.; and for what he has said of Genoa, by Ratti, in the lives of the painters of that city. Commencing with his preface, they point out the grossest errors in Cochin. It is there also observed that his work was disapproved of by Watellet, by Clerisseau, and other French connoisseurs then living: nor do I believe it would have pleased Filibien, De Piles, and such masters of the critical art. Italy also, at a later period, has produced a book, which aims at overturning the received opinions on subjects connected with the fine arts. It is entitled Arte di vedere secondo i principii di Sulzer e di Mengs. The author, who in certain periodical works at Rome, was called the modern Diogenes, has been honoured with various confutations. (See Lettera in Difesa del Cav. Ratti, p. 11.) Authors like these launch their extravagant opinions, for the purpose of attracting the gaze of the world; but men of letters, if they cannot pass them over in silence, ought not to be very anxious to gratify their wishes—"Opinionum commenta delet dies." Cicero.

[22] Of Apelles himself Pliny observes, "Vulgum diligentiorem judicem quam se præferens." Examine also Carlo Dati in Vite de' Pittori Antichi, p. 99, where he proves, by authority and examples, that judgment, in the imitative arts, is not confined to the learned. See also Junius, De Pictura Veterum, lib. i. cap. 5.

[23] See Mons. Agucchi, in a fragment preserved by Bellori, in Vite de' Pittori, Scultori, e Architetti moderni, p. 190.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE. [24]

Luigi Lanzi was born in the year 1732, at Monte dell' Olmo, in the diocese of Fermo, of an ancient family, which is said to have enjoyed some of the chief honours of the municipality to which it belonged. His father was a physician, and also a man of letters: his mother, a truly excellent and pious woman, was allied to the family of the Firmani. How deeply sensible the subject of this memoir was of the advantages he derived, in common with many illustrious characters, from early maternal precepts and direction, he has shewn in a beautiful Latin elegy to her memory, which appeared in his work, entitled Inscriptionum et Carminum.

Possessed of a naturally lively and penetrating turn of mind, he began early to investigate the merits of the great writers of his own country; alike in poetry, in history, and in art. His poetical taste was formed on the models of Petrarch and of Dante, and he was accustomed, while yet a child, to repeat their finest passages to his father, an enthusiastic admirer of Italy's old poets, who took pride in cultivating the same fervour in the mind of his son, a fervour of which in more northern climates, we can form little idea. His imitations of these early poets, whose spirit he first imbibed at the fountain head, before he grew familiar with the corrupt and tasteless compositions of succeeding eras, are said to have frequently been so bold and striking, as to deceive the paternal eye. To these, too, he was perhaps mainly indebted for that energy of feeling, and solidity of judgment, as well as that richness of illustration and allusion, which confer attractions upon his most serious and elaborate works. He was no less intimate with the best political and literary historians at an early age; with Machiavelli, Davila, and Guicciardini; with Muratori and Tiraboschi; whose respective compositions he was destined to rival in the world of art.

Lanzi's first studies were pursued in the Jesuits' College at Fermo, where an Italian Canzone, written in praise of the Beata Vergine, is said to have acquired for him, as a youth of great promise, the highest degree of regard. Under the care of his spiritual instructor, father Raimondo Cunich, Lanzi likewise became deeply versed in all the excellences of classical literature, not as a vain parade of words and syllables; for along with the technical skill of the scholar, he imbibed the spirit of the ancient writers. In his succeeding philosophical and mathematical studies he was assisted by Father Boscovich, one of the first mathematicians of his day. Thus to a keen and fertile intellect, animated by enthusiasm for true poetry and the beauties of art, was added that regular classical and scientific learning, inducing a love of order and of truth, capable of applying the clear logic derived from Euclid to advantage, in subjects of a less tangible and demonstrative nature. The value of such preliminary acquirements to the examination of antiquarian and scientific remains, which can only be conducted on uncertain data and a calculation of possibilities, as in ancient specimens of art, can bear no question; and of this truth Lanzi was fully aware. To feel rightly, to reason clearly, to decide upon probabilities, to distinguish degrees, resemblances, and differences, comparing and weighing the whole with persevering accuracy; these were among the essentials which Lanzi conceived requisite to prepare a writer upon works of art.

These qualities, too, will be found finely relieved and elevated by frequent and appropriate passages of eloquent feeling; flowing from that sincere veneration for his subject, and that love which may be termed the religion of the art to which he became so early attached. How intimately such a spirit is connected with the best triumphs of the art of painting, is seen in the angelic faces of Da Vinci, of Raffaello, and Coreggio; and the same enthusiasm must have been felt by a true critic, such as Lanzi. Far, however, from impeding him in the acquisition of his stores of antiquarian knowledge, and in his scientific arrangements, his enthusiasm conferred upon him only an incredible degree of diligence and despatch. He was at once enabled to decipher the age and character, to arrange in its proper class, and to give the most exact description of every object of art which passed under his review.

Lanzi thus came admirably prepared to his great task, one of the most complete models of sound historical composition, of which the modern age can boast. It was written in the full maturity of his powers; no hasty or isolated undertaking, it followed a series of other excellent treatises, all connected with some branches of the subject, and furnishing materials for his grand design. Circumstances further contributed to promote his views. Shortly after the dissolution of the order of Jesuits, to which he belonged, he was recommended by his friend Fabroni, prior of the church of S. Lorenzo, to the grand duke Leopold of Florence, who, in 1775, appointed him to the care of his cabinet of medals and gems, in the gallery of Florence. This gave rise to one of his first publications, entitled, A Description of the Florentine Gallery, which he sent in 1782 to the same friend, Angiolo Fabroni, then General Provveditore of the Studio at Pisa, and who conducted the celebrated Literary Journal of that place, in which Lanzi's Description appeared.

His next dissertation, still more enriched with antiquarian illustration and research, was his Essay on the Ancient Italian dialects, which contains a curious account of old Etruscan monuments, and the ducal collection of classical vases and urns. This was followed by his Preliminary Notices respecting the Sculpture of the Ancients, and their various Styles, put forth in the year 1789, in which he pursues the same plan which he subsequently perfected in the history before us, of allotting to each style its respective epochs, to each epoch its peculiar characters, these last being exemplified by their leading professors, most celebrated in history. He farther adduces examples of his system as he proceeds, from the various cabinets of the Royal Museum, which he explains to the reader as a part of his chief design in illustrating them. He enters largely into the origin and character of the Etruscan School, and examines very fully the criticisms, both on ancient and Italian art, by Winckelmann and Mengs.

From the period of these publications, the Grand Duke, entertaining a high opinion of Lanzi's judgment, was in the habit of consulting him before he ventured to add any new specimens to his cabinet of antiquities. He was also entrusted with a fresh arrangement of some new cabinets belonging to the gallery, which together with the latter, he finally completed, on a system which it is said never fails to awaken the admiration of all scientific visitors at Florence. During this task, his attention had been particularly directed to the interpretation of the monuments and Etruscan inscriptions contained in the ducal gallery, which, together with the ancient Tuscan, the Umbrian, and other obsolete dialects, soon grew familiar to him, and led to the composition of his celebrated Essay upon the Tuscan Tongue. For the purpose of more complete research and illustration, he obtained permission from the duke to visit Rome, in order to consult the museums, and prepare the way for his essay, which he published there in 1789; a work of immense erudition and research.

It was here Lanzi first appeared as the most profound antiquarian of modern Italy, by his successful explanation of some ancient Etruscan inscriptions and remains of art, which had baffled the skill of a number of his most distinguished countrymen. Upon presenting it to the grand duke, after his return from Rome, Lanzi was immediately appointed his head antiquary and director of the Florentine gallery; while the city of Gubbio raised him to the rank of their first patrician order, on account of his successful elucidation of the famous Eugubine Tables. In one of his Dissertations upon a small Tuscan Urn, he triumphantly refuted some charges which had been invidiously advanced against him, and defended his principles of antiquarian illustration by retorting the charge of fallacy upon his adversaries.

In the year 1790, Lanzi, at the request of the Gonfaloniere and priors of Monte dell'Olino, published an inquiry into the Condition and Site of Pausula, an ancient City of Piceno; said to be written with surprising ingenuity, yet with equal fairness; uninfluenced by any prejudices arising from national partiality, or from the nature of the commission with which he had been honoured. This was speedily followed by a much more important undertaking, connected with the prosecution of his great design, which it would appear he had already for some time entertained.

During the period of his travels through Italy in pursuit of antiquities, he had carefully collected materials for a general History of Painting, which was meant to comprize, in a compendious form, whatever should be found scattered throughout the numerous authors who had written upon the art. These materials, as well as the work itself, had gradually grown upon his hands, as might be expected from a man so long accustomed to method, to criticism, to perspicuity; in short, to every quality requisite in the philosophical treatment of a great subject. The artists and literati of Italy, then, were not a little surprised at the appearance of the first portion of the Storia Pittorica, comprehending Lower Italy; or the Florentine, Sienese, Roman, and Neapolitan Schools, reduced to a compendious and methodical form, adapted to facilitate a knowledge of Professors and of their Styles, for the lovers of the art. It was dedicated to the grand duchess Louisa Maria of Bourbon, in a style, observes the Cav. Bossi, "which recalls to mind the letters of Pliny to Trajan, composed with mingled dignity and respect; with genuine feeling, and with true, not imaginary, commendations." Elogio, p. 127.

But the unfeigned pleasure and admiration expressed in the world of literature and art, on being presented with the Pictorial History of Lower Italy, was almost equalled by its disappointment at the delay experienced with regard to the appearance of the second part; and which it was feared would never see the light. Lanzi's state of health had, some time subsequent to 1790, been very precarious; and he suffered severely from a distressing complaint,[25] which frequently interrupted his travels in which he was then engaged, collecting further materials for his History of Painting in Upper Italy. While thus employed, on his return from Genoa in December, 1793, he experienced a first attack of apoplexy, as he was passing the mountains of Massa and Carrara. After his recovery, and return to Florence, he was advised in the ensuing spring to visit the baths of Albano, which being situated near Bassano, afforded him an opportunity of superintending the publication of his history, in the Remondini Press, and on a more extensive scale than he had at first contemplated. He likewise obtained permission from the grand duke Leopold to absent himself, during some time, from his charge at Florence, in September, 1793. The first portion of his labours he conceived to be too scanty in point of names and notices to satisfy public taste, so that upon completing the latter part upon a more full and extensive scale, he gave a new edition of that already published, very considerably altered and augmented.

To these improvements he invariably contributed, both in notes and text, at every subsequent edition, a number of which appeared in the course of a few years, until the work attained a degree of completeness and correctness seldom bestowed upon labours of such incredible difficulty and extent. The last which received the correction and additions of the author was published at Bassano, in the year 1809.

That a work upon such a scale was a great desideratum, no less to Italy than to the general world of art, would appear evident from the character of the various histories and accounts of painting which had preceded it. They are rather valuable as records, than as real criticism or history; as annals of particular characters and productions derived from contemporary observation, than as sound and enlightened views, and a dispassionate estimate of individual merits. Full of errors, idle prejudices, and discussions foreign to the subject, a large portion of their pages is taken up in vapid conceits, personal accusations, and puerile reasoning, destitute of method.

The work of Lanzi, on the other hand, as it is well remarked by the Cav. Boni, observes throughout the precept of the serie et junctura of Horace. It brings into full light the leading professors of the art, exhibits at due distance those of the second class, and only glances at mediocrity and inferiority of character, insomuch as to fill up the great pictoric canvas with its just lights and shades. The true causes of the decline and revival of the art at certain epochs are pointed out, with those that contribute to preserve the fine arts in their happiest lustre; in which, recourse to examples more than to precepts is strongly recommended. The best rules are unfolded for facilitating the study of different manners, some of which are known to bear a resemblance, though by different hands, and others are opposed to each other, although adopted by the same artist; a species of knowledge highly useful at a period when the best productions are eagerly sought after at a high rate. It is a history, in short, worthy of being placed at the side of that on the Literature of Italy by Tiraboschi, who having touched upon the fine arts at the outset of his labours, often urged his ancient friend and colleague to dilate upon a subject in every way so flattering to the genius of Italy; to Italy which, however rivalled by other nations in science and in literature, stands triumphant and alone in its creative mind of art.

It is, however, difficult to convey a just idea of a work composed upon so enlarged and complete a scale; which embraces a period of about six centuries, and fourteen Italian schools, but treated with such rapidity and precision, as to form in itself a compendium of whatever we meet with in so many volumes of guides, catalogues, descriptions of churches and palaces, and in so many lives of artists throughout the whole of Italy. (pp. 130-1.)

It is known that Richardson expressed a wish that some historian would collect these scattered accounts relating to the art of painting, at the same time noting down its progress and decline in every age, a desideratum which Mengs in part supplied in one of his letters, briefly marking down all the respective eras. Upon this plan, as far as regarded Venetian painting, Zanetti had partially proceeded; but the general survey, in its perfect form, of the whole of the other schools, was destined to be completed by the genius of Lanzi. Here he first gives the general character of each, distinguishing its particular epochs, according to the alterations in taste which it underwent. A few artists of distinguished reputation, whose influence gave a new impulse and new laws to the art, stand at the head of each era, which they may be said to have produced, with a full description of their style. To these great masters, their respective pupils are annexed, with the progress of their school, referring to such as may have more or less added to, or altered the manner of their prototype. For the sake of greater perspicuity, the painters of history are kept distinct from the artists in inferior branches; among whom are classed portrait and landscape painters, those of animals, of flowers, of fruits, &c. Nor are such as bear an affinity to the art, like engraving, inlaying, mosaic work, and embroidery, wholly excluded. Being doubtful whether he should make mention of those artists who belong neither to the senatorial, the equestrian, nor the popular order of the pictorial republic, and have no public representation, such as the names of mediocrity; Lanzi finally decided to introduce them among their superiors, like third-rate actors, whose figures may just be seen, in order to preserve the entireness of the story. To this he was farther induced by the general appearance of their names in the various dictionaries, guides, and descriptions of cities and of galleries; and by the example of Homer, Cicero, and most great writers; Homer himself commemorating, along with the wise and brave also the less valiant—the fools and the cowards. (Elogio, pp. 129, 130, 131.)

After having resided during a considerable period at Bassano, occupied in the superintendence of the first edition of his great work, Lanzi found himself compelled to retire to Udine, in 1796, from the more immediate scene of war; a war which subsequently involved other cities of Italy in its career. From Udine he shortly returned to Florence, where he again resumed his former avocations in the ducal gallery, about the period of the commencement of the Bourbon government.

Lanzi's next literary undertaking was three Dissertations upon Ancient painted Vases, commonly called Etruscan; and he subsequently published a very excellent and pleasing work, entitled, Aloisii Lanzii Inscriptionum et Carminum Libri Tres: works which obtained for him the favourable notice of the Bourbon court. Nor was he less distinguished by that of the new French dynasty, which shortly obtained the ascendancy throughout all Italy, as well as at Florence, and by which Lanzi was appointed President of the Cruscan Academy.

Among Lanzi's latest productions may be classed his edition and translations of Hesiod; entitled I Lavori, e le Giornate di Esiodo Ascreo opera con L. Codici riscontrata, emendata la versione latina, aggiuntavi l'Italiana in Terze Rime con annotazioni. In this he had been engaged as far back as the year 1785, and it had been then announced in a beautiful edition of Hesiod, translated into Latin by Count Zamagua.

The list will here close with his Opere Sacre, sacred treatises, produced on a variety of occasions, and on a variety of spiritual subjects. One of these was upon the Holy Sacrament, entitled, Il divoto del SS. Sacramento istruito nella pratica di tal devozione. In truth, Lanzi was a good Christian, and may be ranked in the number of that great and honoured band of Christian philosophers, who like Newton, Locke, and Paley, have triumphantly opposed the whole strength of their mighty intellect, and vast reach of their reasoning powers to the specious and witty, but less powerful and argumentative genius of Gibbon, of Hume, and of Voltaire. Nor was the conviction of these great truths in the mind of Lanzi the result of sickness and misfortunes, or sombre reflections in the decline of life. Great as was the reputation he had acquired by his valuable labours, he was often known sincerely to declare, among his private friends, that he would willingly renounce all kind of literary honours for the pleasure of being assured, that his sacred works had in any degree promoted the cause of Christianity.

Shortly after the last edition of the History now before us, which he had personally superintended, though at a very advanced age, in the year 1809, at Bassano, Lanzi's health began rapidly to decline, and he prepared with perfect composure to meet the termination of his earthly career. He had already attained his seventy-eighth year; but his mind preserved its usual tone and vigour, though he could with difficulty pace his apartment. He wrote letters, and even pursued his beloved studies on the day of his decease, which took place on Sunday, the 30th of March, 1810, occasioned by a fresh attack of apoplexy. For this he had long been prepared, and only the preceding evening had taken an affectionate leave of his friends and domestics, thanking the Cav. Boni for his kindness in continuing so long to mount his staircase to visit an old man.

[24] It may be proper to observe, that the materials of the biographical sketch here offered to the public, are extracted from an extremely pleasing and popular tribute to the memory of Lanzi, of very general repute in Italy, from the pen of his intimate friend and associate, the Cavalier Bossi, himself a man of singular merit and acquirements, whose Elogio upon his distinguished countryman has deservedly been added to the recent editions of his invaluable history.

[25] Repeated attacks of strangury which often threatened his life, unless he obtained instant relief.

HISTORY OF PAINTING

IN

LOWER ITALY.

BOOK I.

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

EPOCH I.

Origin of the revival of Painting—Association and methods of the old Painters—Series of Tuscan Artists before the time of Cimabue and Giotto.

SECT. I.

That there were painters in Italy, even during the rude ages, is attested not only by historians,[26] but by several pictures which have escaped the ravages of time; Rome retains several ancient specimens.[27] Passing over her cemeteries, which have handed down to us a number of Christian monuments, part in specimens of painted glass, scattered through our museums, and part in those of parietal histories, or walled mosaic, it will be sufficient to adduce two vast works, unrivalled by any others, that I know of, in Italy. The first is the series of the Popes, which in order to prove the succession of the papal chair, from the prince of the Apostles down to the time of St. Leo, this last holy pontiff caused to be painted; a work of the fifth century, which was subsequently continued until our own times. The second is the decoration of the whole church of San Urbano, where there are several evangelical acts represented on the walls, along with some histories of the Titular Saint and St. Cecilia, a production which, partaking in nothing either of the Greek lineaments or style of drapery, may be attributed more justly to an Italian pencil, which has subscribed the date of 1011.[28] Many more might be pointed out, existing in different cities; as for instance the picture at Pesara, of the patron saints of the city, illustrated by the celebrated Annibale Olivieri, which is earlier than the year 1000; those in the vaults of the cathedral at Aquileja,[29] the picture at Santa Maria Primerana at Fiesole, which seems the work of that or the succeeding age;[30] and the picture at Orvieto which was formerly known by the name of S. Maria Prisca, but is now generally called S. Brizio.[31] I say nothing of the figures of the virgin formerly ascribed to St. Luke, and now supposed to be the production of the eleventh or twelfth century, as I shall have to treat of them at the opening of the third book. The painters of those times were, however, of little repute; they produced no illustrious scholars, no work worthy of marking an era. The art had gradually degenerated into a kind of mechanism, which, after the models afforded by the Greek workers in mosaic employed in the church of St. Mark, at Venice,[32] invariably exhibited the same legends, in which nature appeared distorted rather than represented. It was not till after the middle of the thirteenth century that any thing better was attempted; and the improvement of sculpture was the first step towards the formation of a new style.

The honour of this is due to the Tuscans; a nation that from very remote antiquity disseminated the benign light of art and learning throughout Italy; but it more especially belongs to the people of Pisa. They taught artists how to shake off the trammels of the modern Greeks, and to adopt the ancients for their models. Barbarism had not only overwhelmed the arts, but even the maxims necessary for their re-establishment. Italy was not destitute of fine specimens of Grecian and Roman sculpture; but she had long been without an artist who could appreciate their value, much less attempt to imitate them. Little else was executed in those dark ages but some rude pieces of sculpture, such as what remains in the cathedral of Modena, in San Donato at Arezzo, in the Primaziale at Pisa,[33] and in some other churches where specimens are preserved on the doors or in the interior. Niccola Pisano was the first who discovered and pursued the true path. There were, and still are, some ancient sarcophagi in Pisa, especially that which inclosed the body of Beatrice, mother of the Countess Matilda, who died in the eleventh century. A chase, supposed to represent that of Hippolytus, is sculptured on it in basso relievo, which must be the production of a good school; being a subject which has been often delineated by the ancients on many urns still extant at Rome.[34] This was the model which Niccola selected, from this he formed a style which participated of the antique, especially in the heads and the casting of the drapery; and when exhibited in different Italian cities "it inspired artists with a laudable emulation to apply to sculpture more assiduously than they had before done," as we are informed by Vasari. Niccola did not attain to what he aspired. The compositions are sometimes crowded, the figures are often badly designed, and shew more diligence than expression. His name, however, will always mark an era in the history of design, because he first led artists into the true path by the introduction of a better standard. Reform in any branch of study invariably depends on some rule, which, promulgated and adopted by the schools, gradually produces a general revolution in opinion, and opens a new field to the exertions of a succeeding age.

About 1231, he sculptured at Bologna the urn of San Domenico, and from this, as a remarkable event, he was named "Niccola of the Urn." He afterwards executed in a much superior style, the Last Judgment, for the cathedral of Orvieto, and the pulpit in the church of San Giovanni, at Pisa; works that demonstrate to the world that design, invention, and composition, received from him a new existence. He was succeeded by Arnolfo Florentino, his scholar, the sculptor of the tomb of Boniface VIII. in San Pietro at Rome; and by his son Giovanni, who executed the monuments of Urban IV. and of Benedict IX. in Perugia. He afterwards completed the great altar of San Donato, at Arezzo, the cost of which was thirty thousand gold florins; besides many other works which remain in Naples and in several cities of Tuscany. Andrea Pisano was his associate, and probably also his disciple in Perugia, who, after establishing himself in Florence, ornamented with statues the cathedral and the church of San Giovanni in that city; and in twenty-two years finished the great gate of bronze "to which we are indebted for all that is excellent, difficult, or beautiful in the other two, which are the workmanship of succeeding artists." He was, in fact, the founder of that great school that successively produced Orcagna, Donatello, and the celebrated Ghiberti, who fabricated those gates for the same church, which Michelagnolo pronounced worthy to form the entrance of Paradise. After Andrea, we may notice Giovanni Balducci, of Pisa, whose era, country, and style, all lead us to suppose him one of the same school. He was an excellent artist, and was employed by Castruccio, Lord of Lucca, and by Azzone Visconti, Prince of Milan; where he flourished, and left, among other monuments of his art, the tomb of San Pietro Martire, at S. Eustorgio, which is so highly praised by Torre, by Lattuada, and by various other learned illustrators of Milanese antiquities.[35] Two eminent artists, natives of Siena, proceeded from the school of Gio. Pisano, namely, the two brothers, Agnolo and Agostino, who are greatly commended by Vasari as improvers of the art. Whoever has seen the sepulchre of Guido, bishop of Arezzo, which is decorated with an infinity of statues and basso-relievos, representing passages of his life, will not only find reason to admire in them the design, which was the work of Giotto, but the execution of the sculpture. The brothers also executed many of their own designs in Orvieto, in Siena, and in Lombardy, where they brought up several pupils, who for a long period pursued their manner, and diffused it over Italy.

To the improvement of sculpture succeeded that of mosaic, through the efforts of another Tuscan, belonging to the order of minor friars, named Fra Jacopo, or Fra Mino da Turrita, from a place in the territory of Siena. It is not known whether he was instructed in his art by the Romans or by the Greek workers in mosaic,[36] but it is well ascertained that he very far surpassed them. On examining what remains of his works in Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome, one can hardly be persuaded that it is the production of so rude an age, did not history constrain us to believe it. It appears probable that he took the ancients for his models, and deduced his rules from the more chaste specimens of mosaic, still remaining in several of the Roman churches, the design of which is less crude, the attitudes less forced, and the composition more skilful, than were exhibited by the Greeks who ornamented the church of San Marco, at Venice. Mino surpassed them in every thing. From 1225, when he executed, however feebly, the mosaic of the tribune of the church of San Giovanni, at Florence, he was considered at the head of the living artists in mosaic.[37] He merited this praise much more by his works at Rome, and it appears that he long maintained his reputation. Vasari has not been sufficiently just to the fame of Turrita, in noticing him only casually in the life of Tafi, but the verses he recites, and the commissions he mentions, demonstrate how greatly Turrita was esteemed by his contemporaries. It is maintained that he was also a painter, but this is a mistake which will be cleared up in the Sienese school, and both there and elsewhere I shall question the authority of any author who either greatly commends or underrates him.

From a deficiency of specimens, like those above recorded, painting long remained in a more rude state than mosaic, and was very far behind sculpture. But we must not imagine, that at the birth of Cimabue, in 1240, the race of artists was entirely extinct, as erroneously asserted by Vasari: this must be deemed an exaggeration, for he himself has recounted several sculptors, architects, and painters then living; and the general scope of his less cautious expressions, against which so many writers have inveighed, and still continue to declaim, favours this opinion. I shall be constrained to advert, in almost every book, to their accusations, and to produce the names of the artists who then lived. I shall commence with those who then flourished in Tuscany. The city of Pisa, at this time, had not only painters, but a school for each of the fine arts[38]. The distinguished Signor Morrona, who has illustrated the Pisan antiquities, deduces its origin immediately from Greece. The Pisans, already very powerful by sea and land, having resolved in 1063 to erect the vast fabric of their cathedral, had drawn thither artists in miniature, and other painters, at the same time with Buschetto the architect, and these men educated pupils for the city. The Greeks at that time were but ill qualified to instruct, for they knew little. Their first pupils in Pisa seem to have been a few anonymous artists, some of whose miniatures and rude paintings are still in existence. A parchment, containing the exultet, as usually sung on Sabbato Santo, is in the cathedral, and we may here and there observe, painted on it, figures in miniature, with plants and animals: it is a relique of the early part of the twelfth century, yet a specimen of art not altogether barbarous. There are likewise some other paintings of that century in the same cathedral, containing figures of our Lady, with the holy infant on her right arm: they are rude, but the progress of the same school may be traced from them to the time of Giunta. This artist lately received a fine eulogium, among other illustrious Pisans, from Signor Tempesta, and he was fully entitled to it from the more early historians. His country possesses none of his undoubted pictures, except a crucifixion with his name, which is believed to be among his earliest productions, a print from which may be found in the third volume of Pisa Illustrata. He executed better pictures in Assisi, where he was invited to paint by Frat' Elia di Cortona, superior of the Minori, about the year 1230. From thence we are furnished with notices of his education, which is thus described by P. Angeli, the Historian of that cathedral: "Juncta Pisanus ruditer à Græcis instructus, primus ex Italis, artem apprehendit circa An. Sal. 1210." In the church of the Angioli there is a better preserved work of the same master; it is a crucifixion, painted on a wooden cross; on the lateral edges and upper surface of which our Lady is represented, with two other half-length figures, and underneath the remains of an inscription are legible, which having copied on the spot, I do not hesitate to publish with its deficiencies now supplied:

ivnta pisanus ivntini me Fecit.

I supply Juntini, because Signor da Morrona asserts,[39] that about this time, a Giunta da Giuntino is mentioned in the records of Pisa, whom by the aid of the Assisi inscription, I conjecture to be the painter we have now under notice. The figures are considerably less than life; the design is dry, the fingers excessively long, but these are vitia non hominum sed temporum; in short, this piece shews a knowledge of the naked figure, an expression of pain in the heads, and a disposition of the drapery, greatly superior to the efforts of the Greeks, his contemporaries. The handling of his colours is strong, although the flesh inclines to that of bronze; the local tints are judiciously varied, the chiaroscuro even shews some art, and the whole is not inferior, except in the proportions, to crucifixions with similar half figures usually ascribed to Cimabue. He painted at Assisi another crucifixion, which is now lost, to which may be added, a portrait of Frat' Elia, with this inscription, "F. Helias fecit fieri. Jesu Christe pie miserere precantis Heliæ. Juncta Pisanus me pinxit, An. D. 1236. Indit. IX." The inscription has been preserved by P. Wadingo in his annals of the Franciscan order for that year, and the historian describes the crucifixion as affabre pictum. The fresco works of Giunta were executed in the great church of the Franciscans, and according to Vasari he was there assisted by certain Greeks. Some busts and history pieces still remain in the gallery and the contiguous chapels, among which is the crucifixion of San Pietro, noticed in the Etruria Pittrice. Some believe that those paintings have been here and there injudiciously retouched, and this may serve to excuse the drawing, which may have been altered in many places, but the feebleness of the colouring cannot be denied. When they are compared with what Cimabue executed there about forty years afterwards, it seems that Giunta was not sufficiently forcible in this species of painting; perhaps he might have improved, but he is not mentioned after 1235; and it is conjectured that he died while yet a young man, at a distance from his native country. I am induced to believe so from observing, that Giunta di Giuntino is noticed in the records of Pisa, in the early part of that century, but not afterwards; and that Cimabue was sent for to paint the altar-piece and portrait of San Francesco of Pisa, about the year 1265, before he went to Assisi. It is more likely that Giunta would have executed this, had he returned home from that city, where he had seen and perhaps painted the portrait of the Holy Father.[40]

From this school the art is believed to have spread in these early times over all Tuscany, although it must not be forgotten that there were miniature painters there as well as in the other parts of Italy, who, transferring their art from small to large works, like Franco of Bologna, betook themselves, and incited others to painting on walls and on panel. Whatever we may choose to believe, Siena, at this period, could boast her Guido, who painted from the year 1221, but not entirely in the manner of the Greeks, as we shall find under the Sienese school. Lucca possessed in 1235 one Bonaventura Berlingieri. A San Francesco painted by him still exists in the castle of Guiglia, not far from Modena, which is described as a work of great merit for that age.[41] There lived another artist about the year 1288, known by his production of a crucifixion which he left at San Cerbone, a short distance from the city with this inscription; "Deodatus filius Orlandi de Luca me pinxit, A. D. 1288." Margaritone of Arezzo was a disciple and imitator of the Greeks, and by all accounts he must have been born several years before Cimabue. He painted on canvas, and if we may credit Vasari, made the first discovery of a method of rendering his pictures more durable, and less liable to cracking. He extended canvas on the panel, laying it down with a strong glue, made of shreds of parchment, and covered the whole with a ground of gypsum, before he began to paint. He formed diadems and other ornaments of plaster, giving them relief from gilding and burnishing them. Some of his crucifixions remain in Arezzo, and one of them is in the church of the Holy Cross at Florence, near another by Cimabue; both are in the old manner, and not so different in point of merit, but that Margaritone, however rude, may be pronounced as well entitled as Cimabue to the name of painter.

While the neighbouring cities had made approaches towards the new style, Florence, if we are to credit Vasari and his followers, was without a painter; but subsequent to the year 1250 some Greek painters were invited to Florence by the rulers of the city, for the express purpose of restoring the art of painting in Florence, where it was rather wholly lost than degenerated. To this assertion I have to oppose the learned dissertation of Doctor Lami, which I have just commended. Lami observes, that mention is made in the archives of the chapters of one Bartolommeo who painted in 1236, and that the picture of the Annunciation of our Lady, which is held in the highest veneration in the church of the Servi, was painted about that period. It is retouched in some parts of the drapery; it possesses, however, much originality, and for that age is respectably executed. When I prepared my first edition I had no knowledge of the work of Lami, which was not then published, and hence was unable to proceed further than to refute the opinion of those who ascribed this sacred figure to Cavallini, a pupil of Giotto. I reflected that the style of Cavallini appeared considerably more modern in his other works which I had examined at Assisi, and at Florence; yet, various artists whom I consulted, and among others Signor Pacini, who had copied the Annunciation, disputed with me this diversity of style. I further adduced the form of the characters written there in a book, Ecce Virgo concipiet, &c. which resemble those of the thirteenth century; nor have they that profusion of lines which distinguishes the German, commonly denominated the Gothic character, which Cavallini and other pupils of Giotto always employed. I rejoice that the opinion of Lami confirms my conjecture, and stamps its authenticity; and it seems to me highly probable that the Bartolommeo, whom he indicates, is the individual to whom the memorandums of the Servi ascribe the production of their Annunciation about the year 1250. The same religious fraternity preserve, among their ancient paintings, a Magdalen, which appears from the design and inscription, a work of the thirteenth century; and we might instance several coeval pictures that still exist in their chapter house, and in other parts of the city.[42]

Having inserted these notices of ancient painters, and some others, which will be found scattered throughout the work, I turn to Vasari, and to the accusations laid to his charge. He is defended by Monsignor Bottari in a note at the conclusion of the life of Margaritone, taken from Baldinucci. He affirms, from his own observation, "That though each city had some painters, they were all as contemptible and barbarous as Margaritone, who, if compared to Cimabue, is unworthy of the name of painter." The examples already cited do not permit me to assent to this proposition; even Bottari himself will scarcely allow me to do so, as he observes, in another note on the life of Cimabue, "That he was the first who abandoned the manner of the Greeks, or at least who avoided it more completely than any other artist." But if others, such as Guido, Bonaventura, and Giunta, had freed themselves from it before his time, why are they not recorded as the first, in point of time, by Vasari? Did not their example open the new path to Cimabue? Did they not afford a ray of light to reviving art? Were they not in painting what the two Guidos were in poetry, who, however much surpassed by Dante, are entitled to the first place in a history of our poets? Vasari would therefore have acted better had he followed the example of Pliny, who commences with the rude designers, Ardices of Corinth, and Telephanes of Sicyon; he then minutely narrates the invention of Cleophantes the Corinthian, who coloured his designs with burnt earth; next, that of Eumarus the Athenian, who first represented the distinction of age and sex. Then comes that of Cimon of Cleonæ, who first expressed the various attitudes of the head, and aimed at representing the truth, even in the joints of the fingers and the folds of the garments. Thus, the merits of each city, and every artist, appear in ancient history; and it seems to me just, that the same should be done, as far as possible, in modern history. These observations may, at present, suffice in regard to a subject that has been made a source of complaint and dispute among many writers.

Nevertheless it cannot be denied that there is no city to which painting is more indebted than to Florence, nor any name more proper to mark an epoch, whatever may be the opinion of Padre della Valle,[43] than that of Cimabue. The artists whom I have before mentioned had few followers; their schools, with the exception of that of Siena, languished, and were either gradually dispersed, or united themselves to that of Florence. This school in a short time eclipsed every other, and has continued to flourish in a proud succession of artists, uninterrupted even down to our own days. Let us then trace it from its commencement.

Giovanni Cimabue, descended from illustrious ancestors,[44] was both an architect and a painter. That he was the pupil of Giunta is conjectured in our times, only because the Greeks were less skilful than the Italians. It ought to be a previous question, whether the supposed scholar and master ever resided in the same place, which it would seem, after the observations before adduced, can scarcely be admitted.[45] It appears from history, that he learnt the art from some Greeks who were invited to Florence, and painted in S. Maria Novella, according to Vasari. It is an error to assert that they painted in the chapel of the Gondi, which was built a century after, together with the church; it was certainly in another chapel, under the church, where those Greek paintings were covered with plaister, and their place supplied by others, the work of a painter of the thirteenth century.[46]

Not long since a part of the new plaister fell down, and some of the very rude figures of those Greek painters became again visible. It is probable that Cimabue imitated them in early life, and perhaps at that time painted the S. Francesco and the little legends which surround it in the church of S. Croce. But, if I mistake not, it is doubtful who painted this picture; at least it neither has the manner nor the colouring of the works of Cimabue, even when young. I may refer to the S. Cecilia, with the implements of her martyrdom, in the church dedicated to that Saint, and which was afterwards removed to that of San Stefano, a picture greatly superior to that of S. Francesco.

However this may be, like other Italians of his age, Giovanni got the better of his Greek education, which seems to have consisted in one artist copying another without ever adding any thing to the practice of his master. He consulted nature, he corrected in part the rectilinear forms of his design, he gave expression to the heads, he folded the drapery, and he grouped the figures with much greater art than the Greeks. His talent did not consist in the graceful. His Madonnas have no beauty, his angels in the same piece have all the same forms. Wild as the age in which he lived, he succeeded admirably in heads full of character, especially in those of old men, impressing an indescribable degree of bold sublimity, which the moderns have not been able greatly to surpass. Vast and inventive in conception, he executed large compositions, and expressed them in grand proportions. His two great altar-pieces of the Madonna, at Florence, the one in the church of the Dominicans, the other in that of the Trinity, with the grand figures of the prophets, do not give so good an idea of his style as his fresco paintings in the church of Assisi, where he appears truly magnificent for the age in which he lived. In these histories of the Old and New Testament, such as remain, he appears an Ennius, who, amid the rudeness of Roman epic poetry, gave flashes of genius not displeasing to a Virgil. Vasari speaks of him with admiration for the vigour of his colouring, and justly so of the pictures in the ceiling. They are still in a good state of preservation, and although some of the figures of Christ, and of the Virgin in particular, retain much of the Greek manner, others representing the Evangelists, and Doctors instructing the Monks of the Franciscan Order, from their chairs, exhibit an originality of conception and arrangement that does not appear in contemporary works. The colouring is bold, the proportions are gigantic even in the distance, and not badly preserved; in short, painting may there be said to have almost advanced beyond what the mosaic worker at first attempted to do. The whole of these, indeed, are steps in the progress of the human intellect not to be recounted in one history, and form beyond question the distinguishing excellence of the Florentine artist, when put into competition with either the Pisans or the Sienese. Nor do I perceive how, after the authority of Vasari, who assigns the work of the ceiling to Cimabue, confirmed by the tradition of five centuries, P. della Valle is justified at this day, in ascribing that painting to Giotto, a painter of a milder genius. If he was induced to prefer other artists to Cimabue, because they gave the eyes less fierceness, and the nose a finer shape, these circumstances appear to me too insignificant to degrade Cimabue from that rank which he enjoys in impartial history.[47] He has moreover asserted, that Cimabue neither promoted nor injured the Florentine school by his productions, a harsh judgment, in the opinion of those who have perused so many old writers belonging to the city who have celebrated his merits, and of those who have studied the works of the Florentine artists before his time, and seen how greatly Cimabue surpasses them.

If Cimabue was the Michelangiolo of that age, Giotto was the Raffaello. Painting, in his hands, became so elegant, that none of his school, nor of any other, till the time of Masaccio, surpassed, or even equalled him, at least in gracefulness of manner. Giotto was born in the country, and was bred a shepherd; but he was likewise born a painter; and continually exercised his genius in delineating some object or other around him. A sheep which he had drawn on a flat stone, after nature, attracted the notice of Cimabue, who by chance passed that way: he demanded leave of his father to take him to Florence, that he might afford him instruction; confident, that in him, he was about to raise up a new ornament to the art. Giotto commenced by imitating his master, but quickly surpassed him. An Annunciation, in the possession of the Fathers of Badia, is one of his earliest works. The style is somewhat dry, but shews a grace and diligence, that announced the improvement we afterwards discern. Through him symmetry became more chaste, design more pleasing, and colouring softer than before. The meagre hands, the sharp pointed feet, and staring eyes, remnants of the Grecian manner, all acquired more correctness under him.

It is not possible to assign the cause of this transition, as we are able to do in the case of later painters; but it is reasonable to conclude that it was not wholly produced, even by the almost divine genius of this artist, unaided by adventitious circumstances. There is no necessity for sending him, as some have done, to be instructed at Pisa; his history does not warrant it, and an historian is not a diviner. Much less ought we to refer him to the school of F. Jacopo da Turrita, and give him Memmi and Lorenzetti for fellow pupils, who are not known to have been in Rome when F. Jacopo was distinguished for his best manner. But P. della Valle thinks he discovers in Giotto's first painting, the style and composition of Giunta, (Preface to Vasari, p. 17,) and in the pictures of Giotto at S. Croce, in Florence, which "he has meditated upon a hundred times," he recognizes F. Jacopo, and finds "reason for opining" that he was the master of Giotto. (Vide tom. ii. p. 78.) When a person becomes attached to a system, he often sees and opines what no one else can possibly see or opine. In the same manner Baldinucci wished to refer to the school of Giotto, one Duccio da Siena, Vital di Bologna, and many others, as will be noticed; and he too argues upon a resemblance of style, which, to say truth, neither I nor any one I know can perceive. If I cannot then agree with Baldinucci, can I value his imitator? and more particularly as it is no question here of Vitale, or any other artist of mediocrity, almost unknown to history, but of Giotto himself. Is it likely, with a genius such as his, and born in an age not wholly barbarous, with the advantages enjoyed under Cimabue, especially in point of colouring, that he would take Giunta for his model, or listen to the instruction of Fra Mino, in order to excel his master. Besides, what advantage can be obtained from thus disturbing the order of chronology, violating history, and rejecting the tradition of Giotto's native school, in order to account for his new style?

It is most probable that, as the great Michelangiolo, by modelling and studying the antique, quickly surpassed in painting his master, Ghirlandaio, the same occurred with regard to Giotto. It is at least known that he was also a sculptor, and that his models were preserved till the time of Lorenzo Ghiberti. Nor was he without good examples. There were specimens of antique sculpture at Florence, which may be yet seen near the cathedral, (not to mention those which he afterwards saw at Rome); and their merit, then already established by the practice of Niccola and Giovanni of Pisa, could not be unknown to Giotto, to whom nature had granted such a taste for the exquisite and the beautiful. When one contemplates some of his heads of men; some of his forms, proportioned far beyond the littleness of his contemporaries; his taste in flowing, natural, and becoming drapery; some of his attitudes after the manner of the antique, breathing grace and tranquillity, it is scarce possible to doubt that he derived no small advantage from ancient sculpture. His very defects discover this. A good writer (the author of the Guide of Bologna) remarks in him a style which partakes of statuary, contrary to the practice of contemporary foreign artists; a circumstance very common, as we shall observe, under the Roman school, to those painters who designed from statues. I shall be told that he probably derived assistance from the sculpture of the two Pisani; especially as Baldinucci has discovered a strong resemblance between his style and that of Giovanni, and some others also have noticed the circular compositions, the proportions and casting of the drapery which one perceives in the basso-relievos of the early Pisan school. I would not deny that he also availed himself of them; but it was perhaps in the manner that Raffaello profited by Michelangiolo, whose example taught him to imitate the antique. Nor let it be objected to me that the dryness of the design, the artifice of concealing the feet by long garments, the inaccuracy of the extremities, and similar defects, betray rather a Pisan than an Attic origin. This only proves, that when he became the founder of a style, he did not aim at giving it the perfection of which it was susceptible, and which it could hardly be expected to obtain amid the numerous avocations in which he appears to have been engaged; in short, I cannot persuade myself, that without the imitation of the antique, he could in so short a time have made such a progress, as to have been admired even by Bonarruoti himself.[48]

The first histories of the patriarch S. Francesco, at Assisi, near the paintings of his master, shew how greatly he excelled him. As his work advanced he became more correct; and towards the conclusion, he already manifested a design more varied in the countenances, and improved in the extremities; the features are more animated, the attitudes more ingenious, and the landscape more natural. To one who examines them with attention, the composition appears the most surprising; a branch of the art, in which he seems not only to surpass himself, but even sometimes appears unrivalled. In many historical pictures, he often aimed at ornamenting with buildings, which he painted of a red, or azure, or a yellow, the colours employed in staining houses, or of a dazzling white, in imitation of Parian marble. One of his best pictures in this work is that of a thirsty person, to the expression of which scarcely any thing could be added by the animating pencil of Raffaello d'Urbino himself. With similar skill he painted in the inferior church, and this is perhaps the best performance which has reached our times, though specimens remain in Ravenna, in Padua, in Rome, in Florence, and in Pisa. It is assuredly the most spirited of all, for he has there, with the most poetical images, depicted the saint shunning vice, and a follower of virtue; it is my opinion that he here gave the first example of symbolical painting, so familiar to his best followers.

His inventions, which, according to the custom of the age, were employed in scripture history, are repeated by him in nearly the same style in several places; and are generally most pleasing when the proportions of the figures are the least. His small pictures of the Acts of St. Peter and St. Paul, with some representations of our Saviour, and of various saints, in the sacristy of the Vatican, appear most elegant and highly finished miniatures; as likewise are some others in the church of the Holy Cross at Florence, taken from scriptural history, or from the life of St. Francis. The real art of portrait painting commenced with him; to whom we are indebted for correct likenesses of Dante, of Brunetto Latini, and of Corso Donati. It was indeed before attempted, but, according to Vasari, no one had succeeded. He also improved the art of working in mosaic; a piece wrought by him in the Navicella, or ship of St. Peter, may be seen in the portico of that cathedral; but it has been so much repaired, that now the design is wholly different, and appears the work of another artist. It is believed that the art of miniature painting, so much prized in that age for the ornamenting of missals, received great improvement from him.[49] Architecture undoubtedly did; the admirable belfry of the cathedral of Florence is the work of Giotto.

After collecting all the notices he could of the scholars of Cimabue and Giotto, Baldinucci endeavours to make us believe that all the benefits which accrued to painting, sculpture, and architecture in Italy, and even throughout the world, came directly or indirectly from Florence. The following is the manner in which he expresses himself in his first pages, with the proofs which he adduces. "During my researches, I have ascertained beyond all doubt the truth of an opinion I always considered as indisputable, and which is not controverted by respectable ancient historians; that these arts in the first place were restored by Cimabue and Giotto, and afterwards diffused over the world by their disciples; and I conceived the idea of making it evident by the help of a tree, which at a glance might shew their progress from the earliest to the present times." He published the first small part of this tree, just as I exhibit it to the reader; and promised in each succeeding volume to give another part, that would establish the connexion with the principal root (Cimabue), or with the branches derived from it; a promise from which he adroitly delivered himself; therefore we are without any more than these few branches that follow:

But with all his pains he has not satisfied the public expectation, as is observed by Signor Piacenza, who published the splendid Turin edition of Baldinucci as far as the life of Franciabigio, accompanied with very useful notes and dissertations.[50] It is alleged, that to make this tree fair and flourishing, he has inserted in it branches dexterously stolen from his neighbours, who have not failed to reclaim their property. I rejoice to write in an age when the opinions of Baldinucci have few followers even in Florence. The excellent work entitled "Etruria Pittrice," composed and applauded in that city in proportion as it is free from the prejudice of former times, proves this sufficiently. Following in like manner the light of history and of reason, unswayed by party spirit, I shall in the first place observe, that among all the scholars of Cimabue, I do not find any named by Vasari, but Giotto and Arnolfo di Lapo, concerning whom it is certain that the historian was in error. Lapo and Arnolfo are the names of two different sculptors, disciples of Niccolò Pisano, who, being already versed in the art, assisted him in 1266 to adorn with history pieces the pulpit of the cathedral at Siena, an authentic document of which remains in the archives of the work.[51] Thus this branch of the tree belongs to Pisa, unless Cimabue have a claim to it, by contributing in some degree to the instruction of Arnolfo in the principles of architecture. Andrea Tafi was the pupil of Apollonius, a Greek artist, and assisted him in the church of St. John, in some pieces of mosaic, from scriptural history, which, according to Vasari, are without invention and without design; but he improved as he proceeded, for the last part of the work was less despicable than the beginning. Cimabue is not named in these works, nor in what Tafi afterwards executed without assistance; and as he was old when Cimabue began to teach, I cannot conceive how he can be reckoned the scholar of the latter, or a branch from that root. Gaddo Gaddi, says Vasari, was contemporary with Cimabue, and was his intimate friend, as well as that of Tafi; through their friendship he received hints for his improvement in mosaic. At first he followed the manner of the Greeks, mingled with that of Cimabue. After long working in this manner, he went to Rome, and there improved his style, while employed on the façade of S. Maria Maggiore, by his own genius, assisted in my opinion by imitating the ancient workers in mosaic. He also painted some altar-pieces, and I saw at Florence one of his crucifixions, of a square figure, and very respectable workmanship. This circumstance induces me to consider Gaddo, in some measure, among the imitators of Cimabue, but not one of his pupils; for it appears to me unjust, should a contemporary communicate with an artist either as a friend, or for the sake of advice on the art, to set him immediately down as a branch from that stock. Vasari relates of Ugolino Senese, that he was a tenacious follower of the Greek style, and inclined more to imitate Cimabue than Giotto. He does not on this account, indeed, expressly say, that he had been his scholar; he rather hints that he had other instructors at Siena, for which reason it will be better to consider him under that school, there being no reason to doubt that he belonged to it. In that of Bologna we should also class Oderigo, who, as a miniature painter, was more likely to employ some other master than a painter in fresco like Cimabue. In the mean time it is useful to reflect, that were the method of Baldinucci to be pursued, nothing authentic would remain in a history of painting; and the schools of the early masters would increase beyond all limits, were the scholars of each master to be confounded with his friends, acquaintances, and contemporaries, who paid attention to his maxims.

It is still more strange to peruse the account of the connexion between the first and secondary branches of the tree, or if one may use the expression, between the children and grandchildren of Cimabue. There is nothing natural in their succession, and the labour is wholly useless which derives the professors of every fine art, of whatever country, past, present, and to come, from one individual. F. Ristoro and F. Sisto were eminent architects, who rebuilt the grand bridges of the Carraja and the Holy Trinity, about 1264, when Cimabue was twenty-four years of age. Baldinucci writes of both, that they were, perhaps, disciples or imitators of Arnolfo, from the state of their works. But how comes he to found on a perhaps, what he, a little before, had vaunted as a clear demonstration? And then, on what does this perhaps rest? Is it not more probable that Arnolfo, and Cimabue himself, imitated them? That Fra Mino da Turrita should appear in his tree as a scholar of Tafi, and as posterior to Cimabue, is no less absurd. In 1225, a date omitted by Baldinucci, Mino wrought in mosaic at Florence, fifteen years before Cimabue was born. In his old age he commenced a similar work in the cathedral of Pisa, "in the same style in which he had executed his other labours," says Vasari, who adds, that Tafi and Gaddi (both his inferiors in age and reputation) assisted him. The work was "little more than begun," from which we may infer that they were not long associated. It seems to me extraordinary how Baldinucci could assert, "it appears that Vasari imagined that Mino was the pupil of Andrea Tafi," which is contrary to fact: instead of the "clear demonstration," which he promised, he has amused us with "it appears," which is evident only to himself. At length, wishing to make us believe that Giovanni Pisano the sculptor is a pupil of Giotto the painter, he again turns to Vasari, from whom he brings evidence that Giovanni, having completed his work in the cathedral of Arezzo, and being then established at Orvieto, came to Florence to examine the architecture of S. Maria del Fiore, and to become acquainted with Giotto: he further notices two pieces which he executed at Florence, the one a Madonna between two little angels, over the gate of the cathedral; the other a small baptism of St. John; this happened in 1297. Here Baldinucci hazards a reflection, that "if one compares the other works of this artist with the above mentioned figure of the Virgin Mary ... we may recognize in it such improvement ... and so much of the manner of Giotto, that there cannot remain a doubt but he is to be reckoned a disciple of this master, both in respect of his imitation of him, and his observance of his precepts, which he followed during so many years in the exercise of the profession." Every attentive reader will discover here not a clear demonstration of the assumption, but a mass of difficulties. He compares this to the other figures made by Pisano at Florence, before he was acquainted with Giotto; and yet this was the first which he there executed. He wishes to make Giovanni, already sixty years of age, an imitator of Giotto, then twenty-one, when it is much more probable that Giotto would follow him, the best sculptor of the age. There is no foundation for the supposed instruction which Giovanni received from Giotto, who, shortly after, departed for Rome; where, after some other works, he executed the mosaic of the boat in 1298. In short, the whole question of preceptorship rests on no better authority than a single figure. How great are the inconsistencies in this account, and how absurd the explanations and repetitions which are offered! What further shall we say? Is it not lamentable thus to see so many old and honoured artists compelled, in spite of history, to become pupils to masters so much younger and less celebrated than themselves? I know that various writers have censured Baldinucci as an historian of doubtful fidelity, artful in concealing or misrepresenting facts, captious in expounding the opinions of Vasari, and more intent on captivating than instructing his readers. I am not ignorant that his system was controverted even in his own country, as appears from his work published there, entitled Delle Veglie; and that Signor Marmi, a learned Florentine, strongly suspected his fair dealing, of which we shall adduce a proof under the Sienese school. Nevertheless I take into account that he wrote in an age less informed in regard to the history of painting, and that he defended an opinion then much more common in Italy than at present. He had promised Cardinal Leopoldo de' Medici to demonstrate it incontrovertibly for the honour of his country, and of the house of Medici, and had received advice and assistance from him in order to encourage him to defend it, and to refute the contrary opinion. Under the necessity of answering Malvasia,[52] a severe writer against Vasari, and of proving his assertion, that the people of Bologna, no less than those of Siena, of Pisa, and other places, had learned the art from the Florentines, he formed a false system, the absurdity of which he did not immediately perceive; but he at last discovered it, as Signor Piacenza observes, and succeeded in escaping from its trammels. The most ingenious builders of systems have subjected themselves very frequently to the same disadvantage, and the history of literature abounds with similar instances.

Having examined this sophism, I cannot subscribe to the opinion of Baldinucci; but shall comprise my own opinion in two propositions:—The first is, That the improvement of painting is not due to Florence alone. It has been remarked, that the career of human genius, in the progress of the fine arts, is the same in every country. When the man is dissatisfied with what the child learned, he gradually passes from the ruder elements to what is less so, and from thence, to diligence and precision; he afterwards advances to the grand, and the select, and at length attains facility of execution.

Such was the progress of sculpture among the Grecians, and such has been that of painting in our own country. When Correggio advanced from laborious minuteness to grandeur, it was not necessary for him to know that such was the progress of Raffaello, or, at any rate, to have witnessed it: in like manner, nothing more was wanting to the painters of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, than to learn that hitherto they had pursued a wrong path; this was sufficient to guide them into a better path, and it was not then untried; for sculpture had already improved design. We have, in fact, seen the Pisani, and their scholars, preceding the Florentines; and, as their precursors, diffusing a new system of design over Italy. It would be injustice to overlook them in the improvement of painting, in which design is of such importance; or to suppose that they did not signally contribute to its improvement. But if Italy be indebted solely to Cimabue and Giotto for its progress, all the good artists should have come from Florence. And yet, in the cathedral of Orvieto (to instance the finest work, perhaps, of that age), we find, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, many artists from various other places, who would not have been called to ornament such a building, had they not previously enjoyed the reputation of able masters.[53] Add to this, if we are to derive all painters from those two masters, every style of painting should resemble that of their Florentine disciples. But on examining the old paintings of Siena, of Venice, of Bologna, and of Parma, they are found to be dissimilar in idea, in choice of colouring, and in taste of composition. All, then, are not derived from Florence.

My second proposition is, That no people then excelled in, nor contributed, by example, so much to the progress of art as the Florentines. Rival cities may boast artists of merit, even in the first era of painting; their writers may deny the fame of Giotto and his disciples; but truth is more powerful than declamation. Giotto was the father of the new method of painting, as Boccaccio was called the father of the new species of prose composition. After the time of the latter, any subject could be elegantly treated of in prose; after the former, painting could express all subjects with propriety. A Simon da Siena, a Stefano da Firenze, a Pietro Laurati, added charms to the art; but they and others owe to Giotto the transition from the old to a new manner. He essayed it in Tuscany, and while yet a young man, greatly improved it, to the general admiration of all classes. He did not leave Assisi until called to Rome by Boniface VIII., nor did he take up his residence at Avignon, until invited to France by Clement V. Before going there, he was induced to stop at Padua, and on returning some years after, he again resided at the same place. At that time many parts of Italy were under a republican form of government; but abounded in potent families, that bore sway in various quarters, and which, while adorning their country, aimed at its subjugation. Giotto, beyond every other, was in universal request, both at home and abroad. The Polentani of Ravenna, the Malatesti of Rimino, the Estensi of Ferrara, the Visconti of Milan, the Scala of Verona, Castruccio of Lucca, and also Robert, king of Naples, sought to engage him with eagerness, and for some period retained him in their service. Milan, Urbino, Arezzo, and Bologna, were desirous to possess his works; and Pisa, that, in her Campo Santo, afforded an opportunity for the choicest artists of Tuscany to vie with one another,[54] as of old they contended at Corinth, and in Delphi, [55] obtained from him those historic paintings from the life of Job, which are greatly admired, though they are amongst his early productions. When Giotto was no more, similar applause was bestowed on his disciples: cities contended for the honour of inviting them, and they were even more highly estimated than the native artists themselves. We shall find Cavallini and Capanna in the Roman School; in that of Bologna the two Faentini, Pace, and Ottaviano, with Guglielmo da Forli; Menabuoi at Padua; Memmi, who was either a scholar or assistant of Giotto, at Avignon; and we shall find traces of the successors of the same school throughout all Italy. This work will indicate the names of some of them; it will point out the style of others; without including the great number who, in every province, have been withdrawn from our view, for the purpose of replacing old pictures with others in the new manner. Giotto thus became the model for students during the whole of the fourteenth century, as was Raffaello in the sixteenth, and the Caracci in the subsequent century: nor can I find a fourth manner that has been so generally received in Italy as that of those three schools. There have been some who, from the inspiration of their own genius, had adopted a new manner, but they were little known or admired beyond the precincts of their own country. Of the Florentines alone can it be asserted, that they diffused the modern style from one extremity of Italy to the other: in the restoration of painting, though not all, yet the chief praise belongs to them; and this forms my second proposition.

I proceed more willingly to the sequel of my work, having escaped from that part of it in which, amid the contradictory sentiments of authors, I have often suspended my pen, mindful of the maxim, Historia nihil falsi audeat dicere, nihil veri non audeat. Resuming the subject of Florence, after the death of her great artist in 1336, I find painters had there prodigiously multiplied, as I shall presently, from undoubted testimony, proceed to prove. Not long afterwards, that is, in 1349, the painters associated themselves into a religious fraternity, which they denominated the Society of St. Luke, first established in S. Maria Nuova, but afterwards in S. Maria Novella. This was not the first that had arisen in Italy, as Baldinucci affirms: in 1290 there was a company of painters previously established at Venice, of which St. Luke was the patron, the laws of which, it is believed, are still preserved in the church of St. Sophia.[56] But neither this, the Florentine, nor that of Bologna, can be called academies for design; they were only the results of Christian devotion, a sort of school, such as formerly existed, and still exist in many of the arts. They did not consist of painters alone; these always possessed the most elevated rank; but in the same place were assembled artists "in metal and in wood, whose works partook, more or less, of design;" as is related by Baldinucci, in describing the Florentine association. In that of Venice were comprehended basket-makers, gilders, and the lowest daubers; in that of Bologna were included even saddlers, and scabbard-makers; who were only divided from the painters by means of lawsuits and decisions. That unrefined age did not as yet acknowledge the dignity of painting; it denominated those artists master workmen, whom we now call professors of the art, and it called shops what we name studies. I have often doubted, whether the progress of the arts was so rapid among us as in Greece, because, there, painting, either from the beginning or a very early era, was considered as a liberal art: with us its dignity was much longer in being acknowledged.

He who desires to discover the origin of those associations, will find it in the works composed of different arts then most in use, of which I shall treat somewhat fully, for the sake of illustrating the history. A little above I mentioned basket-makers: at that time, all kinds of furniture, such as cupboards, benches, and chests, were wrought by mechanics, and then painted, especially when intended as the furniture of new married women. Many ancient cabinet pictures have been cut out of such pieces of furniture, and, by this means, preserved to later ages. As for images on altars, through the whole of the fourteenth century, they were not formed, as at present, on a separate piece from the surrounding ornaments. There were made little altars, or dittici,[57] in many parts of Italy, called Ancone; they first shaped the wood, and laboriously ornamented it with carving. The design was conformed to the Teutonic, or, as it is called, the Gothic architecture, seen in the façades of churches built in that age. The whole work was a load of minuteness, consisting of little tabernacles, pyramids, and niches; and various doors and windows, with semi-circular and pointed arches, were represented on the surface of the panel; a style very characteristic of that period. I have sometimes there observed, in the middle, little statues in mezzo-relievo.[58] Most frequently the painter designed these figures or busts of saints: sometimes there were also prepared various sorts of little forms, or moulds—formelle—in which to represent histories. Often there was a step added to the little altar, where, in several compartments, were likewise exhibited histories of our Saviour, of the Virgin, and of the martyrs, either real or feigned.[59] Sometimes various compartments were prepared, in which their lives were represented. The carvers in wood were so vain of their craft, that they often inscribed their own names before that of the painter.[60]

Even pictures for rooms were fashioned by the carvers into triangular and square forms, which they surrounded with heavy borders, with rude foliage, lace, or Arabesque ornaments around them. In that age, pictures were rarely committed to canvass alone, though some such are to be seen at Florence, and more among the Venetians and people of Bologna; but panels were most frequently employed. The borders often inclosed portions of canvass, not unfrequently of parchment, and sometimes of leather, which, in all probability, were prepared by those who usually wrought in such materials; and this is the reason why such artists, and even in some instances saddlers, were sometimes associated with painters.

History informs us that shields for war, or the tournament, and also various equestrian accoutrements, as the saddles and trappings of horses, were ornamented with painting, a custom which was retained till the time of Francia, as Vasari mentions in his life; hence, armourers and saddlers became associated with painters. Among them in like manner might be included those who prepared walls for painting in fresco, and who covered them with a reddish ground, which not unfrequently is still discovered in the flaws. On this colour the figures were designed, and such walls were the cartoons of the old masters. The stucco workers also assisted them in those relieved ornaments we see in fresco paintings. I believe they used moulds in those works, which seem nothing else than globules, flowerets, and little stars, formed with a stamp, such as we see on gilt plaister, on leather, on board, and on playing-cards. On whatever substance they painted, some gold was usually added; with it they ornamented the ground of their pictures, the glories of their saints, their garments, and fringes. Although painters themselves were skilled in such labours, it appears that they sought the assistance of gilders, and therefore gilders were classed with painters, and like them inscribed works with their names.

This was the practice of Cini and Saracini, just before recorded, and particularly of a native of Ferrara, who, in the pictures of the Vivarini, at Venice, subscribes his name before theirs. (See Zanetti, Pittura Ven. p. 15.) And in the cathedral of Ceneda, below an Incoronation of the Virgin, in which the artist did not care to exhibit himself to posterity, the engraver, already noticed, left the following inscription, which Signor Lorenzo Giustiniani, a Venetian patrician of great taste and cultivation of mind, has very politely communicated to me; "1438, a di 10. Frever Christofalo da Ferara intajo."

Towards the end of the fourteenth century, when the gothic style was disappearing from architecture, the design of the carvers improved, and they began to erect over altars oblong panels, divided by partitions, which were fashioned into pilasters, or small columns, and often between these last feigned gates or windows, so that the ancona or altar bore some resemblance to the façade of a palace or a church; over them was placed a frieze, and above the frieze was a place like a stage with some figures. The saints were placed below, and their histories were painted in the compartments; and often there appeared their histories painted upon some little form, or upon the steps. The partitions were gradually removed, the proportions of the figures enlarged, and the saints were disposed in a single piece around the throne of our Lord, not so erect as formerly, after the manner of statues, but in different actions and positions, a custom which prevailed even in the sixteenth century. The practice of gilding grounds declined towards the end of the fifteenth century, but it was increased on the garments, and fringes were never so deep as at that period. About the close of that century gold was more sparingly employed, and it was almost wholly abandoned in the following. No little benefit would be conferred upon the art by any one who would undertake to point out with accuracy what were the colours, gums, and other mixtures employed by the Greeks. They were undoubtedly in possession of the best methods transmitted to them by a tradition, which though in some measure corrupted, was confessedly derived from their ancestors. Even subsequent to the invention of oils, their colouring is in some degree deserving of our admiration. In the Medicean Museum there is a Madonna, subscribed with the following Latin inscription, Andreas Rico de Candia pinxit, the forms of which are stupid, the folds inelegant, and the composition coarse; but with all this, the colour is so fresh, vivid, and brilliant, that there is no modern work that would not lose by a comparison; indeed, the colouring is so extremely strong and firm, that when tried with the iron, it does not liquefy, but rather scales off, and breaks in minute portions. The frescos, likewise, of the earliest Greek and Italian painters, are surprisingly strong, and more particularly in upper than in lower Italy. There are some figures of saints upon the pilasters of the church of San Niccolo, at Trevigi, quite remarkable for their durability, an account of which is given in the first volume of Padre Federici, (p. 188). I have understood from professors that such a degree of consistency must have been produced by a certain portion of wax, which was employed at that period, as will be explained in the subsequent chapter, on the subject of painting in oil. It must, however, be admitted, that we are very little advanced in these inquiries into the ancient methods of preparing colour. Were they once satisfactorily explored, it would prove highly useful in the restoration of ancient pictures, nor superfluous in regard to the adoption of that firm, fused, and lucid colouring, which we shall have occasion to commend in various Lombard and Venetian pictures, and more especially in those of Coreggio.

These observations will not be useless to the connoisseur, who doubts the age of a picture on which there are no characters. Where there are letters he may proceed with still greater certainty. The letters vulgarly called gothic, began to be used after the year 1200, in some places more early than in others; and characters were loaded with a superfluity of lines, through the whole of the fourteenth, until about the middle of the fifteenth century, when the use of the Roman alphabet was revived. What forms were adopted by artists in subscribing their names, will be more conveniently explained in the course of a few pages further. I have judged it proper to give here a sort of paleology of painting; because inattention to this has been, and still is, a fruitful source of error. The reader, however, may observe, that though the rules here proposed, afford some light to resolve doubtful points, they are not to be considered as infallible and universal, and he may further recollect, that in matters of antiquity nothing is more dangerous and ridiculous, than to form general rules, which a single example may be sufficient to overthrow.

[26] See Tiraboschi, Storia della Litterat. Italiana, towards the end of tom. iv. See also the Dissertation of Lami on the Italian painters and sculptors who flourished from the year 1000 to 1300; in the Supplement to Vinci's Trattato della Pittura, printed at Florence in 1792; and see Moreni, P. iv. p. 108.

[27] See the Oration of Mon. Francesco Carrara Delle Lodi delle belle Arti, Roma, 1758, 4to. with the accompanying Notes, in which the two Bianchini, Marangoni, and Bottari, their illustrators, are cited.

[28] Pointed out to me by Sig. D'Agincourt, a gentleman deeply versed in antiquities of this sort.

[29] There were similar remains in the choir, the design of which I have seen. They were covered over in 1733. Among other curiosities was the portrait of the patriarch Popone, of the Emperor Conrad, and his son Henry; the design, action, and characters, like the mosaics at Rome; executed about the year 1030. See Bartoli, Antichità di Aquileja, p. 369; and Altan, Del vario Stato, &c. p. 5.

[30] The figure of our Lady is retouched; but two miniatures attached to it, are better preserved; the one represents a man, the other a woman: and their drapery is in the costume of that period. The figures are reversed in the engraving of them, which is published.

[31] See P. della Valle in the Preface to Vasari, p. 51.

[32] A few pictures by superior Greek artists, remain, which are very good. Of this number is a Madonna, with a Greek inscription, at the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin at Rome. There is also one at Camerino said to have come from Smyrna; and I know of no Greek picture in Italy better executed or better preserved.

[33] The lateral gate of bronze is of very rude workmanship, as described by the Canon Martini, in his account of that temple, p. 85; and by Sig. da Morrona, it is with much probability ascribed to the hand of Bonanno Pisano. From Vasari's life of Arnalfo, we learn that the same sculptor also executed the great gate of the Primaziale at Pisa, in bronze, about the year 1180, subsequently destroyed by fire. That of Santa Maria Nuova at Monreale, is likewise his. It is described by P. del Giudice, in his account of that church, and bears the name of Bonanno Pisano, with the date 1186. It is as rudely executed as the preceding one at Pisa, as I am assured by the Cavalier Puccini, accurately versed in every branch of the fine arts. If we wish to estimate the merit of Niccola Pisano, we have only to compare these two gates with the specimens which he gave us only a few years afterwards.

[34] Several specimens of similar productions also remain in Sicily, particularly at Mazzerra and Girganti. At Palermo, the tomb of the Empress Constance II. who died in the year 1222, is decorated with an antique sculpture in basso relievo, representing a chase, which is conjectured to represent that of Æneas and Dido, and which is well engraved. See the work entitled, "I Regali Sepolchri del Duomo di Palermo riconosciuti e illustrati. Nap. 1784."

Another specimen of this sort is said to be in the collection of Mr. Blundell, at Ince.

[35] In the new Guide to Milan, Sig. Abate Bianconi observes, "that these are beautiful works, and that nothing superior is to be seen in any work of that age. Vasari, by omitting this very eminent Pisan, and not mentioning these works, although he was according to his own account at Milan, has given reason to believe, that he was not over anxious in his researches." p. 215.

See also Giulini and Verri, as quoted by Sig. da Morrona in tom. i. pp. 199, 200.

[36] The mosaic school subsisted at Rome as early as the eleventh and twelfth centuries. (See Musant. Fax Chronol. pp. 319, 338.) In this the family of the Cosmati acquired great excellence. Adeodato di Cosimo Cosmati employed himself in the church of St. Maria Maggiore, in 1290, (Guide to Rome); and several of the same name exercised their talents in the cathedral of Orvieto. (See Valle Catalogo.) The whole of these are preferred to the Greek mosaic workers, who were at the same period engaged in decorating St. Mark's at Venice. (See Valle's Preface to Vasari, p. 61.)

[37]

Sancti Francisci Frater fuit hoc operatus Jacobus in tali præ cunctis arte probatus,

is the inscription on the mosaic.

[38] See Pisa Illustrata of Signor da Morrona, tom. i. p. 224.

[39] Tom. ii. p. 127.

[40] In the sacristy of the Angioli is preserved the most ancient portrait of San Francesco that is extant. It is painted on the panel which served as the saint's couch until the period of his decease, as we learn from the inscription. It is there supposed to be the work of some Greek artist anterior to Giunta.

[41] See Signor Ab. Bettinelli, Risorgimento d' Italia negli studii, nelle arti, ne' costumi dopo il mille, p. 192.

[42] To this list of early painters might perhaps be added the name of Francesco Benani, by whom there is a whole length figure of St. Jerome holding a crucifix in his hand. It possesses all the characteristics attributed by Lanzi to this early age. Near the bottom of the picture is a label, inscribed, Franciscus Benanus, Filius Petri Ablada. The size of the picture is 2 feet 8 by 2 feet 2, on panel, covered with gypsum. The vehicle of the colours is probably prepared from eggs, which were usually employed for that purpose before the invention of painting in oil, and to which an absorbent ground of lime or gypsum seems to have been indispensable. It is surprising how well the early pictures executed in this style have preserved their colouring to the present day.

[43] This writer has thrown much light upon the history of our early painters, from which I have derived and shall continue to derive, much benefit; but in the heat of dispute, he has frequently depreciated Cimabue in a way which I cannot approve. For instance, Vasari having said, that "he contributed greatly to the perfection of the art," della Valle asserts, that "he did it neither good nor harm;" and that having closely examined the pictures of Cimabue, "he has found in them a ruder style than appears in those of Giunta Pisano, of Guido da Siena, of Jacopo da Turrita, &c." (tom. i. p. 235.) Of the two last I shall speak elsewhere. With respect to the first, the writer contradicts himself four pages after; when, commenting on another passage of the historian relating to certain pictures of Cimabue, executed in Assisi in the inferior church of S. Francesco, he says, that "he there, in his opinion, surpassed Giunta Pisano." It is to be remembered that this was his first work, or amongst the first that Cimabue painted in Assisi. When he went thither, therefore, he was a better artist than Giunta. How, then, when he worked in the superior church, in Assisi, and in so many other places, did he become so bad a painter, and more uncouth than Giunta himself?

[44] See Baldinucci, tom. i. p. 17, Florentine Edition, 1767, where it is said that the Cimabuoi were also called Gualtieri.

[45] But see Baldinucci in Veglia, p. 87.

[46] We read, in the preface to the Sienese edition of Vasari's Lives, (p. 17) as follows: "To Giunta and to the other artists of Pisa, as heads of the school, was given the principal direction of adorning the Franciscan church; and Cimabue and Giotto are known to have been either disciples or assistants in their school, in which they produced several important works. Giunta had the direction of his assistant as long as he resided there, which may have been even subsequent to 1236. But how are we to suppose that he could have been at Assisi so long as to permit Cimabue (who was born in 1240, and went to Assisi about 1265) to assist, to receive instructions from, and to succeed him? Such a supposition is still more untenable as regards Giotto, who was invited to Assisi many years afterwards." (Vasari.)

[47] To the testimonies in favor of Cimabue, may be added one of no little weight, from the manuscript given to the public a few years since, by the Abbate Morelli. We there find that Cimabue painted in Padua, in the church del Carmine, which was afterwards burnt; but that a head of S. Giovanni, by him, being rescued from the flames, was inserted in a frame, and preserved in the house of Alessandro Capella. Would a painter, who had done neither good nor harm to the Florentine school, and to the art, have been invited to Padua? Would the remains of his works have been held in such esteem? Would he have been so highly valued, after so great a lapse of time, by Vasari, to whose arts he seems to wish to ascribe the reputation of Cimabue. Other proofs of this reputation may be seen in the defence of Vasari, in the present Book, third Epoch. The writer of history ought completely to divest himself of the love of system and party spirit.

[48] Vasari, tom. i. p. 322.

[49] A book is mentioned by Baldinucci ornamented by Giotto with miniatures, with histories from the Old Testament, and presented to the vestry of St. Peter, by Cardinal Stefaneschi; of this he neither adduces any proof, nor can I find any record. From the evidence, rather, of an existing necrology, where, among the presents made by Stefaneschi to the cathedral, the pictures and the mosaic by Giotto are noticed without any other work of this artist, the gift of the book is very doubtful. See Sig. Ab, Cancellieri De Secretariis Veteris Basilicæ Vaticanæ, p. 859, and 2464. Some miniatures of the martyrdom and miracles of St. George, in another book, are ascribed to him; but I am uncertain whether there is any ancient document for this; and they might, possibly, be the work of Simone da Siena, who is often confounded with him.

[50] See his first volume, pp. 131 and 202; and also P. della Valle in the preface to Vasari, p. 27; also Signor da Morrona in his Pisa Illustrata, p. 154; besides many other authors.

[51] D. Valle's preface to Vasari, p. 36.

[52] We may observe, that Malvasia is the champion, not only of Bologna, but of Italy, and of all Europe. At page 11, volume first, he has quoted a passage from Filibien, which proves that design always maintained itself in France, even in rude ages, and that at the time of Cimabue it was there equally respectable as in Italy.

[53] A catalogue of them is given in P. della Valle, in his history of that Church, and is republished in the Sienese edition of Vasari, at the end of the second volume.

[54] This place, which will ever do high honour to the magnificence of the Pisans, would be an inestimable museum, if the pictures there, executed by Giotto, by Memmi, by Stefano Florentino, by Buffalmacco, by Antonio Veneziano, by the two Orcagni, by Spinello Aretino, and by Laurati, had been carefully preserved; but the greatest number having been injured by dampness, were repaired, but with considerable judgment, within the century.

[55] Plin. xxxv. 9.

[56] Zanet. p. 3.

[57] It was a very ancient practice of Christian worship to place the silver, or ivory dittici, upon the altars during the service of the mass, and when the sacred ceremony was over, they were folded up in the manner of a book, and taken elsewhere. The same figure was retained, even in the introduction of the largest altar pieces, which likewise consisted of two wings, and were portable. This custom, of which I have seen few remnants in Italy, has been long preserved in the Greek church. At length, by degrees, artists began to paint upon one whole panel. (See Buonarroti Vetri Antichi, p. 258, &c.)

[58] In Torrello, one of the Venetian isles, there is an ancient image of St. Hadrian, which is tolerably carved, and around it the history of the saint is depicted: the style is feeble, but not Grecian.

[59] I notice this peculiarity, because the histories, either painted or engraved, belonging to those early times, are apt to perplex us; nor can they be cleared up without having recourse to books of fiction, which were, in those less civilized periods, believed. In the acts of our Saviour, and of the Virgin, it may be useful to consult Gio. Alberto Fabrizio, in the collection entitled "Codex Apocr. Novi Testamenti;" in the acts of the apostles and martyrs, it is not so much their real history, as the legends, either manifestly false or suspected, as recounted by the Bollandisti, that will throw light upon the subject.

[60] See Vasari in the life of Spinello Aretino: "Simone Cini, a Florentine, carved it, it was gilt by Gabriello Saracini, and Spinello di Luca of Arezzo, painted it in the year 1385." A similar signature may be seen in Pittura Veneziana, page 15.

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

EPOCH I.

Florentine Painters who lived after Giotto to the end of the fifteenth century.

SECT. II.

It is worthy of remark, that Vasari, in the life of Jacopo di Casentino, quotes the manuscript records of the society of St. Luke, afterwards printed by Baldinucci, and mentions fourteen painters who were formerly its captains, counsellors, or chamberlains; yet he takes no notice of them in his Lives, and of but very few of the great number named in that manuscript. The same selection was employed by Baldinucci, in whose Veglia we are informed that many painters flourished about 1300, the names of whom he has refused to insert in his anecdotes. It clearly appears from his writings that he omitted about a hundred, all belonging to that age.[61] It is therefore incorrect to say, that those two historians have commemorated many artists of mediocrity, merely because they were natives of Florence, an accusation alleged against them by foreigners. The artists of their country whom they have transmitted to posterity, are not less worthy of record than those ancient ones of Venice, of Bologna, and of Lombardy, whom we are accustomed to praise in their respective schools. Among this number I include Buffalmacco, the wit whose jests, as recorded in Boccaccio and Sacchetti, render him more celebrated than his pictures. His real name was Buonamico di Cristofano. He had been the scholar of Tafi, but by living long in the time of Giotto, he had an opportunity of correcting his own style. He displayed a most lively fancy, "and when he chose to exert himself (which rarely happened) was not inferior to any of his contemporaries."[62] It is unfortunate that his best works, which were in the Abbey and in Ognisanti, have perished, and there only remain some less carefully executed at Arezzo and at Pisa. The best preserved are in the Campo Santo; viz. the Creation of the World, in which there is a figure of the Deity, five cubits high, sustaining the mighty frame of the heavens and the elements, and three other historical pictures of Adam, of his children, and of Noah. A crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Redeemer, may be seen at the same place. Good symmetry is not to be looked for in them; he knew but little of design, and he drew his figures by other rules than the roundness and facility seen in the disciples of Giotto. His heads are deficient in beauty and variety. The pious women near the cross all have the same mean and vulgar features, in which the mouths are opened even to deformity. Some of the heads of the men, especially that of Cain, possess, however, a physiognomical expression which arrests the eye of the spectator. The air of nature too in the action, as in the man, who, full of horror, flies from Mount Calvary, is highly praiseworthy. His draperies are greatly varied, are distinguished by the difference of stuffs and linings, and are laboriously ornamented with flowers and with fringes. Before he was employed in the Campo Santo, he painted in the church of St. Paul, Ripa d'Arno, where he was associated with one Bruno di Giovanni, formerly his fellow student, and believed to be the painter of a St. Ursula in a piece which still exists in the Commenda. Unable to attain the expression of Buffalmacco, he tried to atone for the defect by the aid of sentences proceeding from the mouths of his figures, which expressed what their features and attitudes were incapable of explaining, a practice in which he was preceded by Cimabue, and followed by the eccentric Orcagna and several others. This Bruno, together with Nello di Dino, was associated with Buffalmacco in the jests contrived for the simple Calandrino. They all owe their fame to Boccaccio, who introduces them in the eighth day of his Decamerone; and a similar favour was conferred by Sacchetti on a Bartolo Gioggi, a house-painter, whom he introduced into his one hundred and seventieth tale. Giovanni da Ponte, the scholar of Buffalmacco, had some merit, but he was not at all solicitous to increase it by his diligence. Some remains of his pictures exist on the walls of the church of St. Francis, at Arezzo.

I believe that Bernardo Orcagna, who rivalled the fame of Buffalmacco, proceeded from some old school. He was the son of one Cione, a sculptor, and his brother Jacopo was of the same profession: but the other brother, Andrea, surpassed them all; and in himself so far united the attainments of the three sister arts, that he was by some reckoned second only to Giotto. He is known among architects for having introduced the circular arch instead of the acute, as may be seen in the gallery of the Lanzi, which he built and ornamented with sculpture. Bernardo taught him the principles of painting. They who have represented him as the pupil of Angiol Gaddi, do not appear attentive to dates. In the Strozzi chapel in the church of S. Maria Novella, he and Bernardo painted Paradise, and over against it the Infernal Regions; and in the Campo Santo of Pisa, Death and the Judgment were executed by Andrea, and Hell by Bernardo. The two brothers imitated Dante in the novel representations which they executed at those places; and that style was more happily repeated by Andrea in the church of Santa Croce, where he inserted portraits of his enemies among the damned, and of his friends among the blessed spirits. These pictures are the prototypes of similar pictures preserved in S. Petronio, at Bologna, in the cathedral of Tolentino, in the Badia del Sesto, at Friuli,[63] and some other places, in which hell is distinguished by abysses and a variety of torments, after the manner of Dante. Several pictures by Andrea remain, and his name is still on that in the Strozzi chapel, which is full of figures and of episodes. On the whole, he discovers fertility of imagination, diligence, and spirit, equal to any of his contemporaries. In composition he was less judicious, in attitudes less exact, than the followers of Giotto; and he yields to them in drawing and in colouring.

The same school produced Marinotto, a nephew of Andrea, and a Tommaso di Marco, whom I pass over, as well as others of little note, no longer known by existing works. Bernardo Nello di Gio. Falconi of Pisa merits consideration. He executed many pictures in that cathedral, and is supposed to be the same with that Nello di Vanni, who, with other Pisan artists, painted in the Campo Santo in the fourteenth century. Francesco Traini, a Florentine, is known as much superior to his master, by a large picture which is in the church of S. Catherine of Pisa, in which he has represented St. Thomas Aquinas in his own form, and also in his beatification. He stands in the middle of the picture, under the Redeemer, who sheds a glory on the Evangelists and him; and from them the rays are scattered on a crowd of listeners, composed of clergy, doctors, bishops, cardinals, and popes. Arius and other innovators are at the feet of the saint, as if vanquished by his doctrine; and near him appear Plato and Aristotle, with their volumes open, a circumstance not to be commended in such a subject. This work exhibits no skill in grouping, no knowledge of relief, and it abounds in attitudes which are either too tame, or too constrained; and yet it pleases by a marked expression in the countenances, an air of the antique in the draperies, and a certain novelty in the composition. Let us now pass on to the followers of Giotto.

The scholars of Giotto have fallen into an error common to the followers of all illustrious men; in despairing to surpass, they have only aspired to imitate him with facility. On this account the art did not advance so quickly as it might otherwise have done, among the Florentine and other artists of the fourteenth century, who flourished after Giotto. In the several cities abovementioned, Giotto invariably appears superior when seen in the vicinity of such painters as Cavallini, or Gaddi; and whoever is acquainted with his style, stands in no need of a prolix account of that of his followers, which, with a general resemblance to him, is less grand and less agreeable. Stefano Fiorentino alone is a superior genius in the opinion of Vasari, according to whose account he greatly excelled Giotto in every department of painting. He was the son of Catherine, a daughter of Giotto, and possessed a genius for penetrating into the difficulties of the art, and an insuperable desire of conquering them. He first introduced foreshortenings into painting, and if in this he did not attain his object, he greatly improved the perspective of buildings, the attitudes, and the variety and expression of the heads. According to Landino he was called the Ape of Nature, an eulogy of a rude age; since such animals, in imitating the works of man, always debase them: but Stefano endeavoured to equal and to embellish those of nature. The most celebrated of his pictures which were in the Ara Cœli at Rome, in the church of S. Spirito at Florence, and in other places, have all perished. As far as I know, his country does not possess one of his undoubted pictures; unless we mention as such, that of the Saviour in the Campo Santo of Pisa, which, indeed, is in a greater manner than the works of this master, but it has been retouched. A Pietà, by his son and disciple Tommaso, as is believed by some, exists in S. Remigi at Florence, which strongly partakes of the manner of Giotto; like his frescos at Assisi. He deserved the name of Giottino, given him by his fellow citizens, who used to say that the soul of Giotto had transmigrated, and animated him. Baldinucci alleges that there was another of the same name, who should not be confounded with him, and quotes the following inscription from a picture in the Villa Tolomei, "Dipinse Tommaso di Stefano Fortunatino de' Gucci Tolomei." But Cinelli, the strenuous opponent of Baldinucci, attributes it, perhaps justly, to Giottino. This artist left behind him one Lippo, sufficiently commended by Vasari, but who rather seems to have been an imitator than a scholar. Giovanni Tossicani of Arezzo, was a disciple of Giottino, employed in Pisa and over all Tuscany. He painted the St. Philip and St. James, which still remain on the baptismal font in Arezzo, and were repaired by Vasari while a young man, who acknowledges that he learned much from this work, injured as it was. With him perished the best branch of the stock of Giotto.

Taddeo Gaddi may be considered as the Giulio Romano of Giotto, his most intimate and highly favoured pupil. Vasari, who saw his frescos and easel pictures at Florence, in good preservation, prefers him to his master, in colouring and in delicacy; but the lapse of time at this day forbids our deciding this point, although several of his pictures remain, especially in the church of Santa Croce, which are scriptural histories, much in the manner of Giotto. He discovered more originality in the chapter house of the Spagnuoli, where he worked in competition with Memmi.[64] He painted some of the acts of the Redeemer on the ceiling, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the refectory, which is among the finest specimens of art in the fourteenth century. On one of the walls he painted the Sciences, and under each some one of its celebrated professors; and demonstrated his excellence in this species of allegorical painting, which approaches so nearly to poetry. The brilliance and clearness of his tints are chiefly conspicuous in that chapter house. The royal gallery contains the taking down of Christ, the work of his hands, which was formerly at Orsanmichele, and by some ascribed to Buffalmacco, merely because it was unascertained. Taddeo flourished beyond the term assigned him by Vasari, and outlived most of those already named. This may be collected from Franco Sacchetti, a contemporary writer, who relates in his 136th Tale, that Andrea Orcagna proposed as a question, "who was the greatest master, setting Giotto out of the question?" Some answered Cimabue, others Stefano, some Bernardo, and some Buffalmacco. Taddeo Gaddi, who was in the company, said, "truly these were very able painters, but the art is decaying every day, &c." He is mentioned up to 1352, and he might possibly survive several years.

He left at his death several disciples, who became eminent teachers of painting in Florence, and other places. D. Lorenzo Camaldolese is mentioned with honour. He instructed pupils in the art; and several old pictures by him and his scholars are in the monastery of the Angeli. At that time the fraternity of Camaldulites furnished some miniature painters, one of whom, named D. Silvestro, ornamented missals, which still exist, and are amongst the best that Italy possesses. The most favoured pupils of Taddeo were Giovanni da Milano, whom I shall notice in the school of Lombardy, and Jacopo di Casentino, who also will find a place there, together with his imitators. To these two he recommended on his death-bed his two sons and disciples: Giovanni, who died prematurely, with a reputation for genius; and Angiolo, who being then very young, most needed a protector. The latter died, according to Vasari, at 63 years of age; in 1589, according to the date of Baldinucci. He did not improve the art in proportion to his abilities, but contented himself with imitating Giotto and his father, in which he was astonishingly successful. The church of S. Pancrazio possessed one picture by him, containing several saints, and some histories from the Gospel, which may still be seen in the monastery, divided into several pieces, and coloured in a taste superior to what was then usual. There is another in the same style in the sacristy of the Conventual friars, by whom he was employed in the choir of the church, to paint in fresco the story of the recovery of the Cross, and its transportation in the time of Heraclius; a work inferior to the others, because much larger, and to him somewhat new. He afterwards lived at Venice, as a merchant rather than as a painter; and Baldinucci, who seizes every opportunity of supporting his hypothesis, says, that if he was not the founder of that school, he, at least, improved it. But I shall demonstrate, in the proper place, that the Venetian school was advancing to a modern style, before Angiolo could have taught in that place; and in the many old pictures I saw at Venice, I was unable to recal to mind the delicate style of Angiolo. The Venetians owe to him the education of Stefano da Verona, whom I shall consider in the second volume; and he gave the Florentines Cennino Cennini, praised by Vasari as a colourist, of whom as a writer I shall soon make mention.

In the school of Angiolo Gaddi we may reckon Antonio Veneziano, concerning whom Vasari and Baldinucci disagree. The former makes him a Venetian, "who came to Florence to learn painting of Agnolo Gaddi:" the latter, a systematic writer, as we have seen, asserts that he was born in Florence, and that he obtained the surname of Veneziano, from his residence and many labours in Venice, on the authority of certain memoirs in the Strozzi library, which were, perhaps, doubted by himself; for had they been of high authority, he would not have omitted to proclaim their antiquity. However this may be, each of them is a little inconsistent with himself. As they assert that Antonio died of the plague in 1384, or, according to the correction of their annotators, in 1383, at the age of 74, it follows that he was born many years before Gaddi, whose disciple, therefore, we cannot easily suppose him. It is likewise rendered doubtful by his design in the legends of S. Ranieri,[65] which remain in the Campo Santo of Pisa, where there is a certain facility, care, and caprice in the composition, that savour of another school. Vasari, moreover, notices a method of painting in fresco, without ever re-touching it when dry, that would seem to have been introduced from other parts, different from what was employed by the Tuscan artists, his competitors, whose paintings, in the time of the historian, were not in as good a state of preservation as those of Antonio. In the same place he deposited his portrait, which the describers of the ducal gallery at Florence pretend still to find in the chamber of celebrated artists. This portrait is, however, painted in a manner so modern, that I cannot believe it the work of a painter so ancient. On this occasion I must observe that there was another Antonio Veneziano, whom this picture probably represents, and who, about the year 1500, painted, at Osimo, a picture of St. Francis, in the manner of that age, and inscribed it with his name. I learned this from the accomplished Sig. Cav. Aqua, who added, that this name had been erased, and that of Pietro Perugino inserted, who certainly gains no very great honour by such substitution.

We learn from history[66] that Antonio educated in Paolo Uccello, a great artist in perspective; and in Gherardo Starnina, a master in the gay style, of whom there are yet some remnants, in a chapel of the church of Santa Croce. They are among the last efforts of the school of Giotto, which succeeding artists abandoned, to adopt a better manner. One exception occurs in Antonio Vite, who executed some works in the old style, in Pistoia, his native city, and in Pisa. I may here observe, that Starnina and Dello Fiorentino shortly after introduced the new Italian manner in the court of Spain, and returned to Florence with honour and with affluence. The first remained to enjoy them in his native country, until the time of his death: the latter returned back to increase them; and, according to Vasari, he left no public work in Florence, except an historic design of Isaac, in green earth, in a cloister of the church of S. Maria Novella: perhaps he ought to have said, that he left various works, for several are there visible, all in the same taste, and so rude, as to induce us to reckon him rather a follower of Buffalmacco than of Giotto. But he excelled in small pieces; and there was none then living who could more elegantly ornament cabinets, coffers, the backs of couches, or other household furniture, with subjects from history and fable.

Among the disciples of Taddeo Gaddi I have named Jacopo del Casentino, of whom there are some remains in the church of Orsanmichele. Jacopo taught Spinello Aretino, a man of a most lively fancy, as may be gathered from some of his pictures in Arezzo, no less than from his life. He painted also at Florence, and was one of those who had the honour of ornamenting the Campo Santo of Pisa with historical paintings. His pictures of the martyrs S. Petito and S. Epiro, are noticed by Vasari as his best performances. He was, however, inferior to his competitors by the meanness of his design, and the style of his colouring, in which green and black are predominant, without being sufficiently relieved by other colours. The fall of the angels still remains in S. Angelo at Arezzo, in which Lucifer is represented so terrible, that it afterwards haunted the dreams of the artist, and, deranging both his mind and body, hastened his death. Bernardo Daddi was his scholar; a man less known in his own country than at Florence, where he executed a picture, seen on the gate of San Giorgio (See Moreni, lib. v. p. 5.); as was also Parri, the son of Spinello, who modernised his style somewhat on the manner of Masolino. The latter excelled in the art of colouring, but he was barbarous in the drawing of his figures, which he made extravagantly long and bending, in order, as he was used to say, to give them greater spirit. One may see some remains of them at Arezzo in S. Domenico, and other places. Lorenzo di Bicci of Florence, another scholar of Spinello, was the Vasari of his time, for the multiplicity, celerity, and easy self-complacency, shewn in his labours. The first cloister of the church of S. Croce retains several specimens, consisting of the legends of S. Francis; and there is an Assumption on the front, in which he was assisted by Donatello, while still a young man. Perhaps his best work is the fresco, ornamenting the sanctuary of S. Maria Nuova, built by Martin V. about the year 1418. His son Neri is reckoned among the last followers of Giotto. He lived but a short time; he left, in S. Romolo, a picture which would not have disgraced his father, and which is certainly more carefully executed than was usual with the latter.

During the fourteenth century, sculpture was cultivated at Pisa by as many artists as painting was at Florence; but Pisa was not on that account destitute of painters worthy of being recorded. Vasari mentions one Vicino, who finished the mosaic begun by Turrita, assisted by Tafi and Gaddi, and adds, that he was also a painter. Sig. da Morrona says, that he retained the old style of his school; which was the case with many others, as appears from several old Madonnas upon panels, both of anonymous and of ascertained painters. Of this sort is that in the old church of Tripalle, and that at S. Matthew's in Pisa. On the first is this inscription, Nerus Nellus de Pisa me pinxit, 1299: on the second we read, Jacopo di Nicola dipintore detto Gera mi dipinse. The mode of expression is derived from the μ'εποιησε of the Greeks; to which the old Pisans closely adhered in their paintings, their sculptures, and their bronzes.[67] Like the other Italians they at length reformed their style, and there, as well as at Florence and Siena, families of painters arose, in which the fathers were excelled by their sons, and they by their children. Thus, from Vanni, who flourished in 1300, sprung Turino di Vanni, who flourished about 1343, and Nello di Vanni, who painted in the Campo Santo, whose son Bernardo was the disciple of Orcagna, and furnished many pictures for the palace of the primate. There was also in that city one Andrea di Lippo, who is noticed in the Academical Discourse on the literary history of Pisa, in the year 1336; the same, I believe, with that Andrea da Pisa, mentioned among the artists that ornamented the cathedral of Orvieto in 1346. A work by one Giovanni di Niccolo remains in the monastery of S. Martha, and, perhaps, he painted the fine trittico of the Zelada museum at Rome, which represents our Saviour with S. Stephen, S. Agatha, and other saints, and which has this inscription, Jo. de Pisis pinxit. This is a picture of great labour, by some ascribed to Gio. Balducci; which, if it was ascertained, would confer honour on that great man, as a professor of the three sister arts. Towards the end of the century the power of the Pisans declined, rather from civil discord than from other misfortunes; till at length the city fell into the hands of the Florentines in 1406, and lay for a long time prostrate and humbled, deprived, not only of her artists, but almost of her citizens; and fully glutted the ancient hatred of her hostile neighbours. She at length rose again, not, indeed, to command, but to more dignified subjection.

The spirit of the Florentines in the mean time increasing with their power, they became chiefly solicitous to suit the magnificence of their capital to the grandeur of the state. Cosmo, at once the father of his country and of men of genius, gave stability to public affairs. Lorenzo the Magnificent, and others of the house of Medici, followed, whose hereditary taste for literature and the fine arts is celebrated in a multitude of books, and most copiously in the histories written by three eminent authors, Monsignor Fabroni, the Signor Ab. Galluzzi, and Mr. Roscoe. Their house was at once a lyceum for philosophers, an arcadia for poets, and an academy for artists. Dello, Paolo, Masaccio, the two Peselli, both the Lippi, Benozzo, Sandro, the Ghirlandai, enjoyed the perpetual patronage of this family, and as constantly rendered it whatever honour they could bestow. Their pictures are full of portraits, according to the custom of the times, and continually presented to the people the likenesses of the Medici, and often represented them with regal ornaments in their pictures of the Epiphany, as if gradually to prepare the people to behold the sceptre and royal robe securely established in that house. The good taste of the Medici was seconded by that of other citizens, who were then distributed into various corporations, according to their place of residence and profession, each of which strove with reciprocal emulation to decorate their houses and their churches. Besides the desire of public ornament, they were animated by religion, which, in what relates to divine worship, is so widely spread, not only among the great, but also among the lower orders of people, that those have a difficulty in believing who have not beheld it. Their cathedral, a vast fabric, was already reared for the ceremonies of religion, and here and there some other churches arose; these and the more ancient, in emulation of each other, they adorned with paintings, a luxury unknown to their ancestors, and less common in the other cities of Italy. This disposition gave rise, after the conclusion of the century, to that prodigious number of painters already mentioned; and hence sprang, in the century we now treat of, that crowd of artists in marble, bronze, and silver, who transferred pre-eminence in sculpture, the ancient inheritance of the Pisans, to the people of Florence. The Florentines were desirous of ornamenting the new cathedral and baptistery, the church of Orsanmichele, and other sacred places, with statues and basso-relievos. These brought forward Donatello, Brunelleschi, Ghiberti, Filarete, Rossellini, Pollajuoli, and Verrocchio, and produced those noble works in marble, in bronze, and in silver, which sometimes appear to have attained the perfection of the art, and to have rivalled the ancients. The rising generation was instructed in design by those celebrated men, and the universality of the principles they taught, made the transition from one art to another easy. The same individuals were often statuaries, founders in bronze, in gold, lapidaries, painters, or architects, talents that appear enviable to this age, in which an artist with difficulty acquires a competent knowledge in a single art. Such was the course of instruction at Florence in the Studies, and such the subsequent encouragement without, from which it will not appear wonderful to the reader that this city was the foremost to attain the perfection of the art. But let us trace the steps by which it advanced in Florence, and in the rest of Italy.

The followers of Giotto had now carried painting beyond the period of its infancy, but it continued to give proofs of its infant faculties, especially in chiaroscuro, and still more in perspective. Figures sometimes appeared as if falling or slipping from the canvass; buildings had not a true point of view; and the art of foreshortening was yet very rude. Stefano Fiorentino perceived rather than removed the difficulty; others for the most part sought either to avoid or to compensate for the deficiency. Pietro della Francesca, whom we have elsewhere noticed, appears to have been the first who revived the Grecian practice of rendering geometry subservient to the painter. He is celebrated by Pascoli,[68] and by authors of greater note, as the father of perspective. Brunelleschi was the first Florentine who saw the method of bringing it to perfection, "which consisted in drawing it in outline by the help of intersections;"[69] and in this manner he drew the square of St. John, and other places, with true diminution and with receding points. He was imitated in mosaic by Benedetto da Maiano, and in painting by Masaccio, to both of whom he was master. About the same period Paolo Uccello, having studied under Gio. Manetti, a celebrated mathematician, applied to it with assiduity; and even so dedicated himself to the pursuit, that in labouring to excel in this, he never acquired celebrity in the other branches of painting. He delighted in it far beyond his other studies, and used to say that perspective was the most pleasant of all; so true is it that novelty is a great source of enjoyment. He executed no work that did not reflect some new light on that art, whether it consisted of edifices and colonnades, in which a great space was represented in a small compass, or of figures foreshortened with a skill unknown to the followers of Giotto. Some of his historic pictures of Adam, and of Noah, in which he indulged in his favourite taste for the novel and whimsical, remain in the cloisters of S. Maria Novella; and there are also landscapes with trees and animals so well executed, that he might be called the Bassano of the first age. He particularly delighted to have birds in his house, from which he drew, and from thence he obtained his surname of Uccello. In the cathedral there is a gigantic portrait of Gio. Aguto on horseback, painted by Paolo in green earth. This was, perhaps, the first attempt made in painting, which achieved a great deal without appearing too daring. He produced other specimens at Padua, where he delineated some figures of giants with green earth in the house of the Vitali. He was chiefly employed in ornamenting furniture for private individuals; the triumphs of Petrarch in the royal gallery, painted on small cabinets are supposed by some good judges to be his.

Masolino da Panicale cultivated the art of chiaroscuro. I believe he derived advantage from having long dedicated his attention to modelling and sculpture, a practice which renders relief easy to the painter, beyond what is generally conceived. Ghiberti had been his master in this branch, who at this time was unrivalled in design, in composition, and in giving animation to his figures. Colouring, which he yet wanted, was taught him by Starnina, and in this also he became a very celebrated master. Thus uniting in himself the excellences of two schools, he produced a new style, not indeed exempt from dryness, nor wholly faultless; but grand, determined, and harmonious, beyond any former example. The chapel of St. Peter al Carmine, is a remaining monument of this artist. He there painted the Evangelists, and some acts of the Saint, as his vocation to the apostleship, the tempest, the denying of Christ, the miracle performed at Porta Speciosa, and the Preaching. He was prevented by death from representing other acts of St. Peter, as for instance, the tribute paid to Cæsar, baptism conferred on the multitude, the healing of the sick, which several years afterwards were painted by his scholar Maso di S. Giovanni, a youth who obtained the surname of Masaccio, from trusting to a precarious subsistence, and living, as it was said, by chance, while deeply engrossed with the studies of his profession. This artist was a genius calculated to mark an era in painting; and Mengs has assigned him the highest place among those who explored its untried recesses. Vasari informs us that "what was executed before his time might be called paintings, but that his pictures seem to live, they are so true and natural;" and in another place adds, that "no master of that age so nearly approached the moderns." He had formed the principles of his art on the works of Ghiberti and Donatello; perspective he acquired from Brunelleschi, and on going to Rome it cannot be doubted that he improved by the study of ancient sculpture. He there met with two senior artists, Gentile da Fabriano, and Vittore Pisanello, upon whom high encomiums, as the first painter of his time, may be seen in Maffei and elsewhere.[70] They who write thus had either not seen any of the paintings of Masaccio, or at most only his early productions; such as the S. Anna in the church of S. Ambrose in Florence, or the chapel of S. Catherine in S. Clement's at Rome, in which, while still young, he executed some pictures of the passion of Christ, and legends of S. Anna, to which may be added a ceiling containing the Evangelists, which are all that now remain free from retouching. This work is excellent for that time, but some doubt whether it ought to be ascribed to him; and it is inferior to his painting in the Carmine, of which we may say with Pliny, jam perfecta sunt omnia. The positions and foreshortenings of the figures are diversified and complete beyond those practised by Paolo Uccello. The air of the heads, says Mengs, is in the style of Raffaello; the expression is so managed that the mind seems no less forcibly depicted than the body. The anatomy of the figure is marked with truth and judgment. That figure, so highly extolled in the baptism of S. Peter, which appears shivering with cold, marks, as it were, an era in the art. The garments, divested of minuteness, present a few easy folds. The colouring is true, properly varied, delicate, and surprisingly harmonious; the relief is in the grandest style. This chapel was not finished by him. He died in 1443, not without suspicion of poison, and left it still deficient in several pictures, which, after many years were supplied by the younger Lippi. It became the school of all the best Florentine artists whom we shall have occasion to notice in this and the succeeding epoch, of Pietro Perugino, and even of Raffaello; and it is a curious circumstance, that in the course of many years, in a city fruitful in genius, ever bent on the promotion of the art, no one in following the footsteps of Masaccio attained that eminence which he acquired without a director. Time has defaced other works of his hand at Florence, equally commended, and especially the sanctuary of the church del Carmine, of which there is a drawing in the possession of the learned P. Lettor Fontana Barnabita in Pavia. The royal gallery has very few of his works. The portrait of a young man, that seems to breathe, and is estimated at a high price, is in the Pitti collection.

After Masaccio, two monks distinguished themselves in the Florentine school. The first was a Dominican friar named F. Giovanni da Fiesole, or B. Giovanni Angelico. His first employment was that of ornamenting books with miniatures, an art he learned from an elder brother, who executed miniatures and other paintings. It is said that he studied in the chapel of Masaccio, but it is not easy to credit this when we consider their ages. Their style too betrays a different origin. The works of the friar discover some traces of the manner of Giotto, in the posture of the figures and the compensation for deficiencies in the art, not to mention the drapery which is often folded in long tube-like forms, and the exquisite diligence in minute particulars common to miniature painters. Nor did he depart much from this method in the greatest part of his works, which chiefly consist of scripture pieces of our Saviour, or the Virgin, in cabinet pictures not unfrequently to be met with in Florence. The royal gallery possesses several; the most brilliant and highly finished of which, is the birth of John the Baptist. The Glory,[71] which is in the church of S. Mary Magdalen de' Pazzi, from its great size, is among his rarest productions; and it also ranks with the most beautiful. His chief excellence consists in the beauty that adorns the countenances of his saints and angels; and he is truly the Guido of the age, for the sweetness of his colours, which, though in water, he diluted and blended in a manner which almost reaches perfection. He was also esteemed one of the best of his age in works executed in fresco; and he was employed in the decoration of the cathedral of Orvieto, as well as the palace of the Vatican itself, where he painted a chapel—a work much commended by a number of writers. Vasari enumerates Gentile da Fabriano among his disciples, but the dates render this impossible; and says the same of Zanobi Strozzi, a man of noble origin, of whom I do not know that any certain picture exists in a public collection: I only know that, treading in the steps of his master, he surpassed the reputation of a mere amateur. Benozzo Gozzoli, another of his disciples, and an imitator of Masaccio, raised himself far above the majority of his contemporaries.

In a few points he even surpassed his model, as in the stupendous size of his edifices, in the amenity of his landscapes, and in the brilliancy of his fancy, truly lively, agreeable, and picturesque. In the Riccardi palace, once a royal residence, there is a chapel in good preservation, where he executed a Glory, a Nativity, and an Epiphany. He there painted with a profusion of gold and of drapery, unexampled, perhaps, in fresco; and with an adherence to nature that exhibits an image of that age in the portraits, the garments, the accoutrements of the horses, and in the most minute particulars. He long resided at Pisa, and died there, where he ought to be studied; for his compositions in that place are better than those at Florence, and he was there also more sparing in the use of gold. The portrait of S. Thomas Aquinas is highly spoken of by Vasari and Richardson; but they especially notice the pictures from scripture history, with which he ornamented a whole wing of the Campo Santo, "a most prodigious work, sufficient to appal a legion of painters;"[72] and he finished it within two years. Here he displayed a talent for composition, an imitation of nature, a variety in the countenances and attitudes, a colouring juicy, lively, and clear, and an expression of the passions that places him next to Masaccio. I can scarcely believe that he painted the whole. In the Ebriety of Noah, in the Tower of Babel, and in some other pictures, we discern an attempt at surprising, not to be seen in some others, where figures sometimes occur that seem dry and laboured; defects which I am disposed rather to attribute to his coadjutors. Near this great work a monument is erected to his memory by a grateful city, in the public name, with an epitaph that commends him as a painter. Time itself, as if conscious of his merit, has respected this work beyond any other in the Campo Santo.

The other monk was Filippo Lippi, a Carmelite, a genius of a different stamp from B. Giovanni. He received his instruction, not from Masaccio, as Vasari would have it, but from his works. His assiduity in copying him, makes him sometimes appear a second Masaccio, especially in small histories. Some of his choicest are in the sacristy of the church of S. Spirito. In that place, in the Church of S. Ambrose, and elsewhere, his pictures represent the Virgin surrounded by angels, with full and handsome countenances, distinguished by a colouring and a gracefulness peculiarly his own. He delighted in drapery like the neat folds of a surplice; his tints were very clear but delicate, and often subdued by a purple hue not common to other painters. He introduced gigantic proportions in his large frescos in the parish church of Prato; where his pictures of S. Stephen and the Baptist were, in the opinion of Vasari, his capital performances. His forsaking the convent, his slavery in Barbary, his works at Naples, at Padua, and elsewhere, his death, hastened by poison, administered by the relations of a young lady who had borne him a natural child, likewise named Filippo Lippi, are recorded by Vasari. P. della Valle is of opinion that he never professed any order, but in the register of Carmine, his death is noticed in the year 1469, and he is there denominated Fra Filippo. He died at Spoleti when he had nearly completed his large picture for the cathedral. Lorenzo the Magnificent requested his ashes from the townsmen, but was refused; on which he caused a handsome monument to be erected for him, with an inscription by Angelo Poliziano; a circumstance I mention, to demonstrate the respect paid to the art at that period. F. Diamante da Prato, the scholar of Lippi, and his assistant in his last work, imitated him well; as likewise did Francesco Pesello, a Florentine of the same school; his son Pesellino, a short lived artist, followed him with still greater success. The Epiphany of Francesco, described by Vasari, in which there is a portrait of Donato Acciaiuoli, is in the royal gallery. The grado, painted by his son for the apartments of the novices of S. Croce, is there still: on this last are the histories of S. Cosma and S. Damian, of S. Anthony, and S. Francis, denominated by the historian most wonderful productions, and, perhaps, this is not too much to say when we recollect the period.

About this time other able artists flourished at Florence, who were obscured by greater names. Of this number was Berto Linaiuolo, whose pictures in private houses were, for a long time, held in great repute. They were even ordered by the King of Hungary, and procured him great fame in that kingdom. Alessio Baldovinetti, of noble extraction, was a painter particularly diligent and minute, a good worker in mosaic, and the master of Ghirlandaio. In his picture of the Nativity in the porch of the Nunziata, and in his other works, the design, rather than the colouring, may now be said to remain; for the tints have vanished, from a defect in their composition. To them we may add Verrocchio, a celebrated statuary, a good designer, and a painter for amusement rather than by profession. While he painted the Baptism of Christ at S. Salvi, his scholar, L. da Vinci, then a youth, finished an angel, in a manner superior to the figures of his master, who, indignant at his own inferiority to a boy, never more handled the pencil.

Baldinucci imagines that Andrea del Castagno, a name infamous in history, was a scholar of Masaccio: he was rather his imitator, in attitude, relief, and casting of the drapery, than in grace and colouring. He lived at the time that the secret of painting in oil (discovered by John Van Eych, or John of Bruges, about 1410),[73] was known in Italy, not only by report, but by experience of the advantages of this method. Our artists, admiring the harmony, delicacy, and brilliance, which colours received from this discovery, sighed to possess the secret. For this purpose, one Antonello da Messina, who had studied at Rome, travelled to Flanders, and having learned the secret, according to Vasari, from the inventor, went to Venice, where he communicated it to a friend named Domenico. After having practised much in his own country, at Loreto,[74] and other parts of the ecclesiastical states, Domenico came to Florence. There he became the general favourite, and on that account was envied by Castagna, whose dissembled friendship won him to impart the secret, and rewarded him by an atrocious assassination, which he perpetrated, in order that there might be none living to rival him in the art. The assassin was sufficiently skilful to conceal his crime, owing to which a number of innocent persons soon fell under suspicion, which did not induce the real criminal to avow the atrocious deed, until he lay upon his death-bed, when he disclosed his guilt and did justice to the innocence of others. He had the reputation of being the first artist of his time, for vigour, for design, and for perspective, having perfected the art of foreshortening. His finest works have perished: one of his pictures remains at S. Lucia de' Magnuoli, and also some of his historic pieces, executed with great diligence. There is also a Crucifixion, painted on a wall in the monastery of the Angeli.

Many writers have appeared who deny the abovementioned statement of Vasari, and maintain that the art of painting in oil was known long before. It is pretended that it existed in the time of the Romans, an opinion that is adopted by Sig. Ranza, in regard to a picture said to be of S. Helena, consisting of a quilting of different pieces of silk stitched together, exhibiting a picture of the Virgin Saint with the Infant. The heads and hands are coloured in oils; the drapery is shaded with the needle, and in a great measure with the pencil. It is preserved in Vercelli, and from the tradition of its citizens reported by Mabillon (Diar. Ital. Cap. 28), it is said to be the work of S. Helena, mother of Constantine; that is, the patches of silk were sewed by her, and the gilding and painting added to it by her painter, as is conjectured by Ranza. He was not aware that the practice of drawing the Infant Christ in the lap of the Virgin (as we notice in the preface to the Roman school), was posterior to the fourth century; and that other particulars related by him of the picture cannot belong to the age of Constantine; for instance, the hooded mantle of our Lady. From such signs we ought rather to conclude that it is either not an oil painting, or that the figure, at whatever period executed, has been retouched in the same way as that of the Nunziata at Florence, or of the Santa Maria Primerana at Fiesole; the former of which in the drapery, and the latter in the lineaments, are not the same now as in their ancient state.

Others, without ascending to the first ages of the church, have asserted that oil painting was known out of Italy, at least as early as the eleventh century. As a proof of this, they adduce a manuscript of the Monk Teofilo or Ruggiero, no later back than that period, which bears title, "De omni scientiâ artis pingendi," where there is a receipt for the preparation and use of oil from flax.[75] Lessing gave an account of this manuscript in the year 1774, in a treatise published at Brunswick, where he filled the office of librarian to the Prince. Morelli, also, in the Codici Naniani (cod. 39); and more at length Raspe, in his critical "Dissertation on Oil Painting," published in the English language at London, in which he enumerated the existing copies in various libraries, and gave a great part of the manuscript, entered into an examination of the subject. Lastly, Teofilo's treatise is inserted by Christiano Leist, in Lessing's collection, "Zur Geschichte unde Litteratur." Brusw. 1781. The Dottore Aglietti, in his Giornale Veneto, December, 1793, likewise adds his opinion; while the learned Abbate Morelli, in his "Notizia," which is often cited by me in the emendation and illustration of this edition, throws the greatest light upon the present question, agitated by so many, and, we may add, "rem acu tetigit." He, then, will be found to concede to Giovanni, whom he calls Gianes da Brugia, the boast of this great discovery, agreeing with Vasari, though in a different sense from that in which the latter writer views it. For he does not reply to his opponents, that the art of painting, as taught by Teofilo, might have gone into disuse, and was only revived by Giovanni; whence Vasari ventured to commend him as an original inventor; in the same manner as Tiraboschi replied, who followed the Roman anthologists (St. Lett. t. vi. p. 1202). Neither does he bring forward the defence advanced by the Baron de Budberg in the apology of Gio. da Bruges,[76] to the purport that Teofilo taught the art of painting in oil, only upon a ground, without figures, and without ornaments: because Teofilo, in chap. 22, whose words we have given in the note, likewise taught this art. Into what, then, does the long-boasted invention of Giovanni resolve itself? Nothing more than this: according to the ancient practice, a fresh colour was never added to the panel until the first covering had been dried in the sun: a mode, as Teofilo confesses, infinitely tedious: "quod in imaginibus diuturnum et tædiosum nimis est;" (cap. 23); to which I may add, that the colours in this way could never perfectly harmonize. Van Eych saw this difficulty, and he became more truly sensible of it, from the circumstance of having exposed one of his paintings to the sun, in order to harden, when the excess of heat split the panel. Being at that period sufficiently skilled both in philosophical and philological inquiries, he began to speculate on the manner of applying oils, and of their acquiring a proper consistency without the aid of the sun. "By uniting it with other mixtures he next produced a varnish, which, dried, was water proof, and gave a clearness and brilliancy, while it added to the harmony of his colours." Such are the words of Vasari; and thus, in a very few words, we may arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question. Before the time of Van Eych, some sort of method of painting in oil was known, but so extremely tedious and imperfect, as to be scarcely applicable to the production of figure pieces. It was practised beyond the Alps, but is not known to have been in use in Italy. Giovanni carried the first discovery to its completion; he perfected the art, which was afterwards diffused over all Europe, and introduced into Italy, by means of Antonio, or Antonello da Messina.

Here again we are met by another class of objectors, who enter the lists against Van Eych, against Antonello, and more decidedly against Vasari, not with arguments from books, but in the strength of pictorial skill, and chemical experiments.

Malvasia, upon the authority of Tiarini, maintains, that Lippo Dalmasio painted in oil; the Neapolitans, relying upon Marco da Siena, and other men of skill, assert the same of their artists in the thirteenth century; while a few have pretended that some of the pictures[77] produced in the fourteenth century, to be seen at Siena and Modena, in particular that from the hand of Tommaso da Modena, belonging to the Imperial cabinet, and described by me in the native school of that artist, are also coloured in oil; because, after being exposed to water, and analyzed, the colours discovered their elements, and were pronounced oil. In spite, however, of so much skill, and so many experiments, I cannot see that Vasari has yet been detected in an error. It would not be difficult to oppose other experiments and opinions, that might throw light upon the question. To begin with Tuscany:—an analysis of several Tuscan paintings was made at Pisa by the very able chemist Bianchi; and though apparently coloured in oil, the most lucid parts were found to give out particles of wax; a material employed in the encausti, and not forgotten by the Greeks, who instructed Giunta and his contemporaries. It would appear that they applied it as a varnish, to act as a covering and protection from humidity, as well as to give a lucid hue and polish to the colours. It has been observed, that the proportion of wax employed greatly decreased during the fourteenth century; and after the year 1360 fell into disuse, and was succeeded by a vehicle, that carries no gloss. But in these experiments oil was never elicited, if we except a few drops of essential oil, which the learned professor conjectures was employed at that early period to dissolve the wax made use of in painting.

Besides this material, certain gums, and yolks of eggs, which easily deceive the eye of the less skilful, were also used, and very nearly resemble those pictures that display a scanty portion of oil, as is observed by Zanetti, in his account of Venetian painting (p. 20); and the analysis of Tommaso da Modena's picture has tended to confirm his opinion. This information I owe to the late Count Durazzo, who, in 1793, assured me, when at Venice, that he had himself beheld, at Vienna, the process of analyzing such pictures, by very skilful hands, at the command, and in the presence of Prince Kaunitz; and that it was the unanimous opinion of those professors, that no traces of oil were to be found. The colours consisted of the finest gums, mixed with the yolk and white of eggs, a fact that afforded just ground for a like conclusion in regard to similar works by the ancients. I fully appreciate, likewise, the opinion of Piacenza upon the celebrated picture of Colantonio; this I reserve, however, together with some further reflections of my own, for the school of Naples.

I shall here merely inform the reader, that, in regard to the chemical experiments employed on these paintings, Sig. da Morrona[78] observes, that old pictures are often believed to be in a state of purity, when they have been retouched with oil colours at a subsequent period: the use of wax, and of essential oils, or of some such old methods, may frequently give rise to doubt, as I shall soon shew.

Having removed the objections brought against the opinion of Vasari, I must add a few words in regard to a passage where he seems to have forgotten what he had said in the life of Angiol Gaddi, but which will in fact throw further light upon the question. He is giving an account of the paintings and writings of Andrea Cennini, a scholar of Angelo. This person, in 1437, that is, long before the arrival of Domenico, composed a work on painting, which is preserved in MS. in the library of S. Lorenzo. He there treated, says Vasari, of grinding colours with oil, for making red, blue, and green grounds; and various new methods and sizes for gilding, but not figures. Baldinucci examined the same manuscript, and found these words in the 89th chapter:—"I wish to teach thee how to paint in oil on walls, or on panel, as practised by many Germans;" and on consulting the manuscript, I find, after that passage, "and by the same method on iron and on marble; but I shall first treat of painting on walls." In the succeeding chapters he says, that this must be accomplished "by boiling linseed oil." This appears not to accord with the assertion of Vasari, that John of Bruges, after many experiments, "discovered that linseed oil and nut oil were the most drying. When boiled with his other ingredients they formed the varnish so long sought after by him and all other painters." On weighing the evidence, we should, in my opinion, take three circumstances into consideration: The first is, that Vasari does not deny that oil was employed in painting; since he affirms that it was long a desideratum, and consequently had been often attempted; but that alone is perfect which, "when dry, resists water; which brightens the colours, makes them clear, and perfectly unites them." 2. The oil of Cennini might not be of this sort, either because it was not boiled with the ingredients of Van Eych, or because it was intended only for coarse work; a circumstance rendered probable by the fact, that though he painted the Virgin, with several Saints, in the hospital of Bonifazio, at Florence, "in a good style of colouring," yet he never excited the admiration nor the envy of artists. 3. The above remarks forbid us to give implicit confidence to every relation that is given of ancient oil pictures; but we are not blindly to reject all accounts of imperfect attempts of that nature. After this digression we return to our narrative.

The painters that remain to be noticed, approach the golden age of the art, of which their works in some degree participate, notwithstanding the dryness of their design, and the general want of harmony in their colouring. The vehicle of their colours was commonly water, very rarely oil. They flourished in the time of Sixtus IV., who, having erected the magnificent chapel that retains his name, invited them from Florence. Their names are Botticelli, Ghirlandaio, Rosselli, Luca da Cortona, and D. Bartolommeo d'Arezzo; whom I shall here introduce, together with their followers. Manni, the historian of some of these artists,[79] conjectures that this work was executed about the year 1474. They were desired to pourtray the history of Moses on one part of the chapel, and that of Christ on the other: thus the old law was confronted by the new, the shade by the light, and the type by the person typified. The pontiff was unskilled in the fine arts, but covetous of the glory they confer on the name and actions of princes. To superintend the work, he made choice of Sandro Filipepi, from his first master, a goldsmith, surnamed Botticelli, and the pupil of F. Filippo; a celebrated artist at that time, and distinguished by his pictures containing a great number of small figures in which he strongly resembled Andrea Mantegna; though his heads were less beautiful. Vasari says, that his little picture of the Calumny of Apelles, is as fine a production as possible, and he pronounces the Assumption, painted for the church of S. Pier Maggiore, to be so excellent, that it ought to silence envy. The former is in the royal gallery, the latter in a private house. What he painted in the Sistine Chapel, however, surpasses all his other works. Here we scarcely recognize Sandro of Florence. The Temptation of Christ, embellished with a magnificent temple, and a crowd of devotees in the vestibule; Moses assisting the daughters of Jethro against the Midianite shepherds, in which there is great richness of drapery, coloured in a new manner; and other subjects, treated with vigour and originality, exhibit him in this place greatly superior to his usual manner. The same observation applies to the painters we are about to notice: such were the effects produced by their emulation; by the sight of a city that is calculated to enlarge the ideas of those who visit it, and by the judgment of a public that is scarcely to be satisfied by what is above mediocrity, because its eye is habituated to what is wonderful.

History does not point out the portion of this work that was performed by Filippino Lippi; the son, as we have already observed, of F. Filippo. It is however highly probable that he assisted; because he was his father's pupil from a very early age, and because the taste of Lippi, that delighted in portraying the usages of antiquity in his pictures, appears to have been formed while he was still young, and engaged in his studies at Rome. In the life which Cellini has written of himself, he tells us that he had seen several books of antiquities drawn by Lippi; and Vasari gives him credit for being the first who decorated modern paintings by the introduction of grotesques, trophies, armour, vases, edifices and drapery, copied from the models of antiquity; but this I cannot confirm, because it was before attempted by Squarcione. It is true that he excelled in those ornaments, in his landscape and in minute particulars. The S. Bernard of the Abbey, the Magi of the royal museum, and the two frescos in S. Maria Novella; the one the history of S. John, the other of S. Philip, the apostles, please more perhaps by these accessaries of the art than by the countenances, which, indeed, have not the beauty and grace of the elder Lippi. They are faithful portraits, but shew no discrimination. He was invited to Rome to ornament a chapel of the Minerva, in which there is an Assumption by his hand, and some histories of Thomas Aquinas, amongst which the Disputation is the best. In this chapel he shews great improvement in his heads, but was nevertheless surpassed in this respect by his pupil Raffaellino del Garbo, who painted a choir of angels on the ceiling, that would alone suffice to justify the name by which he was distinguished. In Monte Oliveto at Florence, there is a Resurrection by Raffaellino, where the figures are small, but so graceful withal, so correct in attitude, and so finely coloured, that we can scarcely rank him inferior to any master of that age. There is mention made by the learned Moreni, in the concluding part of his "Memorie Istoriche," (p. 168) of another of his beautiful altar-pieces, still in existence at S. Salvi, with the grado entire. Some early pictures are in a similar state; but becoming the father of a numerous family, he gradually degenerated in his style, and died in poverty and obscurity.

The second whom I have mentioned among the artists in the Sistine Chapel, is Domenico Corradi, surnamed Del Ghirlandaio, from the profession of his father.[80] He was a painter, an excellent worker in mosaic, and even contributed to the improvement of these arts. He painted in the Sistine Chapel the Resurrection of Christ, which has perished; and the Call of S. Peter and S. Andrew, which still remains. He is that Ghirlandaio, in whose school, or on whose manner, not only Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio, his son, but also Bonarruoti, and the best artists of the succeeding era, formed their style. He possessed clearness and purity of outline, correctness of form, and variety of ideas, together with facility and uncommon diligence; he was the first Florentine, who, by means of true perspective, attained a happy method of grouping, and depth of composition.[81] He was among the first to reject the deep golden fringes to the drapery, that the old masters introduced; who, unable to render their figures beautiful, endeavoured, at least, to make them gaudy. Some of his pictures, however, yet remain, moderately illuminated with gold; as for instance, the Epiphany in the church of the Innocents at Florence. It is a fine work, as is also his chapel in the Holy Trinity, with the actions of S. Francis, and his Nativity, in the sacristy of that church. His most celebrated work is the choir of S. Maria Novella, on one side of which he designed the history of John the Baptist, on the other that of our Lady, and on another part the murder of the Innocents, so much commended by Vasari. It contains a vast many portraits of literary men, and noble citizens, and almost every head is from the life; but they are dignified, and judiciously selected. The hands and feet of the figures, however, do not correspond, and attention to this circumstance is the peculiar merit of Andrea del Sarto, who seems to have carried the manner of Ghirlandaio to perfection. Many works of the latter are scattered over Italy, in Rome, in Rimini, and at Pisa, at the Eremitani di Pietra Santa, and the Camaldolesi of Volterra; where besides the paintings in the refectory, there is in the church a figure of S. Romualdo, carved by Diana of Mantua. The pictures of this master should not be confounded with those of his scholars, as happens in many instances. Thus the holy families painted by his brothers or his scholars, frequently pass for his; but they are very far from meriting the praise we have justly bestowed on him. Davide, one of his brothers, became very eminent in mosaic; another, Benedetto, painted more in France than in Italy; Bastiano Mainardi, their brother-in-law, was rather the assistant of Domenico, than a painter of originality. Baldino Bandinelli, Niccolo Cieco, Jacopo del Tedesco, and Jacopo Indaco, are little known; except that the last is recorded as having assisted with Pinturicchio, at Rome, and was the brother of Francesco, better known as a painter at Montepulciano than in Florence.

Cosimo Rosselli, whose noble family has produced several other artists, also wrought in the Sistine Chapel. Few of his works remain in public places in his own country, besides the miracle of the sacrament in the church of S. Ambrose, a fresco picture, full of portraits; in which we discover variety, character, and truth. Vasari praises his labours at Rome, less than those of his fellow artists. Being unable to rival his competitors in design, he loaded his pictures with brilliant colours and gilded ornaments, which, though it was at that time condemned by an improving taste, yet pleased the pontiff, who commended and rewarded him beyond all the other artists. Perhaps his best work there, is Christ preaching on the mount, in which the landscape is said to be the work of Pier di Cosimo, a painter likewise more remarkable for his colouring than his design; as is evident from a picture in the church of the Innocents, and his Perseus in the royal gallery. They are both, however, celebrated in history; the one as the master of del Porta, the other of Andrea del Sarto.

No other Florentine was employed to paint in the Sistine Chapel; but Piero and Antonio Pollaiuoli, who were both statuaries and painters, came there not long afterwards and wrought in bronze the tomb of Sixtus IV. Some of their paintings may yet be seen in the church of S. Miniato, without the walls of Florence, and the altar-piece was transferred to the royal museum. We may there trace the school of Castagno, the master of Piero, in the harsh features, coloured in a strong and juicy manner. Antonio, the scholar of Piero, became one of the best painters of that age. In the chapel of the Marchesi Pucci, at the church of St. Sebastiano de' Servi, there is a martyrdom of the saint by him, which is one of the best pictures of the fifteenth century I have ever seen. The colouring is not in the best style; but the composition rises above the age in which he lived, and the drawing of the naked figure shews what attention he had bestowed on anatomy. He was the first Italian painter who dissected bodies in order to learn the true situations of the tendons and muscles. Both the Pollaiuoli died at Rome, where their tomb is to be seen in S. Piero in Vincoli, ornamented with a picture, which, according to some, typifies a soul in purgatory, and the efficacy of indulgences to deliver it; but whether it is by them, or of their school, I am unable to determine.

The two following artists were brought to the Sistine Chapel from the Florentine territory, the painters of which I shall now consider after those of the capital. Luca Signorelli, the kinsman of Vasari of Arezzo, and the disciple of Piero della Francesca, was a spirited and expressive painter, and one of the first Tuscan artists who designed figures with a true knowledge of anatomy, though somewhat dryly. The cathedral of Orvieto evinces this; and those naked figures which even Michelangiolo has not disdained to imitate. Although in most of his works we do not discover a proper choice of form, nor a sufficient harmony of colouring in some of them, especially in the communion of the Apostles, painted for the Jesuits in his native city, there is beauty, grace, and tints approaching to modern excellence. He painted in Urbino, at Volterra, Florence, and many other cities. In the Sistine Chapel he painted the Journey of Moses with Sefora, and the Promulgation of the Old Law, paintings full of incident, and superior in composition to the confused style of that age. Vasari and Taia have assigned him the first place in this great assemblage of artists; to me he seems at least to have equalled the best of them, and to have improved on his usual style. He had two countrymen of noble families for pupils; Tommaso Bernabei, who followed him closely, and has left some works in S. M. del Calcinaio, and Turpino Zaccagna, whose style was different, as appears from a picture painted for the Church of S. Agatha in Cantalena near Cortona, in 1537.

Don Bartolommeo della Gatta executed none of his own designs in the Sistine Chapel; he lent assistance to Signorelli and to Perugino. He had been educated in the monastery of the Angeli, at Florence, rather as a painter of miniatures than of history. On being appointed Abbot of S. Clement, in Arezzo, he exercised both; and was also skilled in music and in architecture. There is of his works only a S. Jerome, executed in the chapel of the cathedral, as we find from a MS. guide to the city, and which was transferred into the sacristy in 1794. The abbot instructed Domenico Pecori and Matteo Lappoli, two gentlemen of Arezzo, who improved themselves in the art on other models, especially the first, as is evident from a picture in the parish church, in which the Virgin receives under her mantle the people of Arezzo, who are recommended to her protection by their patron saints. In it are heads in the style of Francia, good architecture, judicious composition, and a moderate use of gold.

Two miniature painters, according to Vasari, learned much from the precepts, or rather from the example of the abbot. These were Girolamo, also named by Ridolfi, as a pupil of the Paduan school, at the same time with Lancilao; and Vante, or as he subscribed himself, Attavante Fiorentino. Two of his letters are inserted in the third volume of the Lettere Pittoriche; and it may be collected from Vasari and Tiraboschi,[82] that Vante ornamented with miniatures many books for Matthias, king of Hungary, which afterwards remained in the Medicean and Estensean libraries. The learned Sig. Ab. Morelli, who has the direction of the library of S. Mark at Venice, shewed me one in that place. It is a work of Marziano Capella, where the subject is poetically expressed by the painter. The assembly of the Gods, the emblems of the arts and sciences, the grotesque ornaments here and there set off with little portraits, discover in Vante a genius that admirably seconded the ideas of the author. The design resembles the best works of Botticelli; the colouring is gay, lively, and brilliant; the excellence of the work ought to confer on the artist greater celebrity than he enjoys. In the life of D. Bartolommeo, Vasari, or his printers, have confounded Attavante with Gherardo, the miniature painter, who at the same time was a worker in mosaic, an engraver in the style of Albert Durer, and a painter; of him there are some remains in each of these arts; but they were certainly different individuals, as is demonstrated by Sig. Piacenza.

Having a little before named Pietro Perugino, who long taught in Tuscany, we may here mention the pupils who retained his manner. These were Rocco Zoppo, whose Madonnas remain in many private houses in Florence, I believe, to this day, and are in the manner of Pietro; Baccio Ubertini, a great colourist, and on that account willingly adopted as an assistant of his master; Francesco, the brother of Baccio, surnamed Bacchiacca, known at S. Lorenzo by the martyrdom of S. Arcadius, executed in small figures, in which, as well as in the grotesque, he was very eminent, and nearly approached the modern style. To these artists who lived in Florence, their native country, we may add Niccolo Soggi, likewise a Florentine, but who, to shun the concourse of more able painters, fixed his residence in Arezzo, where he had sufficient employment. His accuracy, his studious habits, and his high finish, may be there contemplated in the Christ in the Manger, in the church of Madonna delle Lagrime, and in many other places in the city and its environs. It would have been fortunate had he possessed more genius, but this gift of nature, which, to use the words of a poet,[83] confers immortality on books, and I would add pictures, was not granted to Soggi. Vasari has given this character of a diligent, but meagre, and frigid painter, also to Gerino da Pistoia, in which place one of his pictures, now in the royal gallery, was painted for the monks of S. Pier Maggiore; several others are in the city of S. Sepulcro, and some even in Rome, where he assisted Pinturicchio. With the two preceding, I class Montevarchi, a painter so named from his own country, beyond which he is almost unknown. Among these artists, though they were scholars of Pietro, we find imitators of the Florentines of the fourteenth century. I omit the name of Bastiano da S. Gallo, who continued with him only a short time, and left him on account of the aversion he had conceived to the dryness of his style. In the Florentine history, by Varchi (book 10), we find mention of a Vittorio di Buonaccorso Ghiberti, who on occasion of the siege of Florence by the family of the Medici, in 1529, painted the figure of the Pontiff, Clement VII. on the façade of the principal chamber of the Medici, in the last act of hanging from the gallows. But neither of this, nor of any other production from so infamous a hand, do there remain any traces in Florence, at least that I have been able to discover, from which to judge either of the manner or the master of Vittorio.

I close the catalogue of old Tuscan painters with an illustrious native of Lucca, named the elder Zacchia, who was educated at Florence, though not invariably adhering to the taste of that ancient school, either in design, which was his chief excellence, or in an outline somewhat harsh and cutting, which was his greatest defect. He obtained the name of the elder, to distinguish him from another Zacchia, who, on the other hand, shewed more softness of contour, and more strength of colouring, but in design, and in every other respect, was held in less estimation. I know only of one picture by the latter artist, which is in the chapel of the Magistrates; but several altar-pieces by the former, are to be seen in the churches of Lucca, and among them an Assumption in that of S. Augustine; a picture displaying much study and elegance, and among his last works, as I am led to believe by its bearing the date 1527. One of his Madonnas, surrounded by saints, formerly in the parish church of S. Stefano, is now in the house of Sig. March. Jacopo Sardini, which is enriched by other paintings, by a valuable collection of drawings, and still more by the presence of its learned possessor, to whom I am indebted for many notices interspersed throughout this work.

Such was the state of the art in Tuscany, about the beginning of the sixteenth century. Much was then attained, because nature began to be imitated, especially in the heads, to which the artists imparted a vivacity, that even at this day is surprising. On viewing the figures and portraits of those times, they actually appear to look at, and to desire to enter into conversation with the beholder. It still remained, however, to give ideal beauty to the figure, fulness to design, and harmony to colouring, a true method to aerial perspective, variety to composition, and freedom to the pencil, which on the whole was still timid. Every circumstance conspired to this melioration of the art in Florence as well as in other places. The taste for magnificent edifices had revived throughout Italy. Many of the finest churches, many public edifices, and ducal palaces, which still remain at Milan, Mantua, and Venice, in Urbino, Rimini, Pesaro, and Ferrara, were executed about this period; not to mention those buildings in Florence and in Rome, where magnificence contended with elegance. It became necessary to ornament them, and this produced that noble emulation among artists, that grand fermentation of ideas, which invariably advances the progress of art. The study of poetry, so analogous to that of painting, had increased to a degree which conferred on the whole age the epithet of Golden; a name which it certainly did not merit on the score of more severe studies. The design of the artists of that period, though something dry, was yet pure and correct, and afforded the best instruction to the succeeding age. It is very justly observed, that scholars can more easily give a certain fulness to the meagre outline of their models, than curtail the superfluity of a heavy contour. On this account, some professors of the art are inclined to believe, that it would be much more advantageous to habituate students in the beginning, to the precision characteristic of the fifteenth century, than to the exuberance introduced in after-times. Such circumstances produced the happiest era that distinguishes the annals of painting. The schools of Italy, owing to mutual imitation, before that period strongly resembled each other; but having then attained maturity, each began to display a marked and peculiar character.

That of the Florentine school I shall describe in the next Epoch; but I first propose to treat of several other arts analogous to that of painting, and in particular of engraving upon copper, the discovery of which is ascribed to Florence. To this the art is indebted for an accession of new aids; the work of an artist, before confined to a single spot, was diffused through the world, and gratified the eyes of thousands.

[61] "The number of artists of whom, by consulting old authors, I can collect nothing more than the time they lived, their name and occupation, and their death, (I speak of those who lived about the year 1300,) amounts in the city of Florence alone to nearly a hundred, without including those who have been discovered and noticed by some of our antiquarians; and exclusive of those we find mentioned in the old book of the Society of Painters." (See Baldinucci in Notizie del Gioggi.) The Florentine painters of this age, whose names have been produced by the Canon Moreni from the records of the diplomatic archive, may be seen in part the fourth of his Notizie Istoriche, p. 102. Others have been collected and communicated to me by the Abbate Vincenzo Follini, Librarian to the Magliabecchi collection, extracted from various MSS. of the same, besides those from the Novelle Litterarie of Florence, from the Delizie de' Letter. of the P. Ildefonso, C. S. and from the Viaggi of Targioni; works which will always be found to supply the brevity of the present history.

[62] Vasari.

[63] They are believed to be anterior to the year 1300 by the historian of the art of Painting at Friuli; but to this I cannot agree. The pictures bear a very great resemblance to the designs of Orcagna; or rather to the poetry of Dante, who, in the year abovementioned, feigns to have had his vision, and described it in the years immediately succeeding. In confirmation of this opinion, it must be remarked that the style is Florentine, and induces us to suppose that a painter of that school must have been there. See Lettera postuma del P. Cortinovis sopra le Antichità di Sesto, published in the Giornale Veneto, (or Memorie per servire all' Istoria Letter. e Civile) Semestre ii. p. 1. of the year 1800. It was reprinted at Udine in 1801, in octavo, with some excellent notes by the Cav. Antonio Bartolini, who has distinguished himself by other productions connected with bibliography and the fine arts.

[64] Vide Giuseppe Maria Mecatti, who has given an exact description of it.

[65] Vasari is by no means so bitter against the Venetian school as it is wished to make him appear. In regard to these pictures he declares, "that they are universally admitted, with justice, to be the best which were produced among many excellent masters, at different times, in that place." They are, therefore, preferred by him to the whole of the Florentine and Siennese paintings there exhibited; and his opinion is authorized by that of P. della Valle, who frequently differs from him. If it could be proved from history, as it may be reasonably conjectured, that Antonio was a painter when he came from Venice, and did not commence his art at Florence, he would merit the reputation of being the greatest artist of that school known to us; as well as of having conferred some benefit upon that of Florence, from the Venetian school. But this point is very doubtful.

[66] We cannot reconcile it to dates that Paolo Uccello was one of his scholars, having been born after the death of Antonio, if, indeed, there be not some error in regard to the chronology either of the master or of his pupil. Starnina might have been his pupil, as he is said to have been born in 1354; and, therefore, in 1370, he might possibly be one of his school. Yet it appears that Antonio had then renounced the easel. In his epitaph we find written:

Annis qui fueram pictor Juvenilibus, artis Me Medicæ reliquo tempore cœpit amor, &c.

(See Vasari ed. Senese, tom. ii. p. 297.)

[67] The old painters varied the manner of their superscriptions, even in the following ages, according to the taste of the Greeks. Sebastianus Venetus pingebat a. 1520; is written upon a St. Agatha in the Palazzo Pitti; and this corresponds to the ΕΠΟΙΕΙ, faciebat; by which the Greek sculptors wished to convey, that such work was not intended to exhibit their last effort; so that they were at liberty to improve it when they pleased. The subscription of Opus Belli is obvious, and similar ones, drawn from the ΕΡΓΟΝ, (for example,) ΛΥΣΡΡΟΥ which we see in Maffei. I recount in my fifth book as singular, the epigraph Sumus Rogerii manus; it is, however, derived from the Greeks, who, for instance, sometimes wrote ΧΕΙΡ. ΑΜΒΡΟΣΙΟΥ. ΜΟΝΑΧΟΥ, as I read in a Fabrianese church called Della Carità, where there is a picture of the General Judgment; the figures very small, and highly finished, upon a large tablet; with, I think, more figures than are seen in the Paradise of Tintoretto. ΧΕΙΡ ΒΙΤΟΡΕ, was written by Vittor Carpaccio, under his portrait cited in the index. I omit other forms better known. That adopted at Trevigi, Hieronymus Tarvisio, is very erudite; and it is imitated from the military latercoli, in which, with the same view, the soldier and his country are named. In short, where the words fecit or pinxit are not used, the best plan was that of giving the proper name in the genitive case at the foot of the picture, as the engravers of Greek gems were wont to do in inscriptions, as ΑΥΛΟΥ ΔΙΟΣΚΟΡΙΔΟΥ, &c.

[68] Pascoli, tom. i. p. 199.

[69] Vasari.

[70] Verona Illustrata, tom. iii. p. 277.

[71] Gloria is a name given in Italy to a representation of the celestial regions.

[72] Vasari.

[73] In the dictionary of Guarienti, in the article, Gio. Abeyk, appears an account of a picture of this artist, existing in the gallery at Dresden, bearing date 1416; a time, says the writer, when he enjoyed his highest reputation, by painting in his second manner, in oil. It represents the Virgin in a majestic seat with the divine infant, who is seen very gracefully receiving an apple from St. Anne, seated on a couch of straw. The young St. John is seen assisting, and also St. Joseph, whose countenance represents the portrait of the painter himself. The introduction of arms shews that the picture must have been executed for some distinguished person. It is in high preservation, and is pronounced by Guarienti the miracle of painting, from its display of extreme diligence, even in the minute furniture, and particularly because the chamber in which the scene is represented, the couch, the window, the pavement, executed a punto alto, together with the whole action, are conducted with the most exact rules of perspective.

[74] In 1454 he was in great credit at Perugia. (See Mariotti, Lett. Perug. p. 133.)

[75] Lib. i. c. 18. Accipe semen lini, et exsicca illud in sartagine super ignem sine aqua, &c. Brustolato says, it should be pounded, and again subjected to the fire in water, then put into a press between cloths, and the oil extracted. He continues: Cum hoc oleo tere minium sive cenobrium super lapidem sine aqua, et cum pincello linies super ostia vel tabulas quas rubricare volueris, et ad solem siccabis, deinde iterum linies et siccabis. And in chap. 22, he says,—Accipe colores quos imponere volueris, terens eos diligenter, oleo lini sine aqua; et fac mixturas vultuum ac vestimentorum sicut superius aqua feceras, et bestias, sive aves, aut folia, variabis suis coloribus prout libuerit.

[76] Gottingen, 1792. See Esprit des Journaux, Ottobre, 1792.

[77] Raspe (Lib. Cit.). Della Valle (Ann. al Vasari, tom. iii. p. 313). Tiraboschi (St. Lett. tom. vi. p. 407). Vernazza (Giorn. Pisano, tom. xciv. p. 220), cited by Morelli (Notizia, p. 114). More recently is added the authority of P. Federici Domenicano. It is absurd to suppose that Tommaso da Modena, or, according to him, da Trevigi, carried the discovery from this city into Germany, from whence it was subsequently communicated to Flanders.

[78] Pisa Illustrata, p. 160, et seq.

[79] See Opuscoli del Calogerà, tom. xlv.

[80] This person invented and fabricated an ornament called ghirlanda or garland, worn on the heads of the Florentine children.

[81] Mengs, tom. ii. p. 109.

[82] Tom. vi. p. 1204.

[83] Victurus genium debet habere liber. Martial.

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

EPOCH I.

Origin and progress of Engraving on Copper and Wood.

SECTION III.

The subject of which I propose here to treat, ought to be more carefully examined than any other portion of this work. The age in which I write is, we know, by many called the age of brass, inasmuch as it has been less productive of great names and great pictoric works, than the preceding; yet I believe we might better denominate it such from the number of engravings, which have recently been carried to a high degree of excellence. The number of their connoisseurs has increased beyond calculation; new collections every where appear, and the prices have proportionably advanced, while treatises upon the art are rapidly multiplied. It has become a part of liberal knowledge to discern the name and hand of a master, as well as to specify the most beautiful works of each engraver. Thus, during the decline of painting, the art of engraving on copper has risen in estimation; modern artists in some points equal or surpass the more ancient; their reputation, their remuneration, and the quick process of their labours, attract the regard of many men of genius born to adorn the arts, who to the loss of painting, devote their attention to the graver.

The origin of this art is to be sought for in that of cutting on wood, just as in printing, the use of wooden types led to the adoption of metal. The period of the first invention of wood engraving is unknown; the French and the Germans tracing it to that of playing-cards, which the former affirm were first used in France in the time of Charles V.; while the latter maintain they were in use much earlier in Germany, or before the year 1300.[84] Both these opinions were first attacked by Papillon, in his "Treatise upon cutting in Wood," where he claims the merit of the discovery for Italy, and finds the most ancient traces of the art about the year 1285, at Ravenna. His account of it is republished in the preface to the fifth volume of Vasari, printed at Siena; but it is mixed up with so many assertions, to which it is difficult to give credit, that I must decline considering it at all. The Cav. Tiraboschi is a far more plausible and judicious advocate in favour of Italy.[85] On the subject of cards, he brings forward a MS. by Sandro di Pippozzo di Sandro, entitled Trattato del Governo della Famiglia. It was written in 1299, and has been cited by the authors of the Della Cruscan dictionary, who quote, among other passages, the following words: "if you will play for money, or thus, or at cards, you shall provide them," &c. We may hence infer, that playing-cards were known with us earlier than elsewhere, so that if the invention of stamping upon wood was derived from them, we have a just title to the discovery. In all probability, however, it does not date its origin so early; the oldest playing-cards were doubtless the work of the pen, and coloured by the old illuminators, first practised in France, and not wholly extinct in Italy at the time of Filippo Maria Visconti, duke of Milan.[86]

The first indication we meet with of printed play-cards, is in a public decree issued at Venice in 1441; where it says that "the art and trade of cards and printed figures, that is carried on at Venice," was on the decline, "owing to the great increase of playing-cards with coloured figures stamped," which were introduced from abroad; and that such importation should be prohibited for the future. Sig. Zanetti, to whom we are indebted for this information,[87] is of opinion, that they were in use long before 1441; because the art is seen to have first flourished there, afterwards to have fallen into disuse, and again revived, owing to the protection afforded it by the State. These vicissitudes, that suppose the lapse of many years, will carry us back at least to the commencement of the fifteenth century. To this period, it appears, we ought to refer those ancient specimens of play-cards, which were collected for the cabinet of Count Giacomo Durazzo, formerly imperial ambassador at Venice, and are now to be seen in that of the Marquis Girolamo, his nephew. They are of larger dimensions than those now in use, and are of a very strong texture, not unlike that of the paper made of cotton, found in the ancient manuscripts. The figures are exhibited on a gold ground in the manner before described;[88] there are three kings, two queens, and two knaves, one on horseback; and each has a club, or sword, or money. I could perceive no trace of suits, either because they had not then come into use, or more probably because so limited a number of cards can convey no complete idea of the whole game. The design approaches very nearly to that of Jacobello del Fiore; to the best judges the workmanship appears the effect of printing, the colours being given by perforations in the die. I know of no other more ancient specimen of its kind.

In the meanwhile printing of books being introduced into Italy, it was quickly followed by the practice of ornamenting them with figures in wood. The Germans had afforded examples of cutting sacred images in this material,[89] and the same was done in regard to some of the initial letters during the early progress of typography, a discovery which was extended at Rome, in a book published in 1467, and at Verona in another, with the date of 1472. The former contains the Meditations of Card. Turrecremata, with figures also cut in wood, and afterwards coloured: the latter bears the title of Roberti Valturii opus de re militari, and it is adorned with a number of figures, or drawings of machines, fortifications, and assaults; a very rare work, in the possession of Count Giuseppe Remondini, along with many other specimens of the earliest period, collected for his private library, where I saw it. It is worth remarking, that the book of Turrecremata was printed by Ulderico Han, that of Valturio by Gio. da Verona, and that in this last the wood-cuts are ascribed to Matteo Pasti, the friend of Valturio, and a good painter for those times.[90] After this first progress the art of wood engraving continued gradually to advance, and was cultivated by many distinguished men, such as Albert Durer in Germany; in Italy by Mecherino di Siena, by Domenico delle Greche, by Domenico Campagnola, and by others down to Ugo da Carpi, who marks a new epoch in this art, by an invention, of which we shall speak in the school of Modena.

If it be the progress of the human mind to advance from the more easy to more difficult discoveries, we may venture to suppose that the art of engraving on wood led to that of engraving on copper; and so, to a certain extent, it probably did. Vasari, however, who wrote the history of Tuscan professors, rather than of painting itself, refers its origin to works in niello, or inlaid modelling work, a very ancient art, much in use, more especially at Florence, during the fifteenth century; though it was quite neglected in the following, in spite of the efforts of Cellini to support it. It was applied to household furniture, silver ornaments, and sacred vessels, such as holy cups and vases, to missals and other devotional books, and to reliquaries; as well as to profane purposes, as adorning the hilts of swords, table utensils, and many kinds of female ornaments. In some kinds of ebony desks and escrutoires it was held in great request, for its little silver statues, and modelled plates, representing figures, histories, and flowers. In the cathedral of Pistoia there still remains a large silver palliotto, adorned in places with plates, on which are figured images in niello, and little scripture histories. The method was to cut with the chisel upon the silver whatever history, portrait, or flowers, was required,[91] and afterwards to fill up the hollow part of the engraving with a mixture of silver and lead, which, from its dark colour, was called, by the ancients, nigellum, which our countrymen curtailed into niello; a substance which, being incorporated with the silver, produced the effect of shadow, contrasted with its clearness, and gave to the entire work the appearance of a chiaroscuro in silver. There were many excellent niellatori, or inlayers, who cast models with this substance, such as Forzore, brother to Parri Spinelli of Arezzo, Caradosso and Arcioni of Milan;[92] and three Florentines, who rivalled each other at S. Giovanni, Matteo Dei, Antonio del Pollaiuolo, and Maso Finiguerra; specimens of whose paci, cut with wonderful accuracy, acquired for them the highest reputation.

We are to attribute to Maso, says Vasari, "the beginning of engraving upon copper," an art, which for the sake of greater perspicuity, I shall distinguish into three different states; the first of which will be found as follows. Finiguerra was in the habit of never filling the little hollows or cuts prepared in the silver plate until he had first made proof of his work. "For this purpose, as in taking a cast, he impressed them with earth, upon the top of which having thrown a quantity of liquid sulphur, they became imprinted, and filled with smoke; which, with the aid of oil, gave him the effect of the work in silver. He also produced the same with moistened paper, and with the same tint or ink, pressing it sufficiently hard with a round roller, with a smooth surface throughout. This gave them not only the effect of being printed, but that of having been designed with ink."[93] So far we quote Vasari in the preface to his Life of Marc Antonio. He adds, that in this plan Finiguerra was followed by Baldini, a Florentine goldsmith; next to whom he mentions Botticelli; and he might have added the name of Pollaiuolo. Finally, he concludes that the invention was communicated from Florence to Mantegna at Rome, and to Martino, called De Clef, in Flanders.

These proofs, the first of their kind, made by Finiguerra, have, for the most part, perished. Some, which are attributed to him, in possession of the fathers of Camaldoli, are not ascertained to be his.[94] We are assured, however, that the sulphur of the pace[95] cut for S. Giovanni in 1452, upon which he represented the Assumption of our Lady, in a variety of minute figures, is from his hand. It was formerly in the museum of the Proposto Gori, who gave a description of it in his Dittici (a treatise upon a peculiar kind of altar-pieces, tom. iii. p. 315), and it is now in the Durazzo cabinet, with a memorandum in Gori's own hand, in which he declares that he had compared it with the original.[96] Of the proofs made on paper none are ascertained to exist, with the exception of that of the Assumption recognized by the Ab. Zani, in the national collection at Paris. It was made known by him in the year 1803; and to this I may add the Epiphany, in an inferior style, but more exactly finished, which I found in the possession of the Senator Martelli, besides a duplicate belonging to S. E. Seratti. It appears from its style, the work of Finiguerra, and to have been executed before the Assumption. It is doubtful whether specimens exist in the ducal gallery, a question which I leave to the solution of abler pens than mine. We have in the Durazzo collection, the proofs or models of many silversmiths, whose names are unknown; and for many more we are indebted to Sig. Antonio Armanno, an excellent connoisseur in prints, to whom I shall have occasion to recur more than once. Following the ideas thrown out by Vasari in the passage cited, he concluded that these impressions might happen to have been confounded with pen designs, owing to the resemblance between them; he therefore sought for them in collections of designs, and, having recognized them, purchased them for Count Giacomo, his patron.

Many of these were met with in the ancient Gadi gallery at Florence; the work of artificers much inferior to Finiguerra, at least if we except two specimens not unworthy even of his hand. To these a number of others were afterwards added from different schools of Italy. Sometimes we may gather their origin from the design; sometimes with more certainty from inscriptions, and other unequivocal signs of the period. For instance, we read the following words in a Presepio,[97] engraved in reversed characters: "Dominus Philippus Stancharius fieri fecit;" where the family which is named, along with other circumstances, shew it to have been executed at Bologna. One small print represents a woman turning towards a cat; and on it is written, also in reverse, "Va in la Caneva;" in another we read Mantengave Dio; both which are either Lombard or Venetian, if we may judge from the dialect. From all this we have a right to conclude that Vasari's words, which ascribe to Finiguerra the practice of proving his works before he inserted the niello, are not to be limited to him only, or to his school. On the contrary, it appears that Caradosso, as well as all the best Italian artificers, considered it as no small portion of their art, and that they only attained correctness in the process of inlaying and modelling by dint of such proofs, and not by mere chance. Nor does Vasari's silence militate against this. He repeatedly complains, in different parts of his work, that he could not obtain sufficiently full and satisfactory information regarding the Venetian and Lombard schools; and if he confesses his ignorance of so many things pertaining to their schools of painting, it is not surprising that he should know less of their engraving.

The proofs, therefore, of the niellatori on paper are to be found in all parts of Italy, and they may be particularly known from the position of the letters, which being written on the original models in the ordinary way, appear in the impression like the eastern characters, from right to left; and in like manner the other part of the impression is seen in reverse; as for instance, a saint is seen standing on the left hand, who, from his dignity, ought to have occupied the right, and the actors all write, play music, and do every thing with the left hand. There are other signs which serve to distinguish them; because, having been pressed by hand, or with a roller, they leave no mark or furrows in the outlines; nor are we to look for that delicacy and precision in the lines that appear in impressions from under the press. They are moreover characterized by their colour, which merely consisted of lamp black and of oil, or of some other very slight tint; though both this and the preceding are dubious signs, as we shall shew. It is conjectured that proofs of a similar[98] nature were made by silver carvers, in regard to their graphic labours, and to others in which the niello was not employed. At all events they preserved them in their studies, and in those of their pupils, to whom they afforded a model; and in this way several have been handed down to our own times.

From these early efforts, the art gradually advanced, as it appears to me, until it attained what I call the second state of the impression. When the pleasing effect of these proofs was seen, the idea was struck out, of forming works in the same delicate and finished taste, and for this purpose to make use of the same means as had been until then adopted for impressions in wood. We might thus observe, that in the workshop of the goldsmith was prepared the art of chalcography, and the first labours were executed upon silver, upon tin, or, as Heineken observes, upon some composition less hard than copper. We may remark, that such was the practice of the Italians, before they cut their subjects in copper; but whatever material the first goldsmiths might adopt, it was not difficult for them to substitute for the shadow they produced by the niello, the shadow of the cut itself, and to execute the subject on the reverse, in order to receive the impression right. From that time, they proceeded gradually to refine the art. Both the roller and the press which they had then in use were very imperfect, and, to improve the impression, they first enclosed the plate in a frame of wood, with four small nails to prevent its slipping; upon this they placed the paper, and over it a small moist linen cloth, which was then pressed down with force. Hence, in the first old impressions, we may plainly trace on the reverse the marks of the linen, for which felt was next substituted, which leaves no trace behind it.[99] They next made trial of various tints; and gave the preference to a light azure or blue, with which the chief part of the old prints are coloured.[100] The same method was adopted in forming the fifty cards, which are commonly called the game of Mantegna. I saw them, for the first time, in possession of his excellency the Marchese Manfredini, major-domo to the Duke of Tuscany, whose cabinet is filled with many of the choicest prints. Another copy I found in possession of the Ab. Boni, and a third formerly belonging to the Duke of Cassano, was afterwards transferred to the very valuable collection made by the Senator Prior Seratti. There is also a copy of this game on a large scale, with some alterations (as, for instance, La Fede bears a large instead of a small cross, as in the original), and is of a much later date. A second copy, not so very rare, with a number of variations, is in existence; and in this the first card bears the Venetian lion as ensign, with the two letters C. and E. united. The card of the Doge is inscribed the Doxe; and elsewhere we read in the same way, Artixan, Famejo, and other words in the Venetian idiom, which proves that the author of so large and fine a work must have belonged to the city of Venice or to the state. The design displays much of Mantegna, and of the Paduan school; though the cut is not ascertained to be that of Andrea, or of any other known master of that age. A careful but timid hand is discernible, betraying traces of a copyist of another's designs, rather than of an original invention. Time only may possibly clear up this doubt.

Proceeding from cards to books, we are made acquainted with the first attempts at ornamenting them with cuts in metal. The most celebrated of these consist of the Monte Santo di Dio, and the Commedia of Dante, both printed at Florence, and the two editions of Ptolemy's Geography, at Rome and Bologna; to which we may add the Geography of Berlinghieri, printed at Florence; all the three accompanied with tables. The authors of these engravings are not well known; except so far as we learn from Vasari, that Botticelli was one who acquired the most reputation. He represented the Inferno, and took the impression; and the two histories, executed by Gio. de Lamagna in his Dante, display all the design and composition of Sandro, so as to leave no doubt of their being his.[101] Other prints are likewise found pasted in a few of the copies of the same edition, amounting, more or less, to the number of nineteen; and their manner is more coarse and mean,[102] as we are informed by the Cav. Gaburri, who collected them for his cabinet. They must have been executed by some inferior hand, and with the knowledge of the printer, who had left blank spaces in parts of the work intended to receive the engravings, not yet completed on the publication of the work. Of a similar cast were other anonymous engravers of that period, nor is there any name, except those of Sandro and of Pollaiuolo, truly distinguished in the art among the Florentines. In Upper Italy, besides Mantegna, Bartolommeo Montagna, his pupil, from Vicenza, (to whom some add Montagna his brother,) and Marcello Figolino, their fellow citizen, were both well known. Figolino is asserted to have been the same artist as one Robetta, or rather one who subscribes himself so, or R. B. T. A.; yet he ought not to be separated from the Florentine school, to which Vasari refers him, which the character of his design confirms. The names of Nicoletto da Modena, F. Gio. Maria da Brescia, a Carmelite monk, and of his brother Gio. Antonio, have also survived; as well as Giulio and Domenico Campagnola of Padua. There are not a few anonymous productions which only announce that they were executed in the Venetian or Lombard manner. For such artificers as were in the habit of taking impressions from the roller, either wholly omitted names, or only affixed that of the designer, or merely gave their own initials, which are now either doubtful, or no longer understood. For instance, they would write M. F., which Vasari interprets into Marc-antonio Francia, while others read Marcello Figolino, and a third party, Maso Finiguerra; this last quite erroneously, as, after the most minute researches, made by the very able Cavaliere Gaburri, throughout Florence, there is no engraving of that artist to be found.[103] In the Durazzo collection, after twelve plates, which are supposed to be proofs of the silver engravers, printed in reverse, we find several others of the first impressions taken with the roller, and appearing to the right; but not unlike the proofs in the mechanical part of the impression, and in regard to the uncertainty of their artists. For this, and other information on the subject, I am indebted to the kindness of the Ab. Boni, who having enjoyed the familiar acquaintance of Count Giacomo, is now engaged in preparing a full account of his fine collection.

The last state of engraving on copper I consider to be that in which the press and the printing ink being now discovered, the art began to approach nearer perfection; and it was then it became first separated from the goldsmith's art, like the full grown offspring, received pupils, and opened its studio apart. It is difficult to fix the precise epoch when it attained this degree of perfection in Italy. The same artificers who had employed the roller, were some of them living, to avail themselves of the press, such as Nicoletto da Modena, Gio. Antonio da Brescia, and Mantegna himself, of whose prints there exist, as it were, two editions; the one with the roller, exhibiting faint tints, the other in good ink, and from the press. Then the engravers first becoming jealous lest others should appropriate their reputation, affixed their own names more frequently to their works; beginning with their initials, and finally attaching the full name. The Germans held out the earliest examples, which our countrymen imitated; with one who surpassed all his predecessors, the celebrated Marc Antonio Raimondi, or del Francia. He was a native of Bologna, and was instructed in the art of working in niello by Francesco Francia, in which he acquired singular skill. Proceeding next to engravings upon metal, he began with engraving some of the productions of his master. At first he imitated Mantegna, then Albert Durer, and subsequently perfected himself in design under Raffaello d'Urbino. This last afforded him further assistance; he even permitted his own grinder of colours, Baviera, to manage the press, in order that Marc Antonio might devote himself wholly to engraving Raffaello's designs, to which we owe the number we meet with in different collections. He pursued the same plan with the works of antiquity, as well as those of a few moderns, of Bonarruoti, of Giulio Romano, and of Bandinelli, besides several others, of which he was both the designer and engraver. Sometimes he omitted every kind of mark, and every letter; sometimes he adopted the little tablet of Mantegna, either with letters or without. In some engravings of the Passion he counterfeited both the hand and the mark of Albert Durer: and not unfrequently he gave the initial letters of his own and of Raffaello's name, and that of Michel Angiolo Fiorentino upon those he engraved after Bonarruoti. He was assisted by his two pupils, Agostin Veneziano and Marco Ravignano, who succeeded him in the series of engravings from Raffaello; which led Vasari to observe, in his Life of Marc Antonio, that, "between Agostino and Marco nearly all Raffaello's designs and paintings had been engraved." These two executed works conjointly; till at length they parted, and each affixed to his productions the two initial letters of his name and country.

It was thus the art of engraving in the studio of Raffaello, and by means of Marc Antonio, and of his school, rose to a high degree of perfection, not many years after its first commencement. Since that period no artist has appeared capable of treating it with more knowledge of design, and with more precision of lines and contour; though in other points it has acquired much from the hand of Parmigianino, who engraved in aqua-fortis,[104] from Agostino Caracci, and from different foreigners of the last century, among whom we may notice Edelink, Masson, Audran, Drevet, and, in the present age, several, both Italians and strangers, of whom, in this place, we must refrain from speaking.

I may be permitted, in this place, to enter into a brief investigation of the long contested question of engraving upon copper, whether its discovery is to be attributed to Germany or to Italy; and if to Italy, whether to Florence or to some other place. Much has been written upon the subject, both by natives and foreigners, but, if I mistake not, it has scarcely been treated with that accuracy which is necessary for the attainment of truth. That it is quite requisite to divide this branch of art into three several states or stages, I trust I have already sufficiently shewn. In following up this division we shall have a better chance of ascertaining what portion of merit ought to be awarded to each country. Vasari, together with Cellini, in his "Treatise upon the Goldsmith's art," as well as most other writers, are inclined to refer its commencement to Florence, and to the artist Finiguerra. Doubts have since arisen; while so recent an author as Bottari, himself a Florentine, mentions it as a circumstance not yet ascertained. The epoch of Maso was altered through mistake, by Manni, who speaks of his decease as happening previous to 1424.[105] This has been corrected by reference to the authentic books of the Arte de' Mercanti, in which the pace already cited is mentioned as being paid for in the year 1452. About the same time, Antonio Pollaiuolo, still a youth, as we learn from Vasari, in his life, was the rival of Finiguerra in the church of S. Giovanni; and as Maso had at that period already acquired great celebrity, we may conclude that he was of a mature age, and experienced in the art. We have further a right to suppose, with Gaburri and Tiraboschi, that having then taken proofs "of all the subjects which he had engraved on silver," he had observed this custom from the year 1440, and perhaps earlier; and we thus discover the elements of chalcography in Florence, satisfactorily deduced from history.[106] For neither with the aid of history, monuments, nor reasoning, am I enabled to discover an epoch equally remote belonging to any other country; as we shall shew, in the first place, in regard to Germany. It possesses no annals so far back as that period. The credulity of Sandrart[107] led him to question the truth of this, by referring to a small print of uncertain origin, on which he believed he could read the date 1411, and upon another that of 1455. At this period, however, when the authority of Sandrart is of small account, no less from his frequent contradictions than his partiality, which has rendered him suspected even by his own countrymen, we may receive his two engravings as false coin, not valuable enough to purchase the credit of the discovery from us. Those two distinguished writers, Meerman,[108] and the Baron Heineken,[109] were equally bent upon refuting him. They do not pretend to trace any earlier engraver in Germany than Martin Schön, called by others Bonmartino, and by Vasari, Martino di Anversa,[110] who died in 1486. Some are of opinion that he had two brothers, who assisted him, but who are unknown; and not long after appear the names of Israel Meckeln,[111] Van Bockold, Michael Wolgemuth, master to Albert Durer, with many others who approached the sixteenth century. It is contended, however, that engraving on copper was known in Germany anterior to these; as there exist specimens by doubtful hands, which have the appearance of being much earlier. Meerman, on the authority of Christ,[112] adduces one with the initials C. E. and the date 1465, besides two described by Bar. Heineken, dated 1466, the first of which is signed f.

s, the second b x s, and both the artists unknown. He declares that he had never seen older engravings that bore a name, (p. 231,) and observes that their manner resembles that of Schön, only coarser, which leads him to suspect that the authors must have been his masters, (p. 220). But whoever was Schön's master, Heineken concludes he must have flourished more than ten years earlier than his time, so as to bring it back to 1450, when the art of engraving by the burin was undoubtedly practised in Germany, (p. 220). And as if this appeared too little to be granted, he adds, about four pages further on, "that he was tempted to place the epoch of its discovery at least towards the year 1440."

The cause is well pleaded, but it is not carried. Let us try to confront reasons with reasons. The Italians have the testimony of history in their favour; the Germans have it against them. The former, without any attempt at exaggeration, proceed as far back as 1440, and even farther;[113] the latter, by dint of conjecture, reach as far as 1450, and are only tempted to anticipate it by ten years date. The Italians commence the art with Maso, not from his master; the Germans are not content to date from Schön, but from his master, an advantage they either deny to Italy, and thus fail to draw an equal comparison; or if they concede the master, we still anticipate by ten years their origin of chalcography. The Italians, again, confirm the truth of their history by a number of authentic documents, proofs in niello, first impressions, and the progress of the art from its earliest stages to maturity. The Germans supply their historic deficiency by monuments, in part proved to be false, in part doubtful, and which are easily convicted of insufficiency for the proposed object. Because who can assure us that the prints of 1465 or 66, are not the production of the brothers or the disciples of Schön, since Heineken himself confesses that they were possibly the work of some contemporary artists, his inferiors? Do we not find in Italy that the followers of Botticelli are inferior to him, and appear to be of earlier date? Moreover, who can assure us that Schön was instructed by a master of his own nation; when all his engravings that have been hitherto produced, appear already perfect in their kind;[114] nor do we find mentioned in Germany either proofs in niello, or first essays in metals of a softer temper? The fact therefore, most probably is, what has invariably obtained credit,—that the invention was communicated from Italy to Germany, and as a matter not at all difficult to the goldsmiths, was speedily practised there with success; I might even add, was greatly improved. For both the press and printer's ink being well known there, artists were enabled to add to the mechanic part of the art, improvements with which Italy was unacquainted; I will produce an example of what I mean, that cannot fail to convince. Printing of books was discovered in Germany: history and monuments alike confirm it, which are to be traced gradually from tabular prints to moveable types, still of wood, and from these to characters of metal. In such state was the invention brought to Italy, where, without passing through these intermediate degrees, books were printed not only in moveable characters of metal, but with tables cut in copper, thus adding to the art a degree of perfection which it wanted. Heineken objects that the Germans at that period had very little correspondence with the cities of Italy, with the exception of Venice, (p. 139). To this I answer that our universities of Pisa and Bologna, besides several others, were much frequented by young men from Germany, at that period; and that for the convenience both of strangers and of natives, a Dictionary of the German language was printed at Venice, in 1475, and in 1479, at Bologna; a circumstance sufficient of itself to prove that there was no little communication between the two nations. There are, besides, so many other reasons to believe that a great degree of intercourse subsisted, more particularly between Germany and Florence,[115] during the period we treat of; that we ought not to be at all surprised at the arts belonging to the one being communicated to the other. Hitherto I have pleaded, as far as lay in my power, the cause of my country; though without having been able, I fear, to bring the question to a close. Some time, it is possible, that those earliest essays and proofs of the art, which have hitherto eluded research, may be discovered: it is possible that some one of their writers, who are at once so truly learned and so numerous, may improve upon the hint thrown out by Heineken (p. 139), that the Germans and the Italians, without any kind of corresponding knowledge on the subject, struck out simultaneous discoveries of the modern art. However this may chance to be, it is my part to write from the information and authorities which I have before me.

It remains to be seen whether, on the exclusion of Germany, there is any other part of Italy that may have anticipated the discovery of Finiguerra at Florence. Some of his opponents have ventured to question his title on the strength of metallic impressions of seals, which are met with on Italian parchments from the earliest periods. This shews only that the art advanced during several ages on the verge of this invention; but it does not prove that the very origin of the discovery is to be sought for in seals; otherwise we should be bound to commence the history of modern typography from the seals of earthen-ware, with which our museums abound. No one will contend that certain immemorial and undigested elements that lay for many ages neglected and unformed, ought to have a place in the history of art; and this we are now treating on, ought not to date its commencement beyond the period when silversmiths' shops had been established, where, in fact, it took its origin and grew to maturity. We must then compare the proofs remaining to us of their labours, and see whether such proofs were in use at any other place, before the time of Finiguerra. I might observe that there are two threads, as it were, which may serve as a clue to this labyrinth, until we may somewhere or by some means ascertain the actual date; and these two are the character and the design. The character in all the proofs I have examined, is not at all (as we commonly call it) of a gothic description; it is round and roman, according to the observation before made (at p. 49), and does not lead us farther back than the year 1440. The design is more suspicious: in the Durazzo 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.

In my account of the second state of engraving, I shall not make mention of the German masters, in regard to whom I have not dates that may be thought sufficient; I shall confine my attention to those of Italy. I shall compare the testimony of Vasari and Lomazzo; one of whom supposes the art to have originated in Upper, the other in Lower Italy. In his Life of Marc Antonio, Vasari observes, that Finiguerra "was followed by Baccio Baldini, a Florentine goldsmith, who being little skilled in design, every thing he executed was after designs and inventions of Sandro Botticello. As soon as Andrea Mantegna learned this circumstance at Rome, he first began to turn his attention to the engraving of his own works." Now in the life of Sandro he makes particular mention of the time when he applied himself to the art, which was at the period he had completed his labours in the Sistine chapel. Returning directly after to Florence, "he began to comment upon Dante, he drew the Inferno, and engraved it, which occupying a large portion of his time, was the occasion of much trouble and inconvenience in his future life." Botticelli is here considered an engraver from about 1474, at the age of thirty-seven years; and Baldini, who executed every thing from the designs of Sandro, also practised the art. At the same period flourished Antonio Pollaiuolo, who acquired a higher reputation than either of the last. Few of his impressions remain, but among these is the celebrated battle of the naked soldiers, approaching nearest in point of power to the bold style of Michelangiolo. The epoch of these productions is to be placed about 1480, because having acquired great celebrity by them, he was invited to Rome towards the close of 1483, to raise the monument of Sixtus IV., who died in that year.

According to Vasari, Mantegna having decorated the chapel of Innocent VIII. at Rome, about 1490,[119] from that or the preceding year is intitled to the name of engraver, computing it from about his sixtieth year. He flourished more than sixteen years after this period; during which is it to be believed that he produced that amazing number of engravings,[120] amounting to more than fifty, of which about thirty appear to be genuine specimens, on so grand a scale, so rich in figures, so finely studied and Mantegnesque in every part; that he executed these when he was already old, new to the art, an art fatiguing to the eye and the chest even of young artists; that he pursued it amidst his latest occupations in Mantua, which we shall, in their place, describe, and that he produced such grand results within sixteen or seventeen years. Either Vasari must have mistaken the dates, or wished to impose upon our credulity by his authority. Lomazzo leads us to draw a very different conclusion, when in his Treatise (p. 682) he adds this short eulogy to the name and merits of Mantegna, "a skilful painter, and the first engraver of prints in Italy;" but wherein he does not mention him as an inventor, meaning only to ascribe to him the merit of introducing the second state of the art at least in Italy; because he believed that it had already arisen in Germany. Such authority as this is worth our attention. I shall have occasion in the course of my narrative to combat some of Lomazzo's assertions; but I shall also feel bound to concur with him frequently in the epochs illustrated by him. He was born about twenty-five years subsequent to Vasari; he had more erudition, was a better critic, and on the affairs of Lombardy in particular, was enabled to correct him, and to supply his deficiencies. I am not surprised, then, that Meerman (p. 259) should suppose Andrea to have been already an engraver before the time of Baldini and Botticelli; I could have wished only that he had better observed the order of the epochs, and not postponed the praise due to him until the pontificate of Innocent VIII. In fact, it is not easy to ascertain the exact time when Mantegna first directed his attention to the art of engraving. It decidedly appears that he commenced at Padua; for the very confidence he displays in every plate, shews that he could be no novice; nor is it credible that his noviciate began only in old age. I suspect he received the rudiments of the art from Niccolo, a distinguished goldsmith, as he gave his portrait, together with that of Squarcione, in a history piece of S. Cristoforo, at the Eremitani in Padua; each most probably being a tribute of respect to his former master. It is true that we meet with no specimens of his hand at that, or even a later period of his early life; though we ought to recollect that he never affixed any dates to his works. So that it is impossible to say that none of them were the production of his earlier years, however equal and beautiful they appear in regard to their style; inasmuch as in his paintings we are enabled to detect little difference between his history of S. Cristoforo, painted in the flower of youth, and his altar-piece at S. Andrea of Mantua, which is considered one of his last labours. A specimen of his engraving with a date, is believed, however, by some, to be contained in a book of Pietro d'Abano; intitled "Tractatus de Venenis," published in Mantua, 1472, "in cujus paginâ prima littera initialis aeri incisa exhibetur, quæ integram columnæ latitudinem occupat. Patet hinc artem chalcographicam jam anno 1472 extitisse." Thus far writes the learned Panzer,[121] but whether he ever saw the work that exists in folio, and of seven pages, I am not certain.[122] A quarto edition was likewise edited in Mantua, 1473, and a copy is there preserved in the public library, but without any plates.

It is certain, however, that about this period copper engraving was practised, not only in Mantua, where Mantegna resided, but also in Bologna. The geography of Ptolemy, printed in Bologna by Domenico de Lapis, with the apparently incorrect date of 1462, is in the possession of the Corsini at Rome, and of the Foscarini at Venice.[123] It contains twenty-six geographical tables, engraved very coarsely, yet so greatly admired by the printer, that he applauds this new discovery, and compares it to the invention of printing, which not long before had appeared in Germany. We give his words as they are quoted from the Latin without being refuted, by Meerman, at p. 251: "Accedit mirifica imprimendi tales tabulas ratio, cujus inventoris laus nihil illorum laude inferior, qui primi litterarum imprimendarum artem pepererunt, in admirationem sui studiosissimum quemque facillime convertere potest." The same writer, however, along with other learned men, contends that the date ought to be corrected, chiefly on the authority of the catalogue of the correctors of the work, among whom we find Filippo Beroaldo, who, in 1462, was no more than nine years of age. Hence Meerman infers, that we ought to read 1482; Audifredi and others, 1491; neither of which opinions I can agree with. For the work of Ptolemy being published at Rome, accompanied by twenty-seven elegant charts in 1478, what presumption, or rather folly, in the publisher of the Bolognese edition, to think of applauding its beauty, after the appearance of one so incomparably superior! I am therefore compelled to refer the former to an earlier period than the last mentioned year. Besides, I ought to inform the reader, that the engraving of twenty-six geographical plates, full of lines, distances, and references, must have been a long and difficult task, particularly during the infancy of the art, sufficient to occupy several years; as we are certain that three or four were devoted to the same purpose at Rome by more modern engravers, far more expert. We are therefore bound to antedate the epoch of the Bolognese engraving several years before the publication of the book, which belongs perhaps to the year 1472.[124] I shall not, however, set myself up as an umpire in this dispute; anxiously expecting, as I do, an excellent treatise from the pen of Sig. Bartolommeo Gamba; which I feel assured will not fail to gratify the public.[125] In regard to Bologna, therefore, I shall only seek to prove that the progress of the goldsmith's art to that of engraving upon metal, was more rapid than it has been supposed. Heineken himself observes, in describing the Ptolemy, that it is evident, from the traces of the zigzag, which the goldsmiths are in the habit of putting on the silver plates, the work is the production of one belonging to that art. The earliest works that can be pointed out with certainty at Florence, are the three elegant engravings of the Monte Santo di Dio, published in 1477; and the two in the two cantos of Dante, 1481; one of which, as if a third engraving, was repeated in the same book; while all of them seem to have been drawn from the roller, the art of inserting the plates in the letter-press being then unknown. We have yet to notice the thirty-seven geographical charts, in whatever way executed, affixed to the book of Berlinghieri, which was printed about the same period, without any date. These also contain several heads with the names Aquilo, Africus, &c., but they are all of youthful appearance, and tolerable in point of design; whereas the same heads in Bologna are of different ages, with long beards and caps, and in a coarser manner. The three beforementioned works appeared from the press of Niccolo Tedesco, or Niccolo di Lorenzo de Lamagna, the first who printed books at Florence with copper plates.

The last and most complete state of engraving upon copper, comes next under our notice. For this improvement, it appears to me, we are as much indebted to Germany as for the art of printing books. The press there first discovered for typography, opened the way for that applied to copper plates. The mechanical construction to be sure was different, in the former the impression being drawn from cast letters which rise outwards; in the latter from plates cut hollow within by the artist's graver. A kind of ink was at the same time adopted, of a stronger and less fuliginous colour, than had been used for engravings in wood; but as it is termed by Meerman (p. 12), "singulare ac tenuius." The same author fixes the date of this improvement in the art at about 1470; and most probably he meant to deduce it from the earliest copper engravings which appeared in Germany. Of this I cannot venture to speak, not having seen the two specimens cited by Heineken, and the others that bear a date; nor is it at all connected with our present history of Italian art, as far as regards engraving. We gather from it, that such improvement was brought to us from Germany by the same Corrado Sweyneym, who prepared the beautiful edition of Ptolemy at Rome. We learn from the anonymous preface prefixed, that Corrado devoted three years to the task, and left it incomplete; and it was continued by Arnold Buckinck, and published by him, as I already observed, in 1478. The tables are engraved with a surprising degree of elegance, and are taken from the press, as Meerman, adopting the opinion of Raidelio, and of such bibliographers as have described it, has clearly shewn, (p. 258). It is conjectured that Corrado commenced his labours about 1472, a fact ascertained no less from the testimony of Calderino, the corrector of the work, than from the tables, impressions of which were taken in 1475.[126] Some are of opinion that the engraving was from the hand of Corrado, although the author of the preface simply observes, "animum ad hanc doctrinam capessendam applicuit (that is, to geography) subinde matematicis adhibitis viris quemadmodum tabulis æneis imprimerentur edocuit,[127] triennioque in hâc curâ consumpto diem obiit." And it seems very probable, that as he employed Italians in the correction of the text, he was also assisted by some one of the same nation in the engravings. It strikes me, likewise, that Botticelli was attracted by this novel art at Rome, since on his return about the year 1474, he began to engrave copper plates with all the ardour that Vasari has described, and was in fact the first who represented full figures and histories in the new art. Perhaps the cause of his impressions being less perfect than others, arose from his ignorance of the method of printing upon a single page, both the plates and the characters; as well as from the want of the press, and that improved plan derived from the office of the German printers. But from whatever cause, it is certain, that our engravers long continued to labour under this imperfection in the art, as I have already recounted. In the time of Marc Antonio, who rose into notice soon after the year 1500, the art, in its perfect state, had been introduced into Italy, insomuch that he was enabled to rival Albert Durer and Luca d'Ollanda, equalling them in the mechanism of the art, and surpassing them in point of design. It is from this triumvirate of genius that the more finished age of engraving takes its date; and nearly at the same period we behold the most improved era in the art of painting. The completion of the new art soon diffused good models of design through every school, which led the way to the new epoch. Following the steps of Durer, the imitators of nature learned to design more correctly; while they composed, if not with much taste, at least with great variety and fertility, examples of which appear in the Venetian artists of the time. Others of a more studied character, formed upon the model of Raffaello and of the best Italian masters, exhibited by Marc Antonio, applied with more diligence to compose with order, and to attain elegance of design; as we shall further see in the progress of this History of Painting, which after such necessary interruption, we prepare once more to resume.

[84] See Baron d'Heineken's "Idéé générale d'une Collection," &c. p. 239. See likewise the same work, p. 150, in order to give us a proper distrust of the work of Papillon. Sig. Huber agrees with Heineken: see his "Manuel," &c. p. 35.

[85] Storia Letter. tom. vi. p, 1194.

[86] Muratori, Rerum Ital. Scriptores, vol. xx. Vita Phil. M. Visconti, chap. lxi.