see the grand cupola, which you have so often commended to me, and am
quite astonished. To observe so large a composition, so well contrived;
and seen from below with such great exactness; and at the same time,
such judgment, such grace, and coloring of real flesh, good God, not
Tibaldi, not Nicolini, nor even I may say, Raffaelle himself, can be
compared with him. I know not how many paintings I have seen this
morning; the Ancona, or altar-piece of St. John, and St. Catharine, and
the Madonna della Scodella going to Egypt, and I swear, I would change
none of these for the St. Cecilia. To speak of the graces of this St.
Catharine, who so gracefully lays her head on the feet of the beautiful
little Savior; is she not more lovely than the St. Mary Magdalen? That
fine old man St. Jerome, is he not grander, and at the same time more
tender than that St. Paul, which first appeared to me a miracle, and now
seems like a piece of wood, it is so hard and sharp. However you must
have patience even for your own Parmiggiano, because I now acknowledge
that I have learnt from this great man, to imitate all his grace,
though at a great distance; for the children of Correggio breathe and
smile with such a grace and truth, that one cannot refrain from smiling
and enjoying one’s self with them.
“I write to my brother that he must come, for he will see things which
he could never have believed,--18th April, 1580.
“I have been to the Steccata, and the Zocoli, and have observed what you
told me many times, and what I now confess to be true; but I will say
that, to my taste, Parmeggiano bears no comparison with Correggio,
because the thoughts and conceptions of Correggio were his own,
evidently drawn from his own mind, and invented by himself, guided only
by the original idea. The others all rest on something not their own;
some on models, some on statues or drawings: all the productions of the
others are represented as they may be; all of this man as they truly
are.
“The opportunities which Agostino wished for, have not occurred; and
this appears to me a country, which one never could have believed so
totally devoid of good taste and of the delights of a painter, for they
do nothing but eat and drink, and make love. I promised to impart to you
my sentiments; but I confess I am so confused that it is impossible. I
rage and weep, to think of the misfortune of poor Antonio; so great a
man, if indeed he were a man, and not an angel in the flesh, to be lost
here, in a country where he was unknown, and though worthy of
immortality, here to die unhappily. He and Titian will always be my
delight: and if I do not see the works of the latter at Venice, I shall
not die content.--April 28, 1580.”
CORREGGIO’S ENTHUSIASM.
Among the many legends respecting Correggio, it is related that when he
first contemplated one of the masterpieces of Raffaelle, his brow
colored, his eye brightened, and he exclaimed, “I also am a painter!”
When Titian first saw the great works of Correggio at Parma, he said,
“Were I not Titian, I would wish to be Correggio.”
CORREGGIO’S GRACE.
No one can contemplate the works of Correggio, without being captivated
by that peculiar beauty which the Italians have very appropriately
distinguished by the epithet _Correggiesque_, for it was the complexion
of the individual mind and temperament of the artist, stamped upon the
work of his hand. No one approached him in this respect, if perhaps we
except Lionardo da Vinci. Though so often imitated, it remains in fact
inimitable; an attempt degenerating into affectation of the most
intolerable kind. It consists in the blending of sentiment in
expression, with flowing, graceful forms, an exquisite fullness and
softness in the tone of color, and an almost illusive chiaro-scuro, all
together conveying to the mind of the spectator the most delightful
impression of harmony, both spiritual and sensual. He is the painter of
_beauty_ par excellence; he is to us what Apelles was to the
ancients--the standard of the amiable and the graceful.
CORREGGIO AND THE MONKS.
The pleasure which the monks derived from the works of Correggio, even
in their incipient state, and the esteem which they had for him, is
manifested by a remarkable document. This is a letter or patent of
confraternity, passed in the general assembly of the order, held at
Pratalea, in the latter end of 1521; a privilege which was eagerly
sought at this and earlier periods, and was seldom conferred on persons
not eminent for rank or talents. It conveyed a participation in the
spiritual benefits derived from the prayers, masses, alms, and other
pious works of the community, and was coupled with an engagement to
perform the same offices for the repose of his soul, and the souls of
his family, as were performed for their own members.
CORREGGIO’S MULETEER.
It is said that Correggio painted a picture of a muleteer, as a sign to
a small public house, which was kept by a man who had frequently obliged
him, and who had been a muleteer. This picture was purchased by a person
sent to Italy many years ago to collect ancient paintings. It has all
the marks in the upper corner, of having been joined to a piece of wood,
and used for a sign; it cost five hundred guineas!
DUKE OF WELLINGTON’S CORREGGIO CAPTURED AT VITTORIA.
Cunningham warms into rapture in speaking of this picture. “The size is
small, some fifteen inches or so; but true genius can work miracles in
small compass. The central light of the picture is altogether heavenly;
we never saw anything so insufferably brilliant; it haunted us round the
room at Apsley House, and fairly extinguished the light of its companion
pictures.”
CORREGGIO’S ANCONA.
Correggio painted for the church of the Conventuali at Correggio, an
Ancona, (a small altar-piece in wood,) consisting of three pictures when
he was in his twentieth year, as appears, says Lanzi, from the written
agreement, which fixes the price at one hundred gold ducats, or one
hundred zecchins, and proves the esteem in which his talents were then
held. “He here represented St. Bartholomew and St. John, each occupying
one side, while in the middle compartment, he drew a Repose of the Holy
Family flying into Egypt, to which last was added a figure of St.
Francis. Francesco I., Duke of Modena, was so greatly delighted with
this picture, that he sent the artist Boulanger to copy it for him, and
thus obtaining possession of the original, he contrived dexterously to
substitute his own copy in its place.” The Duke satisfied the monks by
giving them more lands. It is supposed that it was afterwards presented
to the Medicean family, and by them given to the house of Este in
exchange for the Sacrifice of Abraham by Andrea del Sarto. It is now in
the Florentine gallery.
PORTRAITS OF CORREGGIO.
Correggio appears to have been far less solicitous than most other
painters, that his likeness should be transmitted to posterity, for of
him there is no unquestioned portrait extant. That which is prefixed to
his life, in the Roman edition of Vasari, is evidently false, for it
exhibits the head and countenance of a man aged seventy. It was taken
from a collection of designs, in the possession of Father Resta, to one
of which, representing a man and his wife with three sons and one
daughter, in mean apparel, he gave the name of the Family of Correggio,
forgetting that the family consisted of three daughters and one son.
Another portrait, with the title, _Antonius Correggius_, and
consequently supposed to be painted by himself, was preserved in a villa
which belonged to the Queen of Sardinia, near Turin, and engraved by
Valperga; but its authenticity seems justly questioned by Lanzi and
Pungileoni. A third, which was sent from Genoa to England, bore an
inscription signifying that it was the portrait of Maestro Antonio da
Correggio, by Dosso Dossi, and was accordingly engraved for the memoirs
of Correggio by Ratti, who obtained a copy. Lanzi is inclined to infer,
however, that it is the portrait of Antonio Bernieri, the miniature
painter, who also bore the name of Antonio da Correggio.
A copy of this portrait is still preserved in the Pinacotheca Bodoniana,
at Parma, and has been engraved, first by Asioli, and since as a
medallion, by Professor Rocca, of Reggio. Pungileoni, who is inclined to
consider it as genuine, has prefixed the medallion to his life of
Correggio.
Tiraboschi and Pungileoni mention other supposed portraits and busts, of
questionable authenticity; and Pungileoni, in particular, adverts to a
portrait still preserved near a door of the cathedral at Parma, which is
exhibited as a likeness of Correggio. It is supposed to have been copied
in the middle of the seventeenth century, by Lattanzio Gambara, from a
more ancient one of this celebrated painter, in another part of the
cathedral; but its authenticity is questioned, merely on the ground that
it represents a man of more advanced age than Correggio, who only
attained his forty-first year.
DID CORREGGIO EVER VISIT ROME?
The question has been long agitated whether Correggio ever visited Rome,
and profited by the study of the antique, and the works of Raffaelle
and Michael Angelo; on this point, the only historical evidence which
has been adduced, is a tradition recorded by Father Resta, and said to
have been derived through three generations, from the information of
Correggio’s wife. As an authority so light and doubtful could not be
seriously advanced, his biographers and admirers have sought in his
works for more valid traces of the models to which he recurred. Mengs
contends that his paintings exhibit proofs of an acquaintance with the
antique, and the works of Raffaelle and Michael Angelo. In the head of
the Danaë, he traces a resemblance to that of Venus de Medici; and in
the St. Jerome, and Mercury teaching Cupid to read, he recognises
imitations of the Farnese Hercules and the Apollo Belvidere; he also
discovers a resemblance to one of the children of Niobe, in the young
man who endeavors to escape from the soldiers, in the picture
representing Christ betrayed in the garden. The countenance of the
Magdalen, in the St. Jerome, he considers as an imitation of Raffaelle;
and in the cupola of the church of St. John, he perceives a similitude
to the grand style of Michael Angelo, in the frescos of the Vatican. In
corroboration of this opinion, he adduces the sudden change which is
perceived in the style of Correggio at an earlier period, as a proof
that he must have seen and studied compositions superior to his own.
Ratti, the copyist of Mengs, coincides with him in opinion. Lanzi
cautiously adopts the same sentiment; and Tiraboschi, after comparing
the testimony on both sides, leaves the question unsettled. We cannot
decide with certainty, that Correggio never visited Rome, and yet there
is no argument to prove that he ever saw that Capital. Pungileoni, with
superior advantage of research, pronounces a contrary decision; and
affirms, from the evidence of the continued series of unquestionable
documents, in which his presence is mentioned at Parma, Correggio, and
other parts of Lombardy, during a number of years, that even if he did
visit Rome, his stay must have been limited to a very short period.
Finally, this opinion is corroborated in the assertion of Ortensio
Landi, who had resided some time at Correggio; and who, in his Sette
Libri de Cataloghi, printed at Venice by Giolito, as early as 1552, says
of Correggio, “He was a noble production of nature, rather than of any
master: he died young, without being able to see Rome.” Were all other
evidence wanting, this testimony of a cotemporary, who must have
collected his information on the spot, and who published it within
eighteen years after the death of Correggio, must be allowed to carry
great weight.
SINGULAR FATE OF CORREGGIO’S ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS.
A few days before the entry of the French into Seville, during the
Peninsular war, when the inhabitants in great consternation were packing
up their most valuable effects to send them to Cadiz, a masterpiece of
Correggio, in one of the convents, representing the Adoration of the
Shepherds, painted on wood, was sawn in two, for its more easy carriage
to a place of safety, to preserve it from the enemy. By some accident,
the two parts were separated on their way to Cadiz; and on their arrival
in that city, one part was sold to one connoisseur, with the promise
that the part wanting should subsequently be delivered to him; while the
other part was sold to another connoisseur under the same engagement.
Both the parts arrived in England, and the possessor of each maintained
that he was entitled to the other.
It is somewhat remarkable that though the harmony of the picture is
somewhat broken by the separation, yet each part forms of itself an
admirable picture, and as the rival proprietors are rich and obstinate,
the parts are not likely to be united. The whole picture is reckoned to
be worth about 4,000 guineas.
CURIOUS HISTORY OF CORREGGIO’S “EDUCATION OF CUPID.”
Correggio’s picture of Mercury teaching Cupid to read, in the presence
of Venus, called the Education of Cupid, is one of the most celebrated
works of art extant. It now adorns the English National Gallery, and its
history is exceedingly interesting. It was painted for Federigo
Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, the predecessor of him who a hundred years
later patronized Rubens. When Charles I. of England, in 1630, purchased
the Mantuan collection for £20,000, this picture and three others by
Correggio were included in the bargain. On the sale of the king’s
effects by order of parliament, it was purchased by the Duke of Alva,
and from his family passed into the hands of the famous Godoy, Prince of
Peace. When his collection was sold at Madrid during the French
invasion, it was bought by Murat, who took it to Naples, where it
adorned the royal palace. On his fall from power, it was among the
precious effects with which his wife, Caroline Buonaparte, escaped to
Rome, and thence to Vienna, where her collection of pictures was bought
by the Marquis of Londonderry, the English ambassador, who instantly
dispatched the two Correggios--the Education of Cupid and the Ecce
Homo--to London. They were purchased of his Lordship by Parliament in
1834, for 10,000 guineas, and now adorn the English National Gallery.
Sir Thomas Lawrence was allowed a furtive glance at these pictures, at
Rome, in the hope that he would procure a purchaser for them. He says in
a letter, “I had them brought down to me, and placed them in all lights,
and I _know_ them to be most rare and precious.” By his recommendation,
Mr. Angerstein offered £6,500 for the two, which was declined. At the
time when the Marquis of Londonderry closed with General M’Donald, who
was chamberlain to Madame Murat, then known as Countess Lipona (this
was during the Congress of Sovereigns at Verona in 1822), the Emperor of
Russia was negociating for them, and supposing that he had a right to
them, messengers were despatched after Londonderry’s couriers, but
fortunately they were not overtaken, though pursued to the Hague.
MAGDALEN BY CORREGGIO.
In 1837, Mr. Atherstone bought at an auction mart in London, a genuine
picture of a Magdalen by Correggio, for a small sum. He found it among a
parcel of rubbish sent to be sold by a gentleman, who had bought the
picture in Italy for ten pounds, without knowing anything of its value.
It was in perfect preservation, executed in the greatest style of
Correggio, surpassing in beauty of coloring and depth of tone the famous
specimens in the National Gallery!
The writer can tell an amusing story of a picture that was _not_ by
Correggio. It was a small picture of a Holy Family, on copper. It was
bought in Naples, for a very large sum, by a gentleman who resides not
many miles from New York, who smuggled it out of the country. On his
arrival home, wishing to improve the brilliancy of the coloring, which
appeared much obscured by the smoke and dust of many years, he sent it
to a skillful artist to be cleaned, who, on removing the plentiful coats
of varnish, soon discovered that it was nothing but _a transfer_. The
artist gently hinted to the _connoisseur_ that he had been duped.
“Zounds, sir, this cannot be; the picture was valued at $5,000 in
Naples, and I was offered very large prices for it by some of the best
judges in Paris.” The artist, with a little spirits, quickly brought the
lines of a print into full view, so that not even a glass was required
to see them! It is needless to say that the proprietor was greatly
chagrined, and vented his rage in curses loud and deep against foreign
impostors. Yet he ordered the coats of varnish to be replaced, and
afterwards sold the picture as an original Correggio.
DISCOVERY OF A CORREGGIO.
Among the numerous restorers of old pictures who resided at Rome about
1780, were two friends, an Italian named Lovera, and a German named
Hunterspergh. They were both pupils of the Cavaliere Mengs. They
frequented the sales of old pictures at the Piazza Nuova, as well to
purchase the works of the old masters at a low price, as to supply
themselves with old canvass, which they might repaint. On one occasion,
having bought a lot of old canvass and divided it between them, Lovera
received as a part of his share a very indifferent flower-piece. On
taking it home, he found that the ground scaled off, and to his surprise
discovered traces of a figure painted in an admirable style. He employed
himself with the utmost care in removing the ground which covered the
original picture, and thus restored a capital performance, representing
Charity, under the emblem of a Woman surrounded by three Children. The
report of this happy discovery soon spread; all the artists and amateurs
ran to behold it. The best judges, among whom was Mengs, acknowledged
the genuine style of Correggio, and valued the performance at £2,000.
The Earl of Bristol bought it from Lovera for about £1,500. An engraving
has since been made from it. The value was afterwards the subject of a
suit at law between Hunterspergh and Lovera.
LIONARDO DA VINCI.
This illustrious artist, denominated by Lanzi “the Father of Modern
Painting,” was also an eminent sculptor, architect, and engineer, the
natural son of Pietro da Vinci, notary to the Florentine Republic.
Vasari and his annotators place his birth in 1445; but Durazzini, in his
Panegyrics on Illustrious Tuscans, satisfactorily proves that he was
born in Lower Valdarno, at the castle of Vinci, in 1452.
PRECOCITY OF DA VINCI’S GENIUS.
At a very early age, Lionardo da Vinci showed remarkably quick abilities
for everything he turned his attention to, but more particularly for
arithmetic, music, and drawing. His drawings appeared something
wonderful to his father, who showed them to Andrea Verocchio, and that
celebrated artist, greatly surprised at seeing productions of such
merit from an uninstructed hand, willingly took Lionardo as a pupil. He
was soon much more astonished when he perceived the rapid progress his
pupil made; he felt his own inferiority, and when Lionardo painted an
angel in a picture of the Baptism of Christ, in S. Salvi at Vallombrosa,
so much superior to the other figures that it rendered the inferiority
of Verocchio apparent to all, he immediately relinquished the pencil for
ever. This picture is now in the academy at Florence. The first original
work by Lionardo, mentioned by Vasari, was the so-called Rotella del
Fico, a round board of a fig-tree, upon which his father requested him
to paint something for one of his tenants. Lionardo, wishing to astonish
his father, determined to execute something extraordinary, that should
produce the effect of the Head of Medusa; and having prepared the
rotella, and covered it with plaster, he collected almost every kind of
reptile, and composed from them a monster of most horrible appearance;
it seemed alive, its eyes flashed fire, and it appeared to breathe
destruction from its open mouth. The picture produced the desired effect
upon his father, who thought it so wonderful that he carried it
immediately to a picture dealer in Florence, sold it for a hundred
ducats, and purchased for a trifle an ordinary piece for his tenant.
EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS OF DA VINCI.
Lionardo da Vinci was endowed by nature with a genius uncommonly
elevated and penetrating, eager after discovery, and diligent in the
pursuit, not only in what related to painting, sculpture, and
architecture, but in mathematics, mechanics, hydrostatics, music,
poetry, botany, astronomy, and also in the accomplishments of
horsemanship, fencing, and dancing. Unlike most men of versatile talent,
he was so perfect in all these, that when he performed any one, the
beholders were ready to imagine that it must have been his sole study.
To such vigor of intellect he joined an elegance of features and
manners, that graced the virtues of his mind; he was affable with
strangers, with citizens, with private individuals, and with princes.
This extraordinary combination of qualities in a single man, soon spread
his fame over all Italy.
DA VINCI’S WORKS AT MILAN.
In 1494, Da Vinci was invited to Milan by the Duke Lodovico Sforza, who
appointed him Director of the Academy of Painting and Architecture,
which he had recently revived with additional splendor and
encouragement. During his residence there, he painted but little, with
the exception of his celebrated picture of the Last Supper, a
description of which will be found in a subsequent article. As Director
of the Academy, he banished all the dry, gothic principles established
by his predecessor, Michelino, and introduced the beautiful simplicity
and purity of the Grecian and Roman styles. Lanzi says that in this
capacity, “he left a degree of refinement at Milan, so productive of
illustrious pupils that this period may be ranked as the most glorious
era of his life.” The Duke engaged Lionardo in the stupendous project of
conducting the waters of the Adda, from Mortesana, through the
Valteline, and the valley of the Chiavenna to the walls of Milan, a
distance of nearly two hundred miles. Sensible of the greatness of this
undertaking, Lionardo applied himself more closely to those branches of
philosophy and mathematics which are most adapted to mechanics, and
finally accomplished this immense work, greatly to the astonishment and
admiration of all Italy. He executed the model for a colossal bronze
equestrian statue of the Duke’s father, Francesco Sforza, and would have
completed it, but the Duke’s affairs were becoming greatly embarrassed,
so that the necessary metal (200,000 lbs.) was not furnished. In 1500,
Lodovico Sforza was overthrown in battle by the French, made prisoner,
and conducted to France, where he soon after died in the castle of
Loches. The Academy was suppressed, the professors dispersed, and
Lionardo, after losing all, was obliged to quit the city, and take
refuge in Florence.
DA VINCI’S “BATTLE OF THE STANDARD.”
Soon after Lionardo’s return to Florence, in 1503, he was commissioned
by the Gonfalonière Soderini to decorate one side of the Council Hall of
the Palazzo Vecchio, while Michael Angelo was engaged to paint the
opposite side. Lionardo selected the battle in which the Milanese
general, Niccolo Piccinino, was defeated by the Florentines at Anghiari,
near Borgo San Sepolcro. This composition, of which he only made the
cartoon of a part, was called the Battle of the Standard; it represents
a group of horsemen contending for a standard, with various accessories.
Vasari praises the beauty and anatomical correctness of the horses, and
the costumes of the soldiers. Lanzi says it was never executed, after
his failing in an attempt to paint it in a new method upon the wall, but
Lucini afterwards represented it in a painting which is in the Ambrosian
Library at Milan, esteemed one of the finest works in that collection.
The fame of this contest between the two great artists, caused great
excitement, and induced Raffaelle, who had recently quitted the school
of Perugino, to visit Florence. The grace and delicacy of Lionardo’s
style, compared with the dry and gothic manner of Perugino, excited the
admiration of the young painter, and inspired him with a more modern
taste.
LIONARDO DA VINCI AND LEO X.