Produced by Barbara Tozier, Carol Brown, Bill Tozier and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
THE
HISTORY OF PAINTING
IN
ITALY.
VOL. II.
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. II.
CONTAINING THE SCHOOLS OF ROME AND NAPLES.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR
W. SIMPKIN AND R. MARSHALL,
STATIONERS'-HALL COURT, LUDGATE STREET.
1828.
J. M'Creery, Tooks Court,
Chancery-lane, London.
CONTENTS
OF
THE SECOND VOLUME.
HISTORY OF PAINTING IN LOWER ITALY.
BOOK THE THIRD.
ROMAN SCHOOL.
Page
EPOCH I. _The old masters_ 1
EPOCH II. _Raffaello and his school_ 48
EPOCH III. _The art declines, in consequence of the
public calamities of Rome, and gradually
falls into mannerism_ 124
EPOCH IV. _Restoration of the Roman school by Barocci
and other artists, subjects of the Roman
state and foreigners_ 177
EPOCH V. _The scholars of Pietro da Cortona, from
an injudicious imitation of their master, deteriorate
the art_--_Maratta and others support
it_ 262
BOOK THE FOURTH.
NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.
EPOCH I. _The old masters_ 345
EPOCH II. _Modern Neapolitan style, founded on the
schools of Raffaello and Michelangiolo_ 368
EPOCH III. _Corenzio, Ribera, Caracciolo, flourish in
Naples_--_Strangers who compete with them_ 389
EPOCH IV. _Luca Giordano, Solimene, and their
scholars_ 426
HISTORY OF PAINTING
IN
LOWER ITALY.
BOOK III.
ROMAN SCHOOL.
I have frequently heard the lovers of art express a doubt whether the
Roman School possesses the same inherent right to that distinctive
appellation as the schools of Florence, Bologna, and Venice. Those of
the latter cities were, indeed, founded by their respective citizens,
and supported through a long course of ages; while the Roman School, it
may be said, could boast only of Giulio Romano and Sacchi, and a few
others, natives of Rome, who taught, and left scholars there. The other
artists who flourished there were either natives of the cities of the
Roman state, or from other parts of Italy, some of whom established
themselves in Rome, and others, after the close of their labours there,
returned and died in their native places. But this question is, if I
mistake not, rather a dispute of words than of things, and similar to
those objections advanced by the peripatetic sophists against the modern
philosophy; insisting that they abuse the meaning of their words, and
quoting, as an example, the _vis inertiae_; as if that, which is in
itself inert, could possess the quality of force. The moderns laugh at
this difficulty, and coolly reply that, if the _vis_ displeased them,
they might substitute _natura_, or any other equivalent word; and that
it was lost time to dispute about words, and neglect things. So it may
be said in this case; they who disapprove of the designation of school,
may substitute that of academy, or any other term denoting a place where
the art of painting is professed and taught. And, as the learned
universities always derive their names from the city where they are
established, as the university of Padua or Pisa, although the professors
may be all, or in great part, from other states, so it is with the
schools of painting, to which the name of the country is always
attached, in preference to that of the master. In Vasari we do not find
this classification of schools, and Monsignor Agucchi was the first to
divide Italian art into the schools of Lombardy, Venice, Tuscany, and
Rome.[1] He has employed the term of schools after the manner of the
ancients, and has thus characterised one of them as the Roman School. He
has, perhaps, erred in placing Michel Angiolo, as well as Raphael, at
the head of this school, as posterity have assigned him his station as
chief of the school of Florence; but he has judged right in classing it
under a separate head, possessing, as it does, its own peculiar style;
and in this he has been followed by all the modern writers of art. The
characteristic feature in the Roman School has been said to consist in a
strict imitation of the works of the ancients, not only in sublimity,
but also in elegance and selection; and to this we shall add other
peculiarities, which will be noticed in their proper place. Thus, from
its propriety, or from tacit convention, the appellation of the Roman
School has been generally adopted; and, as it certainly serves to
distinguish one of the leading styles of Italian art, it becomes
necessary to employ it, in order to make ourselves clearly understood.
We cannot, indeed, allow to the Roman School so extensive a range as we
have assigned to that of Florence, in the first book; nevertheless,
every one that chooses may apply this appellation to it in a very
enlarged sense. Nor is the fact of other artists having taught, or
having given a tone to painting in the capital, any valid objection to
this term; since, in a similar manner, we find Titiano, Paolo Veronese,
and Bassano, in Venice, though all of them were strangers; but, as they
were subjects of her government, they were all termed Venetians, as that
name alike embraces those born in the city or within the dominions of
the Republic. The same may be said of the subjects of the Pope. Besides
the natives of Rome, there appeared masters from many of her subject
cities, who, teaching in Rome, followed in the steps of their
predecessors, and maintained the same principles of art. Passing over
Pier della Francesca and Pietro Vannucci, we may refer to Raffaello
himself as an example. Raffaello was born in Urbino, and was the subject
of a duke, who held his fief under the Roman see, and who, in Rome, held
the office of prefect of the city; and whose dominions, in failure of
male issue, reverted to the Pope, as the heritage of the church. Thus
Raffaello cannot be considered other than a Roman subject. To him
succeeded Giulio Romano and his scholars; who were followed by Zuccari,
and the mannerists of that time, until the art found a better style
under the direction of Baroccio, Baglione, and others. After them
flourished Sacchi and Maratta, whose successors have extended to our own
times. Restricted within these bounds, the Roman may certainly be
considered as a national school; and, if not rich in numbers, it is at
least so in point of excellence, as Raffaello in himself outweighs a
world of inferior artists.
The other painters who resided in Rome, and followed the principles of
that school, I shall neither attempt to add to, nor to subtract from the
number of its followers; adopting it as a maxim not to interfere in the
decision of disputes, alike idle and irrelevant to my subject. Still
less shall I ascribe to it those who there adopted a totally different
style, as Michelangiolo da Caravaggio, an artist whom Lombardy may lay
claim to, on account of his birth, or Venice, from his receiving his
education in that city, though he lived and wrote in Rome, and
influenced the taste of the national school there by his own example and
that of his scholars. In the same manner many other names will
occasionally occur in the history of this school: it is the duty of the
historian to mention these, and it is, at the same time, an incomparable
triumph to the Roman School, that she stands, in this manner, as the
centre of all the others; and that so many artists could not have
obtained celebrity, if they had not seen Rome, or could not have claimed
that title from the world unless they had first obtained her suffrage.
I shall not identify the limits of this school with those of the
dominions of the church, as in that case we should comprise in it the
painters of Bologna, Ferrara, and Romagna, whom I have reserved for
another volume. In my limits I shall include only the capital, and the
provinces in its immediate vicinity, as Latium, the Sabine territories,
the patrimony of the Church, Umbria, Picenum, and the state of Urbino,
the artists of which district were, for the most part, educated in Rome,
or under the eyes of Roman masters. My historical notices of them will
be principally derived from Vasari, Baglione, Passeri, and Leone
Pascoli. From these writers we have the lives of many artists who
painted in Rome, and the last named author has included in his account
his fellow countrymen of Perugia. Pascoli has not, indeed, the merits of
the three first writers; but he does not deserve the discredit thrown on
him by Ratti and Bottari, the latter of whom, in his notes to Vasari,
does not hesitate to call him a wretched writer, and unworthy of credit.
His work, indeed, on the artists of Perugia, shows that he
indiscriminately copied what he found in others, whether good or bad;
and to the vulgar traditions of the early artists he paid more than due
attention. But his other work, on the history of the modern painters,
sculptors, and architects, is a book of authority. In every branch of
history much credit is attached to the accounts of contemporary writers,
particularly if they were acquaintances or friends of the persons of
whom they wrote; and Pascoli has this advantage; for, in addition to
information from their own mouths, he derived materials from their
surviving friends, nor spared any pains to arrive at the truth, (_see
Vita del Cozza_). The judgment, therefore, which he passes on each
artist, is not wholly to be despised, since he formed it on those of the
various professors then living in Rome, as Winckelmann has observed
(tom. i. p. 450); and, if these persons, as it is pretended, have erred
in their judgment on the Greek sculptors, they have certainly not erred
in their estimate of modern painters, particularly Luti, to whom I
imagine Pascoli, from esteem and intimacy, deferred more than to any
other artist.
We have from Bellori other lives, written with more learning and
criticism, some of which are supposed to be lost. He had originally
applied himself to painting, but deserted that art, as we may conjecture
from Pascoli (_vita del Canini_), and attached himself to poetry, and
the study of antiquities: and his skill in both arts manifests itself in
the lives he has left, which are few, but interspersed with interesting
and minute particulars of the characters of the painters and their
works. In his plan, he informs us he has followed the advice of Niccolo
Poussin. He composed also a "Description of the figures painted by
Raffaello, in the churches of the Vatican;" a tract which contains some
severe reflections on Vasari,[2] but is nevertheless highly useful. We
also find a profusion of entertaining anecdotes in Taja, in his
"Description of the Vatican;" and in Titi, in his account of the
pictures, sculpture, and architecture of Rome. This work has recently
been republished, with additions; and we shall occasionally quote it
under the name of the _Guide_. Pesaro is indebted for a similar _Guide_
to Signor Becci, and Ascoli and Perugia to Signor Baldassare Orsini, a
celebrated architect. We have also the _Lettere Perugine_ of Sig.
Dottore Annibale Mariotti, which treat of the early painters of Perugia,
with a store of information and critical acumen that render them highly
valuable. To these may also be added, the _Risposta_ of the above named
Sig. Orsini, whom I regret to see entering on Etruscan ground, as he
there repeats many ancient errors, which have been long exploded by
common consent: in other points it is a treatise worth perusal. If we
turn to _Descriptions_, we have them of several periods, as that of the
Basilica Loretana, and that of Assisi, composed by P. Angeli; and the
account of the Duomo of Orvieto, written by P. della Valle; and the
works on the churches of S. Francesco di Perugia, and S. Pietro di Fano,
by anonymous writers. The Abbate Colucci has favoured us with recent
notices on various artists of Piceno and Umbria, and Urbino, in his
_Antichita Picene_, extended, as far as my observation goes, to tom.
XXXI.[3] The learned authors whom I have named, and others to whom I
shall occasionally refer, have furnished the chief materials of my
present treatise, although I have myself collected a considerable part
from artists and lovers of art, either in conversation, or in my
correspondence. Thus far in the way of introduction.
[Footnote 1: Bellori, Vite de' Pittori, p. 191. "The Roman School, of
which Raffaello and Michel Angiolo were the great masters, derived its
principles from the study of the statues and works of the ancients."]
[Footnote 2: Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. p. 323; and Dialoghi sopra le tre
Arti del Disegno. In Lucca, 1754.]
[Footnote 3: This work contains contributions from various quarters. I
have not, however, made an equal use of all; as I believe some pictures
to be copies, which are there referred to as originals; and as several
names there mentioned, may with propriety be omitted. In my references,
I shall often cite the collections; sometimes also the authors of some
more considerable treatises, as P. Civalli, Terzi, Sig. Agostino Rossi,
Sig. Arciprete Lazzari, respecting whom I must refer to the second
index, where will be found the titles of their respective works.]
ROMAN SCHOOL
EPOCH I.
_Early Artists._
If we turn our eyes for a moment to that tract of country which we have
designated as falling within the limits of the Roman School, amidst the
claims of modern art, we shall occasionally meet with both Greek and
Latin pictures of the rude ages; from the first of which we may
conclude, that Greek artists formerly painted in this part of Italy; and
from the latter, that our own countrymen were emulous to follow their
example. One of these artists is said to have had the name of Luca, and
to him is ascribed the picture of the Virgin, at S. Maria Maggiore, and
many others in Italy, which are believed to be painted by S. Luke the
Evangelist. Who this Luca was, or whether one painter or more of that
name ever existed, we shall presently inquire. The tradition was
impugned by Manni,[4] and after him by Piacenza, (tom. ii. p. 120,) and
is now only preserved among the vulgar, a numerous class indeed, who
shut their ears to every rational criticism as an innovation on their
faith. This vulgar opinion is alike oppugned by the silence of the early
artists, and the well attested fact, that in the first ages of the
church the Virgin was not represented with the holy Infant in her
arms;[5] but had her hands extended in the act of prayer. This is
exemplified in the funeral vase of glass in the Museo Trombelli at
Bologna, with the inscription MARIA, and in many bassirilievi of
christian sarcophagi, where she is represented in a similar attitude.
Rome possesses several of these specimens, and several are to be found
in Velletri.[6] It is however a common opinion, that these pictures are
by a painter of the name of Luca. Lami refers to a legend of the 14th
century of the Madonna dell'Impruneta, where they are said to be the
works of a Florentine of the name of Luca, who for his many christian
virtues obtained the title of saint.[7] They are not however all in the
same style, and some of them bear Greek inscriptions, whence we may
conclude that they are by various hands; although they all appear to be
painted in or about the 12th century. This tradition was not confined to
Italy alone, but found its way also into many of the eastern churches.
The author of the _Anecdotes des Beaux Arts_, relates that the memory of
a Luca, a hermit, who had painted many rude portraits of the Virgin, was
held in great veneration in Greece; and that through a popular
superstition he had succeeded to the title of S. Luke the Evangelist.
Tournefort (_Voyage, &c._) mentions an image of the Virgin at Mount
Lebanon, attributed by the vulgar to S. Luke; but which was doubtless
also the work of some Luke, a monk in one of the early ages.
More considerable remains both of the Greek and Italian artists of the
13th century are to be found in Assisi, as related in my first book; and
to those already mentioned as painted on the walls, may be added others
on panel, and all by unknown artists; particularly a crucifixion in S.
Chiara, of which there is a tradition, that it was painted before Giunta
appeared. Another picture anterior to this period, and bearing the date
of 1219, is to be seen at Subiaco; it is a consecration of a church, and
the painter informs us that _Conciolus pinxit_. If in addition to these
artists we inquire after the miniature painters, we may find specimens
of them in abundance, in the library of the Vatican, and other
collections in Rome. I shall name S. Agostino, in the public library of
Perugia, where the Redeemer is seen in the midst of saints, and the
opening of Genesis is painted in miniature; a design which, from the
angular folds of the drapery, partakes of the Greek style, but still
serves to prove this art to have been known at that time in Umbria. In
addition to what I have remarked, I may also observe, that in Perugia,
in the course of the same century, the artists were sufficiently
numerous to form an academy, as we may collect from the _Lettere
Perugine_, and these, when we consider the time, must have been in great
part miniature painters.
It is now time to notice Oderigi of Gubbio, a town very near to Perugia.
Vasari tells us that he was a man of celebrity, and a friend of Giotto,
in Rome; and Dante, in his second _Cantica_, calls him an honour to
Agobbio, and excelling in the art of miniature. These are the only
authorities that Baldinucci could have for transferring this ancient
artist to the school of Cimabue, and ingrafting him in his usual manner
on that stock. Upon these he founded his conjecture; and, according to
his custom, gave them more weight than they deserved. His opinion,
however amplified, reduces itself to the assumption that Giotto,
Oderigi, and Dante, were lovers of art, and common friends, and became
therefore acquainted in the school of Cimabue; a very uncertain
conclusion. We shall consider this subject more maturely in the school
of Bologna, since Oderigi lived there, and instructed Franco, from whom
Bologna dates the series of her painters. It is thought, too, that he
left some scholars in his native place, and not long after him, in 1321,
we find Cecco, and Puccio da Gubbio, engaged as painters of the
Cathedral of Orvieto; and about the year 1342, Guido Palmerucci of the
same place, employed in the palace of his native city. There remains a
work of his in fresco in the hall, much injured by time; but some
figures of saints are still preserved, which do not yield to the best
style of Giotto. Some other vestiges of very ancient paintings are to be
seen in the Confraternita de' Bianchi; in whose archives it is mentioned
that the picture of S. Biagio was repaired by Donato, in 1374; whence it
must necessarily be of a very early period. This and other interesting
information I obtained from Sig. Sebastiano Rangliasci, a noble
inhabitant of Gubbio, who has formed a catalogue of the artists of his
native city, inserted in the fourth volume of the last edition of
Vasari.
We are now arrived at the age of Giotto, and the first who presents
himself to us is Pietro Cavallini, who was instructed by Giotto, in
Rome,[8] in the arts of painting and mosaic, both of which he followed
with skill and intelligence. The Roman Guide makes mention of him, and
that of Florence refers to a Nunziata at S. Mark; and there are others
mentioned by Vasari as being in the chapels of that city; one of which
is in the Loggia del Grano. The most remarkable of his works is to be
seen in Assisi. It is a fresco, and occupies a large facade in one
division of the church. It represents the crucifixion of our Saviour,
surrounded by bands of soldiers, foot and horse, and a numerous crowd of
spectators, all varying in their dress and the expression of their
passions. In the sky is a band of angels, whose sympathizing sorrow is
vividly depicted. In extent and spirit of design it partakes of the
style of Memmi, and in one of the sufferers on the cross he has shewn
that he justly appreciated and successfully followed his guide. The
colours are well preserved, particularly the blue, which there, and in
other parts of the church, presents to our admiring gaze, to use the
language of our poets, a heaven of oriental sapphire.
Vasari does not appear to have been acquainted with any scholar of
Pietro Cavallini, except it be Giovanni da Pistoja; but Pietro, who
lived in Rome the greater part of his life, which was extended to a
period of eighty-five years, must have contributed his aid in no small
degree to the advancement of art, in the capital, as well as in other
places. However this may be, in that part of Italy, pictures of his
school are still found; or at least memorials of art of the age in which
he flourished. We have an Andrea of Velletri, of whom a specimen is
preserved in the select collection of the Museo Borgia, with the Virgin
surrounded by saints, a common subject at that period in the churches,
as I have before observed. It has the name of the painter, with the year
1334, and in execution approaches nearer to the school of Siena than any
other. In the year 1321 we find Ugolino Orvietano, Gio. Bonini di
Assisi, Lello Perugino, and F. Giacomo da Camerino, noticed by us in
another place, all employed in painting in the Cathedral of Orvieto.
Mariotti, in his letters, mentions other artists of Perugia, and the
memory of a very early painter of Fabriano is preserved by Ascevolini,
the historian of that city, who informs us, that in the country church
of S. Maria Maddalena, in his time, there was a picture in fresco, by
Bocco, executed in 1306. A Francesco Tio da Fabriano, who in 1318
painted the tribune of the Conventuals at Mondaino, is mentioned by
Colucci, (tom. xxv. p. 183). This work has perished; but the productions
of a successor of his at Fabriano are to be seen in the oratory of S.
Antonio Abate, the walls of which remain. Many histories of the saint
are there to be found, divided into pictures, in the early style, and
inscribed, _Allegrettus Nutii de Fabriano hoc opus fecit 136_.... The
art in these parts was not a little advanced by their proximity to
Assisi, where Giotto's scholars were employed after his death,
particularly Puccio Capanna of Florence. This artist, who is esteemed
one of the most successful followers of Giotto, after painting in
Florence, in Pistoia, Rimino, and Bologna, is conjectured by Vasari to
have settled in Assisi, where he left many works behind him.
We shall find the succeeding century more fruitful in art, as the Popes
at that time forsook Avignon, and, re-establishing themselves in Rome,
began to decorate the palace of the Vatican, and to employ painters of
celebrity both there and in the churches. There does not appear any
person of distinction amongst them as a native of Rome. From the Roman
State we find Gentile da Fabriano, Piero della Francesca, Bonfigli,
Vannucci, and Melozzo, who first practised the art of _sotto in su_; and
amongst the strangers are Pisanello, Masaccio, Beato Angelico,
Botticelli and his colleagues. Amongst these too, it is said, was to be
found Mantegna, and there still remains the chapel painted by him for
Innocent VIII. although since converted to another purpose. Each of
these artists I shall notice in their respective schools, and shall here
only mention such as were found in the country from the Ufente to the
Tronto, and from thence to the Metauro, which are the confines of our
present class. The names of many others may be collected from books; as
an Andrea, and a Bartolommeo, both of Orvieto, and a Mariotto da
Viterbo, and others who worked at Orvieto from 1405 to 1457; and some
who painted in Rome itself, a Giovenale and a Salli di Celano, and
others now forgotten. But without pausing on these, we will advert to
the artists of Piceno, of the State of Urbino, and the remaining parts
of Umbria: where we shall meet with the traces of schools which remained
for many years.
The school of Fabriano, which seems very ancient in Picenum, produced at
that time Gentile, one of the first painters of his age, of whom
Bonarruoti is reported to have said, that his style was in unison with
his name. The first notice we have of him is among the painters of the
church of Orvieto, in 1417; and then, or soon afterwards, he received
from the historians of that period the appellation of _magister
magistrorum_, and they mention the Madonna which he there painted, and
which still remains. He afterwards resided in Venice, where, after
ornamenting the Palazzo Publico, he was rewarded by the republic with a
salary, and with the privilege of wearing the patrician dress of that
city. He there, says Vasari, became the master, and, in a manner, the
father of Jacopo Bellini, the father and preceptor of two of the
ornaments of the Venetian school. These were Gentile, who assumed that
name in memory of Gentile da Fabriano, born in 1421; and Giovanni, who
surpassed his brother in reputation, and from whose school arose
Giorgione and Titian. He (Gentile da Fabriano) was employed in the
Lateran, at Rome, where he rivalled Pisanello, in the time of Martin V.;
and it is to be regretted that his works, both there and in Venice, have
perished. Facio, who eulogizes him, and who had seen his most finished
performances, extols him as a man of universal art, who represented, not
only the human form and edifices in the most correct manner, but painted
also the stormy appearances of nature in a style that struck terror into
the spectator. In painting the history of St. John, in the Lateran, and
the Five Prophets over it, of the colour of marble, he is said to have
used more than common care, as if he at that time prognosticated his own
approaching death, which soon afterwards occurred, and the work remained
unfinished. Notwithstanding this, Ruggier da Bruggia, as Facio relates,
when he went to Rome, in the holy year, and saw it, considered it a
stupendous work, which placed Gentile at the head of all the painters of
Italy. According to Vasari and Borghini, he executed a countless number
of works in the Marca, and in the state of Urbino, and particularly in
Gubbio, and in Citta di Castello, which are in the neighbourhood of his
native place; and there still remain in those districts, and in Perugia,
some paintings in his style. A remarkable one is mentioned in a country
church called la Romita, near Fabriano.[9] Florence possesses two
beautiful specimens: the one in S. Niccolo, with the effigy and history
of the sainted bishop, the other in the sacristy of S. Trinita, with an
Epiphany, having the date of 1423. They bear a near resemblance to the
style of B. Angelico, except that the proportions of the figures are not
so correct, the conception is less just, and the fringe of gold and
brocades more frequent. Vasari pronounces him a pupil of Beato, and
Baldinucci confirms this opinion, although he says that Beato took
religious orders at an early age in 1407, a period which would exclude
Gentile from his tuition. I conjecture both the one and the other to
have been scholars of miniature painters, from the fineness of their
execution, and from the size of their works, which are generally on a
small scale. The name of an Antonio da Fabriano appears in a
Crucifixion, in 1454, painted on wood, which I saw in Matelica, in the
possession of the Signori Piersanti; but it is inferior to Gentile in
style.[10]
On an ancient picture, which is preserved in Perugia, in the convent of
S. Domenico, is the name of a painter of Camerino, a place in the same
neighbourhood, who flourished in 1447. The inscription is _Opus Johannis
Bochatis de Chamereno_. In the same district is S. Severino, where we
find a Lorenzo, who, in conjunction with his brother, painted in the
oratory of S. John the Baptist in Urbino, the life of that saint. These
two artists were much behind their age. I have seen some other works by
them, from which it appears that they were living in 1470, and painted
in the Florentine style of 1400. Other artists of the same province are
named in the _Storia del Piceno_, particularly at S. Ginesio, a Fabio di
Gentile di Andrea, a Domenico Balestrieri, and a Stefano Folchetti,
whose works are cited, with the date of their execution attached to
them.[11] In this district also resided several strangers, scarcely
known to their native places, as Francesco d'Imola, a scholar of
Francia, who, in the convent of Cingoli, painted a Descent from the
Cross; and Carlo Crivelli, a Venetian, who passed from one state to
another, and finally settled in Ascoli. His works are to be met with
there more frequently than in any other city of Picenum. I shall speak
of his merits in the Venetian school, and shall here only add, that he
had for a pupil Pietro Alamanni, the chief of the painters of Ascoli, a
respectable _quattrocentista_, who painted an altarpiece at S. Maria
della Carita, in 1489. About this time also we find amongst their names
a Vittorio Crivelli, a Venetian, of the family, as I conjecture, and
perhaps of the school of Carlo. There is frequent mention of him in the
_Antichita Picene_.
Urbino, too, had her artists, as her princes were not behind the other
rulers of Italy in good taste. At the restoration of the art, we find
Giotto, and several of his scholars, there; and afterwards Gentile da
Fabriano,[12] a Galeazzo, and, possibly, a Gentile di Urbino. At Pesaro,
in the convent of S. Agostino, I have seen a Madonna, accompanied with
beautiful architecture, and an inscription--_Bartholomaeus Magistri
Gentilis de Urbino_, 1497; and at Monte Cicardo, I saw the same name on
an ancient picture of 1508, but without his birthplace. (Ant. Pic. tom.
xvii. 145.) I am in doubt whether this _M. Gentilis_ refers to the
father of Bartolommeo or his master, as the scholars at that time often
took their designation from their masters. At all events, this artist is
not to be confounded with Bartolommeo from Ferrara, whose son,
Benedetto, subscribes himself _Benedictus quondam Bartholomaei de Fer.
Pictor._ 1492. This is to be seen in the church of S. Domenico di
Urbino, on the altarpiece in the Chapel of the Muccioli, their
descendants.
In the city of Urbino there remain some works of the father of
Raffaello, who, in a letter of the Duchess Giovanna della Rovere, which
is the first of the Lettere Pittoriche, is designated as _molto
virtuoso_. There is by him in the church of S. Francis, a good picture
of S. Sebastian, with figures in an attitude of supplication. There is
one attributed also to him in a small church dedicated to the same
saint, representing his martyrdom, with a figure foreshortened, which
Raffaello, when young, imitated in a picture of the Virgin, at Citta di
Castello. He subscribed himself _Io. Sanctis Urbi._ (_Urbinas_). So I
read it in the sacristy of the Conventuals of Sinigaglia in an
Annunciation in which there is a beautiful angel, and an infant Christ
descending from the father; and which seems to be copied from those of
Pietro Perugino, with whom Raffaello worked some time, though it has a
still more ancient style. The other figures are less beautiful, but yet
graceful, and the extremities are carefully executed. But the most
distinguished painter in Urbino was F. Bartolommeo Corradini d'Urbino, a
Domenican, called Fra. Carnevale. To an accurate eye his pictures are
defective in perspective, and retain in the drapery the dryness of his
age, but the portraits are so strongly expressed that they seem to live
and speak; the architecture is beautiful, and the colours bright, and
the air of the heads at the same time noble and unaffected. It is known
that Bramante and Raffaello studied him, as there were not, at that
time, any better works in Urbino. In Gubbio, which formed a part of this
dukedom, were to be seen in that age the remains of the early school.
There exists a fresco by Ottaviano Martis in S. Maria Nuova, painted in
1403. The Virgin is surrounded by a choir of angels, certainly too much
resembling each other, but in their forms and attitudes as graceful and
pleasing as any contemporary productions.
Borgo S. Sepolcro, Foligno, and Perugia, present us with artists of
greater celebrity. Borgo was a part of Umbria subject to the Holy See,
and was, in 1440, pledged to the Florentines,[13] by Eugenius IV. at the
time Piero della Francesca, or Piero Borghese, one of the most memorable
painters of this age, was at the summit of his reputation. He must have
been born about 1398, since Vasari states that "he painted about the
year 1458,"[14] and that he became blind at sixty years of age, and
remained so until his death, in his eighty-sixth year. From his
fifteenth year he applied himself to painting, at which age he had made
himself master of the principles of mathematics, and he rose to great
eminence both in art and science.[15] I have not been able to ascertain
who was his master, but it is probable that as he was the son of a poor
widow, who had barely the means of bringing him up, he did not leave his
native place; and that under the guidance of obscure masters he raised
himself, by his own genius, to the high degree of fame which he enjoyed.
He first appeared, says Vasari, in the court of the elder Guidubaldo
Feltro, Duke of Urbino, where he left only some pictures of figures on a
small scale, which was the case with such as were not the pupils of the
great masters. He was celebrated for a remarkable drawing of a Vase, so
ingeniously designed that the front, the back, the sides, the bottom,
and the mouth, were all shewn; the whole drawn with the greatest
correctness, and the circles gracefully foreshortened. The art of
perspective, the principles of which he was, as some affirm, the first
among the Italians to develope and to cultivate, was much indebted to
him;[16] and painting, too, owed much to his example in imitating the
effects of light, in marking correctly the muscles of the naked figure,
in preparing models of clay for his figures, and in the study of his
drapery, the folds of which he fixed on the model itself, and drew very
accurately and minutely. On examining the style of Bramante and his
Milanese contemporaries, I have often thought that they derived some
light from Piero, for, as I have before said, he painted in Urbino where
Bramante studied, and afterwards executed many works in Rome, where
Bramantino came and was employed by Nicholas V.
In the Floreria of the Vatican is still to be seen a large fresco
painting, in which the above named pontiff is represented with cardinals
and prelates, and there is a degree of truth in the countenances highly
interesting. Taja does not assert that it is by Pietro, but says that it
is attributed to him.[17] Those which are pointed out in Arezzo
doubtless belong to him, and the most remarkable are the histories of
the holy cross in the choir of the church of the Conventuals, which shew
that the art was already advanced beyond its infancy; there is so much
new in the Giotto manner of foreshortening, in the relief, and in many
difficulties of the art overcome in his works. If he had possessed the
grace of Masaccio he might with justice have been placed at his side. At
Citta S. Sepolcro there still remain some works attributed to him; a S.
Lodovico Vescovo, in the public palace, at S. Chiara a picture of the
Assumption, with the apostles in the distance, and a choir of angels at
the top, but in the foreground are S. Francis, S. Jerome, and other
figures, which injure the unity of the composition. There are, however,
still traces in them of the old style; a poverty of design, a hardness
in the foldings of the drapery, feet which are well foreshortened, but
too far apart. As to the rest, in design, in the air, and in the
colouring of the figures, it seems to be a rude sketch of that style
which was ameliorated by P. Perugino, and perfected by Raffaello.
In the latter part of this century there flourished several good
painters at Foligno, but it is not known from whom they derived their
instructions. In the twenty-fifth volume of the Antichita Picene we
read, that in the church of S. Francesco di Cagli there exists (I know
not whether it be now there) a most beautiful composition, painted in
1461, at the price of 115 ducats of gold, by M. Pietro di Mazzaforte and
M. Niccolo Deliberatore of Foligno. At S. Venanzio di Camerino is a
large altarpiece on a ground of gold, with Christ on the Cross,
surrounded by many Saints, with three small evangelical histories added
to it. The inscription is _Opus Nicolai Fulginatis_, 1480; it is in the
style of the last imitators of Giotto, and there is scarcely a doubt
that the artist studied at Florence. I believe him to be the same artist
as Niccolo Deliberatore, or di Liberatore; and different from Niccolo
Alunno, also of Foligno, whom Vasari mentions as an excellent painter in
the time of Pinturicchio. He painted in distemper, as was common before
Pietro Perugino, but in tints that have survived uninjured to our own
times. In the distribution of his colours he was original; his heads
possess expression, though they are common, and sometimes heavy, when
they represent the vulgar. There is at S. Niccolo di Foligno a picture
by him, composed in the style of the fourteenth century, the Virgin
surrounded by saints, and underneath small histories of the Passion,
where the perspicuity is more to be praised than the disposition. In the
same style some of his pieces in Foligno are painted after 1500. Vasari
thinks they are all surpassed by his Pieta in a chapel of the Duomo, in
which are represented two angels, "whose grief is so vividly expressed,
that any other artist, however ambitious he might be, would find it
difficult to surpass it."
Perugia, from whence the art derived no common lustre, abounded in
painters beyond any other city. The celebrated Mariotti formed a long
catalogue of the painters of the fourteenth century, and among the most
conspicuous are Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, and Bartolommeo Caporali, of whom
we have pictures of the date of 1487. Some strangers were also to be
found amongst them, as that Lello da Velletri, the author of an
altarpiece, and its lower compartments, noticed by Signor Orsini.
Benedetto Bonfigli was distinguished above all others, and was the most
eminent artist of Perugia in his day. I have seen by him, besides the
picture in fresco in the Palazzo Publico, mentioned by Vasari, a picture
of the Magi, in S. Domenico, in a style similar to Gentile, and with a
large proportion of gold; and another in a more modern style, an
Annunciation, in the church of the Orfanelli. The angel in it is most
beautiful, and the whole picture would bear comparison with the works of
the best artists of this period, if the drawing were more correct.[18]
What I have already adduced sufficiently proves that the art was not
neglected in the Papal States, even in the ruder ages; and that men of
genius from time to time appeared there, who, without leaving their
native places, still gave an impulse to art. Florence, however, has ever
been the great capital of design, the leading academy, and the Athens of
Italy. It would be idle to question her indisputable claim to this high
honour; and Sixtus IV., who, as we have before mentioned, sought through
all Italy for artists to ornament the Sistine chapel, procured the
greatest number from Tuscany; nor were there to be found amongst them
any who were his own subjects, except Pietro Perugino, and he too had
risen to notice and celebrity in Florence. These then are the first
mature fruits of the Roman school, for until this period they had been
crude and tasteless. Pietro is her Masaccio, her Ghirlandajo, her all.
We will here take a short view of him and his scholars, reserving,
however, the divine Raffaello to the next epoch, which indeed is
designated by his illustrious name.
Pietro Vannucci della Pieve,[19] as he calls himself in some pictures,
or of Perugia in others, from the citizenship which he there enjoyed,
had studied under a master of no great celebrity, if we are to believe
Vasari; and this was a Pietro da Perugia, as Bottari conjectured, or
Niccolo Alunno, as it was reported in Foligno. Mariotti pretends that
Pietro advanced himself greatly in Perugia in the schools of Bonfigli,
and Pietro della Francesca, from which he not only derived that
excellence in perspective, which, from the testimony of Vasari was so
much admired in Florence, but also much of his design and colouring.[20]
Mariotti then raises a doubt whether, when he went as an artist to
Florence, he became the scholar of Verrocchio, as writers report, or
whether he did not rather perfect himself from the great examples of
Masaccio, and the excellent painters who at that time flourished there;
and he finally determines in favour of the opinion held by Pascoli,
Bottari, and Taja, and adopted by Padre Resta, in his _Galleria
Portatile_, p. 10, that Verrocchio was never his master. It is well
worth while to read the disquisitions of this able writer in his fifth
letter, where we may admire the dexterity with which he settles a point
so perplexed and so interesting to the history of art. I will only add
that it appears to me not improbable, that Pietro, when he arrived at
Florence, attached himself to this most celebrated artist, and was
instructed by him in design, and in the plastic art particularly, and in
that fine style of painting with which Verrocchio, without much
practising it himself, imbued both Vinci and Credi. Traditions are
seldom wholly groundless; they have generally some foundation in truth.
The manner of Pietro is somewhat hard and dry, like that of other
painters of his time; and he occasionally exhibits a poverty in the
drapery of his figures; his garments and mantles being curtailed and
confined. But he atones for these faults by the grace of his heads,
particularly in his boys and in his women; which have an air of elegance
and a charm of colour unknown to his contemporaries. It is delightful to
behold in his pictures, and in his frescos which remain in Perugia and
Rome, the bright azure ground which affords such high relief to his
figures; the green, purple, and violet tints so chastely harmonized, the
beautiful and well drawn landscape and edifices, which, as Vasari says,
was a thing until that time never seen in Florence. In his altarpieces
he is not sufficiently varied. There is a remarkable painting executed
for the church of S. Simone, at Perugia, of a Holy Family, one of the
first specimens of a well designed and well composed altarpiece. In
other respects Pietro did not make any great advances in invention; his
Crucifixions and his Descents from the Cross are numerous, and of an
uniform character. He has thus represented, with little variation, the
Ascensions of our Lord and of the Virgin, in Bologna, in Florence,
Perugia, and Citta di S. Sepolcro. He was reproached with this
circumstance in his lifetime, and defended himself by saying that no one
had a right to complain, as the designs were all his own. There is also
another defence, which is, that compositions, really beautiful, are
still seen with delight when repeated in different places; whoever sees
in the Sistine his S. Peter invested with the keys, will not be
displeased at finding at Perugia the same landscape, in a picture of the
Marriage of the Virgin. On the contrary, this picture is one of the
finest objects that noble city affords; and may be considered as
containing an epitome of the various styles of Pietro. In the opinion of
some persons, his frescos exhibit a more fertile invention, and greater
delicacy and harmony of colour. Of these, his masterpiece is in his
native city, in the Sala del Cambio. It is an evangelical subject, with
saints from the Old Testament, and with his own portrait, to which his
grateful fellow citizens attached an elegant eulogy. He is most eminent,
and adopts a sort of Raffaellesque style, in some of his latter
pictures. I have observed it in a Holy Family, in the Carmine in
Perugia. The same may be said too of certain small pictures, almost of a
miniature class; as in the grado of S. Peter, in Perugia, than which
nothing can be more finished and beautiful; and in many other pieces in
which he has spared no pains,[21] but which are few in comparison to the
multitude by his scholars, attributed to him.
In treating of the school of Pietro Perugino, it is necessary to advert
to what Taja,[22] and after him the author of the _Lettere Perugine_,
notices respecting his scholars, "that they were most scrupulous in
adhering to the manner of their master, and as they were very numerous,
they have filled the world with pictures, which both by painters and
connoisseurs are very commonly considered as his." When his works in
Perugia are inspected, he generally rises in the esteem of travellers,
of whom many have only seen paintings incorrectly ascribed to him. In
Florence there are some of his pictures in the Grand Duke's collection:
and in the church of S. Chiara, his beautiful Descent from the Cross,
and some other works; but in private collections both here and in other
cities of Tuscany, many Holy Families are assigned to him, which are
most probably by Gerino da Pistoja, or some of his Tuscan scholars, of
whom there is a catalogue in our first book. The Papal states also
possessed many of his scholars, who were of higher reputation, nor so
wholly attached to his manner as the strangers. Bernardino Pinturicchio,
his scholar and assistant in Perugia and in Rome, was a painter little
valued by Vasari, who has not allowed him his full share of merit. He
has not the style of design of his master, and retains more than
consistent with his age, the ornaments of gold in his drapery; but he is
magnificent in his edifices, spirited in his countenances, and extremely
natural in every thing he introduces into his composition. As he was on
the most familiar footing with Raffaello, with whom he painted at Siena,
he has emulated his grace in some of his figures, as in his picture of
S. Lorenzo in the church of the Francescani di Spello, in which there is
a small S. John the Baptist, thought by some to be by Raphael himself.
He was very successful in arabesques and perspective; in which way he
was the first to represent cities in the ornaments of his fresco
paintings, as in an apartment of the Vatican, where in his landscapes he
introduced views of the principal cities of Italy. In many of his
paintings he retained the ancient custom of making part of his
decorations of stucco, as the arches, a custom which was observed in the
Milanese school to the time of Gaudenzio. Rome possesses some of his
works, particularly in the Vatican, and in Araceli. There is a good
picture by him in the duomo of Spello.[23] His best is at Siena, in the
magnificent sacristy of which we have already made mention. They consist
of ten historical subjects, containing the most memorable passages in
the life of Pius II., and on the outside is an eleventh, which
represents the Coronation of Pius III., by whom this work was ordered.