another of the fair sex, to whose memory the Academy of S. Luke in Rome
erected a marble monument in their church, not so much in compliment to
her talents in painting, as in consequence of her having bequeathed to
that society all her property, which was considerable. In her epitaph
she is commemorated only as a miniature painter, and Orlandi describes
her as such, adding, that she resided for a long time in Florence, where
she left a large number of portraits in miniature of the Medici, and
other princes of that time, about the year 1630. She also painted in
other capitals of Italy, and died at an advanced age in Rome, in 1673.
Michelangiolo di Campidoglio of Rome, was greatly distinguished for his
masterly grouping of fruits. Though almost fallen into oblivion from the
lapse of years, his pictures are still to be met with in Rome, and in
other places. The noble family of Fossombroni in Arezzo, possess one of
the finest specimens of him that I have ever seen. More generally known
is Pietro Paolo Bonzi, called by Baglione, Il Gobbo di Cortona, which
was his native place; by others, Il Gobbo de' Caracci, from his having
been employed in their school; and by the vulgar, Il Gobbo da' Frutti,
from the natural manner of his painting fruit. He did not pass the
bounds of mediocrity in historical design, as we may see from his S.
Thomas, in the church of the Rotonda, nor in landscapes; but he was
unrivalled in painting fruits, and designing festoons, as in the ceiling
of the Palazzo Mattei; and in his elegant grouping of fruit in dishes
and baskets, as I have seen in Cortona, in the house of the noble family
of Velluti, in the Olivieri gallery in Pesaro, and elsewhere. The
Marchesi Venuti, in Cortona, have a portrait of him painted, it is
believed, by one of the Caracci, or some one of their school, and it is
well known, that the drawing of caricatures was a favourite amusement of
that academy.
At this brilliant epoch, the art of perspective too was carried to a
high degree of perfection in deceiving the eye of the spectator. From
the beginning of the seventeenth century, it had made great advances by
the aid of P. Zaccolini, a Theatine monk of Cesena, in whose praise it
is sufficient to observe, that Domenichino and Poussin were instructed
by him in this art. S. Silvestro, in Montecavallo, possesses the finest
specimen of this power of illusion, in a picture of feigned columns, and
cornices and other architectural decorations. His original drawings
remain in the Barberini library. Gianfrancesco Niceron de' P. P. Minimi
added to this science by his work entitled _Thaumaturgus opticus_, 1643;
and in a gallery of his convent at Trinita de' Monti, he painted some
landscapes, which, on being viewed in a different aspect, are converted
into figures. But the most practised artist in the academy of Rome, was
Viviano Codagora, who drew from the ruins of ancient Rome, and also
painted compositions of his own invention in perspective. He engaged
Cerquozzi and Miel, and others in Rome, to insert the figures for him,
but he was most partial to Gargiuoli of Naples, as we shall mention in
our account of that school. Viviano may he called the Vitruvius of this
class of painters. He was correct in his linear perspective, and an
accurate observer of the style of the ancients. He gave his
representations of marble the peculiar tint it acquires by the lapse of
years, and his general tone of colour was vigorous. What subtracts the
most from his excellence is a certain hardness, and too great a quantity
of black, by which his pictures are easily distinguished from others in
collections, and which in the course of time renders them dark and
almost worthless. His true name is unknown to the greater number of the
lovers of art, by whom he is called Il Viviani; and who seem to have
confounded him with Ottavio Viviani of Brescia, who is mentioned by the
Dictionaries; a perspective painter also, but in another branch, and in
a different style, as we shall hereafter see.
[Footnote 71: He excelled chiefly in architecture, although he had given
a proof of his talents in painting, in some subjects in the gallery,
executed under Gregory XIII.]
[Footnote 72: In the, not very accurate, catalogue of the pictures in
Fabriano, besides the above mentioned fourteen, seven more are mentioned
by the same master.]
[Footnote 73: Mention is also made of one Basilio Maggieri, an excellent
painter of portraits.]
[Footnote 74: V. Le Pitture pubbliche di Piacenza, p. 81.]
[Footnote 75: In a letter of the Oretti correspondence, written in 1777,
from Andrea Zanoni to the Prince Ercolani, I find Marini classed in the
school of Ferrau da Faenza, and there still remain many pictures by him
in the style of that master.]
[Footnote 76: Pascoli has restored to him the picture of S. Rosalia at
the Maddalena, which Titi had ascribed to Michele Rocca, called _Il
Parmigianino_, an artist of repute, and proper to be mentioned, as by
those who are not acquainted with his name and style, he might be
mistaken for Mazzuola, or perhaps Scaglia. The same author, soon
afterwards, mentions Grecolini, and thereby renders any further notice
of that artist on my part unnecessary.]
[Footnote 77: We ought to judge of him from the Visitation, at the
church of the Orfanelli, rather than from the picture of various Saints,
in _Ara Coeli_. This kind of observation may be extended to many other
artists, who are commemorated for the sake of some superior work.]
[Footnote 78: Memoirs of this painter have been long a desideratum, as
may be seen from the Lett. Pitt. tom. v. p. 257. I give such information
as I have been able to procure in his native place, assisted by the
researches of the very obliging Monsignore Massajuoli, Bishop of Nocera.
Gio. Batista was born in Sassoferrato on the 11th July, 1605, and died
in Rome on the 8th August, 1685. And I may here correct an error of my
first edition, where it is printed 1635.]
[Footnote 79: There is a picture of the Rosario in the church of the
Eremitani, with his name, and the year 1573. It is a large composition.]
[Footnote 80: In the Oretti Correspondence there is a letter from an
anonymous writer to Malvasia respecting this painter, who is there
called Francesco, and is declared to be _Pittore di molta stima_. He
then painted in Ancona, as appears from letters under his own hand to
Malvasia, where he invariably subscribes himself Francesco.]
[Footnote 81: Passeri, Vite de' Pittori, page 363. He was remarkable for
being the first to adopt a new style in trees in landscapes, where by a
strong character of truth and attention to the forms of the trunk,
foliage, and branches, he denoted the particular species he wished to
express.]
[Footnote 82: He painted for his _studio_ a landscape enriched with
views from the Villa Madama, in which a wonderful variety of trees was
introduced. This he preserved for the purpose of supplying himself, as
from nature, with subjects for his various pictures, and refused to sell
it to the munificent pontiff, Clement IX., although that prince offered
to cover it with pieces of gold.]
[Footnote 83: V. Salvator Rosa, sat. iii. p. 79, where he reprehends not
only the artists, but also the great, for affording such pictures a
place in their collections.]
[Footnote 84: He was the ancestor of the Sig. Giuseppe Rosa, director of
the imperial gallery in Vienna, who has given us a catalogue of the
Italian and Flemish pictures of that collection, and who will, we hope,
add the German. Of this deserving artist he possesses a portrait,
engraved in 1789, where we find a list of the various academies that had
elected him a member, and these are numerous, and of the first class in
Europe. We find him also amongst those masters whose drawings were
collected by Mariette; and he is also mentioned in the Lessico
Universale delle Belle Arti, edited in Zurich, in 1763.]
ROMAN SCHOOL.
FIFTH EPOCH.
_The Scholars of Pietro da Cortona, from an injudicious
imitation of their Master, deteriorate the art. Maratta
and others support it._
It may with equal justice be asserted of the fine arts, as of the belles
lettres, that they never long remain in the same state, and that they
experience often great changes even in the common period assigned to the
life of man. Many causes contribute to this; public calamities, such as
I mentioned to have occurred after the death of Raffaello; the
instability of the human mind, which in the arts as in dress is guided
by fashion and the love of novelty; the influence of particular artists;
the taste of the great, who from their selection or patronage of
particular masters, silently indicate the path to those artists who seek
the gifts of fortune. These and other causes tended to produce the
decline of painting in Rome towards the close of the seventeenth
century, at a time too when literature began to revive; a clear proof
that they are not mutually progressive. This was in a great measure
occasioned by the calamitous events which afflicted Rome and the state,
about the middle of that century; by the feuds of the nobles, the flight
of the Barberini family, and other unfortunate circumstances, which,
during the pontificate of Innocent X., as we are informed by Passeri,
(p. 321,) rendered the employment of artists very precarious; but more
than all the dreadful plague of 1655, under Alexander VII. To this state
of decay too the evil passions of mankind contributed in no small
degree, and these indeed in all revolutions are among the most active
and predominant sources of evil, and often even in a prosperous state of
things sow the seeds of future calamities.
The Cav. Bernini, a man of more talents as an architect than as a
sculptor, was under Urban VIII. and Innocent X., and also until the year
1680, in which he died, the arbiter of the public taste in Rome. The
enemy of Sacchi and the benefactor of Cortona, he obtained more employ
for his friend than for his rival; and this was easily accomplished, as
Cortona was rapid as well as laborious, while Sacchi was slow and
irresolute, qualities which rendered him unacceptable even to his own
patrons. In course of time Bernini began to favour Romanelli, to the
prejudice of Pietro; and, instructing that artist and Baciccio in his
principles, he influenced them to the adoption of his own style, which,
though it possessed considerable beauty, was nevertheless mannered,
particularly in the folds of the drapery. The way being thus opened to
caprice, they abandoned the true, and substituted false precepts of art,
and many years had not elapsed before pernicious principles appeared in
the schools of the painters, and particularly in that of Cortona. Some
went so far as to censure the imitation of Raffaello, as Bellori attests
in the Life of Carlo Maratta, (p. 102,) and others ridiculed, as
useless, the study of nature, preferring to copy, in a servile manner,
the works of other artists. These effects are visible in the pictures of
the time. All the countenances, although by different artists, have a
fulness in the lips and nose like those of Pietro, and have all a sort
of family resemblance, so much are they alike; a defect which Bottari
says is the only fault of Pietro, but it is not the only fault of his
school. Every one was anxious to avoid the labour of study, and to
promote facility at the expense of correct design; the errors in which
they endeavoured to conceal by overcharging rather than discriminating
the contours. No one can be desirous that I should enter into further
particulars, when we are treating of matters so very near our own times,
and whoever is free from prejudice may judge for himself. I now return
to the state of the Roman School about one hundred and twenty years
back.
The schools most in repute, after the death of Sacchi, in 1661, and of
Berrettini, in 1670, when the best scholars of the Caracci were dead,
were reduced to two, that of Cortona supported by Ciro, and that of
Sacchi, by Maratta. The first of these expanded the ideas, but induced
negligence; the second enforced correctness, but fettered the ideas.
Each adopted something from the other, and not always the best part; an
affected contrast pleased some of the scholars of Maratta, and the
drapery of Maratta was adopted by some of the followers of Ciro.[85] The
school of Cortona exhibited a grand style in fresco; the other school
was restricted to oils. They became rivals, each supported by its own
party, and were impartially employed by the pontiffs until the death of
Ciro, that is, until 1689. From that time a new tone was given to art by
Maratta, who, under Clement XI., was appointed director of the numerous
works which that pontiff was carrying on in Rome and in Urbino. Although
this master had many able rivals, as we shall see, he still maintained
his superiority, and on his death, his school continued to flourish
until the pontificate of Benedict XIV., ultimately yielding to the more
novel style of Subleyras, Batoni, and Mengs. Thus far of the two schools
in general: we shall now notice their followers.
Besides the scholars whom Pietro formed in Tuscany, as Dandini of
Florence, Castellucci of Arezzo, Palladino of Cortona, and those whom he
formed in other schools, where we shall see them as masters, he educated
others in the Roman state, of whom it is now time to speak. The number
of his scholars is beyond belief. They were enumerated by Sig. Cav.
Luzi, a nobleman of Cortona, who composed a life of Berrettini with more
accuracy than had been before done, but his death prevented the
publication of it. Pietro continued to teach to the close of his life,
and the picture of S. Ivo, which he left imperfect, was finished by Gio.
Ventura Borghesi, of Citta di Castello. Of this artist there are also at
S. Niccola, two pictures, the Nativity, and the Assumption of the
Virgin, and I am not acquainted with any other public specimens of his
pencil in Rome. His native place possesses many of his performances, and
the most esteemed are four circles of the History of S. Caterina, V. M.,
in the church of that saint. Many of his works are to be found also in
Prague, and the cities of Germany. He follows Pietro with sufficient
fidelity in design, but does not display so much vigour of colour. Carlo
Cesi, of Rieti, or rather of Antrodoco, in that neighbourhood, was also
a distinguished scholar of Pietro. He lived in Rome, and in the Quirinal
gallery, where the best artists of the age painted under Alexander VII.,
he has left a large picture of the Judgment of Solomon. He worked also
in other places; as at S. M. Maggiore, at the Rotunda, and was
patronized by several cardinals. He was correct in his design, and
opposed, both in person and by his precepts and example, the fatal and
prevailing facility of his time. Pascoli has preserved some of his
axioms, and this among others, that the beautiful should not be crowded,
but distributed with judgment in the composition of pictures; otherwise
they resemble a written style, which by the redundancy of brilliant and
sententious remarks fails in its effect. Francesco Bonifazio was of
Viterbo, and from the various pictures by him, which Orlandi saw in that
city, I do not hesitate to rank him among the successful followers of
Pietro. We may mention Michelangiolo Ricciolini, a Roman by birth,
although called of Todi, whose portrait is in the Medici gallery, where
is also that of Niccolo Ricciolini, respecting whom Orlandi is silent.
Both were employed in decorating the churches of Rome; the second had
the reputation of a better designer than the first, and in the cartoons
painted for some mosaics for the Vatican church, he competed with the
Cav. Franceschini. Paolo Gismondi, called also Paolo Perugino, became a
good fresco painter, and there are works remaining by him in the S.
Agata, in the Piazza Nova, and at S. Agnes, in the Piazza Navona. Pietro
Paolo Baldini, of whose native place I am ignorant, is stated by Titi to
have been of the school of Cortona. Ten pictures by him are counted in
the churches of Rome, and in some of them, as in the Crucifixion of S.
Eustace, a precision of style derived from another school is observable.
Bartolommeo Palombo has only two pictures in the capital. That of S.
Maria Maddelena de' Pazzi, which is placed at S. Martino a' Monti,
entitles him to rank with the best of his fellow scholars, the picture
possesses so strong a colouring, and the figures are so graceful and
well designed. Pietro Lucatelli, of Rome, was a distinguished painter,
and is named in the catalogue of the Colonna gallery, as the scholar of
Ciro, and in Titi, as the disciple of Cortona. He is a different artist
from Andrea Lucatelli, of whom we shall shortly speak. Gio. Batista
Lenardi, whom, in a former edition, I hesitated to place in the list of
the pupils of Pietro, I now consider as belonging to that school, though
he was instructed also by Baldi. In the chapel of the B. Rita, at S.
Agostino, he painted two lateral pictures as well as the vault; he also
ornamented other churches with his works, and particularly that of
Buonfratelli, at Trastevere, where he painted the picture of S. Gio.
Calibita. That of the great altar was ascribed to him, probably from a
similarity of style; but is by Andrea Generoli, called Il Sabinese, a
pupil either of Pietro himself, or of one of his followers.
Thus far of the less celebrated of this school. The three superior
artists, whose works still attract us in the galleries of princes, are
Cortesi, and the two elder scholars of the academy of Pietro, Romanelli
and Ferri. Nor is it improbable that having competitors in some of his
first scholars, he became indisposed to instruct others with the same
degree of good will, as those noble minds are few, in whom the zeal of
advancing the art exceeds the regret at having produced an ingrate or a
rival.
Guglielmo Cortesi, the brother of P. Giacomo, like him named Il
Borgognone, was one of the best artists of this period; and a scholar
rather than an imitator of Pietro. His admiration was fixed on Maratta,
whom he followed in the studied variety of his heads, and in the
sobriety of the composition, more than in the division of the folds of
his drapery or in colour; in which latter he manifested a clearness
partaking of the Flemish. His style was somewhat influenced by that of
his brother, whose assistant he was, and by his study of the Caracci. He
often appears to have imitated the strong relief and azure grounds of
Guercino. His Crucifixion of S. Andrea, in the church of Monte Cavallo,
the Fight of Joshua in the Quirinal palace, and a Madonna attended by
Saints, in the Trinita de' Pellegrini, merit our attention. In these
works there is a happy union of various styles, exempt from mannerism.
Francesco Romanelli was born at Viterbo, and, as well as Testa, studied
some time under Domenichino. He afterwards placed himself with Pietro,
whose manner he imitated so successfully, that on Pietro going on a
journey into Lombardy, he left him, together with Bottalla (called
Bortelli by Baldinucci) to supply his place in decorating the Barberini
palace. It is reported that the two scholars, in the absence of their
master, endeavoured to have the work transferred to themselves, and were
on that account dismissed. It was at this time that Romanelli, assisted
by Bernini, changed his style, and adopted by degrees a more elegant and
a seductive manner in his figures, but possessing less grandeur and
science than that of Pietro. He used more slender proportions, clearer
tints, and a more minute taste in folding his drapery. His Deposition in
S. Ambrogio, which was extolled as a prodigy, stimulated Pietro to paint
opposite to it that wonderful picture of S. Stephen, on seeing which
Bernini exclaimed, that he then perceived the difference between the
master and the scholar. Romanelli was twice in France, having found a
patron in the Cardinal Barberini, who had fled to Paris; and he
participated in the spirited manner of that country, which gave an
animation before unknown to his figures. This at least is the opinion of
Pascoli. He decorated a portico of Cardinal Mazarine with subjects from
the metamorphoses of Ovid, and afterwards adorned some of the royal
saloons with passages from the AEneid. He was preparing to return to
France with his family for the third time, when he was intercepted by
death at Viterbo. He left in that city, at the grand altar of the Duomo,
the picture of S. Lorenzo, and in Rome, and in other cities of Italy,
numerous works both public and private, although he died at about
forty-five years of age. He had the honour of painting in the church of
the Vatican. The presentation which he placed there is now in the church
of the Certosa, the mosaic in S. Peter. He did not leave behind him any
scholars who inherited his reputation. Urbano, his son, was educated by
Ciro after the death of his father. He is known for his works in the
cathedral churches of Velletri and Viterbo: those in Viterbo are from
the life of S. Lorenzo, the patron saint of the church, and prove him to
have been a young man of considerable promise, but he was cut off
prematurely.
Ciro Ferri, a Roman by birth, was, of all the disciples of Cortona, the
one the most attached in person, and similar to him in style; and not a
few of the works of Pietro were given to him to complete, both in
Florence and in Rome. There are indeed some pictures so dubious, that
the experienced are in doubt whether to assign them to the master or the
scholar. He displays generally less grace in design, a less expansive
genius, and shuns that breadth of drapery which his master affected. The
number of his works in Rome is not proportioned to his residence there,
because he lent much assistance to his master. There is a S. Ambrogio in
the church of that saint just mentioned, and it is a touchstone of merit
for whoever wishes to compare him with the best of his fellow scholars,
or with his master himself. His works in the Pitti palace have been
already mentioned in another place, and we ought not to forget another
grand composition by him in S. M. Maggiore in Bergamo, consisting of
various scriptural histories painted in fresco. He speaks of them
himself in some letters inserted in the Pittoriche, (tom. ii. p. 38,)
from which we gather, that he had been reprehended for his colouring,
and contemplated visiting Venice in order to improve himself. He did not
leave any scholar of celebrity in Rome. Corbellini, who finished the
Cupola of S. Agnes, the last work of Ciro, which has been engraved,
would not have found a place in Titi and Pascoli, if it had not been to
afford those writers an opportunity of expressing their regret at so
fine a composition being injured by the hand that attempted to finish
it.
But another scion of the same stock sprung up to support the name and
credit of the school of Ciro, transferred from Florence to Rome. We
mentioned in the first book, that when Ciro was in Florence he formed a
scholar in Gabbiani, who became the master of Benedetto Luti. Ciro was
only just dead when Luti arrived in Rome, who not being able to become
his scholar, as he had designed when he left his native place, applied
himself to studying the works of Ciro, and those of other good masters,
as I have elsewhere remarked. He thus formed for himself an original
style, and enjoyed in Rome the reputation of an excellent artist in the
time of Clement XI., who honoured him with commissions, and decorated
him with the cross. It is to be regretted that he attached himself so
much to crayons, with which he is said to have inundated all Europe. He
was intended by nature for nobler things. He painted well in fresco, and
still better in oils. His S. Anthony in the church of the Apostles, and
the Magdalen in that of the Sisters of Magnanapoli, which is engraved,
are highly esteemed. Nor would it add a little to his reputation, if we
had engravings of his two pictures in the Duomo of Piacenza, S. Conrad
penitent, and S. Alexius recognised after death; where, amidst other
excellences, a fine expression of the pathetic predominates. Of his
profane pieces, his Psyche in the Capitoline gallery, is the most
remarkable, and breathes an elegant and refined taste. Of the few
productions which Tuscany possesses by him, we have written in the
school of Gabbiani. We shall here mention a few of his scholars, who
remained in Rome, noticing others in various schools.