proper to mention in this place before I enter on the succeeding
scholars of the Neapolitan School. These were Matteo da Siena, and
Antonello da Messina. The first we noticed in the school of Siena, and
mentioned his having painted in Naples the Slaughter of the Innocents.
It exists in the church of S. Caterina a Formello, and is engraved in
the third volume of the Lettere Senesi. The year M.CCCC.XVIII. is
attached to it, but we ought not to yield implicit faith to this date.
Il P. della Valle, in p. 56 of the above mentioned volume, observes,
that Matteo, in the year 1462, when he painted with his father in
Pienza, was young, and that in the portrait which he painted of himself
in 1491, he does not appear aged. He could not therefore have painted in
Naples in 1418. After this we may believe it very possible, that in this
date an L has been inadvertently omitted, and that the true reading is
M.CCCC.LXVIII. Thus the above writer conjectures, and with so much the
more probability, as he advances proofs, both from the form of the
letters and the absence of the artist from his native place. Whoever
desires similar examples, may turn to page 141 of vol. i., and he will
find that such errors have occurred more than once in the date of books.
Guided by this circumstance we may correct what Dominici has asserted of
Matteo da Siena having influenced the style of Solario. It may be true
that there is a resemblance in the air of the heads, and the general
style, but such similarity can only be accounted for by Matteo deriving
it from Solario, or both, as often happens, deriving it from the same
master.
Antonello, of the family of the Antonj, universally known under the name
of Antonello da Messina, is a name so illustrious in the history of art,
that it is not sufficient to have mentioned him in the first book and to
refer to him here again, as he will claim a further notice in the
Venetian School, and we must endeavour too to overcome some perplexing
difficulties, to ascertain with correctness the time at which he
flourished, and attempt to settle the dispute, whether he were the first
who painted in oil in Italy, or whether that art was practised before
his time. Vasari relates, that when young, after having spent many years
in Rome in the study of design,[101] and many more at Palermo, painting
there with the reputation of a good artist, he repaired first to
Messina, and from thence passed to Naples, where he chanced to see a
large composition painted in oil by Gio. da Bruggia, which had been
presented by some Florentine merchants to King Alfonso. Antonello,
smitten with this new art, took his departure to Flanders, and there, by
his affability, and by a present of some drawings of the Italian School,
so far ingratiated himself with Giovanni, as to induce him to
communicate to him the secret, and the aged painter dying soon
afterwards, thus left him instructed in the new art. This must have
happened about the year 1440, since that time is required to support the
supposition that Giovanni, born about 1370, died at an advanced age, as
the old writers assert, or exactly in 1441, as is asserted by the author
of the _Galleria Imperiale_. Antonello then left Flanders, and first
resided for some months in his native place; from thence he went to
Venice, where he communicated the secret to Domenico Veneziano; and
having painted there a considerable time, died there at the age of
forty-nine. All this we find in Vasari, and it agrees with what he
relates in the life of Domenico Veneziano, that this artist, after
having learnt the new method from Antonello in Venice, painted in Loreto
with Piero della Francesca, some few years before that artist lost his
eyesight, which happened in 1458. Thus the arrival of Antonello in
Venice must have occurred about the year 1450, or some previous year;
but this conclusion is contrary to Venetian evidence. The remaining
traces of Antonello, or the dates attached to his works there, commence
in 1474, and terminate according to Ridolfi in 1490. There does not
appear any reason whatever, why he should not have attached dates to his
pictures, until after residing twenty-four years in Venice. Besides, how
can it be maintained, that Antonello, after passing many years in Rome
as a student, and many in Palermo as a master, and some years in Messina
and Flanders, should not in Venice, in the forty-ninth year after the
death of Giovanni, have passed the forty-ninth year of his age. Hackert
quotes the opinion of Gallo, who in the _Annali di Messina_, dates the
birth of Antonello in 1447, and his death at forty-nine years of age,
that is, in 1496. But if this were so, how could he have known Gio. da
Bruggia? Yet if such fact be denied, we must contradict a tradition
which has been generally credited. I should be more inclined to believe
that there is a mistake in his age, and that he died at a more advanced
period of life. Nor on this supposition do we wrong Vasari; others
having remarked what we shall also on a proper opportunity confirm; that
as far as regards Venetian artists, Vasari errs almost in every page
from the want of accurate information. I further believe that respecting
the residence of Antonello in Venice, he wrote with inaccuracy. That he
was there about the year 1450, and communicated his secret to Domenico,
is a fact, which after so many processes made in Florence on the murder
of Domenico, and so much discussion respecting him, must have been well
ascertained, not depending on the report contained in the memoirs of the
painters by Grillandajo, or any other contemporary, in whose writings
Vasari might search for information. But admitting this, I am of
opinion, that Antonello did not reside constantly in Venice from the
year 1450 until his death, as Vasari insinuates. It appears that he
travelled afterwards in several countries, resided for a long time in
Milan, and acquired there a great celebrity; and that he repaired afresh
to Venice, and enjoyed there for some years a public salary. This we
gather from Maurolico, quoted by Hackert: _Ob mirum hic ingenium
Venetiis aliquot annos publice conductus vixit: Mediolani quoque fuit
percelebris_, (_Hist. Sican. pl. 186, prim. edit._), and if he was not a
contemporary writer, still he was not very far removed from Antonello.
This is the hypothesis I propose in order to reconcile the many
contradictory accounts which we find on this subject in Vasari, Ridolfi,
and Zanetti; and when we come to the Venetian School, I shall not forget
to adduce further proofs in support of it. Others may perhaps succeed
better than I have done in this task, and with that hope I shall console
myself: as in my researches I have no other object than truth, I shall
be equally satisfied whether I discover it myself, or it be communicated
to me by others.
That therefore Antonello was the first who exhibited a perfect method of
practising painting in oil in Italy, is an assertion that, it seems to
me, may be with justice maintained, or at least it cannot be said that
there is proof to the contrary. And yet in the history of the art in the
Two Sicilies, this honour is strongly disputed. In that history we find
the description of a chapel in the Duomo of Messina, called Madonna
della Lettera, where it is said there exists a very old Greek picture of
the Virgin, an object of adoration, which was said to be in oil. If this
were even admitted, it could not detract from the merit of Antonello in
having restored a beautiful art that had fallen into desuetude; but in
these Greek pictures, the wax had often the appearance of oil, as we
observed in vol. i. p. 89. Marco da Siena, in the fragment of a
discourse which Dominici has preserved, asserts, that the Neapolitan
painters of 1300 continued to improve in the two manners of painting in
fresco and in oil. When I peruse again what I have written in vol. i. p.
90, where some attempt at colouring in oil anterior to Antonello is
admitted, I may be permitted not to rely on the word of Pino alone.
There exist in Naples many pictures of 1300, and I cannot imagine, why
in a controversy like this, they are neither examined nor alluded to,
and why the question is rested solely on a work or two of Colantonio.
Some national writers, and not long since, Signorelli, in his _Coltura
delle due Sicili_ (tom. iii. p. 171), have pretended, that Colantonio
del Fiore was certainly the first to paint in oil, and adduce in proof
the very picture of S. Jerome, before mentioned, and another in S. Maria
Nuova. Il Sig. Piacenza after inspecting them, says, that he was not
able to decide whether these pictures were really in oil or not. Zanetti
(P. V. p. 20) also remarks, that it is extremely difficult to pass a
decided judgment on works of this kind, and I have made the same
observation with respect to Van Eyck, which will I hope, convince every
reader who will be at the trouble to refer to vol. i. p. 87. And unless
that had been the case, how happened it that all Europe was filled with
the name of Van Eyck in the course of a few years; that every painter
ran to him; that his works were coveted by princes, and that they who
could not obtain them, procured the works of his scholars, and others
the works of Ausse, Ugo d'Anversa, and Antonello; and of Ruggieri
especially, of whose great fame in Italy we shall in another place
adduce the documents.[102] On the other hand, who, beyond Naples and its
territory, had at that time heard of Colantonio? Who ever sought with
such eagerness the works of Solario? And if this last was the scholar
and son-in-law of a master who painted so well in oil, how happened it
that he was neither distinguished in the art, nor even acquired it? Why
did he himself and his scholars work in distemper? Why did the
Sicilians, as we have seen, pass over to Venice, where Antonello
resided, to instruct themselves, and not confine themselves to Naples?
Why did the whole school of Venice, the emporium of Europe, and capable
of contradicting any false report, attest, on the death of Antonello,
that he was the first that painted in oil in Italy, and no one opposed
to him either Solario or Colantonio?[103] They either could not at that
time have been acquainted with this discovery, or did not know it to an
extent that can contradict Vasari, and the prevailing opinions
respecting Antonello. Dominici has advanced more on this point than any
other person, asserting that this art was discovered in Naples, and was
carried from thence to Flanders by Van Eyck himself, to which
supposition, after the observations already made, I deem it superfluous
to reply.[104]
We shall now return to the scholars of Solario, who were very numerous.
Amongst them was a Niccola di Vito, who may be called the Buffalmacco of
this school, for his singular humour and his eccentric invention, though
in other respects he was an inferior artist, and little deserving
commemoration. Simone Papa did not paint any large composition in which
he might be compared to his master; he confined himself to altarpieces,
with few figures grouped in a pleasing style, and finished with
exquisite care; so that he sometimes equalled Zingaro, as in a S.
Michele, painted for S. Maria Nuova. Of the same class seems to have
been Angiolillo di Roccadirame, who in the church of S. Bridget, painted
that saint contemplating in a vision the birth of Christ; a picture
which even with the experienced, might pass for the work of his master.
More celebrated and more deserving of notice, are Pietro and Polito
(Ippolito) del Donzello, sons-in-law of Angiolo Franco, and relatives of
the celebrated architect Giuliano da Maiano, by whom they were
instructed in that art. Vasari mentions them as the first painters of
the Neapolitan school, but does not give any account of their master, or
of what school they were natives, and he writes in a way that might lead
the reader to believe that they were Tuscans. He says that Giuliano,
having finished the palace of Poggio Reale for King Robert, the monarch
engaged the two brothers to decorate it, and that first Giuliano dying,
and the king afterwards, Polito _returned_ to Florence.[105] Bottari
observes, that he did not find the two Donzelli mentioned by Orlandi,
nor by any one else; a clear proof that he did not himself consider them
natives of Naples, and on that account he did not look for them in
Bernardo Dominici, who has written at length upon them, complaining of
the negligence or inadvertent error of Vasari.
The pictures of the two brothers were painted, according to Vasari,
about the year 1447. But as he informs us that Polito did not leave
Naples until the death of Alfonso, this epoch should be extended to
1463, or beyond; as he remained for a year longer, or thereabouts, under
the reign of Ferdinand, the son and successor of Alfonso. He painted for
that monarch some large compositions in the refectory of S. Maria Nuova,
partly alone and partly in conjunction with his brother, and both
brothers combined in decorating for the king a part of the palace of
Poggio Reale. We may here with propriety also mention, that they painted
in one of the rooms the conspiracy against Ferdinand, which being seen
by Jacopo Sannazzaro, gave occasion to his writing a sonnet, the 41st in
the second part of his _Rime_. Their style resembles that of their
master, except that their colouring is softer. They distinguished
themselves also in their architectural ornaments, and in the painting of
friezes and trophies, and subjects in chiaroscuro, in the manner of
bassirilievi, an art which I am not aware that any one practised before
them. The younger brother leaving Naples and dying soon afterwards,
Pietro remained employed in that city, where he and his scholars
acquired a great reputation by their paintings in oil and fresco. The
portraits of Pietro had all the force of nature, and it is not long
since, that on the destruction of some of his pictures on a wall in the
palace of the Dukes of Matalona, some heads were removed with the
greatest care, and preserved for their excellence.
We may now notice Silvestro de' Buoni, who was placed by his father in
the school of Zingaro, and on his death attached himself to the
Donzelli. His father was an indifferent painter, of the name of Buono,
and from that has arisen the mistake of some persons, who have ascribed
to the son some works of the father in an old style, and unworthy the
reputation of Silvestro. This artist, in the opinion of the Cav.
Massimo, had a finer colouring and a superior general effect to the
Donzelli; and in the force of his chiaroscuro, and in the delicacy of
his contours, far surpassed all the painters of his country who had
lived to that time. Dominici refers to many of his pictures in the
various churches of Naples. One of the most celebrated is that of S.
Giovanni a Mare, in which he included three saints, all of the same
name, S. John the Baptist, the Evangelist, and S. Chrysostom.
Silvestro is said to have had a disciple in Tesauro, whose Christian
name has not been correctly handed down to us; but he is generally
called Bernardo. He is supposed to have been of a painter's family, and
descended from that Filippo who is commemorated as the second of this
school, and father or uncle of Raimo, whom we shall soon notice. This
Bernardo, or whatever his name may have been, made nearer approaches to
the modern style than any of the preceding artists; more judicious in
his invention, more natural in his figures and drapery; select,
expressive, harmonized, and displaying a knowledge in gradation and
relief, beyond what could be expected in a painter who is not known to
have been acquainted with any other schools, or seen any pictures beyond
those of his own country. Luca Giordano, at a time when he was
considered the Coryphaeus of painting, was struck with astonishment at
the painting of a Soffitto by Tesauro at S. Giovanni de' Pappacodi, and
did not hesitate to declare that there were parts in it, which in an age
so fruitful in fine works, no one could have surpassed. It represents
the Seven Sacraments. The minute description which the historian gives
of it, shews us what sobriety and judgment there were in his
composition; and the portraits of Alfonso II. and Ippolita Sforza, whose
espousals he represented in the Sacrament of Marriage, afford us some
light for fixing the date of this picture. Raimo Tesauro was very much
employed in works in fresco. Some pictures by him are also mentioned in
S. Maria Nuova, and in Monte Vergine; pictures, says the Cav. Massimo,
"very studied and perfect, according to the latest schools succeeding
our Zingaro."
To the same schools Gio. Antonio d'Amato owed his first instructions;
but it is said, that when he saw the pictures which Pietro Perugino had
painted for the Duomo of Naples, he became ambitious of emulating the
style of that master. By diligence, in which he was second to none, he
approached, as one may say, the confines of modern art; and died at an
advanced period of the sixteenth century. He is highly extolled for his
Dispute of the Sacrament, painted for the Metropolitan church, and for
two other pictures placed in the Borgo di Chiaia, the one at the
Carmine, the other at S. Leonardo. And here we may close our account of
the early painters, scanty indeed, but still copious for a city harassed
by incessant hostilities.[106]
[Footnote 98: In the Museo of the Sig. D. Franc. Daniele, are some
birds, not inferior to the doves of Furietti.]
[Footnote 99: I adopt this mode because "little has hitherto been
published on the Sicilian School," as the Sig. Hackert observes in his
_Memorie de' Pittori Messinesi_. I had not seen that book when I
published the former edition of the present work, and I was then
desirous that the memoirs of the Sicilian painters should be collected
together and given to the public. I rejoice that we have had memoirs
presented to us of those of Messina, and that we shall also have those
of the Syracusans and others, as the worthy professor gives us reason to
hope in the preface to the _Memorie_ before mentioned, which were
written by an anonymous writer, and published by Sig. Hackert with his
own remarks.]
[Footnote 100: The history of the art in Messina enumerates a series of
pictures from the year 1267, of which period is the S. Placido of the
cathedral, painted by an Antonio d'Antonio. It is supposed that this is
a family of painters, which had the surname of Antonj, and that many
pictures in S. Francesco, S. Anna, and elsewhere, are by different
Antonj, until we come to Salvatore di Antonio, father of the celebrated
Antonello di Messina, and himself a master; and there remains by him a
S. Francis in the act of receiving the Stigmata, in the church of his
name. Thus the genealogy of this Antonello is carried to the before
mentioned Antonio di Antonio, and still further by a writer called _il
Minacciato_ (Hack. p. 11), although Antonio never, to my knowledge,
subscribed himself degli Antonj, having always on his pictures, which I
have seen, inscribed his country, instead of his surname, as
_Messinensis_, _Messineus_, _Messinae_.]
[Footnote 101: The _Memorie de' Pittori Messinesi_ assert, that at Rome
he was attracted by the fame of the works of Masaccio, and that he there
also designed all the ancient statues. They add, too, that he arrived at
such celebrity, that his works are equal to those of the best masters of
his time. I imagine it must be meant to allude to those who preceded
Pietro Perugino, Francia, Gio. Bellini, and Mantegna; as his works will
not bear any comparison with those of the latter masters.]
[Footnote 102: In the first epoch of the Venetian School.]
[Footnote 103: The following inscription, composed at the instance of
the Venetian painters, is found in Ridolfi, p. 49. "_Antonius pictor,
praecipuum Messanae suae et totius Siciliae ornamentum hac humo contegitur:
non solum suis picturis, in quibus singulare artificium et venustas
fuit: sed et quod coloribus oleo miscendis splendorem et perpetuitatem_
PRIMUS ITALIAE PICTURAE _contulit, summo_ SEMPER _artificum studio
celebratus._"]
[Footnote 104: A letter of Summonzio, written on the 20th March, 1524,
has been communicated to me by the Sig. Cav. de' Lazara, extracted from
the 60th volume of the MSS. collected in Venice by the Sig. Ab. Profess.
Daniele Francesconi. It is addressed to M. A. Michele, who had requested
from him some information respecting the ancient and modern artists of
Naples; and in reference to the present question he thus speaks. "Since
that period (the reign of King Ladislaus), we have not had any one of so
much talent in the art of painting as our Maestro Colantonio of Naples,
who would in all probability have arrived at great eminence, if he had
not died young. Owing to the taste of the times, he did not arrive at
that perfection of design founded on the antique, which his disciple
Antonello da Messina attained; an artist, as I understand, well known
amongst you. The style of Colantonio was founded on the Flemish, and the
colouring of that country, to which he was so much attached, that he had
intended to go thither, but the King Raniero retained him here,
satisfied with showing him the practice and mode of such colouring."
From this letter, which seems contrary to my argument, I collect
sufficient, if I err not, to confirm it. For, 1st, the defence of those
writers falls to the ground, who assume that the art of oil colouring
was derived from Naples, while we see that Colantonio, by means of the
king, received it from Flanders. 2ndly, Van Eyck himself is not here
named, but the painters of Flanders generally; which country first
awakened, as we have observed, by the example of Italy, had discovered
new, and it is true, imperfect and inefficient methods, but still
superior to distemper; and who knows if this were not the mode adopted
by Colantonio. 3rdly, It is said that he died young, a circumstance
which may give credit to the difficulty that he had in communicating the
secret: in fact, it is not known that he communicated it even to his
son-in-law, much less to a stranger. 4thly, Hence the necessity of
Antonello undertaking the journey to Flanders to learn the secret from
Van Eyck, who was then in years, and not without difficulty communicated
it to him. 5thly, If we believe with Ridolfi that Antonello painted in
1494 in Trevigi, and credit the testimony of Vasari, that he was not
then more than forty-nine years of age, how could he be the scholar of
Colantonio, who, according to Dominici, died in 1444? It is with
diffidence I advance these remarks on a matter on which I have before
expressed my doubts, and I have been obliged to leave some points
undecided, or decided rather according to the opinions of others than my
own.]
[Footnote 105: In the ducal gallery in Florence, is a Deposition from
the Cross, wholly in the style of Zingaro: and I know not whether it
ought to be ascribed to Polito, who certainly resided in Florence, or to
some other painter of the Neapolitan School.]
[Footnote 106: In Messina, towards the close of the fifteenth century,
or at the beginning of the sixteenth, some artists flourished who
practised their native style, not yet modernised on the Italian model,
as Alfonso Franco, a scholar of Jacopello d'Antonio, and a Pietro Oliva,
of an uncertain school. Both are praised for their natural manner, the
peculiar boast of that age, but in the first we admire a correct design
and a lively expression, for which his works have been much sought after
by strangers, who have spared only to his native place a Deposition from
the Cross, at S. Francesco di Paola, and a Dispute of Christ with the
Doctors, at S. Agostino. Still less remains of Antonello Rosaliba,
always a graceful painter. This is a Madonna with the Holy Infant, in
the village of Postunina.]
NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.
SECOND EPOCH.
_Modern Neapolitan Style, founded on the Schools of Raffaello
and Michelangiolo._