SIENESE SCHOOL.
EPOCH I. _The old masters_ 372
EPOCH II. _Foreign painters at Siena_--_Origin and
progress of the modern style in that city_ 406
EPOCH III. _The art having declined through the
disasters of the state, is revived by the labours
of Salimbeni and his sons_ 433
PREFACE.
When detached or individual histories become so numerous that they can
neither be easily collected nor perused, the public interest requires a
writer capable of arranging and embodying them in the form of a general
historical narrative; not, indeed, by a minute detail of their whole
contents, but by selecting from each that which appears most interesting
and instructive. Hence it mostly happens, that the diffuse compositions
of earlier ages are found to give place to compendiums, and to succinct
history. If this desire has prevailed in former times, it has been, and
now is, more especially the characteristic of our own. We live in an age
highly favourable, in one sense at least, to the cultivation of
intellect: the boundaries of science are now extended beyond what our
forefathers could have hoped, much less foreseen; and we become anxious
only to discover the readiest methods of obtaining a competent
knowledge, at least, of several sciences, since it is impossible to
acquire them all. On the other hand, the ages preceding ours, since the
revival of learning, being more occupied about words than things, and
admiring certain objects that now seem trivial to the generality of
readers, have produced historical compositions, the separate nature of
which demands combination, no less than their prolixity requires
abridgment.
If these observations are applicable to other branches of history, they
are especially so to the history of painting. Its materials are found
ready prepared, scattered through numerous memoirs of artists of every
school which, from time to time, have been given to the public: and
additional articles are supplied by dictionaries of art, letters on
painting, guides to several cities, catalogues of various collections,
and by many tracts relating to different artists, which have been
published in Italy. But these accounts, independent of want of
connexion, are not useful to the generality of readers. Who, indeed,
could form a just idea of painting in Italy by perusing the works of
certain historians of latter ages, and some even of our own time, which
abound in invectives, and in attempts to exalt favourite masters above
the artists of all other schools; and which confer eulogies
indiscriminately upon professors of first, second, or third-rate
merit?[2] How few are there who feel interested in knowing all that is
said of artists with so much verbosity by Vasari, Pascoli, or
Baldinucci; their low jests, their amours, their private affairs, and
their eccentricities? What do we learn by being informed of the
jealousies of the Florentine artists, the quarrels of the Roman, or the
boasts of the Bolognian schools? Who can endure the verbal accuracy with
which their wills and testaments are recorded, even to the subscription
of the notary, as if the author had been drawing up a legal document; or
the descriptions of their stature and physiognomy, more minute than the
ancients afford us of Alexander or Augustus?[3] Not that I object to the
introduction of such particulars in the lives of the great luminaries of
art: in a Raffaello or a Caracci minute circumstances derive interest
from the subject; but how intolerable do they become in the life of an
ordinary individual, where the principal incidents are but little
interesting? Suetonius has not written the lives of his Caesars and his
grammarians in the same manner: the former he has rendered familiar to
the reader; the latter are merely noticed and passed over.
The tastes of individuals, however, are different, and some people
delight in minutiae, as it regards both the present and the past; and
since it may be of utility to those who may hereafter be inclined to
give a very full and perfect history of every thing relating to Italian
painting, let us view with indulgence those who have employed themselves
in compiling lives so copious, and let those who have time to spare,
beguile it with their perusal. At the same time, due regard should be
paid to that very respectable class of readers, who, in a history of
painting, would rather contemplate the artist than the man; and who are
less solicitous to become acquainted with the character of a single
painter, whose solitary and insulated history cannot prove instructive,
than with the genius, the method, the invention, and the style of a
great number of artists, with their characteristics, their merits, and
their rank, the result of which is a history of the whole art.
To this object there is no one whom I know who has hitherto dedicated
his pen, although it seems to be recommended no less by the passion
indulged by princes for the fine arts, than by the general diffusion of
a knowledge of them among all ranks. The habit of travelling, rendered
more familiar to private persons by the example of many great
sovereigns, the traffic in pictures, now become a branch of commerce
important to Italy, and the philosophic genius of this age, which shuns
prolixity in every study, and requires systematic arrangement, are
additional incentives to the task. It is true that very pleasing and
instructive biographical sketches of the most celebrated painters have
been published by M. d'Argenville, in France; and various epitomes have
since appeared, in which the style of painting alone is discussed.[4]
But without taking into account the corruptions of the names of our
countrymen in which their authors have indulged, or their omission of
celebrated Italians, while they record less eminent artists of other
countries, no work of this sort, and still less any dictionary, can
afford us a systematic history of painting: none of these exhibit those
pictures, if we may be allowed the expression, in which we may, at a
glance, trace the progress and series of events; none of them exhibit
the principal masters of the art in a sufficiently conspicuous point of
view, while inferior artists are reduced to their proper size and
station: far less can we discover in them those epochs and revolutions
of the art, which the judicious reader most anxiously desires to know,
as the source from which he may trace the causes that have contributed
to its revival or its decline; or from which he may be enabled to
recollect the series, and the arrangement of the facts narrated. The
history of painting has a strong analogy to literary, to civil, and to
sacred history; it too requires, from time to time, the aid of certain
beacons, some particular distinction in regard to places, times, or
events, that may serve to divide it into epochs, and mark its successive
stages. Deprive it of these, and it degenerates, like other history,
into a chaos of names more calculated to load the memory than to inform
the understanding.
To supply this hitherto neglected branch of Italian history, to
contribute to the advancement of the art, and to facilitate the study of
the different styles in painting, were the three objects I proposed to
myself when I began the work which I am now about to lay before the
indulgent reader. My intention was to form a compendious history of all
our schools, in two volumes; adopting, with little variation, Pliny's
division of the country into Upper and Lower Italy. It was my design to
comprehend in the first volume the schools of Lower Italy; because in it
the reviving arts came earlier to maturity; and in the second to include
the schools of Upper Italy, which were more tardy in attaining to
celebrity. The first part of my work appeared at Florence in 1792: the
second I was obliged to defer to another opportunity, and the succeeding
years have so shaken my constitution, that I have scarcely been able to
bring it to a conclusion, even with the assistance of many amanuenses
and correctors of the press.[5] One advantage, however, has been derived
from this delay; and that is, a knowledge of the opinion of the public,
a tribunal from which no writer can appeal; and I have been thus enabled
to prepare a new edition conformable to its decision.[6] I have
understood through various channels, that an additional number of names
and of notices were necessary to afford satisfaction to the public; and
this I have accomplished, without abandoning my plan of a compendious
history. Nor does the Florentine edition on this account become useless:
it will even be preferred by many to that published at Bassano; the
inhabitants, for instance, of Lower Italy will be pleased to possess a
work on their most illustrious painters, without concerning themselves
about accounts of other places.
To a new work, then, so much more extensive than the former, I prefix a
preface almost entirely new. The plan is not wholly my own, nor
altogether that of others. Richardson[7] suggested that some historian
should collect the scattered remarks on art, especially on painting, and
should point out its progress and decline through successive ages. He
has not even omitted to give us a sketch, which he brought down to the
time of Giordano. Mengs[8] accomplished the task more perfectly in the
form of a letter, where he judiciously distinguished all the periods of
the art, and has thus laid the foundations of a more enlarged history.
Were I to follow their example, the chief masters of every school would
be considered together, and we should be under the necessity of passing
from one country to another, according as painting acquired a new lustre
from their talents, or was debased by a wrong use of the great example
of those artists. This method might be easily pursued, if the subject
were to be treated in a general point of view, such as Pliny has
considered and transmitted it to posterity; but it is not equally
adapted to the arrangement of a history so fully particular as Italy
seems to require. Besides the styles introduced by the most celebrated
painters, such infinite diversities of a mixed character, often united
with originality of manner, have arisen in every school, that we cannot
easily reduce them to any particular standard: and the same artists at
different periods, and in different pictures, have adopted styles so
various, that at one time they appear imitators of Titian, at another of
Raffaello, or of Correggio. We cannot, therefore, adopt the method of
the naturalist, who having arranged the vegetable kingdom, for example,
in classes more or less numerous, according to the systems of Tournefort
or of Linnaeus, can easily reduce a plant, wherever it may happen to
grow, to a particular class, adding a name and description, at once
precise, characteristic, and permanent. In a complete history it is
necessary to distinguish each style from every other: nor do I know any
more eligible method of performing this task, than by composing a
separate history of each school. In this I follow Winckelmann, the best
historian of ancient art in design, who specified as many different
schools as the nations that produced them. A similar plan seems to me to
have been pursued by Rollin, in his History of Nations, who has thus
been enabled to record a prodigious mass of names and events within the
compass of a few volumes, in the clearest order.
The method I follow in treating of each school is analogous to that
prescribed to himself by Sig. Antonio Maria Zanetti,[9] in his _Pittura
Veneziana_, a work of its kind highly instructive, and well arranged.
What he has done, in speaking of his own, I have attempted in the other
schools of Italy. I accordingly omit the names of living painters, and
do not notice every picture of deceased artists, as it would interrupt
the connexion of the narrative, and would render the work too
voluminous, but content myself with commending some of their best
productions. I first give a general character of each school; I then
distinguish it into three, four, or more epochs, according as its style
underwent changes with the change of taste, in the same way that the
eras of civil history are deduced from revolutions in governments, or
other remarkable events. A few celebrated painters, who have swayed the
public taste, and given a new tone to the art, are placed at the head of
each epoch; and their style is particularly described, because the
general and characteristic taste of the age has been formed upon their
models. Their immediate pupils, and other disciples of the school,
follow their great masters; and without a repetition of the general
character, reference is made to what each has borrowed, altered, or
added to the style of the founder of the school, or at most such
character is cursorily noticed. This method, though not susceptible of a
strict chronological order, is, on account of the connexion of ideas,
much better adapted to a history of art than an alphabetic arrangement,
which too frequently interrupts the notices of schools and eras; or than
the method pursued in annals, by which we are often compelled to make
mention of the scholar before the master, should he survive the former;
or that of separate lives, which introduces much repetition, by obliging
the writer to bestow praises on the pupil for the same style which he
also commends in the master, and to notice in each individual that which
was the general character of the age in which he lived.
For the sake of perspicuity, I have generally separated from historical
painters artists in inferior branches, such as painters of portraits, of
landscape, of animals, of flowers and of fruit, of sea-pieces, of
perspectives, of drolls, and all who merit a place in such classes. I
have also taken notice of some arts which are analogous to painting, and
though they differ from it in the materials employed, or the manner of
using them, may still be included in the art; for example, engraving of
prints, inlaid and mosaic work, and embroidering tapestry. Vasari,
Lomazzo, and several other writers on the fine arts, have mentioned
them; and I have followed their example; contenting myself with
noticing, in each of those arts, only what has appeared most worthy of
being recorded. Each might be the subject of a separate work; and some
of them have long had their own peculiar historians, and in particular
the art of engraving. By this method, in which I may boast such great
examples, I am not without hopes of affording satisfaction to my
readers. I am, however, more apprehensive in regard to my selection of
artists; the number of whom, whatsoever method is adopted, may to some
appear by far too limited, and to others too greatly extended. But
criticism will not so readily apply to the names of the most illustrious
artists, whom I have included, nor to those of very inferior character,
whom I trust I have omitted; except a few that have some claim to be
mentioned, from their connexion with celebrated masters.[10] The
accusation then of having noticed some, and omitted others, will apply
to me only on account of artists of a middle class, that can be neither
well reckoned among the senate, the equestrian order, nor vulgar herd of
painters; they constitute the class of mediocrity. The adjustment of
limits is a frequent cause of legal contention; and the subject of art
now under discussion, may be considered like a dispute concerning
boundaries. It may often admit of doubt whether a particular artist
approaches more nearly to the class of merit or of insignificance; which
is, in other words, whether he should or should not obtain a place in a
history of the art. Under such uncertainty, which I have several times
encountered, I have more usually inclined to the side of lenity than of
severity; especially when the artist has been noticed with a degree of
commendation by former authors. We ought to bow to public opinion, which
rarely blames us for noticing mediocrity, but frequently for passing it
over in silence. Books on painting abound with complaints against
Orlandi and Guarienti, for their omissions of certain artists. Still
more frequently are authors censured, when the Guide to a city points
out some altar-piece by a native artist, who is not named in our
Dictionaries of Painting. The describers of collections repeat similar
complaints in regard to every painting bearing the signature of an
artist whose name appears in no work of art. Collectors of prints do the
same when they discover the name of some designer, of whom history is
silent, affixed to an engraving. Thus, were we to consult the opinion of
the public, the majority would be inclined to recommend copiousness,
rather than to express satisfaction at a more discriminating selection
of names. Almost all artists and amateurs belonging to every city, would
be desirous that I should commemorate as many of their second rate
painters as possible; and our selection, therefore, in this respect,
nearly resembles the exercise of justice, which is generally applauded
as long as it visits only the dwellings of others, but is cried down by
each individual when it knocks at his own door. Thus a writer who is
bound to observe impartiality towards every city, can scarcely shew
great severity to artists of mediocrity in any. This too is not without
reason; for to pass mediocrity in silence may be the study of a good
orator, but not the office of a good historian. Cicero himself, in his
treatise _De claris Oratoribus_, has given a place to less eloquent
orators, and it may be observed that, after this example, the literary
history of every people does not merely include its most classic
writers, and those who approached nearest to them; but it adds short and
concise accounts of authors less celebrated; and in the Iliad, which is
a history of the heroic age, there are a few eminent leaders, many
valiant soldiers, and a prodigious crowd of others, whom the poet has
transiently noticed. In our case, it is still more incumbent on the
historian to give mediocrity a place along with the eminent and most
excellent. Many books describe that class in terms so vague, and
sometimes so discordant, that to form a proper estimate of their claims,
we must introduce them among superior artists, as a sort of performers
in third-rate parts. Such, however, I am not solicitous to exhibit very
minutely, more especially when treating of painters in fresco, and
generally of other artists, whose works are now unknown in collections,
or add more to the bulk than the ornament of a gallery. Thus also in
point of number, my work has maintained the character of a compendium:
but if any of my readers, adopting the rigid maxim of Bellori, that, in
the fine arts, as in poetry, mediocrity is not to be tolerated,[11]
should disdain the middle class of artists, he must look for the heads
of schools, and for the most eminent painters: to these he may dedicate
his attention, and turn his regard from the others like one,
"Cui altra cura stringa e morda
Che quella di colui che gli e davante."[12]
Having described my plan, let us next consider the three objects
originally proposed, of which the first was to present Italy with a
history that may prove important to her fame. This delightful country is
already indebted to Tiraboschi for a history of her literature, but she
is still in want of a history of her arts. The history of painting, an
art in which she is confessedly without a rival, I propose to supply, or
at least to facilitate the attempt. In some departments of literature,
and of the fine arts, we are equalled, or even surpassed by foreigners;
and in others the palm is yet doubtful: but in painting, universal
consent now yields the triumph to Italian genius, and foreigners are the
more esteemed in proportion to their approach towards us. It is time
then, for the honour of Italy, to collect in one point of view, those
observations on her painting, scattered through upwards of a hundred
volumes, and to embody them in what Horace terms _series et junctura_;
without which the work cannot be pronounced a history. I will not
conceal, that the author of the "History of Italian Literature"
above mentioned, frequently animated me to this undertaking, as a sequel
to his own work. He also wished me to subjoin other anecdotes to those
already published, and to substitute more authentic documents for the
inaccuracies abounding in our Dictionaries of painting. I have attended
to both these objects. The reader will here find various schools never
hitherto illustrated, and an entire school, that of Ferrara, now first
described from the manuscripts of Baruffaldi and of Crespi; and in other
schools he will often observe names of fresh artists, which I have
either collected from ancient MSS.[13] and the correspondence of my
learned friends, or deciphered on old paintings. Although such pictures
are confined to cabinets, it cannot prove useless to extend a more
intimate acquaintance with their authors. The reader will also meet with
many new observations on the origin of painting, and on its diffusion in
Italy, formerly a fruitful subject of debate and contention; and
likewise here and there with some original reflections on the masters,
to whom various disciples may be traced; a branch of history, the most
uncertain of any. Old writers of respectability often mention Raffaello,
Correggio, or some other celebrated artist, as the master of a painter,
without any better foundation than a similarity of style; just as the
credulous heathens imagined one hero to be the son of Hercules, because
he was strong; another of Mercury, because he was ingenious; a third of
Neptune, because he had performed several long voyages. Errors like
these are easily corrected when they are accompanied by some
inadvertency in the writer; as for instance, where he has not been aware
that the age of the disciple does not correspond with that of his
supposed master. Occasionally, however, their detection is attended with
more difficulty; and in particular when the artist, whose reputation is
wholly founded upon that of his master, represented himself in foreign
parts, as the disciple of men of celebrity, whom he scarcely knew by
sight. Of this we have an example in Agostino Tassi, and more recently
in certain _soidisant_ disciples of Mengs; to whom it scarcely appears
that he ever so much as said, "_Gentlemen, how do you do_?"
Finally, the reader will find some less obvious notices relating to the
name, the country, and the age of different artists. The deficiency of
our Dictionaries in interesting names, together with their inaccuracy,
are common subjects of complaint. I can excuse the compilers of these
works; I know how easily we may be misled in regard to names which have
been often gathered from vulgar report, or even from authors who differ
in point of orthography, some giving opposite readings of the same name.
But it is quite necessary that such mistakes should once for all be
cleared up. The index of this work will form a new Dictionary of
Painters, certainly more copious, and perhaps more accurate than usual,
although it might be still further improved, especially by consulting
archives and manuscripts.[14]
The second object which I had in view was to advance the interests of
the art as much as lay in my power. It was of old observed that examples
have a more powerful influence on the arts than any precepts can
possess; and this is particularly true in respect to painting. Whoever
writes history upon the model of the learned ancients, ought not only to
narrate events, but to investigate their secret sources and their
causes. Now these will be here developed, tracing the progress of
painting as it advanced or declined in each school; and these causes
being invariable, point out the means of its improvement, by shewing
what ought to be pursued and what avoided. Such observations are not of
importance to the artist alone, but have a reference also to other
individuals. In the Roman school, during its second epoch, I perceive
that the progress of the arts invariably depends on certain principles
universally adopted in that age, according to which artists worked, and
the public decided. A general history, by pointing out the best maxims
of art, may contribute considerably to make them known and regarded; and
hence artists can execute, and others approve or direct, on principles
no longer uncertain and questionable, nor deduced from the manner of a
particular school, but founded on maxims unerring and established, and
strengthened by the uniform practice of all schools and all ages. We may
add, that in a history so diversified, numerous examples occur suited to
the genius of different students, who have often to lament their want of
success from this circumstance alone, that they had neglected to follow
the path in which nature had destined them to tread. On the influence of
examples I shall add no more: should any one be desirous also of
precepts under every school, he will find them given, not indeed by me,
but by those who have written more ably on the art, and whom I have
diligently consulted with regard to different masters, as I shall
hereafter mention.
My third object was to facilitate an acquaintance with the various
styles of painting. The artist or amateur indeed, who has studied the
manner of all ages and of every school, on meeting with a picture can
very readily assign it, if not to a particular master, at least to a
certain style, much as antiquarians, from a consideration of the paper
and the characters, are enabled to assign a manuscript to a particular
era; or as critics conjecture the age and place in which an anonymous
author flourished, from his phraseology. With similar lights we proceed
to investigate the school and era of artists; and by a diligent
examination of prints, drawings, and other relics belonging to the
period, we at length determine the real author. Much of the uncertainty,
with regard to pictures, arises from a similitude between the style of
different masters: these I collect together under one head, and remark
in what one differs from the other. Ambiguity often arises from
comparing different works of the same painter, when the style of some of
them does not seem to accord with his general manner, nor with the great
reputation he may have acquired. On account of such uncertainty, I
usually point out the master of each artist, because all at the outset
imitate the example offered by their teachers; and I, moreover, note the
style formed, and adhered to by each, or abandoned for another manner; I
sometimes mark the age in which he lived, and his greater or less
assiduity in his profession. By an attentive consideration of such
circumstances, we may avoid pronouncing a picture spurious, which may
have been painted in old age, or negligently executed. Who, for
instance, would receive as genuine all the pictures of Guido, were it
not known that he sometimes affected the style of Caracci, of Calvart,
or of Caravaggio; and at other times pursued a manner of his own, in
which, however, he was often very unequal, as he is known to have
painted three or four different pieces in a single day? Who would
suppose that the works of Giordano were the production of the same
artist, if it were not known that he aspired to diversify his style, by
adopting the manner of various ancient artists? These are indeed well
known facts, but how many are there yet unnoted that are not unworthy of
being related, if we wish to avoid falling into error? Such will be
found noticed in my work, among other anecdotes of the various masters,
and the different styles.
I am aware that to become critically acquainted with the diversity of
styles is not the ultimate object to which the travels and the eager
solicitude of the connoisseur aspire. His object is to make himself
familiar with the handling of the most celebrated masters, and to
distinguish copies from originals. Happy should I be, could I promise to
accomplish so much! Even they might consider themselves fortunate, who
dedicate their lives to such pursuits, were they enabled to discover any
short, general, and certain rules for infallibly determining this
delicate point! Many rely much upon history for the truth. But how
frequently does it happen that the authority of an historian is cited in
favour of a family picture, or an altar-piece, the original of which
having been disposed of by some of the predecessors, and a copy
substituted in its place, the latter is supposed to be a genuine
painting! Others seem to lay great stress on the importance of places,
and hesitate to raise doubts respecting any specimen they find contained
in royal and select galleries, assuming that they really belong to the
artists referred to in the gallery descriptions and catalogues. But here
too they are liable to mistake; inasmuch as many private individuals, as
well as princes, unable to purchase ancient pictures at any price,
contented themselves with such copies of their imitators as approached
nearest to the old masters. Some indeed were made by professors
purposely despatched by princes in search of them; as in the instance of
Rodolph I., who employed Giuseppe Enzo, a celebrated copyist. (See
Boschini, p. 62, and Orlandi, on Gioseffo Ains di Berna.) External
proofs, therefore, are insufficient, without adding a knowledge of
different manners. The acquisition of such discrimination is the fruit
only of long experience, and deep reflection on the style of each
master: and I shall endeavour to point out the manner in which it may be
obtained.[15]
To judge of a master we must attend to his design, and this is to be
acquired from his drawings, from his pictures, or, at least, from
accurate engravings after them. A good connoisseur in prints is more
than half way advanced in the art of judging pictures; and he who aims
at this must study engravings with unremitting assiduity. It is thus his
eye becomes familiarized to the artist's method of delineating and
foreshortening the figure, to the air of his heads and the casting of
his draperies; to that action, that peculiarity of conception, of
disposing, and of contrasting, which are habitual to his character. Thus
is he, as it were, introduced to the different families of youths, of
children, of women, of old men, and of individuals in the vigour of
life, which each artist has adopted as his own, and has usually
exhibited in his pictures. We cannot be too well versed in such matters,
so minute or almost insensible are the distinctions between the
imitators of one master, (such as Michelangiolo, for example,) who have
perhaps studied the same cartoon, or the same statues, and, as it were,
learned to write after the same model.
More originality is generally to be discovered in colouring, a branch of
the art formed by a painter rather on his own judgment, than by
instruction. The amateur can never attain experience in this branch who
has not studied many pictures by the same master; who has not observed
his selection of colours, his method of separating, of uniting, and of
subduing them; what are his local tints, and what the general tone that
harmonizes the colours he employs. This tint, however clear and silvery
in Guido and his followers, bright and golden in Titiano and his school,
and thus of the rest, has still as many modifications as there are
masters in the art. The same remark extends to middle tints and to
chiaroscuro, in which each artist employs a peculiar method.
These are qualities which catch the eye at a distance, yet they will not
always enable the critic to decide with certainty; whether, for
instance, a certain picture is the production of Vinci, or Luini, who
imitated him closely; whether another be an original picture by Barocci,
or an exact copy from the hand of Vanni. In such cases judges of art
approach closer to the picture with a determination to examine it with
the same care and accuracy as are employed in a judicial question, upon
the recognition of hand-writing. Fortunately for society, nature has
granted to every individual a peculiar character in this respect, which
it is not easy to counterfeit, nor to mistake for any other person's
writing. The hand, habituated to move in a peculiar manner, always
retains it: in old age the characters may be more slowly traced, may
become more negligent or more heavy; but the form of the letters remains
the same. So it is in painting. Every artist not only retains this
peculiarity, but one is distinguished by a full charged pencil; another
by a dry but neat finish; the work of one exhibits blended tints, that
of another distinct touches; and each has his own manner of laying on
the colours:[16] but even in regard to what is common to so many, each
has a peculiar handling and direction of the pencil, a marking of his
lines more or less waved, more or less free, and more or less studied,
by which those truly skilled from long experience are enabled, after a
due consideration of all circumstances, to decide who was the real
author. Such judges do not fear a copyist, however excellent. He will,
perhaps, keep pace with his model for a certain time, but not always; he
may sometimes shew a free, but commonly a timid, servile, and meagre
pencil; he will not be long able, with a free hand, to keep his own
style concealed under the manner of another, more especially in regard
to less important points, such as the penciling of the hair, and in the
fore- and back-grounds of the picture.[17] Certain observations on the
canvas and the priming ground may sometimes assist inquiry; and hence
some have endeavoured to attain greater certainty by a chemical analysis
of the colours. Diligence is ever laudable when exerted on a point so
nice as ascertaining the hand-work of a celebrated master. It may
prevent our paying ten guineas for what may not be worth two; or placing
in a choice collection pictures that will not do it credit; while to the
curious it affords scientific views, instead of creating prejudices that
often engender errors. That mistakes should happen is not surprising. A
true connoisseur is still more rare than a good artist. His skill is the
result of only indirect application; it is acquired amidst other
pursuits, and divides the attention with other objects; the means of
attaining it fall to the lot of few; and still fewer practise it
successfully. Among the number of the last I do not reckon myself. By
this work I pretend not, I repeat it, to form an accomplished
connoisseur in painting: my object is to facilitate and expedite the
acquisition of such knowledge. The history of painting is the basis of
connoisseurship; by combining it, I supersede the necessity of referring
to many books; by abbreviating it I save the time and labour of the
student; and by arranging it in a proper manner on every occasion, I
present him with the subject ready prepared and developed before him.
It remains, in the last place, that I should give some account of
myself; of the criticisms that I, who am not an artist, have ventured to
pass upon each painter: and, indeed, if the professors of the art had as
much leisure and experience in writing as they have ability, every
author might resign to them the field. The propriety of technical terms,
the abilities of artists, and the selection of specimens of art, are
usually better understood, even by an indifferent artist, than by the
learned connoisseur: but since those occupied in painting have not
sufficient leisure to write, others, assisted by them, may be permitted
to undertake the office.[18]
By the mutual assistance which the painter has afforded to the man of
letters, and the man of letters to the artist, the history of painting
has been greatly advanced. The merits of the best painters are already
so ably discussed that a modern historian can treat the subject
advantageously. The criticisms I most regard are those that come
directly from professors of the art. We meet with few from the pen of
Raphael, of Titian, of Poussin, and of other great masters; such as
exist, however, I regard as most precious, and deserving the most
careful preservation; for, in general, those who can best perform can
likewise judge the best. Vasari, Lomazzo, Passeri, Ridolfi, Boschini,
Zanotti, and Crespi, require, perhaps, to be narrowly watched in some
passages where they allowed themselves to be surprised by a spirit of
party: but, on the whole, they have an undoubted right to dictate to us,
because they were themselves painters. Bellori, Baldinucci, Count
Malvasia, Count Tassi, and similar writers, hold an inferior rank; but
are not wholly destitute of authority: for though mere _dilettanti_,
they have collected both the opinions of professors and of the public.
This will at present suffice, with regard to the historians of the art:
we shall notice each of them particularly under the school which he has
described.
In pronouncing a criticism upon each artist I have adopted the plan of
Baillet, the author of a voluminous history of works on taste, where he
does not so frequently give his own opinion as that of others.
Accordingly, I have collected the various remarks of connoisseurs, which
were scattered through the pages of history; but I have not always cited
my authorities, lest I should add too much to the dimensions of my
book;[19] nor have I regarded their opinion when they seemed to me to
have been influenced by prejudice. I have availed myself of the
observations of some approved critics, like Borghini, Fresnoy,
Richardson, Bottari, Algarotti, Lazzarini, and Mengs; with others who
have rather criticised our painters than written their lives. I have
also respected the opinions of living critics, by consulting different
professors in Italy: to them I have submitted my manuscript; I have
followed their advice, especially when it related to design, or any
other department of painting, in which artists are almost the only
adequate judges. I have conversed with many connoisseurs, who, in some
points, are not less skilful than the professors of the art, and are
even consulted by artists with advantage; as, for instance, on the
suitableness of the subject, on the propriety of the invention and the
expression, on the imitation of the antique, on the truth of the
colouring. Nor have I failed to study the greatest part of the best
productions of the schools of Italy; and to inform myself in the
different cities what rank their least known painters hold among their
connoisseurs; persuaded, as I am, that the most accurate opinion of any
artist is formed where the greatest number of his works are to be seen,
and where he is most frequently spoken of by his fellow citizens and by
strangers. In this way, also, I have been enabled to do justice to the
merits of several artists who had been passed over, either because the
historian of their school had never beheld their productions, or had
merely met with some early and trivial specimens in one city, being
unacquainted with the more perfect and mature specimens they had
produced elsewhere.
Notwithstanding my diligence I do not presume to offer this as a work to
which much might not be added. It has never happened that a history,
embracing so many objects, is at once produced perfect; though it may
gradually be rendered so. The history earliest in point of time,
becomes, in the end, the least in authority; and its greatest merit is
in having paved the way to more finished performances. Perfection is
still less to be expected in a compendium. The reader is here presented
with the names of many artists and authors; but many others might have
been admitted, whom want of leisure or opportunity, but not of respect,
has obliged us to omit. Here he will find a variety of opinions; but to
these many others might have been added. There is no man, of whom all
think alike. Baillet, just before mentioned, is a proof of this, with
regard to writers on literary subjects; and he who thinks the task
worthy of his pains might demonstrate it much more fully with respect to
different painters. Each judges by principles peculiar to himself:
Bonarruoti stigmatized as drivelling, Pietro Perugino and Francia, both
luminaries of the art; Guido, if we may credit history, was disapproved
of by Cortona; Caravaggio by Zucchero; Guercino by Guido; and, what
seems more extraordinary, Domenichino by most of the artists who
flourished at Rome, when he painted his finest pictures.[20] Had these
artists written of their rivals they either would have condemned them,
or spoken less favourably of them than unprejudiced individuals. Hence
it is that connoisseurs will frequently be found to approach nearer the
truth, in forming their estimate, than artists; the former adopt the
impartial feelings of the public, while the latter allow themselves to
be influenced by motives of envy or of prejudice. Innumerable similar
disputes are still maintained concerning several artists, who, like
different kinds of aliment, are found to be disagreeable or grateful to
different palates. To hold the happy mean, exempted from all party
spirit, is as impossible as to reconcile the opinions of mankind, which
are as multifarious as are the individuals of the species.
Amid such discrepancy of opinion I have judged it expedient to avoid the
most controverted points; in others, to subscribe to the decision of the
majority; to allow to each his particular opinion;[21] but not, if
possible, to disappoint the reader, desirous of learning what is most
authentic and generally received. Ancient writers appear to have pursued
this plan when treating of the professors of any art, in which they
themselves were mere amateurs; nor could it arise from any other
circumstance that Cicero, Pliny, and Quintilian, express themselves upon
the Greek artists in the same manner. Their opinions coincide, because
that of the public was unanimous. I am aware that it is difficult to
obtain the opinion of the public concerning the more modern artists, but
it is not difficult with regard to those on whom much has been already
written. I am also aware that public opinion accords not at all times
with truth, because "it often happens to incline to the wrong side of
the question." This, however, is a rare occurrence in the fine arts,[22]
nor does it militate against an historian who aims more at fidelity of
narrative, and impartiality of public opinion, than the discussion of
the relative merit or correctness of tastes.
My work is divided into six volumes; and I commence by treating in the
two first volumes of that part of Italy, which, through the genius of Da
Vinci, Michelangiolo, and Raffaello, became first conspicuous, and first
exhibited a decided character in painting. Those artists were the
ornaments of the Florentine and Roman schools, from which I proceed to
two others, the Sienese and Neapolitan. About the same time Giorgione,
Tiziano, and Coreggio, began to flourish in Italy; three artists, who as
much advanced the art of colouring, as the former improved design; and
of these luminaries of Upper Italy I treat in the third and fourth
volumes; since the number of the names of artists, and the many
additions to this new impression, have induced me to devote two volumes
to their merits. Then follows the school of Bologna, in which the
attempt was made to unite the excellences of all the other schools: this
commences the fifth volume; and on account of proximity it is succeeded
by that of Ferrara, and Upper and Lower Romagna. The school of Genoa,
which was late in acquiring celebrity, succeeds, and we conclude with
that of Piedmont, which, though it cannot boast so long a succession of
artists as those of the other states, has merits sufficient to entitle
it to a place in a history of painting. Thus the five most celebrated
schools will be treated of in the order in which they arose; in like
manner as the ancient writers on painting began with the Asiatic school,
which was followed by the Grecian, and this last was subdivided into the
Attic and Sicyonian; to which in process of time succeeded the Roman
school.[23] The sixth and last volume contains an ample index to the
whole, quite indispensable to render the work more extensively useful,
and to give it its full advantage. In assigning artists to any school I
have paid more regard to other circumstances than the place of their
nativity; to their education, their style, their place of residence in
particular, and the instruction of their pupils: circumstances, indeed,
which are sometimes found so blended and confused, that several cities
may contend for one painter, as they are said to have done for Homer. In
such cases I do not pretend to decide; the object of my labours being
only to trace the vicissitudes of the art in various places, and to
point out those artists who have exercised an influence over them; not
to determine disputes, unpleasant in themselves, and wholly foreign to
my undertaking.
[Footnote 2: See Algarotti, _Saggio sopra la Pittura_, in the chapter
_Della critica necessaria al Pittore_.]
[Footnote 3: For this fault, which the Greeks used to call _Acribia_,
Pascoli has been sharply reproved. He has, in fact, informed us which
among the several artists could boast a becoming and proportionate nose,
which had it short or long, aquiline or snubbed, very sharp or very
hollow. He most generally observes that such an artist was neither tall
nor large of stature, neither handsome nor plain in his physiognomy; and
who would have thought it worth his while to inquire about it? The sole
utility that can possibly attend such inquiries is, the chance of
detecting some impostor, who might attempt to palm upon us for a genuine
portrait the likeness of some other individual. Engravings, however, are
the best security against similar impositions.]
[Footnote 4: In the Magasin Encyclopedique of Paris, (An. viii. tom. iv.
p. 63), there is a work in two volumes, edited in the German language at
Gottingen, announced as well as commended. The first volume is dated
1798, the second 1801, from the pen of note the learned Sig. Florillo,
the title of which we insert in the second index. It consists of a
history of painting upon the plan of the present one; but there is some
variation in the order of the schools.]
[Footnote 5: It was finished in the year 1796, and it is now given, with
various additions and corrections throughout. Many churches, galleries,
and pictures, are here mentioned which are no longer in existence; but
this does not interfere with its truth, inasmuch as the title of the
work is confined to the before mentioned year. Numerous friends have
lent me their assistance in the completion of this edition, and in
particular the cavalier Gio. de' Lazara, a gentleman of Padua, who
possesses a rich collection, both in books and MSS., and displays the
utmost liberality in affording others the use of them. To this merit, in
regard to the present work, he has likewise added that of revising and
correcting it through the press, a favour which I could not have more
highly estimated from any other hand, deeply versed as he is in the
history of the fine arts.]
[Footnote 6: "Ut enim pictores, et qui signa faciunt, et vero etiam
poetae suum quisque opus a vulgo considerari vult, ut si quid reprehensum
sit a pluribus id corrigatur ... sic aliorum judicio permulta nobis et
facienda et non facienda, et mutanda et corrigenda sunt." Cicero De
Officiis, ii. c. 41.]
[Footnote 7: Treatise on Painting, tom. ii. p. 166.]
[Footnote 8: Opere, tom. ii. p. 108.]
[Footnote 9: A learned Venetian, skilled in the practice of design and
of painting. He must not be confounded with Antonio Maria Zanetti, an
eminent engraver, who revived the art of taking prints from wooden
blocks with more than one colour, which was invented by Ugo da Carpi,
but afterwards lost. He also wrote works, serviceable to the fine arts;
and several of his letters may be seen in the second volume of _Lettere
Pittoriche_. They are subscribed _Antonio Maria Zanetti, q. Erasmo_; but
this is an error of the editor: it ought to be _q. Girolamo_, to
distinguish him from the other, who was called _del q. Alessandro_. This
mistake was detected by the accurate Vianelli, in his Diario della
Carriera, p. 49.]
[Footnote 10: An amateur, who happens to be unacquainted with the fact,
that there were various artists of the same name, as the Vecelli,
Bassani, and Caracci, will never become properly acquainted with these
families of painters; neither will he be competent to judge of certain
pictures, which only attract the regard of the vulgar, because they
truly boast the reputation of a great name.]
[Footnote 11: I do not admit this principle. Horace laid it down for the
art of poetry alone, because it is a faculty that perishes when it
ceases to give delight. Architecture, on the other hand, confers vast
utility when it does not please, by presenting us with habitations; and
painting, and sculpture, by preserving the features of men, and
illustrious actions. Besides, let us recollect, that Horace denounces
the production of inferior verses, because there is not space enough for
them; "Non concessere columnae," but it is not so with paintings of
mediocrity. In any country Petrarch, Ariosto, and Tasso, may be read,
and he who has never read a poor poet, will write better than if he had
read a hundred. But it is not every one who can boast either in the
houses or temples of his country, of possessing the works of good
artists; and for purposes of worship or of ornament, the less excellent
ones may suffice; wherefore these also produce some advantage.]
[Footnote 12: Like one who thinks of some other person than he that is
before him.]
[Footnote 13: For the improvement of my latest edition, I am greatly
indebted to the Prince Filippo Ercolani, who, having purchased from the
heirs of Signor Marcello Oretti fifty-two manuscript volumes, which that
indefatigable amateur, in the course of his studies, journeys, and
observations, had compiled respecting the professors of the fine arts,
their eras, and their labours, allowed materials to be drawn from them
for various notes, by the Sig. Lazara, who superintended the edition. To
the devoted attachment of these gentlemen to the fine arts, the public
are indebted for much information, either wholly new, or hitherto little
known.]
[Footnote 14: Vasari, from whom several epochs are taken, is full of
errors in dates, as may be every where perceived. See Bottari's note on
tom. ii. p. 79. The same observation applies generally to other authors,
as Bottari remarks in a note on _Lettere Pittoriche_, tom. iv. p. 366. A
similar objection is made to the Dictionary of P. Orlandi in another
letter, tom. ii. p. 318, where it is termed "a useful work, but so full
of errors, that one can derive no benefit from it without possessing the
books there quoted." After three editions of this work, a fourth was
printed in Venice, in 1753, corrected and enlarged by Guarienti, "but
enough still remains to be done after his additions, even to increase it
twofold." Bottari, Lett. Pitt. tom. iii. p. 353. See also Crespi _Vite
de' Pittori Bolognesi_, p. 50. No one, who has not perused this book,
would believe how often he defaces Orlandi in presuming to correct him;
multiplying artists for every little difference with which authors wrote
the name of the same man. Thus Pier Antonio Torre, and Antonio Torri, are
with him two different men. Many of the articles, however, added by him,
relating to artists unknown to P. Orlandi, are useful; so that this
second Dictionary ought to be consulted with caution, not altogether
rejected. The last edition, printed at Florence, in two volumes,
contains the names of many painters, either lately dead, or still
living, and often of very inferior merit, and on this account is little
noticed in my history. This Dictionary, moreover, affords little
satisfaction to the reader concerning the old masters, unless he possess
a work printed at Florence in twelve volumes, entitled _Serie degli
Uomini piu illustri in Pittura_, to which the articles in it often
refer. The Dizionario Portatile, by Mr. La Combe, is also a book of
reference, not very valuable to those who look for exact information. We
give a single instance of his inaccuracy in regard to the elder Palma;
but our emendations have been chiefly directed towards the writers of
Italy, from whom foreigners have, or ought to have borrowed, in writing
respecting our artists.]
[Footnote 15: See Mr. Richardson's _Treatise on Painting_, tom. ii. p.
58; and M. D'Argenville's _Abrege de la Vie des plus fameux Peintres_,
tom. i. p. 65.]
[Footnote 16: "Some made use of pure colours, without blending one with
the other; a practice well understood in the age of Titiano: others, as
Coreggio, adopted a method totally opposite: he laid on his admirable
colours in such a manner, that they appear as if they had been breathed
without effort on the canvas; so soft and so clear, without harshness of
outline, and so relieved, that he seems the rival of nature. The elder
Palma and Lorenzo Lotto coloured freshly, and finished their pictures as
highly as Giovanni Bellini; but they have loaded and overwhelmed them
with outline and softness in the style of Titiano and Giorgione. Some
others, as Tintoretto, to a purity of colour not inferior to the artists
above mentioned, have added a boldness as grand as it is astonishing;"
&c. Baldinucci, Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 126.]
[Footnote 17: See Baldinucci in _Lett. Pittor._ tom. ii. lett. 126, and
one by Crespi, tom. iv. lett. 162.]
[Footnote 18: We must recollect that "de pictore, sculptore, fusore,
judicare nisi artifex non potest," (Plin. Jun. i. epist. 10); which must
be understood of certain refinements of the art that may escape the eye
of the most learned connoisseur. But have we any need of a painter to
whisper in our ear whether the features of a figure are handsome or
ugly, its colouring false or natural, whether it has harmony and
expression, or whether its composition be in the Roman or Venetian
taste? And where it is really expedient to have the opinion of an
artist, which we therefore report as we have either read it or heard it,
will that opinion have less authority in my pages than on his own
tongue?]
[Footnote 19: Abundance of quotations, and descriptions of the minutest
particulars from rarer works is a characteristic of the present day, to
which I think I have sufficiently conformed in my second Index. But in a
history expressly composed to instruct and please, I have judged it
right not to interrupt the thread of the narrative too frequently with
different authorities. The works from which I draw my account of each
artist are indicated in the body of the history and in the first index:
to make continual allusion to them might please a few, but would prove
very disagreeable to many.]
[Footnote 20: Pietro da Cortona told Falconieri that when the celebrated
picture of S. Girolamo della Carita was exhibited, "it was so abused by
all the eminent painters, of whom many then flourished, that he himself
joined in its condemnation, in order to save his credit." See
Falconieri, Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 17. He continues: "Is not the
tribune of the church of S. Andrea della Valle, ornamented by
Domenichino, among the finest specimens of painting in fresco? and yet
they talked of sending masons with hammers to knock it down after he had
displayed it. When Domenichino afterwards passed through the church, he
stopped with his scholars to view it; and, shrugging up his shoulders,
observed, 'After all, I do not think the picture so badly executed.'"]
[Footnote 21: The most singular and novel opinions concerning our
painters are contained in the volumes published by M. Cochin, who is
confuted in the _Guides_ to the cities of Padua and Parma, and is often
convicted of erroneous statements in matter of fact. He is reproved,
with regard to Bologna, by Crespi, in Lett. Pittor. tom. vii.; and for
what he has said of Genoa, by Ratti, in the lives of the painters of
that city. Commencing with his preface, they point out the grossest
errors in Cochin. It is there also observed that his work was
disapproved of by Watellet, by Clerisseau, and other French connoisseurs
then living: nor do I believe it would have pleased Filibien, De Piles,
and such masters of the critical art. Italy also, at a later period, has
produced a book, which aims at overturning the received opinions on
subjects connected with the fine arts. It is entitled _Arte di vedere
secondo i principii di Sulzer e di Mengs_. The author, who in certain
periodical works at Rome, was called the modern Diogenes, has been
honoured with various confutations. (See _Lettera in Difesa del Cav.
Ratti_, p. 11.) Authors like these launch their extravagant opinions,
for the purpose of attracting the gaze of the world; but men of letters,
if they cannot pass them over in silence, ought not to be very anxious
to gratify their wishes--"Opinionum commenta delet dies." _Cicero._]
[Footnote 22: Of Apelles himself Pliny observes, "Vulgum diligentiorem
judicem quam se praeferens." Examine also Carlo Dati in _Vite de' Pittori
Antichi_, p. 99, where he proves, by authority and examples, that
judgment, in the imitative arts, is not confined to the learned. See
also Junius, _De Pictura Veterum_, lib. i. cap. 5.]
[Footnote 23: See Mons. Agucchi, in a fragment preserved by Bellori, in
_Vite de' Pittori, Scultori, e Architetti moderni_, p. 190.]
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE.[24]
Luigi Lanzi was born in the year 1732, at Monte dell' Olmo, in the
diocese of Fermo, of an ancient family, which is said to have enjoyed
some of the chief honours of the municipality to which it belonged. His
father was a physician, and also a man of letters: his mother, a truly
excellent and pious woman, was allied to the family of the Firmani. How
deeply sensible the subject of this memoir was of the advantages he
derived, in common with many illustrious characters, from early maternal
precepts and direction, he has shewn in a beautiful Latin elegy to her
memory, which appeared in his work, entitled _Inscriptionum et
Carminum_.
Possessed of a naturally lively and penetrating turn of mind, he began
early to investigate the merits of the great writers of his own country;
alike in poetry, in history, and in art. His poetical taste was formed
on the models of Petrarch and of Dante, and he was accustomed, while yet
a child, to repeat their finest passages to his father, an enthusiastic
admirer of Italy's old poets, who took pride in cultivating the same
fervour in the mind of his son, a fervour of which in more northern
climates, we can form little idea. His imitations of these early poets,
whose spirit he first imbibed at the fountain head, before he grew
familiar with the corrupt and tasteless compositions of succeeding eras,
are said to have frequently been so bold and striking, as to deceive the
paternal eye. To these, too, he was perhaps mainly indebted for that
energy of feeling, and solidity of judgment, as well as that richness of
illustration and allusion, which confer attractions upon his most
serious and elaborate works. He was no less intimate with the best
political and literary historians at an early age; with Machiavelli,
Davila, and Guicciardini; with Muratori and Tiraboschi; whose respective
compositions he was destined to rival in the world of art.
Lanzi's first studies were pursued in the Jesuits' College at Fermo,
where an Italian Canzone, written in praise of the Beata Vergine, is
said to have acquired for him, as a youth of great promise, the highest
degree of regard. Under the care of his spiritual instructor, father
Raimondo Cunich, Lanzi likewise became deeply versed in all the
excellences of classical literature, not as a vain parade of words and
syllables; for along with the technical skill of the scholar, he imbibed
the spirit of the ancient writers. In his succeeding philosophical and
mathematical studies he was assisted by Father Boscovich, one of the
first mathematicians of his day. Thus to a keen and fertile intellect,
animated by enthusiasm for true poetry and the beauties of art, was
added that regular classical and scientific learning, inducing a love of
order and of truth, capable of applying the clear logic derived from
Euclid to advantage, in subjects of a less tangible and demonstrative
nature. The value of such preliminary acquirements to the examination of
antiquarian and scientific remains, which can only be conducted on
uncertain data and a calculation of possibilities, as in ancient
specimens of art, can bear no question; and of this truth Lanzi was
fully aware. To feel rightly, to reason clearly, to decide upon
probabilities, to distinguish degrees, resemblances, and differences,
comparing and weighing the whole with persevering accuracy; these were
among the essentials which Lanzi conceived requisite to prepare a writer
upon works of art.
These qualities, too, will be found finely relieved and elevated by
frequent and appropriate passages of eloquent feeling; flowing from that
sincere veneration for his subject, and that love which may be termed
the religion of the art to which he became so early attached. How
intimately such a spirit is connected with the best triumphs of the art
of painting, is seen in the angelic faces of Da Vinci, of Raffaello, and
Coreggio; and the same enthusiasm must have been felt by a true critic,
such as Lanzi. Far, however, from impeding him in the acquisition of his
stores of antiquarian knowledge, and in his scientific arrangements, his
enthusiasm conferred upon him only an incredible degree of diligence and
despatch. He was at once enabled to decipher the age and character, to
arrange in its proper class, and to give the most exact description of
every object of art which passed under his review.
Lanzi thus came admirably prepared to his great task, one of the most
complete models of sound historical composition, of which the modern age
can boast. It was written in the full maturity of his powers; no hasty
or isolated undertaking, it followed a series of other excellent
treatises, all connected with some branches of the subject, and
furnishing materials for his grand design. Circumstances further
contributed to promote his views. Shortly after the dissolution of the
order of Jesuits, to which he belonged, he was recommended by his friend
Fabroni, prior of the church of S. Lorenzo, to the grand duke Leopold of
Florence, who, in 1775, appointed him to the care of his cabinet of
medals and gems, in the gallery of Florence. This gave rise to one of
his first publications, entitled, _A Description of the Florentine
Gallery_, which he sent in 1782 to the same friend, Angiolo Fabroni,
then General Provveditore of the Studio at Pisa, and who conducted the
celebrated Literary Journal of that place, in which Lanzi's DESCRIPTION
appeared.
His next dissertation, still more enriched with antiquarian illustration
and research, was his Essay on the _Ancient Italian dialects_, which
contains a curious account of old Etruscan monuments, and the ducal
collection of classical vases and urns. This was followed by his
_Preliminary Notices respecting the Sculpture of the Ancients, and their
various Styles_, put forth in the year 1789, in which he pursues the
same plan which he subsequently perfected in the history before us, of
allotting to each style its respective epochs, to each epoch its
peculiar characters, these last being exemplified by their leading
professors, most celebrated in history. He farther adduces examples of
his system as he proceeds, from the various cabinets of the Royal
Museum, which he explains to the reader as a part of his chief design in
illustrating them. He enters largely into the origin and character of
the Etruscan School, and examines very fully the criticisms, both on
ancient and Italian art, by Winckelmann and Mengs.
From the period of these publications, the Grand Duke, entertaining a
high opinion of Lanzi's judgment, was in the habit of consulting him
before he ventured to add any new specimens to his cabinet of
antiquities. He was also entrusted with a fresh arrangement of some new
cabinets belonging to the gallery, which together with the latter, he
finally completed, on a system which it is said never fails to awaken
the admiration of all scientific visitors at Florence. During this task,
his attention had been particularly directed to the interpretation of
the monuments and Etruscan inscriptions contained in the ducal gallery,
which, together with the ancient Tuscan, the Umbrian, and other obsolete
dialects, soon grew familiar to him, and led to the composition of his
celebrated _Essay upon the Tuscan Tongue_. For the purpose of more
complete research and illustration, he obtained permission from the duke
to visit Rome, in order to consult the museums, and prepare the way for
his essay, which he published there in 1789; a work of immense erudition
and research.
It was here Lanzi first appeared as the most profound antiquarian of
modern Italy, by his successful explanation of some ancient Etruscan
inscriptions and remains of art, which had baffled the skill of a number
of his most distinguished countrymen. Upon presenting it to the grand
duke, after his return from Rome, Lanzi was immediately appointed his
head antiquary and director of the Florentine gallery; while the city of
Gubbio raised him to the rank of their first patrician order, on account
of his successful elucidation of the famous Eugubine Tables. In one of
his _Dissertations upon a small Tuscan Urn_, he triumphantly refuted
some charges which had been invidiously advanced against him, and
defended his principles of antiquarian illustration by retorting the
charge of fallacy upon his adversaries.
In the year 1790, Lanzi, at the request of the Gonfaloniere and priors
of Monte dell'Olino, published an inquiry into the _Condition and Site
of Pausula, an ancient City of Piceno_; said to be written with
surprising ingenuity, yet with equal fairness; uninfluenced by any
prejudices arising from national partiality, or from the nature of the
commission with which he had been honoured. This was speedily followed
by a much more important undertaking, connected with the prosecution of
his great design, which it would appear he had already for some time
entertained.
During the period of his travels through Italy in pursuit of
antiquities, he had carefully collected materials for a general History
of Painting, which was meant to comprize, in a compendious form,
whatever should be found scattered throughout the numerous authors who
had written upon the art. These materials, as well as the work itself,
had gradually grown upon his hands, as might be expected from a man so
long accustomed to method, to criticism, to perspicuity; in short, to
every quality requisite in the philosophical treatment of a great
subject. The artists and literati of Italy, then, were not a little
surprised at the appearance of the first portion of the _Storia
Pittorica_, comprehending _Lower Italy; or the Florentine, Sienese,
Roman, and Neapolitan Schools, reduced to a compendious and methodical
form_, _adapted to facilitate a knowledge of Professors and of their
Styles, for the lovers of the art_. It was dedicated to the grand
duchess Louisa Maria of Bourbon, in a style, observes the Cav. Bossi,
"which recalls to mind the letters of Pliny to Trajan, composed with
mingled dignity and respect; with genuine feeling, and with true, not
imaginary, commendations." _Elogio_, p. 127.
But the unfeigned pleasure and admiration expressed in the world of
literature and art, on being presented with the Pictorial History of
Lower Italy, was almost equalled by its disappointment at the delay
experienced with regard to the appearance of the second part; and which
it was feared would never see the light. Lanzi's state of health had,
some time subsequent to 1790, been very precarious; and he suffered
severely from a distressing complaint,[25] which frequently interrupted
his travels in which he was then engaged, collecting further materials
for his History of Painting in Upper Italy. While thus employed, on his
return from Genoa in December, 1793, he experienced a first attack of
apoplexy, as he was passing the mountains of Massa and Carrara. After
his recovery, and return to Florence, he was advised in the ensuing
spring to visit the baths of Albano, which being situated near Bassano,
afforded him an opportunity of superintending the publication of his
history, in the Remondini Press, and on a more extensive scale than he
had at first contemplated. He likewise obtained permission from the
grand duke Leopold to absent himself, during some time, from his charge
at Florence, in September, 1793. The first portion of his labours he
conceived to be too scanty in point of names and notices to satisfy
public taste, so that upon completing the latter part upon a more full
and extensive scale, he gave a new edition of that already published,
very considerably altered and augmented.
To these improvements he invariably contributed, both in notes and text,
at every subsequent edition, a number of which appeared in the course of
a few years, until the work attained a degree of completeness and
correctness seldom bestowed upon labours of such incredible difficulty
and extent. The last which received the correction and additions of the
author was published at Bassano, in the year 1809.
That a work upon such a scale was a great desideratum, no less to Italy
than to the general world of art, would appear evident from the
character of the various histories and accounts of painting which had
preceded it. They are rather valuable as records, than as real criticism
or history; as annals of particular characters and productions derived
from contemporary observation, than as sound and enlightened views, and
a dispassionate estimate of individual merits. Full of errors, idle
prejudices, and discussions foreign to the subject, a large portion of
their pages is taken up in vapid conceits, personal accusations, and
puerile reasoning, destitute of method.
The work of Lanzi, on the other hand, as it is well remarked by the Cav.
Boni, observes throughout the precept of the _serie et junctura_ of
Horace. It brings into full light the leading professors of the art,
exhibits at due distance those of the second class, and only glances at
mediocrity and inferiority of character, insomuch as to fill up the
great pictoric canvas with its just lights and shades. The true causes
of the decline and revival of the art at certain epochs are pointed out,
with those that contribute to preserve the fine arts in their happiest
lustre; in which, recourse to examples more than to precepts is strongly
recommended. The best rules are unfolded for facilitating the study of
different manners, some of which are known to bear a resemblance, though
by different hands, and others are opposed to each other, although
adopted by the same artist; a species of knowledge highly useful at a
period when the best productions are eagerly sought after at a high
rate. It is a history, in short, worthy of being placed at the side of
that on the Literature of Italy by Tiraboschi, who having touched upon
the fine arts at the outset of his labours, often urged his ancient
friend and colleague to dilate upon a subject in every way so flattering
to the genius of Italy; to Italy which, however rivalled by other
nations in science and in literature, stands triumphant and alone in its
creative mind of art.
It is, however, difficult to convey a just idea of a work composed upon
so enlarged and complete a scale; which embraces a period of about six
centuries, and fourteen Italian schools, but treated with such rapidity
and precision, as to form in itself a compendium of whatever we meet
with in so many volumes of guides, catalogues, descriptions of churches
and palaces, and in so many lives of artists throughout the whole of
Italy. (pp. 130-1.)
It is known that Richardson expressed a wish that some historian would
collect these scattered accounts relating to the art of painting, at the
same time noting down its progress and decline in every age, a
desideratum which Mengs in part supplied in one of his letters, briefly
marking down all the respective eras. Upon this plan, as far as regarded
Venetian painting, Zanetti had partially proceeded; but the general
survey, in its perfect form, of the whole of the other schools, was
destined to be completed by the genius of Lanzi. Here he first gives the
general character of each, distinguishing its particular epochs,
according to the alterations in taste which it underwent. A few artists
of distinguished reputation, whose influence gave a new impulse and new
laws to the art, stand at the head of each era, which they may be said
to have produced, with a full description of their style. To these great
masters, their respective pupils are annexed, with the progress of their
school, referring to such as may have more or less added to, or altered
the manner of their prototype. For the sake of greater perspicuity, the
painters of history are kept distinct from the artists in inferior
branches; among whom are classed portrait and landscape painters, those
of animals, of flowers, of fruits, &c. Nor are such as bear an affinity
to the art, like engraving, inlaying, mosaic work, and embroidery,
wholly excluded. Being doubtful whether he should make mention of those
artists who belong neither to the senatorial, the equestrian, nor the
popular order of the pictorial republic, and have no public
representation, such as the names of mediocrity; Lanzi finally decided
to introduce them among their superiors, like third-rate actors, whose
figures may just be seen, in order to preserve the entireness of the
story. To this he was farther induced by the general appearance of their
names in the various dictionaries, guides, and descriptions of cities
and of galleries; and by the example of Homer, Cicero, and most great
writers; Homer himself commemorating, along with the wise and brave also
the less valiant--the fools and the cowards. (_Elogio_, pp. 129, 130,
131.)
After having resided during a considerable period at Bassano, occupied
in the superintendence of the first edition of his great work, Lanzi
found himself compelled to retire to Udine, in 1796, from the more
immediate scene of war; a war which subsequently involved other cities
of Italy in its career. From Udine he shortly returned to Florence,
where he again resumed his former avocations in the ducal gallery, about
the period of the commencement of the Bourbon government.
Lanzi's next literary undertaking was three Dissertations upon _Ancient
painted Vases, commonly called Etruscan_; and he subsequently published
a very excellent and pleasing work, entitled, _Aloisii Lanzii
Inscriptionum et Carminum Libri Tres_: works which obtained for him the
favourable notice of the Bourbon court. Nor was he less distinguished by
that of the new French dynasty, which shortly obtained the ascendancy
throughout all Italy, as well as at Florence, and by which Lanzi was
appointed President of the Cruscan Academy.
Among Lanzi's latest productions may be classed his edition and
translations of Hesiod; entitled _I Lavori, e le Giornate di Esiodo
Ascreo opera con L. Codici riscontrata, emendata la versione latina,
aggiuntavi l'Italiana in Terze Rime con annotazioni_. In this he had
been engaged as far back as the year 1785, and it had been then
announced in a beautiful edition of Hesiod, translated into Latin by
Count Zamagua.
The list will here close with his _Opere Sacre_, sacred treatises,
produced on a variety of occasions, and on a variety of spiritual
subjects. One of these was upon the Holy Sacrament, entitled, _Il divoto
del SS. Sacramento istruito nella pratica_ _di tal devozione_. In truth,
Lanzi was a good Christian, and may be ranked in the number of that
great and honoured band of Christian philosophers, who like Newton,
Locke, and Paley, have triumphantly opposed the whole strength of their
mighty intellect, and vast reach of their reasoning powers to the
specious and witty, but less powerful and argumentative genius of
Gibbon, of Hume, and of Voltaire. Nor was the conviction of these great
truths in the mind of Lanzi the result of sickness and misfortunes, or
sombre reflections in the decline of life. Great as was the reputation
he had acquired by his valuable labours, he was often known sincerely to
declare, among his private friends, that he would willingly renounce all
kind of literary honours for the pleasure of being assured, that his
sacred works had in any degree promoted the cause of Christianity.
Shortly after the last edition of the History now before us, which he
had personally superintended, though at a very advanced age, in the year
1809, at Bassano, Lanzi's health began rapidly to decline, and he
prepared with perfect composure to meet the termination of his earthly
career. He had already attained his seventy-eighth year; but his mind
preserved its usual tone and vigour, though he could with difficulty
pace his apartment. He wrote letters, and even pursued his beloved
studies on the day of his decease, which took place on Sunday, the 30th
of March, 1810, occasioned by a fresh attack of apoplexy. For this he
had long been prepared, and only the preceding evening had taken an
affectionate leave of his friends and domestics, thanking the Cav. Boni
for his kindness in continuing so long to mount his staircase to visit
an old man.
[Footnote 24: It may be proper to observe, that the materials of the
biographical sketch here offered to the public, are extracted from an
extremely pleasing and popular tribute to the memory of Lanzi, of very
general repute in Italy, from the pen of his intimate friend and
associate, the Cavalier Bossi, himself a man of singular merit and
acquirements, whose _Elogio_ upon his distinguished countryman has
deservedly been added to the recent editions of his invaluable history.]
[Footnote 25: Repeated attacks of strangury which often threatened his
life, unless he obtained instant relief.]
HISTORY OF PAINTING
IN
LOWER ITALY.