It is worthy of remark, that Vasari, in the life of Jacopo di Casentino,

quotes the manuscript records of the society of St. Luke, afterwards

printed by Baldinucci, and mentions fourteen painters who were formerly

its captains, counsellors, or chamberlains; yet he takes no notice of

them in his _Lives_, and of but very few of the great number named in

that manuscript. The same selection was employed by Baldinucci, in whose

VEGLIA we are informed that many painters flourished about 1300, the

names of whom he has refused to insert in his anecdotes. It clearly

appears from his writings that he omitted about a hundred, all belonging

to that age.[61] It is therefore incorrect to say, that those two

historians have commemorated many artists of mediocrity, merely because

they were natives of Florence, an accusation alleged against them by

foreigners. The artists of their country whom they have transmitted to

posterity, are not less worthy of record than those ancient ones of

Venice, of Bologna, and of Lombardy, whom we are accustomed to praise in

their respective schools. Among this number I include Buffalmacco, the

wit whose jests, as recorded in Boccaccio and Sacchetti, render him more

celebrated than his pictures. His real name was Buonamico di Cristofano.

He had been the scholar of Tafi, but by living long in the time of

Giotto, he had an opportunity of correcting his own style. He displayed

a most lively fancy, "and when he chose to exert himself (which rarely

happened) was not inferior to any of his contemporaries."[62] It is

unfortunate that his best works, which were in the Abbey and in

Ognisanti, have perished, and there only remain some less carefully

executed at Arezzo and at Pisa. The best preserved are in the Campo

Santo; viz. the Creation of the World, in which there is a figure of the

Deity, five cubits high, sustaining the mighty frame of the heavens and

the elements, and three other historical pictures of Adam, of his

children, and of Noah. A crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the

Redeemer, may be seen at the same place. Good symmetry is not to be

looked for in them; he knew but little of design, and he drew his

figures by other rules than the roundness and facility seen in the

disciples of Giotto. His heads are deficient in beauty and variety. The

pious women near the cross all have the same mean and vulgar features,

in which the mouths are opened even to deformity. Some of the heads of

the men, especially that of Cain, possess, however, a physiognomical

expression which arrests the eye of the spectator. The air of nature too

in the action, as in the man, who, full of horror, flies from Mount

Calvary, is highly praiseworthy. His draperies are greatly varied, are

distinguished by the difference of stuffs and linings, and are

laboriously ornamented with flowers and with fringes. Before he was

employed in the Campo Santo, he painted in the church of St. Paul, Ripa

d'Arno, where he was associated with one Bruno di Giovanni, formerly his

fellow student, and believed to be the painter of a St. Ursula in a

piece which still exists in the Commenda. Unable to attain the

expression of Buffalmacco, he tried to atone for the defect by the aid

of sentences proceeding from the mouths of his figures, which expressed

what their features and attitudes were incapable of explaining, a

practice in which he was preceded by Cimabue, and followed by the

eccentric Orcagna and several others. This Bruno, together with Nello di

Dino, was associated with Buffalmacco in the jests contrived for the

simple Calandrino. They all owe their fame to Boccaccio, who introduces

them in the eighth day of his Decamerone; and a similar favour was

conferred by Sacchetti on a Bartolo Gioggi, a house-painter, whom he

introduced into his one hundred and seventieth tale. Giovanni da Ponte,

the scholar of Buffalmacco, had some merit, but he was not at all

solicitous to increase it by his diligence. Some remains of his pictures

exist on the walls of the church of St. Francis, at Arezzo.

I believe that Bernardo Orcagna, who rivalled the fame of Buffalmacco,

proceeded from some old school. He was the son of one Cione, a sculptor,

and his brother Jacopo was of the same profession: but the other

brother, Andrea, surpassed them all; and in himself so far united the

attainments of the three sister arts, that he was by some reckoned

second only to Giotto. He is known among architects for having

introduced the circular arch instead of the acute, as may be seen in the

gallery of the Lanzi, which he built and ornamented with sculpture.

Bernardo taught him the principles of painting. They who have

represented him as the pupil of Angiol Gaddi, do not appear attentive to

dates. In the Strozzi chapel in the church of S. Maria Novella, he and

Bernardo painted Paradise, and over against it the Infernal Regions; and

in the Campo Santo of Pisa, Death and the Judgment were executed by

Andrea, and Hell by Bernardo. The two brothers imitated Dante in the

novel representations which they executed at those places; and that

style was more happily repeated by Andrea in the church of Santa Croce,

where he inserted portraits of his enemies among the damned, and of his

friends among the blessed spirits. These pictures are the prototypes of

similar pictures preserved in S. Petronio, at Bologna, in the cathedral

of Tolentino, in the Badia del Sesto, at Friuli,[63] and some other

places, in which hell is distinguished by abysses and a variety of

torments, after the manner of Dante. Several pictures by Andrea remain,

and his name is still on that in the Strozzi chapel, which is full of

figures and of episodes. On the whole, he discovers fertility of

imagination, diligence, and spirit, equal to any of his contemporaries.

In composition he was less judicious, in attitudes less exact, than the

followers of Giotto; and he yields to them in drawing and in colouring.

The same school produced Marinotto, a nephew of Andrea, and a Tommaso di

Marco, whom I pass over, as well as others of little note, no longer

known by existing works. Bernardo Nello di Gio. Falconi of Pisa merits

consideration. He executed many pictures in that cathedral, and is

supposed to be the same with that Nello di Vanni, who, with other Pisan

artists, painted in the Campo Santo in the fourteenth century. Francesco

Traini, a Florentine, is known as much superior to his master, by a

large picture which is in the church of S. Catherine of Pisa, in which

he has represented St. Thomas Aquinas in his own form, and also in his

beatification. He stands in the middle of the picture, under the

Redeemer, who sheds a glory on the Evangelists and him; and from them

the rays are scattered on a crowd of listeners, composed of clergy,

doctors, bishops, cardinals, and popes. Arius and other innovators are

at the feet of the saint, as if vanquished by his doctrine; and near him

appear Plato and Aristotle, with their volumes open, a circumstance not

to be commended in such a subject. This work exhibits no skill in

grouping, no knowledge of relief, and it abounds in attitudes which are

either too tame, or too constrained; and yet it pleases by a marked

expression in the countenances, an air of the antique in the draperies,

and a certain novelty in the composition. Let us now pass on to the

followers of Giotto.

The scholars of Giotto have fallen into an error common to the followers

of all illustrious men; in despairing to surpass, they have only aspired

to imitate him with facility. On this account the art did not advance so

quickly as it might otherwise have done, among the Florentine and other

artists of the fourteenth century, who flourished after Giotto. In the

several cities above mentioned, Giotto invariably appears superior when

seen in the vicinity of such painters as Cavallini, or Gaddi; and

whoever is acquainted with his style, stands in no need of a prolix

account of that of his followers, which, with a general resemblance to

him, is less grand and less agreeable. Stefano Fiorentino alone is a

superior genius in the opinion of Vasari, according to whose account he

greatly excelled Giotto in every department of painting. He was the son

of Catherine, a daughter of Giotto, and possessed a genius for

penetrating into the difficulties of the art, and an insuperable desire

of conquering them. He first introduced foreshortenings into painting,

and if in this he did not attain his object, he greatly improved the

perspective of buildings, the attitudes, and the variety and expression

of the heads. According to Landino he was called the _Ape of Nature_, an

eulogy of a rude age; since such animals, in imitating the works of man,

always debase them: but Stefano endeavoured to equal and to embellish

those of nature. The most celebrated of his pictures which were in the

_Ara Coeli_ at Rome, in the church of S. Spirito at Florence, and in

other places, have all perished. As far as I know, his country does not

possess one of his undoubted pictures; unless we mention as such, that

of the Saviour in the Campo Santo of Pisa, which, indeed, is in a

greater manner than the works of this master, but it has been retouched.

A _Pieta_, by his son and disciple Tommaso, as is believed by some,

exists in S. Remigi at Florence, which strongly partakes of the manner

of Giotto; like his frescos at Assisi. He deserved the name of Giottino,

given him by his fellow citizens, who used to say that the soul of

Giotto had transmigrated, and animated him. Baldinucci alleges that

there was another of the same name, who should not be confounded with

him, and quotes the following inscription from a picture in the Villa

Tolomei, "Dipinse Tommaso di Stefano Fortunatino de' Gucci Tolomei." But

Cinelli, the strenuous opponent of Baldinucci, attributes it, perhaps

justly, to Giottino. This artist left behind him one Lippo, sufficiently

commended by Vasari, but who rather seems to have been an imitator than

a scholar. Giovanni Tossicani of Arezzo, was a disciple of Giottino,

employed in Pisa and over all Tuscany. He painted the St. Philip and St.

James, which still remain on the baptismal font in Arezzo, and were

repaired by Vasari while a young man, who acknowledges that he learned

much from this work, injured as it was. With him perished the best

branch of the stock of Giotto.

Taddeo Gaddi may be considered as the Giulio Romano of Giotto, his most

intimate and highly favoured pupil. Vasari, who saw his frescos and

easel pictures at Florence, in good preservation, prefers him to his

master, in colouring and in delicacy; but the lapse of time at this day

forbids our deciding this point, although several of his pictures

remain, especially in the church of Santa Croce, which are scriptural

histories, much in the manner of Giotto. He discovered more originality

in the chapter house of the Spagnuoli, where he worked in competition

with Memmi.[64] He painted some of the acts of the Redeemer on the

ceiling, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the refectory, which is

among the finest specimens of art in the fourteenth century. On one of

the walls he painted the Sciences, and under each some one of its

celebrated professors; and demonstrated his excellence in this species

of allegorical painting, which approaches so nearly to poetry. The

brilliance and clearness of his tints are chiefly conspicuous in that

chapter house. The royal gallery contains the taking down of Christ, the

work of his hands, which was formerly at Orsanmichele, and by some

ascribed to Buffalmacco, merely because it was unascertained. Taddeo

flourished beyond the term assigned him by Vasari, and outlived most of

those already named. This may be collected from Franco Sacchetti, a

contemporary writer, who relates in his 136th Tale, that Andrea Orcagna

proposed as a question, "who was the greatest master, setting Giotto out

of the question?" Some answered Cimabue, others Stefano, some Bernardo,

and some Buffalmacco. Taddeo Gaddi, who was in the company, said, "truly

these were very able painters, but the art is decaying every day, &c."

He is mentioned up to 1352, and he might possibly survive several years.

He left at his death several disciples, who became eminent teachers of

painting in Florence, and other places. D. Lorenzo Camaldolese is

mentioned with honour. He instructed pupils in the art; and several old

pictures by him and his scholars are in the monastery of the Angeli. At

that time the fraternity of Camaldulites furnished some miniature

painters, one of whom, named D. Silvestro, ornamented missals, which

still exist, and are amongst the best that Italy possesses. The most

favoured pupils of Taddeo were Giovanni da Milano, whom I shall notice

in the school of Lombardy, and Jacopo di Casentino, who also will find a

place there, together with his imitators. To these two he recommended on

his death-bed his two sons and disciples: Giovanni, who died

prematurely, with a reputation for genius; and Angiolo, who being then

very young, most needed a protector. The latter died, according to

Vasari, at 63 years of age; in 1589, according to the date of

Baldinucci. He did not improve the art in proportion to his abilities,

but contented himself with imitating Giotto and his father, in which he

was astonishingly successful. The church of S. Pancrazio possessed one

picture by him, containing several saints, and some histories from the

Gospel, which may still be seen in the monastery, divided into several

pieces, and coloured in a taste superior to what was then usual. There

is another in the same style in the sacristy of the Conventual friars,

by whom he was employed in the choir of the church, to paint in fresco

the story of the recovery of the Cross, and its transportation in the

time of Heraclius; a work inferior to the others, because much larger,

and to him somewhat new. He afterwards lived at Venice, as a merchant

rather than as a painter; and Baldinucci, who seizes every opportunity

of supporting his hypothesis, says, that if he was not the founder of

that school, he, at least, improved it. But I shall demonstrate, in the

proper place, that the Venetian school was advancing to a modern style,

before Angiolo could have taught in that place; and in the many old

pictures I saw at Venice, I was unable to recal to mind the delicate

style of Angiolo. The Venetians owe to him the education of Stefano da

Verona, whom I shall consider in the second volume; and he gave the

Florentines Cennino Cennini, praised by Vasari as a colourist, of whom

as a writer I shall soon make mention.

In the school of Angiolo Gaddi we may reckon Antonio Veneziano,

concerning whom Vasari and Baldinucci disagree. The former makes him a

Venetian, "who came to Florence to learn painting of Agnolo Gaddi:" the

latter, a systematic writer, as we have seen, asserts that he was born

in Florence, and that he obtained the surname of Veneziano, from his

residence and many labours in Venice, on the authority of certain

memoirs in the Strozzi library, which were, perhaps, doubted by himself;

for had they been of high authority, he would not have omitted to

proclaim their antiquity. However this may be, each of them is a little

inconsistent with himself. As they assert that Antonio died of the

plague in 1384, or, according to the correction of their annotators, in

1383, at the age of 74, it follows that he was born many years before

Gaddi, whose disciple, therefore, we cannot easily suppose him. It is

likewise rendered doubtful by his design in the legends of S.

Ranieri,[65] which remain in the Campo Santo of Pisa, where there is a

certain facility, care, and caprice in the composition, that savour of

another school. Vasari, moreover, notices a method of painting in

fresco, without ever re-touching it when dry, that would seem to have

been introduced from other parts, different from what was employed by

the Tuscan artists, his competitors, whose paintings, in the time of the

historian, were not in as good a state of preservation as those of

Antonio. In the same place he deposited his portrait, which the

describers of the ducal gallery at Florence pretend still to find in the

chamber of celebrated artists. This portrait is, however, painted in a

manner so modern, that I cannot believe it the work of a painter so

ancient. On this occasion I must observe that there was another Antonio

Veneziano, whom this picture probably represents, and who, about the

year 1500, painted, at Osimo, a picture of St. Francis, in the manner of

that age, and inscribed it with his name. I learned this from the

accomplished Sig. Cav. Aqua, who added, that this name had been erased,

and that of Pietro Perugino inserted, who certainly gains no very great

honour by such substitution.

We learn from history[66] that Antonio educated in Paolo Uccello, a

great artist in perspective; and in Gherardo Starnina, a master in the

gay style, of whom there are yet some remnants, in a chapel of the

church of Santa Croce. They are among the last efforts of the school of

Giotto, which succeeding artists abandoned, to adopt a better manner.

One exception occurs in Antonio Vite, who executed some works in the old

style, in Pistoia, his native city, and in Pisa. I may here observe,

that Starnina and Dello Fiorentino shortly after introduced the new

Italian manner in the court of Spain, and returned to Florence with

honour and with affluence. The first remained to enjoy them in his

native country, until the time of his death: the latter returned back to

increase them; and, according to Vasari, he left no public work in

Florence, except an historic design of Isaac, in green earth, in a

cloister of the church of S. Maria Novella: perhaps he ought to have

said, that he left various works, for several are there visible, all in

the same taste, and so rude, as to induce us to reckon him rather a

follower of Buffalmacco than of Giotto. But he excelled in small pieces;

and there was none then living who could more elegantly ornament

cabinets, coffers, the backs of couches, or other household furniture,

with subjects from history and fable.

Among the disciples of Taddeo Gaddi I have named Jacopo del Casentino,

of whom there are some remains in the church of Orsanmichele. Jacopo

taught Spinello Aretino, a man of a most lively fancy, as may be

gathered from some of his pictures in Arezzo, no less than from his

life. He painted also at Florence, and was one of those who had the

honour of ornamenting the Campo Santo of Pisa with historical paintings.

His pictures of the martyrs S. Petito and S. Epiro, are noticed by

Vasari as his best performances. He was, however, inferior to his

competitors by the meanness of his design, and the style of his

colouring, in which green and black are predominant, without being

sufficiently relieved by other colours. The fall of the angels still

remains in S. Angelo at Arezzo, in which Lucifer is represented so

terrible, that it afterwards haunted the dreams of the artist, and,

deranging both his mind and body, hastened his death. Bernardo Daddi was

his scholar; a man less known in his own country than at Florence, where

he executed a picture, seen on the gate of San Giorgio (See Moreni, lib.

v. p. 5.); as was also Parri, the son of Spinello, who modernised his

style somewhat on the manner of Masolino. The latter excelled in the art

of colouring, but he was barbarous in the drawing of his figures, which

he made extravagantly long and bending, in order, as he was used to say,

to give them greater spirit. One may see some remains of them at Arezzo

in S. Domenico, and other places. Lorenzo di Bicci of Florence, another

scholar of Spinello, was the Vasari of his time, for the multiplicity,

celerity, and easy self-complacency, shewn in his labours. The first

cloister of the church of S. Croce retains several specimens, consisting

of the legends of S. Francis; and there is an Assumption on the front,

in which he was assisted by Donatello, while still a young man. Perhaps

his best work is the fresco, ornamenting the sanctuary of S. Maria

Nuova, built by Martin V. about the year 1418. His son Neri is reckoned

among the last followers of Giotto. He lived but a short time; he left,

in S. Romolo, a picture which would not have disgraced his father, and

which is certainly more carefully executed than was usual with the

latter.

During the fourteenth century, sculpture was cultivated at Pisa by as

many artists as painting was at Florence; but Pisa was not on that

account destitute of painters worthy of being recorded. Vasari mentions

one Vicino, who finished the mosaic begun by Turrita, assisted by Tafi

and Gaddi, and adds, that he was also a painter. Sig. da Morrona says,

that he retained the old style of his school; which was the case with

many others, as appears from several old Madonnas upon panels, both of

anonymous and of ascertained painters. Of this sort is that in the old

church of Tripalle, and that at S. Matthew's in Pisa. On the first is

this inscription, _Nerus Nellus de Pisa me pinxit_, 1299: on the second

we read, _Jacopo di Nicola dipintore detto Gera mi dipinse_. The mode of

expression is derived from the m'epoiese of the Greeks; to which the old

Pisans closely adhered in their paintings, their sculptures, and their

bronzes.[67] Like the other Italians they at length reformed their

style, and there, as well as at Florence and Siena, families of painters

arose, in which the fathers were excelled by their sons, and they by

their children. Thus, from Vanni, who flourished in 1300, sprung Turino

di Vanni, who flourished about 1343, and Nello di Vanni, who painted in

the Campo Santo, whose son Bernardo was the disciple of Orcagna, and

furnished many pictures for the palace of the primate. There was also in

that city one Andrea di Lippo, who is noticed in the _Academical

Discourse on the literary history of Pisa_, in the year 1336; the same,

I believe, with that Andrea da Pisa, mentioned among the artists that

ornamented the cathedral of Orvieto in 1346. A work by one Giovanni di

Niccolo remains in the monastery of S. Martha, and, perhaps, he painted

the fine trittico of the Zelada museum at Rome, which represents our

Saviour with S. Stephen, S. Agatha, and other saints, and which has this

inscription, _Jo. de Pisis pinxit_. This is a picture of great labour,

by some ascribed to Gio. Balducci; which, if it was ascertained, would

confer honour on that great man, as a professor of the three sister

arts. Towards the end of the century the power of the Pisans declined,

rather from civil discord than from other misfortunes; till at length

the city fell into the hands of the Florentines in 1406, and lay for a

long time prostrate and humbled, deprived, not only of her artists, but

almost of her citizens; and fully glutted the ancient hatred of her

hostile neighbours. She at length rose again, not, indeed, to command,

but to more dignified subjection.

The spirit of the Florentines in the mean time increasing with their

power, they became chiefly solicitous to suit the magnificence of their

capital to the grandeur of the state. Cosmo, at once the father of his

country and of men of genius, gave stability to public affairs. Lorenzo

the Magnificent, and others of the house of Medici, followed, whose

hereditary taste for literature and the fine arts is celebrated in a

multitude of books, and most copiously in the histories written by three

eminent authors, Monsignor Fabroni, the Signor Ab. Galluzzi, and Mr.

Roscoe. Their house was at once a lyceum for philosophers, an arcadia

for poets, and an academy for artists. Dello, Paolo, Masaccio, the two

Peselli, both the Lippi, Benozzo, Sandro, the Ghirlandai, enjoyed the

perpetual patronage of this family, and as constantly rendered it

whatever honour they could bestow. Their pictures are full of portraits,

according to the custom of the times, and continually presented to the

people the likenesses of the Medici, and often represented them with

regal ornaments in their pictures of the Epiphany, as if gradually to

prepare the people to behold the sceptre and royal robe securely

established in that house. The good taste of the Medici was seconded by

that of other citizens, who were then distributed into various

corporations, according to their place of residence and profession, each

of which strove with reciprocal emulation to decorate their houses and

their churches. Besides the desire of public ornament, they were

animated by religion, which, in what relates to divine worship, is so

widely spread, not only among the great, but also among the lower orders

of people, that those have a difficulty in believing who have not beheld

it. Their cathedral, a vast fabric, was already reared for the

ceremonies of religion, and here and there some other churches arose;

these and the more ancient, in emulation of each other, they adorned

with paintings, a luxury unknown to their ancestors, and less common in

the other cities of Italy. This disposition gave rise, after the

conclusion of the century, to that prodigious number of painters already

mentioned; and hence sprang, in the century we now treat of, that crowd

of artists in marble, bronze, and silver, who transferred pre-eminence

in sculpture, the ancient inheritance of the Pisans, to the people of

Florence. The Florentines were desirous of ornamenting the new cathedral

and baptistery, the church of Orsanmichele, and other sacred places,

with statues and basso-relievos. These brought forward Donatello,

Brunelleschi, Ghiberti, Filarete, Rossellini, Pollajuoli, and

Verrocchio, and produced those noble works in marble, in bronze, and in

silver, which sometimes appear to have attained the perfection of the

art, and to have rivalled the ancients. The rising generation was

instructed in design by those celebrated men, and the universality of

the principles they taught, made the transition from one art to another

easy. The same individuals were often statuaries, founders in bronze, in

gold, lapidaries, painters, or architects, talents that appear enviable

to this age, in which an artist with difficulty acquires a competent

knowledge in a single art. Such was the course of instruction at

Florence in the Studies, and such the subsequent encouragement without,

from which it will not appear wonderful to the reader that this city was

the foremost to attain the perfection of the art. But let us trace the

steps by which it advanced in Florence, and in the rest of Italy.

The followers of Giotto had now carried painting beyond the period of

its infancy, but it continued to give proofs of its infant faculties,

especially in chiaroscuro, and still more in perspective. Figures

sometimes appeared as if falling or slipping from the canvass; buildings

had not a true point of view; and the art of foreshortening was yet very

rude. Stefano Fiorentino perceived rather than removed the difficulty;

others for the most part sought either to avoid or to compensate for the

deficiency. Pietro della Francesca, whom we have elsewhere noticed,

appears to have been the first who revived the Grecian practice of

rendering geometry subservient to the painter. He is celebrated by

Pascoli,[68] and by authors of greater note, as the father of

perspective. Brunelleschi was the first Florentine who saw the method of

bringing it to perfection, "which consisted in drawing it in outline by

the help of intersections;"[69] and in this manner he drew the square of

St. John, and other places, with true diminution and with receding

points. He was imitated in mosaic by Benedetto da Maiano, and in

painting by Masaccio, to both of whom he was master. About the same

period Paolo Uccello, having studied under Gio. Manetti, a celebrated

mathematician, applied to it with assiduity; and even so dedicated

himself to the pursuit, that in labouring to excel in this, he never

acquired celebrity in the other branches of painting. He delighted in it

far beyond his other studies, and used to say that perspective was the

most pleasant of all; so true is it that novelty is a great source of

enjoyment. He executed no work that did not reflect some new light on

that art, whether it consisted of edifices and colonnades, in which a

great space was represented in a small compass, or of figures

foreshortened with a skill unknown to the followers of Giotto. Some of

his historic pictures of Adam, and of Noah, in which he indulged in his

favourite taste for the novel and whimsical, remain in the cloisters of

S. Maria Novella; and there are also landscapes with trees and animals

so well executed, that he might be called the Bassano of the first age.

He particularly delighted to have birds in his house, from which he

drew, and from thence he obtained his surname of Uccello. In the

cathedral there is a gigantic portrait of Gio. Aguto on horseback,

painted by Paolo in green earth. This was, perhaps, the first attempt

made in painting, which achieved a great deal without appearing too

daring. He produced other specimens at Padua, where he delineated some

figures of giants with green earth in the house of the Vitali. He was

chiefly employed in ornamenting furniture for private individuals; the

triumphs of Petrarch in the royal gallery, painted on small cabinets are

supposed by some good judges to be his.

Masolino da Panicale cultivated the art of chiaroscuro. I believe he

derived advantage from having long dedicated his attention to modelling

and sculpture, a practice which renders relief easy to the painter,

beyond what is generally conceived. Ghiberti had been his master in this

branch, who at this time was unrivalled in design, in composition, and

in giving animation to his figures. Colouring, which he yet wanted, was

taught him by Starnina, and in this also he became a very celebrated

master. Thus uniting in himself the excellences of two schools, he

produced a new style, not indeed exempt from dryness, nor wholly

faultless; but grand, determined, and harmonious, beyond any former

example. The chapel of St. Peter al Carmine, is a remaining monument of

this artist. He there painted the Evangelists, and some acts of the

Saint, as his vocation to the apostleship, the tempest, the denying of

Christ, the miracle performed at Porta Speciosa, and the Preaching. He

was prevented by death from representing other acts of St. Peter, as for

instance, the tribute paid to Caesar, baptism conferred on the multitude,

the healing of the sick, which several years afterwards were painted by

his scholar Maso di S. Giovanni, a youth who obtained the surname of

Masaccio, from trusting to a precarious subsistence, and living, as it

was said, by chance, while deeply engrossed with the studies of his

profession. This artist was a genius calculated to mark an era in

painting; and Mengs has assigned him the highest place among those who

explored its untried recesses. Vasari informs us that "what was executed

before his time might be called paintings, but that his pictures seem to

live, they are so true and natural;" and in another place adds, that "no

master of that age so nearly approached the moderns." He had formed the

principles of his art on the works of Ghiberti and Donatello;

perspective he acquired from Brunelleschi, and on going to Rome it

cannot be doubted that he improved by the study of ancient sculpture. He

there met with two senior artists, Gentile da Fabriano, and Vittore

Pisanello, upon whom high encomiums, as the first painter of his time,

may be seen in Maffei and elsewhere.[70] They who write thus had either

not seen any of the paintings of Masaccio, or at most only his early

productions; such as the S. Anna in the church of S. Ambrose in

Florence, or the chapel of S. Catherine in S. Clement's at Rome, in

which, while still young, he executed some pictures of the passion of

Christ, and legends of S. Anna, to which may be added a ceiling

containing the Evangelists, which are all that now remain free from

retouching. This work is excellent for that time, but some doubt whether

it ought to be ascribed to him; and it is inferior to his painting in

the Carmine, of which we may say with Pliny, _jam perfecta sunt omnia_.

The positions and foreshortenings of the figures are diversified and

complete beyond those practised by Paolo Uccello. The air of the heads,

says Mengs, is in the style of Raffaello; the expression is so managed

that the mind seems no less forcibly depicted than the body. The anatomy

of the figure is marked with truth and judgment. That figure, so highly

extolled in the baptism of S. Peter, which appears shivering with cold,

marks, as it were, an era in the art. The garments, divested of

minuteness, present a few easy folds. The colouring is true, properly

varied, delicate, and surprisingly harmonious; the relief is in the

grandest style. This chapel was not finished by him. He died in 1443,

not without suspicion of poison, and left it still deficient in several

pictures, which, after many years were supplied by the younger Lippi. It

became the school of all the best Florentine artists whom we shall have

occasion to notice in this and the succeeding epoch, of Pietro Perugino,

and even of Raffaello; and it is a curious circumstance, that in the

course of many years, in a city fruitful in genius, ever bent on the

promotion of the art, no one in following the footsteps of Masaccio

attained that eminence which he acquired without a director. Time has

defaced other works of his hand at Florence, equally commended, and

especially the sanctuary of the church del Carmine, of which there is a

drawing in the possession of the learned P. Lettor Fontana Barnabita in

Pavia. The royal gallery has very few of his works. The portrait of a

young man, that seems to breathe, and is estimated at a high price, is

in the Pitti collection.

After Masaccio, two monks distinguished themselves in the Florentine

school. The first was a Dominican friar named F. Giovanni da Fiesole, or

B. Giovanni Angelico. His first employment was that of ornamenting books

with miniatures, an art he learned from an elder brother, who executed

miniatures and other paintings. It is said that he studied in the chapel

of Masaccio, but it is not easy to credit this when we consider their

ages. Their style too betrays a different origin. The works of the friar

discover some traces of the manner of Giotto, in the posture of the

figures and the compensation for deficiencies in the art, not to mention

the drapery which is often folded in long tube-like forms, and the

exquisite diligence in minute particulars common to miniature painters.

Nor did he depart much from this method in the greatest part of his

works, which chiefly consist of scripture pieces of our Saviour, or the

Virgin, in cabinet pictures not unfrequently to be met with in Florence.

The royal gallery possesses several; the most brilliant and highly

finished of which, is the birth of John the Baptist. The Glory,[71]

which is in the church of S. Mary Magdalen de' Pazzi, from its great

size, is among his rarest productions; and it also ranks with the most

beautiful. His chief excellence consists in the beauty that adorns the

countenances of his saints and angels; and he is truly the Guido of the

age, for the sweetness of his colours, which, though in water, he

diluted and blended in a manner which almost reaches perfection. He was

also esteemed one of the best of his age in works executed in fresco;

and he was employed in the decoration of the cathedral of Orvieto, as

well as the palace of the Vatican itself, where he painted a chapel--a

work much commended by a number of writers. Vasari enumerates Gentile da

Fabriano among his disciples, but the dates render this impossible; and

says the same of Zanobi Strozzi, a man of noble origin, of whom I do not

know that any certain picture exists in a public collection: I only know

that, treading in the steps of his master, he surpassed the reputation

of a mere amateur. Benozzo Gozzoli, another of his disciples, and an

imitator of Masaccio, raised himself far above the majority of his

contemporaries.

In a few points he even surpassed his model, as in the stupendous size

of his edifices, in the amenity of his landscapes, and in the brilliancy

of his fancy, truly lively, agreeable, and picturesque. In the Riccardi

palace, once a royal residence, there is a chapel in good preservation,

where he executed a Glory, a Nativity, and an Epiphany. He there painted

with a profusion of gold and of drapery, unexampled, perhaps, in fresco;

and with an adherence to nature that exhibits an image of that age in

the portraits, the garments, the accoutrements of the horses, and in the

most minute particulars. He long resided at Pisa, and died there, where

he ought to be studied; for his compositions in that place are better

than those at Florence, and he was there also more sparing in the use of

gold. The portrait of S. Thomas Aquinas is highly spoken of by Vasari

and Richardson; but they especially notice the pictures from scripture

history, with which he ornamented a whole wing of the Campo Santo, "a

most prodigious work, sufficient to appal a legion of painters;"[72] and

he finished it within two years. Here he displayed a talent for

composition, an imitation of nature, a variety in the countenances and

attitudes, a colouring juicy, lively, and clear, and an expression of

the passions that places him next to Masaccio. I can scarcely believe

that he painted the whole. In the Ebriety of Noah, in the Tower of

Babel, and in some other pictures, we discern an attempt at surprising,

not to be seen in some others, where figures sometimes occur that seem

dry and laboured; defects which I am disposed rather to attribute to his

coadjutors. Near this great work a monument is erected to his memory by

a grateful city, in the public name, with an epitaph that commends him

as a painter. Time itself, as if conscious of his merit, has respected

this work beyond any other in the Campo Santo.

The other monk was Filippo Lippi, a Carmelite, a genius of a different

stamp from B. Giovanni. He received his instruction, not from Masaccio,

as Vasari would have it, but from his works. His assiduity in copying

him, makes him sometimes appear a second Masaccio, especially in small

histories. Some of his choicest are in the sacristy of the church of S.

Spirito. In that place, in the Church of S. Ambrose, and elsewhere, his

pictures represent the Virgin surrounded by angels, with full and

handsome countenances, distinguished by a colouring and a gracefulness

peculiarly his own. He delighted in drapery like the neat folds of a

surplice; his tints were very clear but delicate, and often subdued by a

purple hue not common to other painters. He introduced gigantic

proportions in his large frescos in the parish church of Prato; where

his pictures of S. Stephen and the Baptist were, in the opinion of

Vasari, his capital performances. His forsaking the convent, his slavery

in Barbary, his works at Naples, at Padua, and elsewhere, his death,

hastened by poison, administered by the relations of a young lady who

had borne him a natural child, likewise named Filippo Lippi, are

recorded by Vasari. P. della Valle is of opinion that he never

_professed_ any order, but in the register of Carmine, his death is

noticed in the year 1469, and he is there denominated Fra Filippo. He

died at Spoleti when he had nearly completed his large picture for the

cathedral. Lorenzo the Magnificent requested his ashes from the

townsmen, but was refused; on which he caused a handsome monument to be

erected for him, with an inscription by Angelo Poliziano; a circumstance

I mention, to demonstrate the respect paid to the art at that period. F.

Diamante da Prato, the scholar of Lippi, and his assistant in his last

work, imitated him well; as likewise did Francesco Pesello, a Florentine

of the same school; his son Pesellino, a short lived artist, followed

him with still greater success. The Epiphany of Francesco, described by

Vasari, in which there is a portrait of Donato Acciaiuoli, is in the

royal gallery. The grado, painted by his son for the apartments of the

novices of S. Croce, is there still: on this last are the histories of

S. Cosma and S. Damian, of S. Anthony, and S. Francis, denominated by

the historian most wonderful productions, and, perhaps, this is not too

much to say when we recollect the period.

About this time other able artists flourished at Florence, who were

obscured by greater names. Of this number was Berto Linaiuolo, whose

pictures in private houses were, for a long time, held in great repute.

They were even ordered by the King of Hungary, and procured him great

fame in that kingdom. Alessio Baldovinetti, of noble extraction, was a

painter particularly diligent and minute, a good worker in mosaic, and

the master of Ghirlandaio. In his picture of the Nativity in the porch

of the Nunziata, and in his other works, the design, rather than the

colouring, may now be said to remain; for the tints have vanished, from

a defect in their composition. To them we may add Verrocchio, a

celebrated statuary, a good designer, and a painter for amusement rather

than by profession. While he painted the Baptism of Christ at S. Salvi,

his scholar, L. da Vinci, then a youth, finished an angel, in a manner

superior to the figures of his master, who, indignant at his own

inferiority to a boy, never more handled the pencil.

Baldinucci imagines that Andrea del Castagno, a name infamous in

history, was a scholar of Masaccio: he was rather his imitator, in

attitude, relief, and casting of the drapery, than in grace and

colouring. He lived at the time that the secret of painting in oil

(discovered by John Van Eych, or John of Bruges, about 1410),[73] was

known in Italy, not only by report, but by experience of the advantages

of this method. Our artists, admiring the harmony, delicacy, and

brilliance, which colours received from this discovery, sighed to

possess the secret. For this purpose, one Antonello da Messina, who had

studied at Rome, travelled to Flanders, and having learned the secret,

according to Vasari, from the inventor, went to Venice, where he

communicated it to a friend named Domenico. After having practised much

in his own country, at Loreto,[74] and other parts of the ecclesiastical

states, Domenico came to Florence. There he became the general

favourite, and on that account was envied by Castagna, whose dissembled

friendship won him to impart the secret, and rewarded him by an

atrocious assassination, which he perpetrated, in order that there might

be none living to rival him in the art. The assassin was sufficiently

skilful to conceal his crime, owing to which a number of innocent

persons soon fell under suspicion, which did not induce the real

criminal to avow the atrocious deed, until he lay upon his death-bed,

when he disclosed his guilt and did justice to the innocence of others.

He had the reputation of being the first artist of his time, for vigour,

for design, and for perspective, having perfected the art of

foreshortening. His finest works have perished: one of his pictures

remains at S. Lucia de' Magnuoli, and also some of his historic pieces,

executed with great diligence. There is also a Crucifixion, painted on a

wall in the monastery of the Angeli.

Many writers have appeared who deny the above mentioned statement of

Vasari, and maintain that the art of painting in oil was known long

before. It is pretended that it existed in the time of the Romans, an

opinion that is adopted by Sig. Ranza, in regard to a picture _said to

be of S. Helena_, consisting of a quilting of different pieces of silk

stitched together, exhibiting a picture of the Virgin Saint with the

Infant. The heads and hands are coloured in oils; the drapery is shaded

with the needle, and in a great measure with the pencil. It is preserved

in Vercelli, and from the tradition of its citizens reported by Mabillon

(Diar. Ital. Cap. 28), it is said to be the work of S. Helena, mother of

Constantine; that is, the patches of silk were sewed by her, and the

gilding and painting added to it by her painter, as is conjectured by

Ranza. He was not aware that the practice of drawing the Infant Christ

in the lap of the Virgin (as we notice in the preface to the Roman

school), was posterior to the fourth century; and that other particulars

related by him of the picture cannot belong to the age of Constantine;

for instance, the hooded mantle of our Lady. From such signs we ought

rather to conclude that it is either not an oil painting, or that the

figure, at whatever period executed, has been retouched in the same way

as that of the Nunziata at Florence, or of the Santa Maria Primerana at

Fiesole; the former of which in the drapery, and the latter in the

lineaments, are not the same now as in their ancient state.

Others, without ascending to the first ages of the church, have asserted

that oil painting was known out of Italy, at least as early as the

eleventh century. As a proof of this, they adduce a manuscript of the

Monk Teofilo or Ruggiero, no later back than that period, which bears

title, "De omni scientia artis pingendi," where there is a receipt for

the preparation and use of oil from flax.[75] Lessing gave an account of

this manuscript in the year 1774, in a treatise published at Brunswick,

where he filled the office of librarian to the Prince. Morelli, also, in

the Codici Naniani (cod. 39); and more at length Raspe, in his critical

"Dissertation on Oil Painting," published in the English language at

London, in which he enumerated the existing copies in various libraries,

and gave a great part of the manuscript, entered into an examination of

the subject. Lastly, Teofilo's treatise is inserted by Christiano Leist,

in Lessing's collection, "Zur Geschichte unde Litteratur." Brusw. 1781.

The Dottore Aglietti, in his Giornale Veneto, December, 1793, likewise

adds his opinion; while the learned Abbate Morelli, in his "Notizia,"

which is often cited by me in the emendation and illustration of this

edition, throws the greatest light upon the present question, agitated

by so many, and, we may add, "rem acu tetigit." He, then, will be found

to concede to Giovanni, whom he calls Gianes da Brugia, the boast of

this great discovery, agreeing with Vasari, though in a different sense

from that in which the latter writer views it. For he does not reply to

his opponents, that the art of painting, as taught by Teofilo, might

have gone into disuse, and was only revived by Giovanni; whence Vasari

ventured to commend him as an original inventor; in the same manner as

Tiraboschi replied, who followed the Roman anthologists (St. Lett. t.

vi. p. 1202). Neither does he bring forward the defence advanced by the

Baron de Budberg in the apology of Gio. da Bruges,[76] to the purport

that Teofilo taught the art of painting in oil, only upon a ground,

without figures, and without ornaments: because Teofilo, in chap. 22,

whose words we have given in the note, likewise taught this art. Into

what, then, does the long-boasted invention of Giovanni resolve itself?

Nothing more than this: according to the ancient practice, a fresh

colour was never added to the panel until the first covering had been

dried in the sun: a mode, as Teofilo confesses, infinitely tedious:

"quod in imaginibus diuturnum et taediosum nimis est;" (cap. 23); to

which I may add, that the colours in this way could never perfectly

harmonize. Van Eych saw this difficulty, and he became more truly

sensible of it, from the circumstance of having exposed one of his

paintings to the sun, in order to harden, when the excess of heat split

the panel. Being at that period sufficiently skilled both in

philosophical and philological inquiries, he began to speculate on the

manner of applying oils, and of their acquiring a proper consistency

without the aid of the sun. "By uniting it with other mixtures he next

produced a varnish, which, dried, was water proof, and gave a clearness

and brilliancy, while it added to the harmony of his colours." Such are

the words of Vasari; and thus, in a very few words, we may arrive at a

satisfactory solution of the question. Before the time of Van Eych, some

sort of method of painting in oil was known, but so extremely tedious

and imperfect, as to be scarcely applicable to the production of figure

pieces. It was practised beyond the Alps, but is not known to have been

in use in Italy. Giovanni carried the first discovery to its completion;

he perfected the art, which was afterwards diffused over all Europe, and

introduced into Italy, by means of Antonio, or Antonello da Messina.

Here again we are met by another class of objectors, who enter the lists

against Van Eych, against Antonello, and more decidedly against Vasari,

not with arguments from books, but in the strength of pictorial skill,

and chemical experiments.

Malvasia, upon the authority of Tiarini, maintains, that Lippo Dalmasio

painted in oil; the Neapolitans, relying upon Marco da Siena, and other

men of skill, assert the same of their artists in the thirteenth

century; while a few have pretended that some of the pictures[77]

produced in the fourteenth century, to be seen at Siena and Modena, in

particular that from the hand of Tommaso da Modena, belonging to the

Imperial cabinet, and described by me in the native school of that

artist, are also coloured in oil; because, after being exposed to water,

and analyzed, the colours discovered their elements, and were pronounced

oil. In spite, however, of so much skill, and so many experiments, I

cannot see that Vasari has yet been detected in an error. It would not

be difficult to oppose other experiments and opinions, that might throw

light upon the question. To begin with Tuscany:--an analysis of several

Tuscan paintings was made at Pisa by the very able chemist Bianchi; and

though apparently coloured in oil, the most lucid parts were found to

give out particles of wax; a material employed in the _encausti_, and

not forgotten by the Greeks, who instructed Giunta and his

contemporaries. It would appear that they applied it as a varnish, to

act as a covering and protection from humidity, as well as to give a

lucid hue and polish to the colours. It has been observed, that the

proportion of wax employed greatly decreased during the fourteenth

century; and after the year 1360 fell into disuse, and was succeeded by

a vehicle, that carries no gloss. But in these experiments oil was never

elicited, if we except a few drops of essential oil, which the learned

professor conjectures was employed at that early period to dissolve the

wax made use of in painting.

Besides this material, certain gums, and yolks of eggs, which easily

deceive the eye of the less skilful, were also used, and very nearly

resemble those pictures that display a scanty portion of oil, as is

observed by Zanetti, in his account of Venetian painting (p. 20); and

the analysis of Tommaso da Modena's picture has tended to confirm his

opinion. This information I owe to the late Count Durazzo, who, in 1793,

assured me, when at Venice, that he had himself beheld, at Vienna, the

process of analyzing such pictures, by very skilful hands, at the

command, and in the presence of Prince Kaunitz; and that it was the

unanimous opinion of those professors, that no traces of oil were to be

found. The colours consisted of the finest gums, mixed with the yolk and

white of eggs, a fact that afforded just ground for a like conclusion in

regard to similar works by the ancients. I fully appreciate, likewise,

the opinion of Piacenza upon the celebrated picture of Colantonio; this

I reserve, however, together with some further reflections of my own,

for the school of Naples.

I shall here merely inform the reader, that, in regard to the chemical

experiments employed on these paintings, Sig. da Morrona[78] observes,

that old pictures are often believed to be in a state of purity, when

they have been retouched with oil colours at a subsequent period: the

use of wax, and of essential oils, or of some such old methods, may

frequently give rise to doubt, as I shall soon shew.

Having removed the objections brought against the opinion of Vasari, I

must add a few words in regard to a passage where he seems to have

forgotten what he had said in the life of Angiol Gaddi, but which will

in fact throw further light upon the question. He is giving an account

of the paintings and writings of Andrea Cennini, a scholar of Angelo.

This person, in 1437, that is, long before the arrival of Domenico,

composed a work on painting, which is preserved in MS. in the library of

S. Lorenzo. He there treated, says Vasari, of grinding colours with oil,

for making red, blue, and green grounds; and various new methods and

sizes for gilding, but not figures. Baldinucci examined the same

manuscript, and found these words in the 89th chapter:--"I wish to teach

thee how to paint in oil on walls, or on panel, as practised by many

Germans;" and on consulting the manuscript, I find, after that passage,

"and by the same method on iron and on marble; but I shall first treat

of painting on walls." In the succeeding chapters he says, that this

must be accomplished "by boiling linseed oil." This appears not to

accord with the assertion of Vasari, that John of Bruges, after many

experiments, "discovered that linseed oil and nut oil were the most

drying. When boiled with his other ingredients they formed the varnish

so long sought after by him and all other painters." On weighing the

evidence, we should, in my opinion, take three circumstances into

consideration: The first is, that Vasari does not deny that oil was

employed in painting; since he affirms that it was long a desideratum,

and consequently had been often attempted; but that alone is perfect

which, "when dry, resists water; which brightens the colours, makes them

clear, and perfectly unites them." 2. The oil of Cennini might not be of

this sort, either because it was not boiled with the ingredients of Van

Eych, or because it was intended only for coarse work; a circumstance

rendered probable by the fact, that though he painted the Virgin, with

several Saints, in the hospital of Bonifazio, at Florence, "in a good

style of colouring," yet he never excited the admiration nor the envy of

artists. 3. The above remarks forbid us to give implicit confidence to

every relation that is given of ancient oil pictures; but we are not

blindly to reject all accounts of imperfect attempts of that nature.

After this digression we return to our narrative.

The painters that remain to be noticed, approach the golden age of the

art, of which their works in some degree participate, notwithstanding

the dryness of their design, and the general want of harmony in their

colouring. The vehicle of their colours was commonly water, very rarely

oil. They flourished in the time of Sixtus IV., who, having erected the

magnificent chapel that retains his name, invited them from Florence.

Their names are Botticelli, Ghirlandaio, Rosselli, Luca da Cortona, and

D. Bartolommeo d'Arezzo; whom I shall here introduce, together with

their followers. Manni, the historian of some of these artists,[79]

conjectures that this work was executed about the year 1474. They were

desired to pourtray the history of Moses on one part of the chapel, and

that of Christ on the other: thus the old law was confronted by the new,

the shade by the light, and the type by the person typified. The pontiff

was unskilled in the fine arts, but covetous of the glory they confer on

the name and actions of princes. To superintend the work, he made choice

of Sandro Filipepi, from his first master, a goldsmith, surnamed

Botticelli, and the pupil of F. Filippo; a celebrated artist at that

time, and distinguished by his pictures containing a great number of

small figures in which he strongly resembled Andrea Mantegna; though his

heads were less beautiful. Vasari says, that his little picture of the

Calumny of Apelles, is as fine a production as possible, and he

pronounces the Assumption, painted for the church of S. Pier Maggiore,

to be so excellent, that it ought to silence envy. The former is in the

royal gallery, the latter in a private house. What he painted in the

Sistine Chapel, however, surpasses all his other works. Here we scarcely

recognize Sandro of Florence. The Temptation of Christ, embellished with

a magnificent temple, and a crowd of devotees in the vestibule; Moses

assisting the daughters of Jethro against the Midianite shepherds, in

which there is great richness of drapery, coloured in a new manner; and

other subjects, treated with vigour and originality, exhibit him in this

place greatly superior to his usual manner. The same observation applies

to the painters we are about to notice: such were the effects produced

by their emulation; by the sight of a city that is calculated to enlarge

the ideas of those who visit it, and by the judgment of a public that is

scarcely to be satisfied by what is above mediocrity, because its eye is

habituated to what is wonderful.

History does not point out the portion of this work that was performed

by Filippino Lippi; the son, as we have already observed, of F. Filippo.

It is however highly probable that he assisted; because he was his

father's pupil from a very early age, and because the taste of Lippi,

that delighted in portraying the usages of antiquity in his pictures,

appears to have been formed while he was still young, and engaged in his

studies at Rome. In the life which Cellini has written of himself, he

tells us that he had seen several books of antiquities drawn by Lippi;

and Vasari gives him credit for being the first who decorated modern

paintings by the introduction of grotesques, trophies, armour, vases,

edifices and drapery, copied from the models of antiquity; but this I

cannot confirm, because it was before attempted by Squarcione. It is

true that he excelled in those ornaments, in his landscape and in minute

particulars. The S. Bernard of the Abbey, the Magi of the royal museum,

and the two frescos in S. Maria Novella; the one the history of S. John,

the other of S. Philip, the apostles, please more perhaps by these

accessaries of the art than by the countenances, which, indeed, have not

the beauty and grace of the elder Lippi. They are faithful portraits,

but shew no discrimination. He was invited to Rome to ornament a chapel

of the Minerva, in which there is an Assumption by his hand, and some

histories of Thomas Aquinas, amongst which the Disputation is the best.

In this chapel he shews great improvement in his heads, but was

nevertheless surpassed in this respect by his pupil Raffaellino del

Garbo, who painted a choir of angels on the ceiling, that would alone

suffice to justify the name by which he was distinguished. In Monte

Oliveto at Florence, there is a Resurrection by Raffaellino, where the

figures are small, but so graceful withal, so correct in attitude, and

so finely coloured, that we can scarcely rank him inferior to any master

of that age. There is mention made by the learned Moreni, in the

concluding part of his "Memorie Istoriche," (p. 168) of another of his

beautiful altar-pieces, still in existence at S. Salvi, with the grado

entire. Some early pictures are in a similar state; but becoming the

father of a numerous family, he gradually degenerated in his style, and

died in poverty and obscurity.

The second whom I have mentioned among the artists in the Sistine

Chapel, is Domenico Corradi, surnamed Del Ghirlandaio, from the

profession of his father.[80] He was a painter, an excellent worker in

mosaic, and even contributed to the improvement of these arts. He

painted in the Sistine Chapel the Resurrection of Christ, which has

perished; and the Call of S. Peter and S. Andrew, which still remains.

He is that Ghirlandaio, in whose school, or on whose manner, not only

Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio, his son, but also Bonarruoti, and the best

artists of the succeeding era, formed their style. He possessed

clearness and purity of outline, correctness of form, and variety of

ideas, together with facility and uncommon diligence; he was the first

Florentine, who, by means of true perspective, attained a happy method

of grouping, and depth of composition.[81] He was among the first to

reject the deep golden fringes to the drapery, that the old masters

introduced; who, unable to render their figures beautiful, endeavoured,

at least, to make them gaudy. Some of his pictures, however, yet remain,

moderately illuminated with gold; as for instance, the Epiphany in the

church of the Innocents at Florence. It is a fine work, as is also his

chapel in the Holy Trinity, with the actions of S. Francis, and his

Nativity, in the sacristy of that church. His most celebrated work is

the choir of S. Maria Novella, on one side of which he designed the

history of John the Baptist, on the other that of our Lady, and on

another part the murder of the Innocents, so much commended by Vasari.

It contains a vast many portraits of literary men, and noble citizens,

and almost every head is from the life; but they are dignified, and

judiciously selected. The hands and feet of the figures, however, do not

correspond, and attention to this circumstance is the peculiar merit of

Andrea del Sarto, who seems to have carried the manner of Ghirlandaio to

perfection. Many works of the latter are scattered over Italy, in Rome,

in Rimini, and at Pisa, at the Eremitani di Pietra Santa, and the

Camaldolesi of Volterra; where besides the paintings in the refectory,

there is in the church a figure of S. Romualdo, carved by Diana of

Mantua. The pictures of this master should not be confounded with those

of his scholars, as happens in many instances. Thus the holy families

painted by his brothers or his scholars, frequently pass for his; but

they are very far from meriting the praise we have justly bestowed on

him. Davide, one of his brothers, became very eminent in mosaic;

another, Benedetto, painted more in France than in Italy; Bastiano

Mainardi, their brother-in-law, was rather the assistant of Domenico,

than a painter of originality. Baldino Bandinelli, Niccolo Cieco, Jacopo

del Tedesco, and Jacopo Indaco, are little known; except that the last

is recorded as having assisted with Pinturicchio, at Rome, and was the

brother of Francesco, better known as a painter at Montepulciano than in

Florence.

Cosimo Rosselli, whose noble family has produced several other artists,

also wrought in the Sistine Chapel. Few of his works remain in public

places in his own country, besides the miracle of the sacrament in the

church of S. Ambrose, a fresco picture, full of portraits; in which we

discover variety, character, and truth. Vasari praises his labours at

Rome, less than those of his fellow artists. Being unable to rival his

competitors in design, he loaded his pictures with brilliant colours and

gilded ornaments, which, though it was at that time condemned by an

improving taste, yet pleased the pontiff, who commended and rewarded him

beyond all the other artists. Perhaps his best work there, is Christ

preaching on the mount, in which the landscape is said to be the work of

Pier di Cosimo, a painter likewise more remarkable for his colouring

than his design; as is evident from a picture in the church of the

Innocents, and his Perseus in the royal gallery. They are both, however,

celebrated in history; the one as the master of del Porta, the other of

Andrea del Sarto.

No other Florentine was employed to paint in the Sistine Chapel; but

Piero and Antonio Pollaiuoli, who were both statuaries and painters,

came there not long afterwards and wrought in bronze the tomb of Sixtus

IV. Some of their paintings may yet be seen in the church of S. Miniato,

without the walls of Florence, and the altar-piece was transferred to

the royal museum. We may there trace the school of Castagno, the master

of Piero, in the harsh features, coloured in a strong and juicy manner.

Antonio, the scholar of Piero, became one of the best painters of that

age. In the chapel of the Marchesi Pucci, at the church of St.

Sebastiano de' Servi, there is a martyrdom of the saint by him, which is

one of the best pictures of the fifteenth century I have ever seen. The

colouring is not in the best style; but the composition rises above the

age in which he lived, and the drawing of the naked figure shews what

attention he had bestowed on anatomy. He was the first Italian painter

who dissected bodies in order to learn the true situations of the

tendons and muscles. Both the Pollaiuoli died at Rome, where their tomb

is to be seen in S. Piero in Vincoli, ornamented with a picture, which,

according to some, typifies a soul in purgatory, and the efficacy of

indulgences to deliver it; but whether it is by them, or of their

school, I am unable to determine.

The two following artists were brought to the Sistine Chapel from the

Florentine territory, the painters of which I shall now consider after

those of the capital. Luca Signorelli, the kinsman of Vasari of Arezzo,

and the disciple of Piero della Francesca, was a spirited and expressive

painter, and one of the first Tuscan artists who designed figures with a

true knowledge of anatomy, though somewhat dryly. The cathedral of

Orvieto evinces this; and those naked figures which even Michelangiolo

has not disdained to imitate. Although in most of his works we do not

discover a proper choice of form, nor a sufficient harmony of colouring

in some of them, especially in the communion of the Apostles, painted

for the Jesuits in his native city, there is beauty, grace, and tints

approaching to modern excellence. He painted in Urbino, at Volterra,

Florence, and many other cities. In the Sistine Chapel he painted the

Journey of Moses with Sefora, and the Promulgation of the Old Law,

paintings full of incident, and superior in composition to the confused

style of that age. Vasari and Taia have assigned him the first place in

this great assemblage of artists; to me he seems at least to have

equalled the best of them, and to have improved on his usual style. He

had two countrymen of noble families for pupils; Tommaso Bernabei, who

followed him closely, and has left some works in S. M. del Calcinaio,

and Turpino Zaccagna, whose style was different, as appears from a

picture painted for the Church of S. Agatha in Cantalena near Cortona,

in 1537.

Don Bartolommeo della Gatta executed none of his own designs in the

Sistine Chapel; he lent assistance to Signorelli and to Perugino. He had

been educated in the monastery of the Angeli, at Florence, rather as a

painter of miniatures than of history. On being appointed Abbot of S.

Clement, in Arezzo, he exercised both; and was also skilled in music and

in architecture. There is of his works only a S. Jerome, executed in the

chapel of the cathedral, as we find from a MS. guide to the city, and

which was transferred into the sacristy in 1794. The abbot instructed

Domenico Pecori and Matteo Lappoli, two gentlemen of Arezzo, who

improved themselves in the art on other models, especially the first, as

is evident from a picture in the parish church, in which the Virgin

receives under her mantle the people of Arezzo, who are recommended to

her protection by their patron saints. In it are heads in the style of

Francia, good architecture, judicious composition, and a moderate use of

gold.

Two miniature painters, according to Vasari, learned much from the

precepts, or rather from the example of the abbot. These were Girolamo,

also named by Ridolfi, as a pupil of the Paduan school, at the same time

with Lancilao; and Vante, or as he subscribed himself, Attavante

Fiorentino. Two of his letters are inserted in the third volume of the

Lettere Pittoriche; and it may be collected from Vasari and

Tiraboschi,[82] that Vante ornamented with miniatures many books for

Matthias, king of Hungary, which afterwards remained in the Medicean and

Estensean libraries. The learned Sig. Ab. Morelli, who has the direction

of the library of S. Mark at Venice, shewed me one in that place. It is

a work of Marziano Capella, where the subject is poetically expressed by

the painter. The assembly of the Gods, the emblems of the arts and

sciences, the grotesque ornaments here and there set off with little

portraits, discover in Vante a genius that admirably seconded the ideas

of the author. The design resembles the best works of Botticelli; the

colouring is gay, lively, and brilliant; the excellence of the work

ought to confer on the artist greater celebrity than he enjoys. In the

life of D. Bartolommeo, Vasari, or his printers, have confounded

Attavante with Gherardo, the miniature painter, who at the same time was

a worker in mosaic, an engraver in the style of Albert Durer, and a

painter; of him there are some remains in each of these arts; but they

were certainly different individuals, as is demonstrated by Sig.

Piacenza.

Having a little before named Pietro Perugino, who long taught in

Tuscany, we may here mention the pupils who retained his manner. These

were Rocco Zoppo, whose Madonnas remain in many private houses in

Florence, I believe, to this day, and are in the manner of Pietro;

Baccio Ubertini, a great colourist, and on that account willingly

adopted as an assistant of his master; Francesco, the brother of Baccio,

surnamed Bacchiacca, known at S. Lorenzo by the martyrdom of S.

Arcadius, executed in small figures, in which, as well as in the

grotesque, he was very eminent, and nearly approached the modern style.

To these artists who lived in Florence, their native country, we may add

Niccolo Soggi, likewise a Florentine, but who, to shun the concourse of

more able painters, fixed his residence in Arezzo, where he had

sufficient employment. His accuracy, his studious habits, and his high

finish, may be there contemplated in the Christ in the Manger, in the

church of Madonna delle Lagrime, and in many other places in the city

and its environs. It would have been fortunate had he possessed more

genius, but this gift of nature, which, to use the words of a poet,[83]

confers immortality on books, and I would add pictures, was not granted

to Soggi. Vasari has given this character of a diligent, but meagre, and

frigid painter, also to Gerino da Pistoia, in which place one of his

pictures, now in the royal gallery, was painted for the monks of S. Pier

Maggiore; several others are in the city of S. Sepulcro, and some even

in Rome, where he assisted Pinturicchio. With the two preceding, I class

Montevarchi, a painter so named from his own country, beyond which he is

almost unknown. Among these artists, though they were scholars of

Pietro, we find imitators of the Florentines of the fourteenth century.

I omit the name of Bastiano da S. Gallo, who continued with him only a

short time, and left him on account of the aversion he had conceived to

the dryness of his style. In the Florentine history, by Varchi (book

10), we find mention of a Vittorio di Buonaccorso Ghiberti, who on

occasion of the siege of Florence by the family of the Medici, in 1529,

painted the figure of the Pontiff, Clement VII. on the facade of the

principal chamber of the Medici, in the last act of hanging from the

gallows. But neither of this, nor of any other production from so

infamous a hand, do there remain any traces in Florence, at least that I

have been able to discover, from which to judge either of the manner or

the master of Vittorio.

I close the catalogue of old Tuscan painters with an illustrious native

of Lucca, named the elder Zacchia, who was educated at Florence, though

not invariably adhering to the taste of that ancient school, either in

design, which was his chief excellence, or in an outline somewhat harsh

and cutting, which was his greatest defect. He obtained the name of the

elder, to distinguish him from another Zacchia, who, on the other hand,

shewed more softness of contour, and more strength of colouring, but in

design, and in every other respect, was held in less estimation. I know

only of one picture by the latter artist, which is in the chapel of the

Magistrates; but several altar-pieces by the former, are to be seen in

the churches of Lucca, and among them an Assumption in that of S.

Augustine; a picture displaying much study and elegance, and among his

last works, as I am led to believe by its bearing the date 1527. One of

his Madonnas, surrounded by saints, formerly in the parish church of S.

Stefano, is now in the house of Sig. March. Jacopo Sardini, which is

enriched by other paintings, by a valuable collection of drawings, and

still more by the presence of its learned possessor, to whom I am

indebted for many notices interspersed throughout this work.

Such was the state of the art in Tuscany, about the beginning of the

sixteenth century. Much was then attained, because nature began to be

imitated, especially in the heads, to which the artists imparted a

vivacity, that even at this day is surprising. On viewing the figures

and portraits of those times, they actually appear to look at, and to

desire to enter into conversation with the beholder. It still remained,

however, to give ideal beauty to the figure, fulness to design, and

harmony to colouring, a true method to aerial perspective, variety to

composition, and freedom to the pencil, which on the whole was still

timid. Every circumstance conspired to this melioration of the art in

Florence as well as in other places. The taste for magnificent edifices

had revived throughout Italy. Many of the finest churches, many public

edifices, and ducal palaces, which still remain at Milan, Mantua, and

Venice, in Urbino, Rimini, Pesaro, and Ferrara, were executed about this

period; not to mention those buildings in Florence and in Rome, where

magnificence contended with elegance. It became necessary to ornament

them, and this produced that noble emulation among artists, that grand

fermentation of ideas, which invariably advances the progress of art.

The study of poetry, so analogous to that of painting, had increased to

a degree which conferred on the whole age the epithet of _Golden_; a

name which it certainly did not merit on the score of more severe

studies. The design of the artists of that period, though something dry,

was yet pure and correct, and afforded the best instruction to the

succeeding age. It is very justly observed, that scholars can more

easily give a certain fulness to the meagre outline of their models,

than curtail the superfluity of a heavy contour. On this account, some

professors of the art are inclined to believe, that it would be much

more advantageous to habituate students in the beginning, to the

precision characteristic of the fifteenth century, than to the

exuberance introduced in after-times. Such circumstances produced the

happiest era that distinguishes the annals of painting. The schools of

Italy, owing to mutual imitation, before that period strongly resembled

each other; but having then attained maturity, each began to display a

marked and peculiar character.

That of the Florentine school I shall describe in the next Epoch; but I

first propose to treat of several other arts analogous to that of

painting, and in particular of engraving upon copper, the discovery of

which is ascribed to Florence. To this the art is indebted for an

accession of new aids; the work of an artist, before confined to a

single spot, was diffused through the world, and gratified the eyes of

thousands.

[Footnote 61: "The number of artists of whom, by consulting old authors,

I can collect nothing more than the time they lived, their name and

occupation, and their death, (I speak of those who lived about the year

1300,) amounts in the city of Florence alone to nearly a hundred,

without including those who have been discovered and noticed by some of

our antiquarians; and exclusive of those we find mentioned in the old

book of the Society of Painters." (See Baldinucci in Notizie del

Gioggi.) The Florentine painters of this age, whose names have been

produced by the Canon Moreni from the records of the diplomatic archive,

may be seen in part the fourth of his _Notizie Istoriche_, p. 102.

Others have been collected and communicated to me by the Abbate Vincenzo

Follini, Librarian to the Magliabecchi collection, extracted from

various MSS. of the same, besides those from the _Novelle Litterarie_ of

Florence, from the _Delizie de' Letter._ of the P. Ildefonso, C. S. and

from the _Viaggi_ of Targioni; works which will always be found to

supply the brevity of the present history.]

[Footnote 62: Vasari.]

[Footnote 63: They are believed to be anterior to the year 1300 by the

historian of the art of Painting at Friuli; but to this I cannot agree.

The pictures bear a very great resemblance to the designs of Orcagna; or

rather to the poetry of Dante, who, in the year above mentioned, feigns

to have had his vision, and described it in the years immediately

succeeding. In confirmation of this opinion, it must be remarked that

the style is Florentine, and induces us to suppose that a painter of

that school must have been there. See _Lettera postuma del P. Cortinovis

sopra le Antichita di Sesto_, published in the _Giornale Veneto_, (or

_Memorie per servire all' Istoria Letter. e Civile_) Semestre ii. p. 1.

of the year 1800. It was reprinted at Udine in 1801, in octavo, with

some excellent notes by the Cav. Antonio Bartolini, who has

distinguished himself by other productions connected with bibliography

and the fine arts.]

[Footnote 64: Vide Giuseppe Maria Mecatti, who has given an exact

description of it.]

[Footnote 65: Vasari is by no means so bitter against the Venetian

school as it is wished to make him appear. In regard to these pictures

he declares, "that they are universally admitted, with justice, to be

the best which were produced among many excellent masters, at different

times, in that place." They are, therefore, preferred by him to the

whole of the Florentine and Siennese paintings there exhibited; and his

opinion is authorized by that of P. della Valle, who frequently differs

from him. If it could be proved from history, as it may be reasonably

conjectured, that Antonio was a painter when he came from Venice, and

did not commence his art at Florence, he would merit the reputation of

being the greatest artist of that school known to us; as well as of

having conferred some benefit upon that of Florence, from the Venetian

school. But this point is very doubtful.]

[Footnote 66: We cannot reconcile it to dates that Paolo Uccello was one

of his scholars, having been born after the death of Antonio, if,

indeed, there be not some error in regard to the chronology either of

the master or of his pupil. Starnina might have been his pupil, as he is

said to have been born in 1354; and, therefore, in 1370, he might

possibly be one of his school. Yet it appears that Antonio had then

renounced the easel. In his epitaph we find written:

Annis qui fueram pictor JUVENILIBUS, artis

Me Medicae reliquo tempore coepit amor, &c.

(See Vasari ed. Senese, tom. ii. p. 297.)]

[Footnote 67: The old painters varied the manner of their

superscriptions, even in the following ages, according to the taste of

the Greeks. _Sebastianus Venetus pingebat a._ 1520; is written upon a

St. Agatha in the Palazzo Pitti; and this corresponds to the EPOIEI,

_faciebat_; by which the Greek sculptors wished to convey, that such

work was not intended to exhibit their last effort; so that they were at

liberty to improve it when they pleased. The subscription of Opus Belli

is obvious, and similar ones, drawn from the ERGON, (for example,)

LUSIPPOU which we see in Maffei. I recount in my fifth book as singular,

the epigraph _Sumus Rogerii manus_; it is, however, derived from the

Greeks, who, for instance, sometimes wrote CHEIR. AMBROSIOU. MONACHOU,

as I read in a Fabrianese church called Della Carita, where there is a

picture of the General Judgment; the figures very small, and highly

finished, upon a large tablet; with, I think, more figures than are seen

in the Paradise of Tintoretto. CHEIR BITORE, was written by Vittor

Carpaccio, under his portrait cited in the index. I omit other forms

better known. That adopted at Trevigi, _Hieronymus Tarvisio_, is very

erudite; and it is imitated from the military _latercoli_, in which,

with the same view, the soldier and his country are named. In short,

where the words _fecit_ or _pinxit_ are not used, the best plan was that

of giving the proper name in the genitive case at the foot of the

picture, as the engravers of Greek gems were wont to do in inscriptions,

as AULOU DIOSKORIDOU, &c.]

[Footnote 68: Pascoli, tom. i. p. 199.]

[Footnote 69: Vasari.]

[Footnote 70: Verona Illustrata, tom. iii. p. 277.]

[Footnote 71: Gloria is a name given in Italy to a representation of the

celestial regions.]

[Footnote 72: Vasari.]

[Footnote 73: In the dictionary of Guarienti, in the article, Gio.

Abeyk, appears an account of a picture of this artist, existing in the

gallery at Dresden, bearing date 1416; a time, says the writer, when he

enjoyed his highest reputation, by painting in his second manner, in

oil. It represents the Virgin in a majestic seat with the divine infant,

who is seen very gracefully receiving an apple from St. Anne, seated on

a couch of straw. The young St. John is seen assisting, and also St.

Joseph, whose countenance represents the portrait of the painter

himself. The introduction of arms shews that the picture must have been

executed for some distinguished person. It is in high preservation, and

is pronounced by Guarienti the miracle of painting, from its display of

extreme diligence, even in the minute furniture, and particularly

because the chamber in which the scene is represented, the couch, the

window, the pavement, executed _a punto alto_, together with the whole

action, are conducted with the most exact rules of perspective.]

[Footnote 74: In 1454 he was in great credit at Perugia. (See Mariotti,

Lett. Perug. p. 133.)]

[Footnote 75: Lib. i. c. 18. Accipe semen lini, et exsicca illud in

sartagine super ignem sine aqua, &c. Brustolato says, it should be

pounded, and again subjected to the fire in water, then put into a press

between cloths, and the oil extracted. He continues: Cum hoc oleo tere

minium sive cenobrium super lapidem sine aqua, et cum pincello linies

super ostia vel tabulas quas rubricare volueris, et ad solem siccabis,

deinde iterum linies et siccabis. And in chap. 22, he says,--Accipe

colores quos imponere volueris, terens eos diligenter, oleo lini sine

aqua; et fac mixturas vultuum ac vestimentorum sicut superius aqua

feceras, et bestias, sive aves, aut folia, variabis suis coloribus prout

libuerit.]

[Footnote 76: Gottingen, 1792. See Esprit des Journaux, Ottobre, 1792.]

[Footnote 77: Raspe (_Lib. Cit._). Della Valle (_Ann. al Vasari_, tom.

iii. p. 313). Tiraboschi (_St. Lett._ tom. vi. p. 407). Vernazza

(_Giorn. Pisano_, tom. xciv. p. 220), cited by Morelli (_Notizia_, p.

114). More recently is added the authority of P. Federici Domenicano. It

is absurd to suppose that Tommaso da Modena, or, according to him, da

Trevigi, carried the discovery from this city into Germany, from whence

it was subsequently communicated to Flanders.]

[Footnote 78: Pisa Illustrata, p. 160, et seq.]

[Footnote 79: See Opuscoli del Calogera, tom. xlv.]

[Footnote 80: This person invented and fabricated an ornament called

ghirlanda or garland, worn on the heads of the Florentine children.]

[Footnote 81: Mengs, tom. ii. p. 109.]

[Footnote 82: Tom. vi. p. 1204.]

[Footnote 83: _Victurus genium debet habere liber._ Martial.]

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

EPOCH I.

_Origin and progress of Engraving on Copper and Wood._