SECTION III.

The subject of which I propose here to treat, ought to be more carefully

examined than any other portion of this work. The age in which I write

is, we know, by many called the age of brass, inasmuch as it has been

less productive of great names and great pictoric works, than the

preceding; yet I believe we might better denominate it such from the

number of engravings, which have recently been carried to a high degree

of excellence. The number of their connoisseurs has increased beyond

calculation; new collections every where appear, and the prices have

proportionably advanced, while treatises upon the art are rapidly

multiplied. It has become a part of liberal knowledge to discern the

name and hand of a master, as well as to specify the most beautiful

works of each engraver. Thus, during the decline of painting, the art of

engraving on copper has risen in estimation; modern artists in some

points equal or surpass the more ancient; their reputation, their

remuneration, and the quick process of their labours, attract the regard

of many men of genius born to adorn the arts, who to the loss of

painting, devote their attention to the graver.

The origin of this art is to be sought for in that of cutting on wood,

just as in printing, the use of wooden types led to the adoption of

metal. The period of the first invention of wood engraving is unknown;

the French and the Germans tracing it to that of playing-cards, which

the former affirm were first used in France in the time of Charles V.;

while the latter maintain they were in use much earlier in Germany, or

before the year 1300.[84] Both these opinions were first attacked by

Papillon, in his "Treatise upon cutting in Wood," where he claims the

merit of the discovery for Italy, and finds the most ancient traces of

the art about the year 1285, at Ravenna. His account of it is

republished in the preface to the fifth volume of Vasari, printed at

Siena; but it is mixed up with so many assertions, to which it is

difficult to give credit, that I must decline considering it at all. The

Cav. Tiraboschi is a far more plausible and judicious advocate in favour

of Italy.[85] On the subject of cards, he brings forward a MS. by Sandro

di Pippozzo di Sandro, entitled _Trattato del Governo della Famiglia_.

It was written in 1299, and has been cited by the authors of the Della

Cruscan dictionary, who quote, among other passages, the following

words: "if you will play for money, or thus, or at cards, you shall

provide them," &c. We may hence infer, that playing-cards were known

with us earlier than elsewhere, so that if the invention of stamping

upon wood was derived from them, we have a just title to the discovery.

In all probability, however, it does not date its origin so early; the

oldest playing-cards were doubtless the work of the pen, and coloured by

the old illuminators, first practised in France, and not wholly extinct

in Italy at the time of Filippo Maria Visconti, duke of Milan.[86]

The first indication we meet with of printed play-cards, is in a public

decree issued at Venice in 1441; where it says that "the art and trade

of cards and printed figures, that is carried on at Venice," was on the

decline, "owing to the great increase of playing-cards with coloured

figures stamped," which were introduced from abroad; and that such

importation should be prohibited for the future. Sig. Zanetti, to whom

we are indebted for this information,[87] is of opinion, that they were

in use long before 1441; because the art is seen to have first

flourished there, afterwards to have fallen into disuse, and again

revived, owing to the protection afforded it by the State. These

vicissitudes, that suppose the lapse of many years, will carry us back

at least to the commencement of the fifteenth century. To this period,

it appears, we ought to refer those ancient specimens of play-cards,

which were collected for the cabinet of Count Giacomo Durazzo, formerly

imperial ambassador at Venice, and are now to be seen in that of the

Marquis Girolamo, his nephew. They are of larger dimensions than those

now in use, and are of a very strong texture, not unlike that of the

paper made of cotton, found in the ancient manuscripts. The figures are

exhibited on a gold ground in the manner before described;[88] there are

three kings, two queens, and two knaves, one on horseback; and each has

a club, or sword, or money. I could perceive no trace of suits, either

because they had not then come into use, or more probably because so

limited a number of cards can convey no complete idea of the whole game.

The design approaches very nearly to that of Jacobello del Fiore; to the

best judges the workmanship appears the effect of printing, the colours

being given by perforations in the die. I know of no other more ancient

specimen of its kind.

In the meanwhile printing of books being introduced into Italy, it was

quickly followed by the practice of ornamenting them with figures in

wood. The Germans had afforded examples of cutting sacred images in this

material,[89] and the same was done in regard to some of the initial

letters during the early progress of typography, a discovery which was

extended at Rome, in a book published in 1467, and at Verona in another,

with the date of 1472. The former contains the Meditations of Card.

Turrecremata, with figures also cut in wood, and afterwards coloured:

the latter bears the title of _Roberti Valturii opus de re militari_,

and it is adorned with a number of figures, or drawings of machines,

fortifications, and assaults; a very rare work, in the possession of

Count Giuseppe Remondini, along with many other specimens of the

earliest period, collected for his private library, where I saw it. It

is worth remarking, that the book of Turrecremata was printed by

Ulderico Han, that of Valturio by Gio. da Verona, and that in this last

the wood-cuts are ascribed to Matteo Pasti, the friend of Valturio, and

a good painter for those times.[90] After this first progress the art of

wood engraving continued gradually to advance, and was cultivated by

many distinguished men, such as Albert Durer in Germany; in Italy by

Mecherino di Siena, by Domenico delle Greche, by Domenico Campagnola,

and by others down to Ugo da Carpi, who marks a new epoch in this art,

by an invention, of which we shall speak in the school of Modena.

If it be the progress of the human mind to advance from the more easy to

more difficult discoveries, we may venture to suppose that the art of

engraving on wood led to that of engraving on copper; and so, to a

certain extent, it probably did. Vasari, however, who wrote the history

of Tuscan professors, rather than of painting itself, refers its origin

to works in _niello_, or inlaid modelling work, a very ancient art, much

in use, more especially at Florence, during the fifteenth century;

though it was quite neglected in the following, in spite of the efforts

of Cellini to support it. It was applied to household furniture, silver

ornaments, and sacred vessels, such as holy cups and vases, to missals

and other devotional books, and to reliquaries; as well as to profane

purposes, as adorning the hilts of swords, table utensils, and many

kinds of female ornaments. In some kinds of ebony desks and escrutoires

it was held in great request, for its little silver statues, and

modelled plates, representing figures, histories, and flowers. In the

cathedral of Pistoia there still remains a large silver palliotto,

adorned in places with plates, on which are figured images in niello,

and little scripture histories. The method was to cut with the chisel

upon the silver whatever history, portrait, or flowers, was

required,[91] and afterwards to fill up the hollow part of the engraving

with a mixture of silver and lead, which, from its dark colour, was

called, by the ancients, _nigellum_, which our countrymen curtailed into

niello; a substance which, being incorporated with the silver, produced

the effect of shadow, contrasted with its clearness, and gave to the

entire work the appearance of a chiaroscuro in silver. There were many

excellent _niellatori_, or inlayers, who cast models with this

substance, such as Forzore, brother to Parri Spinelli of Arezzo,

Caradosso and Arcioni of Milan;[92] and three Florentines, who rivalled

each other at S. Giovanni, Matteo Dei, Antonio del Pollaiuolo, and Maso

Finiguerra; specimens of whose _paci_, cut with wonderful accuracy,

acquired for them the highest reputation.

We are to attribute to Maso, says Vasari, "the beginning of engraving

upon copper," an art, which for the sake of greater perspicuity, I shall

distinguish into three different states; the first of which will be

found as follows. Finiguerra was in the habit of never filling the

little hollows or cuts prepared in the silver plate until he had first

made proof of his work. "For this purpose, as in taking a cast, he

impressed them with earth, upon the top of which having thrown a

quantity of liquid sulphur, they became imprinted, and filled with

smoke; which, with the aid of oil, gave him the effect of the work in

silver. He also produced the same with moistened paper, and with the

same tint or ink, pressing it sufficiently hard with a round roller,

with a smooth surface throughout. This gave them not only the effect of

being printed, but that of having been designed with ink."[93] So far we

quote Vasari in the preface to his Life of Marc Antonio. He adds, that

in this plan Finiguerra was followed by Baldini, a Florentine goldsmith;

next to whom he mentions Botticelli; and he might have added the name of

Pollaiuolo. Finally, he concludes that the invention was communicated

from Florence to Mantegna at Rome, and to Martino, called De Clef, in

Flanders.

These proofs, the first of their kind, made by Finiguerra, have, for the

most part, perished. Some, which are attributed to him, in possession of

the fathers of Camaldoli, are not ascertained to be his.[94] We are

assured, however, that the sulphur of the pace[95] cut for S. Giovanni

in 1452, upon which he represented the Assumption of our Lady, in a

variety of minute figures, is from his hand. It was formerly in the

museum of the Proposto Gori, who gave a description of it in his Dittici

(a treatise upon a peculiar kind of altar-pieces, tom. iii. p. 315), and

it is now in the Durazzo cabinet, with a memorandum in Gori's own hand,

in which he declares that he had compared it with the original.[96] Of

the proofs made on paper none are ascertained to exist, with the

exception of that of the Assumption recognized by the Ab. Zani, in the

national collection at Paris. It was made known by him in the year 1803;

and to this I may add the Epiphany, in an inferior style, but more

exactly finished, which I found in the possession of the Senator

Martelli, besides a duplicate belonging to S. E. Seratti. It appears

from its style, the work of Finiguerra, and to have been executed before

the Assumption. It is doubtful whether specimens exist in the ducal

gallery, a question which I leave to the solution of abler pens than

mine. We have in the Durazzo collection, the proofs or models of many

silversmiths, whose names are unknown; and for many more we are indebted

to Sig. Antonio Armanno, an excellent connoisseur in prints, to whom I

shall have occasion to recur more than once. Following the ideas thrown

out by Vasari in the passage cited, he concluded that these impressions

might happen to have been confounded _with pen designs_, owing to the

resemblance between them; he therefore sought for them in collections of

designs, and, having recognized them, purchased them for Count Giacomo,

his patron.

Many of these were met with in the ancient Gadi gallery at Florence; the

work of artificers much inferior to Finiguerra, at least if we except

two specimens not unworthy even of his hand. To these a number of others

were afterwards added from different schools of Italy. Sometimes we may

gather their origin from the design; sometimes with more certainty from

inscriptions, and other unequivocal signs of the period. For instance,

we read the following words in a Presepio,[97] engraved in reversed

characters: "Dominus Philippus Stancharius fieri fecit;" where the

family which is named, along with other circumstances, shew it to have

been executed at Bologna. One small print represents a woman turning

towards a cat; and on it is written, also in reverse, "_Va in la

Caneva_;" in another we read _Mantengave Dio_; both which are either

Lombard or Venetian, if we may judge from the dialect. From all this we

have a right to conclude that Vasari's words, which ascribe to

Finiguerra the practice of proving his works before he inserted the

niello, are not to be limited to him only, or to his school. On the

contrary, it appears that Caradosso, as well as all the best Italian

artificers, considered it as no small portion of their art, and that

they only attained correctness in the process of inlaying and modelling

by dint of such proofs, and not by mere chance. Nor does Vasari's

silence militate against this. He repeatedly complains, in different

parts of his work, that he could not obtain sufficiently full and

satisfactory information regarding the Venetian and Lombard schools; and

if he confesses his ignorance of so many things pertaining to their

schools of painting, it is not surprising that he should know less of

their engraving.

The proofs, therefore, of the _niellatori_ on paper are to be found in

all parts of Italy, and they may be particularly known from the position

of the letters, which being written on the original models in the

ordinary way, appear in the impression like the eastern characters, from

right to left; and in like manner the other part of the impression is

seen in reverse; as for instance, a saint is seen standing on the left

hand, who, from his dignity, ought to have occupied the right, and the

actors all write, play music, and do every thing with the left hand.

There are other signs which serve to distinguish them; because, having

been pressed by hand, or with a roller, they leave no mark or furrows in

the outlines; nor are we to look for that delicacy and precision in the

lines that appear in impressions from under the press. They are moreover

characterized by their colour, which merely consisted of lamp black and

of oil, or of some other very slight tint; though both this and the

preceding are dubious signs, as we shall shew. It is conjectured that

proofs of a similar[98] nature were made by silver carvers, in regard to

their graphic labours, and to others in which the _niello_ was not

employed. At all events they preserved them in their studies, and in

those of their pupils, to whom they afforded a model; and in this way

several have been handed down to our own times.

From these early efforts, the art gradually advanced, as it appears to

me, until it attained what I call the second state of the impression.

When the pleasing effect of these proofs was seen, the idea was struck

out, of forming works in the same delicate and finished taste, and for

this purpose to make use of the same means as had been until then

adopted for impressions in wood. We might thus observe, that in the

workshop of the goldsmith was prepared the art of chalcography, and the

first labours were executed upon silver, upon tin, or, as Heineken

observes, upon some composition less hard than copper. We may remark,

that such was the practice of the Italians, before they cut their

subjects in copper; but whatever material the first goldsmiths might

adopt, it was not difficult for them to substitute for the shadow they

produced by the _niello_, the shadow of the cut itself, and to execute

the subject on the reverse, in order to receive the impression right.

From that time, they proceeded gradually to refine the art. Both the

roller and the press which they had then in use were very imperfect,

and, to improve the impression, they first enclosed the plate in a frame

of wood, with four small nails to prevent its slipping; upon this they

placed the paper, and over it a small moist linen cloth, which was then

pressed down with force. Hence, in the first old impressions, we may

plainly trace on the reverse the marks of the linen, for which felt was

next substituted, which leaves no trace behind it.[99] They next made

trial of various tints; and gave the preference to a light azure or

blue, with which the chief part of the old prints are coloured.[100] The

same method was adopted in forming the fifty cards, which are commonly

called the game of Mantegna. I saw them, for the first time, in

possession of his excellency the Marchese Manfredini, major-domo to the

Duke of Tuscany, whose cabinet is filled with many of the choicest

prints. Another copy I found in possession of the Ab. Boni, and a third

formerly belonging to the Duke of Cassano, was afterwards transferred to

the very valuable collection made by the Senator Prior Seratti. There is

also a copy of this game on a large scale, with some alterations (as,

for instance, La Fede bears a large instead of a small cross, as in the

original), and is of a much later date. A second copy, not so very rare,

with a number of variations, is in existence; and in this the first card

bears the Venetian lion as ensign, with the two letters C. and E.

united. The card of the Doge is inscribed the _Doxe_; and elsewhere we

read in the same way, _Artixan_, _Famejo_, and other words in the

Venetian idiom, which proves that the author of so large and fine a work

must have belonged to the city of Venice or to the state. The design

displays much of Mantegna, and of the Paduan school; though the cut is

not ascertained to be that of Andrea, or of any other known master of

that age. A careful but timid hand is discernible, betraying traces of a

copyist of another's designs, rather than of an original invention. Time

only may possibly clear up this doubt.

Proceeding from cards to books, we are made acquainted with the first

attempts at ornamenting them with cuts in metal. The most celebrated of

these consist of the _Monte Santo di Dio_, and the _Commedia of Dante_,

both printed at Florence, and the two editions of Ptolemy's Geography,

at Rome and Bologna; to which we may add the Geography of Berlinghieri,

printed at Florence; all the three accompanied with tables. The authors

of these engravings are not well known; except so far as we learn from

Vasari, that Botticelli was one who acquired the most reputation. He

represented the _Inferno, and took the impression_; and the two

histories, executed by Gio. de Lamagna in his Dante, display all the

design and composition of Sandro, so as to leave no doubt of their being

his.[101] Other prints are likewise found pasted in a few of the copies

of the same edition, amounting, more or less, to the number of nineteen;

and their manner is more coarse and mean,[102] as we are informed by the

Cav. Gaburri, who collected them for his cabinet. They must have been

executed by some inferior hand, and with the knowledge of the printer,

who had left blank spaces in parts of the work intended to receive the

engravings, not yet completed on the publication of the work. Of a

similar cast were other anonymous engravers of that period, nor is there

any name, except those of Sandro and of Pollaiuolo, truly distinguished

in the art among the Florentines. In Upper Italy, besides Mantegna,

Bartolommeo Montagna, his pupil, from Vicenza, (to whom some add

Montagna his brother,) and Marcello Figolino, their fellow citizen, were

both well known. Figolino is asserted to have been the same artist as

one _Robetta_, or rather one who subscribes himself so, or R. B. T. A.;

yet he ought not to be separated from the Florentine school, to which

Vasari refers him, which the character of his design confirms. The names

of Nicoletto da Modena, F. Gio. Maria da Brescia, a Carmelite monk, and

of his brother Gio. Antonio, have also survived; as well as Giulio and

Domenico Campagnola of Padua. There are not a few anonymous productions

which only announce that they were executed in the Venetian or Lombard

manner. For such artificers as were in the habit of taking impressions

from the roller, either wholly omitted names, or only affixed that of

the designer, or merely gave their own initials, which are now either

doubtful, or no longer understood. For instance, they would write M. F.,

which Vasari interprets into _Marc-antonio Francia_, while others read

_Marcello Figolino_, and a third party, _Maso Finiguerra_; this last

quite erroneously, as, after the most minute researches, made by the

very able Cavaliere Gaburri, throughout Florence, there is no engraving

of that artist to be found.[103] In the Durazzo collection, after twelve

plates, which are supposed to be proofs of the silver engravers, printed

in reverse, we find several others of the first impressions taken with

the roller, and appearing to the right; but not unlike the proofs in the

mechanical part of the impression, and in regard to the uncertainty of

their artists. For this, and other information on the subject, I am

indebted to the kindness of the Ab. Boni, who having enjoyed the

familiar acquaintance of Count Giacomo, is now engaged in preparing a

full account of his fine collection.

The last state of engraving on copper I consider to be that in which the

press and the printing ink being now discovered, the art began to

approach nearer perfection; and it was then it became first separated

from the goldsmith's art, like the full grown offspring, received

pupils, and opened its studio apart. It is difficult to fix the precise

epoch when it attained this degree of perfection in Italy. The same

artificers who had employed the roller, were some of them living, to

avail themselves of the press, such as Nicoletto da Modena, Gio. Antonio

da Brescia, and Mantegna himself, of whose prints there exist, as it

were, two editions; the one with the roller, exhibiting faint tints, the

other in good ink, and from the press. Then the engravers first becoming

jealous lest others should appropriate their reputation, affixed their

own names more frequently to their works; beginning with their initials,

and finally attaching the full name. The Germans held out the earliest

examples, which our countrymen imitated; with one who surpassed all his

predecessors, the celebrated Marc Antonio Raimondi, or del Francia. He

was a native of Bologna, and was instructed in the art of working in

niello by Francesco Francia, in which he acquired singular skill.

Proceeding next to engravings upon metal, he began with engraving some

of the productions of his master. At first he imitated Mantegna, then

Albert Durer, and subsequently perfected himself in design under

Raffaello d'Urbino. This last afforded him further assistance; he even

permitted his own grinder of colours, Baviera, to manage the press, in

order that Marc Antonio might devote himself wholly to engraving

Raffaello's designs, to which we owe the number we meet with in

different collections. He pursued the same plan with the works of

antiquity, as well as those of a few moderns, of Bonarruoti, of Giulio

Romano, and of Bandinelli, besides several others, of which he was both

the designer and engraver. Sometimes he omitted every kind of mark, and

every letter; sometimes he adopted the little tablet of Mantegna, either

with letters or without. In some engravings of the Passion he

counterfeited both the hand and the mark of Albert Durer: and not

unfrequently he gave the initial letters of his own and of Raffaello's

name, and that of Michel Angiolo Fiorentino upon those he engraved after

Bonarruoti. He was assisted by his two pupils, Agostin Veneziano and

Marco Ravignano, who succeeded him in the series of engravings from

Raffaello; which led Vasari to observe, in his Life of Marc Antonio,

that, "between Agostino and Marco nearly all Raffaello's designs and

paintings had been engraved." These two executed works conjointly; till

at length they parted, and each affixed to his productions the two

initial letters of his name and country.

It was thus the art of engraving in the studio of Raffaello, and by

means of Marc Antonio, and of his school, rose to a high degree of

perfection, not many years after its first commencement. Since that

period no artist has appeared capable of treating it with more knowledge

of design, and with more precision of lines and contour; though in other

points it has acquired much from the hand of Parmigianino, who engraved

in aqua-fortis,[104] from Agostino Caracci, and from different

foreigners of the last century, among whom we may notice Edelink,

Masson, Audran, Drevet, and, in the present age, several, both Italians

and strangers, of whom, in this place, we must refrain from speaking.

I may be permitted, in this place, to enter into a brief investigation

of the long contested question of engraving upon copper, whether its

discovery is to be attributed to Germany or to Italy; and if to Italy,

whether to Florence or to some other place. Much has been written upon

the subject, both by natives and foreigners, but, if I mistake not, it

has scarcely been treated with that accuracy which is necessary for the

attainment of truth. That it is quite requisite to divide this branch of

art into three several states or stages, I trust I have already

sufficiently shewn. In following up this division we shall have a better

chance of ascertaining what portion of merit ought to be awarded to each

country. Vasari, together with Cellini, in his "Treatise upon the

Goldsmith's art," as well as most other writers, are inclined to refer

its commencement to Florence, and to the artist Finiguerra. Doubts have

since arisen; while so recent an author as Bottari, himself a

Florentine, mentions it as a circumstance not yet ascertained. The epoch

of Maso was altered through mistake, by Manni, who speaks of his decease

as happening previous to 1424.[105] This has been corrected by reference

to the authentic books of the _Arte de' Mercanti_, in which the _pace_

already cited is mentioned as being paid for in the year 1452. About the

same time, Antonio Pollaiuolo, still a youth, as we learn from Vasari,

in his life, was the rival of Finiguerra in the church of S. Giovanni;

and as Maso had at that period already acquired great celebrity, we may

conclude that he was of a mature age, and experienced in the art. We

have further a right to suppose, with Gaburri and Tiraboschi, that

having then taken proofs "of all the subjects which he had engraved on

silver," he had observed this custom from the year 1440, and perhaps

earlier; and we thus discover the elements of chalcography in Florence,

satisfactorily deduced from history.[106] For neither with the aid of

history, monuments, nor reasoning, am I enabled to discover an epoch

equally remote belonging to any other country; as we shall shew, in the

first place, in regard to Germany. It possesses no annals so far back as

that period. The credulity of Sandrart[107] led him to question the

truth of this, by referring to a small print of uncertain origin, on

which he believed he could read the date 1411, and upon another that of

1455. At this period, however, when the authority of Sandrart is of

small account, no less from his frequent contradictions than his

partiality, which has rendered him suspected even by his own countrymen,

we may receive his two engravings as false coin, not valuable enough to

purchase the credit of the discovery from us. Those two distinguished

writers, Meerman,[108] and the Baron Heineken,[109] were equally bent

upon refuting him. They do not pretend to trace any earlier engraver in

Germany than Martin Schoen, called by others Bonmartino, and by Vasari,

Martino di Anversa,[110] who died in 1486. Some are of opinion that he

had two brothers, who assisted him, but who are unknown; and not long

after appear the names of Israel Meckeln,[111] Van Bockold, Michael

Wolgemuth, master to Albert Durer, with many others who approached the

sixteenth century. It is contended, however, that engraving on copper

was known in Germany anterior to these; as there exist specimens by

doubtful hands, which _have the appearance_ of being much earlier.

Meerman, on the authority of Christ,[112] adduces one with the initials

C. E. and the date 1465, besides two described by Bar. Heineken, dated

1466, the first of which is signed _f_. 4 _s_, the second _b x s_, and

both the artists unknown. He declares that he had never seen older

engravings that bore a name, (p. 231,) and observes that their manner

resembles that of Schoen, only coarser, which leads him to suspect that

the authors must have been his masters, (p. 220). But whoever was

Schoen's master, Heineken concludes he must have flourished more than ten

years earlier than his time, so as to bring it back to 1450, when the

art of engraving by the burin was undoubtedly practised in Germany, (p.

220). And as if this appeared too little to be granted, he adds, about

four pages further on, "that he was _tempted_ to place the epoch of its

discovery at least towards the year 1440."

The cause is well pleaded, but it is not carried. Let us try to confront

reasons with reasons. The Italians have the testimony of history in

their favour; the Germans have it against them. The former, without any

attempt at exaggeration, proceed as far back as 1440, and even

farther;[113] the latter, by dint of conjecture, reach as far as 1450,

and are only _tempted_ to anticipate it by ten years date. The Italians

commence the art with Maso, not from his master; the Germans are not

content to date from Schoen, but from his master, an advantage they

either deny to Italy, and thus fail to draw an equal comparison; or if

they concede the master, we still anticipate by ten years their origin

of chalcography. The Italians, again, confirm the truth of their history

by a number of authentic documents, proofs in niello, first impressions,

and the progress of the art from its earliest stages to maturity. The

Germans supply their historic deficiency by monuments, in part proved to

be false, in part doubtful, and which are easily convicted of

insufficiency for the proposed object. Because who can assure us that

the prints of 1465 or 66, are not the production of the brothers or the

disciples of Schoen, since Heineken himself confesses that they were

possibly the work of some contemporary artists, his inferiors? Do we not

find in Italy that the followers of Botticelli are inferior to him, and

appear to be of earlier date? Moreover, who can assure us that Schoen was

instructed by a master of his own nation; when all his engravings that

have been hitherto produced, appear already perfect in their kind;[114]

nor do we find mentioned in Germany either proofs in niello, or first

essays in metals of a softer temper? The fact therefore, most probably

is, what has invariably obtained credit,--that the invention was

communicated from Italy to Germany, and as a matter not at all difficult

to the goldsmiths, was speedily practised there with success; I might

even add, was greatly improved. For both the press and printer's ink

being well known there, artists were enabled to add to the mechanic part

of the art, improvements with which Italy was unacquainted; I will

produce an example of what I mean, that cannot fail to convince.

Printing of books was discovered in Germany: history and monuments alike

confirm it, which are to be traced gradually from tabular prints to

moveable types, still of wood, and from these to characters of metal. In

such state was the invention brought to Italy, where, without passing

through these intermediate degrees, books were printed not only in

moveable characters of metal, but with tables cut in copper, thus adding

to the art a degree of perfection which it wanted. Heineken objects that

the Germans at that period had very little correspondence with the

cities of Italy, with the exception of Venice, (p. 139). To this I

answer that our universities of Pisa and Bologna, besides several

others, were much frequented by young men from Germany, at that period;

and that for the convenience both of strangers and of natives, a

Dictionary of the German language was printed at Venice, in 1475, and in

1479, at Bologna; a circumstance sufficient of itself to prove that

there was no little communication between the two nations. There are,

besides, so many other reasons to believe that a great degree of

intercourse subsisted, more particularly between Germany and

Florence,[115] during the period we treat of; that we ought not to be at

all surprised at the arts belonging to the one being communicated to the

other. Hitherto I have pleaded, as far as lay in my power, the cause of

my country; though without having been able, I fear, to bring the

question to a close. Some time, it is possible, that those earliest

essays and proofs of the art, which have hitherto eluded research, may

be discovered: it is possible that some one of their writers, who are at

once so truly learned and so numerous, may improve upon the hint thrown

out by Heineken (p. 139), that the Germans and the Italians, without any

kind of corresponding knowledge on the subject, struck out simultaneous

discoveries of the modern art. However this may chance to be, it is my

part to write from the information and authorities which I have before

me.

It remains to be seen whether, on the exclusion of Germany, there is any

other part of Italy that may have anticipated the discovery of

Finiguerra at Florence. Some of his opponents have ventured to question

his title on the strength of metallic impressions of seals, which are

met with on Italian parchments from the earliest periods. This shews

only that the art advanced during several ages on the verge of this

invention; but it does not prove that the very origin of the discovery

is to be sought for in seals; otherwise we should be bound to commence

the history of modern typography from the seals of earthen-ware, with

which our museums abound. No one will contend that certain immemorial

and undigested elements that lay for many ages neglected and unformed,

ought to have a place in the history of art; and this we are now

treating on, ought not to date its commencement beyond the period when

silversmiths' shops had been established, where, in fact, it took its

origin and grew to maturity. We must then compare the proofs remaining

to us of their labours, and see whether such proofs were in use at any

other place, before the time of Finiguerra. I might observe that there

are two threads, as it were, which may serve as a clue to this

labyrinth, until we may somewhere or by some means ascertain the actual

date; and these two are the character and the design. The character in

all the proofs I have examined, is not at all (as we commonly call it)

of a gothic description; it is round and roman, according to the

observation before made (at p. 49), and does not lead us farther back

than the year 1440. The design is more suspicious: in the Durazzo

collection I have seen proofs of nielli with more coarse designs than

are displayed in the works of Maso, but they are perhaps not the

offspring of the Florentine school. I shall not here attempt to

anticipate the judgment of those who may engage to illustrate these

ancient remains; nor that of the public, in regard to the engravings

correctly taken from them, which must pronounce their definitive

sentence. If I mistake not, however, true connoisseurs will be cautious

how they pass a final opinion. It will not be difficult for them to

discern a Bolognese from a Florentine artist, in modern painting, after

it is seen that each school formed its own peculiar character both in

colouring and in design; but in regard to proofs of nielli,[116] to

distinguish school from school, will not be so easy a task. For though

it may be ascertained, for instance, that such a proof came from

Bologna; can we pronounce from the fact of its being coarser and rawer

than the designs of Finiguerra, that it is so far more ancient? Maso and

the Florentines, after the time of Masaccio, had already softened their

style towards the year 1440; but can we assert the same of the other

schools of Italy? Besides, is it certain that the silversmiths, from

whose hands proceeded the proofs, sought out the best designers;[117]

and did not copy, for instance, the Bolognese, the design of a Pieta by

Jacopo Avanzi, or the Venetians, a Madonna by Jacobello del Fiore? The

more dry, coarse, and clumsy specimens therefore, cannot easily be

adduced against Finiguerra as a proof of greater antiquity; otherwise we

should run into the whimsical sophistry of Scalza, who affirmed that the

Baronci were the most ancient men in Florence, and in the whole world,

because they were the ugliest.[118] We must therefore permit Maso to

rest quietly in possession of the discovery, until further and more

ancient proofs are adduced, than are to be found in his cards and his

zolfi.

In my account of the second state of engraving, I shall not make mention

of the German masters, in regard to whom I have not dates that may be

thought sufficient; I shall confine my attention to those of Italy. I

shall compare the testimony of Vasari and Lomazzo; one of whom supposes

the art to have originated in Upper, the other in Lower Italy. In his

Life of Marc Antonio, Vasari observes, that Finiguerra "was followed by

Baccio Baldini, a Florentine goldsmith, who being little skilled in

design, every thing he executed was after designs and inventions of

Sandro Botticello. As soon as Andrea Mantegna learned this circumstance

at Rome, he first began to turn his attention to the engraving of his

own works." Now in the life of Sandro he makes particular mention of the

time when he applied himself to the art, which was at the period he had

completed his labours in the Sistine chapel. Returning directly after to

Florence, "he began to comment upon Dante, he drew the Inferno, and

engraved it, which occupying a large portion of his time, was the

occasion of much trouble and inconvenience in his future life."

Botticelli is here considered an engraver from about 1474, at the age of

thirty-seven years; and Baldini, who executed every thing from the

designs of Sandro, also practised the art. At the same period flourished

Antonio Pollaiuolo, who acquired a higher reputation than either of the

last. Few of his impressions remain, but among these is the celebrated

battle of the naked soldiers, approaching nearest in point of power to

the bold style of Michelangiolo. The epoch of these productions is to be

placed about 1480, because having acquired great celebrity by them, he

was invited to Rome towards the close of 1483, to raise the monument of

Sixtus IV., who died in that year.

According to Vasari, Mantegna having decorated the chapel of Innocent

VIII. at Rome, about 1490,[119] from that or the preceding year is

intitled to the name of engraver, computing it from about his sixtieth

year. He flourished more than sixteen years after this period; during

which is it to be believed that he produced that amazing number of

engravings,[120] amounting to more than fifty, of which about thirty

appear to be genuine specimens, on so grand a scale, so rich in figures,

so finely studied and Mantegnesque in every part; that he executed these

when he was already old, new to the art, an art fatiguing to the eye and

the chest even of young artists; that he pursued it amidst his latest

occupations in Mantua, which we shall, in their place, describe, and

that he produced such grand results within sixteen or seventeen years.

Either Vasari must have mistaken the dates, or wished to impose upon our

credulity by his authority. Lomazzo leads us to draw a very different

conclusion, when in his Treatise (p. 682) he adds this short eulogy to

the name and merits of Mantegna, "a skilful painter, and the first

engraver of prints in Italy;" but wherein he does not mention him as an

inventor, meaning only to ascribe to him the merit of introducing the

second state of the art at least in Italy; because he believed that it

had already arisen in Germany. Such authority as this is worth our

attention. I shall have occasion in the course of my narrative to combat

some of Lomazzo's assertions; but I shall also feel bound to concur with

him frequently in the epochs illustrated by him. He was born about

twenty-five years subsequent to Vasari; he had more erudition, was a

better critic, and on the affairs of Lombardy in particular, was enabled

to correct him, and to supply his deficiencies. I am not surprised,

then, that Meerman (p. 259) should suppose Andrea to have been already

an engraver before the time of Baldini and Botticelli; I could have

wished only that he had better observed the order of the epochs, and not

postponed the praise due to him until the pontificate of Innocent VIII.

In fact, it is not easy to ascertain the exact time when Mantegna first

directed his attention to the art of engraving. It decidedly appears

that he commenced at Padua; for the very confidence he displays in every

plate, shews that he could be no novice; nor is it credible that his

noviciate began only in old age. I suspect he received the rudiments of

the art from Niccolo, a distinguished goldsmith, as he gave his

portrait, together with that of Squarcione, in a history piece of S.

Cristoforo, at the Eremitani in Padua; each most probably being a

tribute of respect to his former master. It is true that we meet with no

specimens of his hand at that, or even a later period of his early life;

though we ought to recollect that he never affixed any dates to his

works. So that it is impossible to say that none of them were the

production of his earlier years, however equal and beautiful they appear

in regard to their style; inasmuch as in his paintings we are enabled to

detect little difference between his history of S. Cristoforo, painted

in the flower of youth, and his altar-piece at S. Andrea of Mantua,

which is considered one of his last labours. A specimen of his engraving

with a date, is believed, however, by some, to be contained in a book of

Pietro d'Abano; intitled "Tractatus de Venenis," published in Mantua,

1472, "in cujus pagina prima littera initialis aeri incisa exhibetur,

quae integram columnae latitudinem occupat. Patet hinc artem

chalcographicam jam anno 1472 extitisse." Thus far writes the learned

Panzer,[121] but whether he ever saw the work that exists in folio, and

of seven pages, I am not certain.[122] A quarto edition was likewise

edited in Mantua, 1473, and a copy is there preserved in the public

library, but without any plates.

It is certain, however, that about this period copper engraving was

practised, not only in Mantua, where Mantegna resided, but also in

Bologna. The geography of Ptolemy, printed in Bologna by Domenico de

Lapis, with the apparently incorrect date of 1462, is in the possession

of the Corsini at Rome, and of the Foscarini at Venice.[123] It contains

twenty-six geographical tables, engraved very coarsely, yet so greatly

admired by the printer, that he applauds this new discovery, and

compares it to the invention of printing, which not long before had

appeared in Germany. We give his words as they are quoted from the Latin

without being refuted, by Meerman, at p. 251: "Accedit mirifica

imprimendi tales tabulas ratio, cujus inventoris laus nihil illorum

laude inferior, qui primi litterarum imprimendarum artem pepererunt, in

admirationem sui studiosissimum quemque facillime convertere potest."

The same writer, however, along with other learned men, contends that

the date ought to be corrected, chiefly on the authority of the

catalogue of the correctors of the work, among whom we find Filippo

Beroaldo, who, in 1462, was no more than nine years of age. Hence

Meerman infers, that we ought to read 1482; Audifredi and others, 1491;

neither of which opinions I can agree with. For the work of Ptolemy

being published at Rome, accompanied by twenty-seven elegant charts in

1478, what presumption, or rather folly, in the publisher of the

Bolognese edition, to think of applauding its beauty, after the

appearance of one so incomparably superior! I am therefore compelled to

refer the former to an earlier period than the last mentioned year.

Besides, I ought to inform the reader, that the engraving of twenty-six

geographical plates, full of lines, distances, and references, must have

been a long and difficult task, particularly during the infancy of the

art, sufficient to occupy several years; as we are certain that three or

four were devoted to the same purpose at Rome by more modern engravers,

far more expert. We are therefore bound to antedate the epoch of the

Bolognese engraving several years before the publication of the book,

which belongs perhaps to the year 1472.[124] I shall not, however, set

myself up as an umpire in this dispute; anxiously expecting, as I do, an

excellent treatise from the pen of Sig. Bartolommeo Gamba; which I feel

assured will not fail to gratify the public.[125] In regard to Bologna,

therefore, I shall only seek to prove that the progress of the

goldsmith's art to that of engraving upon metal, was more rapid than it

has been supposed. Heineken himself observes, in describing the Ptolemy,

that it is evident, from the traces of the zigzag, which the goldsmiths

are in the habit of putting on the silver plates, the work is the

production of one belonging to that art. The earliest works that can be

pointed out with certainty at Florence, are the three elegant engravings

of the Monte Santo di Dio, published in 1477; and the two in the two

cantos of Dante, 1481; one of which, as if a third engraving, was

repeated in the same book; while all of them seem to have been drawn

from the roller, the art of inserting the plates in the letter-press

being then unknown. We have yet to notice the thirty-seven geographical

charts, in whatever way executed, affixed to the book of Berlinghieri,

which was printed about the same period, without any date. These also

contain several heads with the names _Aquilo_, _Africus_, &c., but they

are all of youthful appearance, and tolerable in point of design;

whereas the same heads in Bologna are of different ages, with long

beards and caps, and in a coarser manner. The three before mentioned

works appeared from the press of Niccolo Tedesco, or Niccolo di Lorenzo

de Lamagna, the first who printed books at Florence with copper plates.

The last and most complete state of engraving upon copper, comes next

under our notice. For this improvement, it appears to me, we are as much

indebted to Germany as for the art of printing books. The press there

first discovered for typography, opened the way for that applied to

copper plates. The mechanical construction to be sure was different, in

the former the impression being drawn from cast letters which rise

outwards; in the latter from plates cut hollow within by the artist's

graver. A kind of ink was at the same time adopted, of a stronger and

less fuliginous colour, than had been used for engravings in wood; but

as it is termed by Meerman (p. 12), "singulare ac tenuius." The same

author fixes the date of this improvement in the art at about 1470; and

most probably he meant to deduce it from the earliest copper engravings

which appeared in Germany. Of this I cannot venture to speak, not having

seen the two specimens cited by Heineken, and the others that bear a

date; nor is it at all connected with our present history of Italian

art, as far as regards engraving. We gather from it, that such

improvement was brought to us from Germany by the same Corrado Sweyneym,

who prepared the beautiful edition of Ptolemy at Rome. We learn from the

anonymous preface prefixed, that Corrado devoted three years to the

task, and left it incomplete; and it was continued by Arnold Buckinck,

and published by him, as I already observed, in 1478. The tables are

engraved with a surprising degree of elegance, and are taken from the

press, as Meerman, adopting the opinion of Raidelio, and of such

bibliographers as have described it, has clearly shewn, (p. 258). It is

conjectured that Corrado commenced his labours about 1472, a fact

ascertained no less from the testimony of Calderino, the corrector of

the work, than from the tables, impressions of which were taken in

1475.[126] Some are of opinion that the engraving was from the hand of

Corrado, although the author of the preface simply observes, "animum ad

hanc doctrinam capessendam applicuit (that is, to geography) subinde

matematicis adhibitis viris quemadmodum tabulis aeneis imprimerentur

edocuit,[127] triennioque in hac cura consumpto diem obiit." And it

seems very probable, that as he employed Italians in the correction of

the text, he was also assisted by some one of the same nation in the

engravings. It strikes me, likewise, that Botticelli was attracted by

this novel art at Rome, since on his return about the year 1474, he

began to engrave copper plates with all the ardour that Vasari has

described, and was in fact the first who represented full figures and

histories in the new art. Perhaps the cause of his impressions being

less perfect than others, arose from his ignorance of the method of

printing upon a single page, both the plates and the characters; as well

as from the want of the press, and that improved plan derived from the

office of the German printers. But from whatever cause, it is certain,

that our engravers long continued to labour under this imperfection in

the art, as I have already recounted. In the time of Marc Antonio, who

rose into notice soon after the year 1500, the art, in its perfect

state, had been introduced into Italy, insomuch that he was enabled to

rival Albert Durer and Luca d'Ollanda, equalling them in the mechanism

of the art, and surpassing them in point of design. It is from this

triumvirate of genius that the more finished age of engraving takes its

date; and nearly at the same period we behold the most improved era in

the art of painting. The completion of the new art soon diffused good

models of design through every school, which led the way to the new

epoch. Following the steps of Durer, the imitators of nature learned to

design more correctly; while they composed, if not with much taste, at

least with great variety and fertility, examples of which appear in the

Venetian artists of the time. Others of a more studied character, formed

upon the model of Raffaello and of the best Italian masters, exhibited

by Marc Antonio, applied with more diligence to compose with order, and

to attain elegance of design; as we shall further see in the progress of

this History of Painting, which after such necessary interruption, we

prepare once more to resume.

[Footnote 84: See Baron d'Heineken's "Idee generale d'une Collection,"

&c. p. 239. See likewise the same work, p. 150, in order to give us a

proper distrust of the work of Papillon. Sig. Huber agrees with

Heineken: see his "Manuel," &c. p. 35.]

[Footnote 85: _Storia Letter_, tom. vi. p, 1194.]

[Footnote 86: Muratori, Rerum Ital. Scriptores, vol. xx. Vita Phil. M.

Visconti, chap. lxi.]

[Footnote 87: Lettere Pittoriche, tom. v. p. 321.]

[Footnote 88: Vide ante, p. 46.]

[Footnote 89: In the ancient monastery of Certosa, at Buxheim, there

remains a figure of S. Cristoforo in the act of passing the river, with

Jesus upon his shoulders; and there is added that of a hermit lighting

the way with a lantern in his hand. It bears the date 1423. A number of

other devout images are seen in the celebrated library at Wolfenbuttel,

and others in Germany, stamped upon wood in a manner similar to that of

playing-cards. Huber, Manuel, tom. i. p. 86.]

[Footnote 90: See Maffei, _Verona Illustrata_, Part iii. col. 195, and

Part ii. col. 68, 76.]

[Footnote 91: There was collected for the ducal gallery in 1801, a

silver _pace_ that had been made for the company of S. Paolo, and sold

upon the suppression of that pious foundation. It represents the saint's

conversion, with many tolerably executed figures, from an unknown hand,

though less old and valuable than that of Maso. He had ornamented it

with niello; but in order to ascertain the workmanship, it was taken to

pieces some years since, and the plate examined in the state it came

from under the tools of the silversmith. The cuts were found not at all

deep, resembling those of our engravers upon sheets of copper, upon the

model of which the silver plate, being provided with the ink, was put

into the press, and from it were taken as many, perhaps, as twenty fine

proofs. One of these is in the collection of the Senator Bali Martelli;

and upon this a foreign connoisseur wrote that it was the work of Doni,

I know not on what authority, unless, from an error of memory, the name

Doni was inserted instead of Dei.]

[Footnote 92: Ambrogio Leone mentions both, _De Nobilitate rerum_, cap.

41, and he particularly praises, for his skill in working niello, the

second, who is so little known in the history of the arts. See Morelli,

Notizia, p. 204.]

[Footnote 93: Vasari, who is difficult to understand, at least by many,

on account of his brevity, touches upon the different processes used by

Maso, which are these: When he had cut the plate, he next proceeded to

take a print of it, before he inlaid it with niello, upon very fine

earth; and from the cut being to the right hand, and hollow, the proof

consequently came out on the left, shewing the little earthen cast in

relief. Upon this last he threw the liquid sulphur, from which he

obtained a second proof, which, of course, appeared to the right, and

took from the relief a hollow form. He then laid the ink (lamp black or

printer's ink) upon the sulphur, in such a way as to fill up the hollows

on the more indented cuts, intended to produce the shadow; and next, by

degrees, he scraped away from the ground (of the sulphur) what was meant

to produce the light. And this is also the plan pursued in engraving on

copper. The final work was to polish it with oil, in order to give the

sulphur the bright appearance of silver.]

[Footnote 94: They are to be seen in a little portable altar; and are

most probably the proofs of some niello worker of the time; who had

executed those histories in silver to ornament some similar little

altar, or the place in which sacred relics were laid. Before introducing

the niello, he had cast proofs of his work in these zolfi (sulphurs),

which were subsequently inlaid with great symmetry and taste in the

altar-piece. They consist of various forms and sizes, and are adapted to

the architecture of the little altar, and to its various parts. Many of

them have now perished, though several are yet in existence, the

smallest of which chiefly represent histories from scripture, and the

largest of them the acts of the Evangelists, to the number of fourteen,

and about one-sixth of a braccio (an arm, two-thirds of a yard) in

height.]

[Footnote 95: Pace, a sort of sacred vessel borne in procession by the

priests; literally, it means peace.]

[Footnote 96: In this edition I ought to mention another zolfo (a

sulphur cast) of the same pace of S. Giovanni, in possession of his

excellency the Senator Prior Seratti. This, when compared with the

model, corresponds line for line; there is a full display of the very

difficult character of Maso's heads, and what is still more decisive,

is, that it is cut, or indented, an effect that must have been produced

according to the manner already described. The zolfo Durazzo, as appears

from the impression, does not correspond so well; some of the flowers

and ornaments of drapery are wanting; it is not equally finished, and it

seems smooth on the surface. This does not derogate from its

genuineness, for as several proofs were taken of the same _pace_, which

was cut by degrees, if we find less completeness in the Durazzo proof,

it is only an indication of its having been taken before the rest. And

if the impressions of the cuts are not so plainly traced as in the

other, I do not, therefore, conjecture that they do not exist. The zolfi

of the fathers of Camaldoli already cited, seem as if they were printed,

and smooth. A fragment breaking off, highly polished on the surface, the

cuts were then discovered, even to the minutest lines, as many

professors, even the most experienced in the art of printing, to their

surprise, have witnessed; and they conjectured that the ocular illusion

might arise, 1st, from the fineness of cut made with the style, or

possibly with the graver, which was diminished in proportion as it

passed from the sheet to the earthen mould, and from this to the zolfo;

2d, from the density of the ink, when hardened between the cuts or

hollows of the zolfo; 3d, from a coat of bluish colour laid on the work,

of which there remain traces, and from that which time produces both in

paintings and on cards. I have not a doubt, that, if the experiment were

tried on the Durazzo zolfo, the result would appear exactly the same.

The extrinsic proofs of its origin, also adduced by Gori, together with

the aspect of the monument, which is fresh in my memory, do not

authorize me to suspect the existence of a fraud.]

[Footnote 97: Christ in the manger.]

[Footnote 98: Heineken gives a general nomenclature of the works of

these silver carvers. Idee, &c. p. 217].

[Footnote 99: I must remark, that some copper of the earliest age may

have been preserved and made use of after the introduction of felt and

of the press. In this case there will remain no impression of the linen

cloth, but the print will be poor and faint.]

[Footnote 100: In the prints of Dante, and other Florentine books, a

yellowish colour prevails; and we may observe stains of oil and blots at

the extremities. A pale ash colour was also used for wood prints by the

Germans, and Meerman remarks that it was employed to counterfeit the

colour of designs.]

[Footnote 101: See Lettere Pittoriche, tom. ii. p. 268.]

[Footnote 102: Ibid. p. 269. I should add, that the twenty others are

now known, obtained for the Riccardi library at Florence.]

[Footnote 103: Lettere Pittoriche, tom. ii. p. 267. It is ascertained

that Maso flourished less recently; and the Dante prints, inferior to

those of Botticelli, were ascribed to him only on account of their

coarseness, as we gather from Gaburri.]

[Footnote 104: It is denied that he was the inventor of this mode of

engraving by many learned Germans, who give the merit of it to

Wolgemuth. Meerman, L. C. p. 256.]

[Footnote 105: Notes to Baldinucci, tom. iv. p. 2.]

[Footnote 106: It was observed, at p. 115, that the Epiphany of Maso is

anterior to the work of the Assumption. The progress from the minute and

careful, to the free and great style, is very gradual. The present work

contains many examples of this, even in the loftiest geniuses, in

Coreggio, and in Raffaello himself.]

[Footnote 107: A sample of his ignorance appears in what he wrote of

Demone; not well understanding Pliny, he did not believe Demone to be

the fabulous genius of Athens; but set him down as a painter of mortal

flesh and blood, and gave his portrait with those of Zeuxis, Apelles,

and other ancient painters.]

[Footnote 108: Origines Typographicae, tom. i. p. 254.]

[Footnote 109: Idee Generale d'une Collection Complete d'Estampes, pp.

224, 116, where he gives his opinion on Sandrart's work. See also

Dictionnaire des Artistes, vol. ii. p. 331.]

[Footnote 110: He says that his cipher was M. C. which P. Orlandi reads

Martinus de Clef, or Clivensis Augustanus. But he was not from Anversa;

but was, according to Meerman, Calembaco-Suevus Colmariae, whence we may

explain the cipher to mean Martinus Colmariensis. In many of his prints

it is M. S.]

[Footnote 111: Called by Lomazzo "Israel Metro Tedesco, painter and

inventor of the art of engraving cards in copper, master of Bonmartino,"

in which I think we ought rather to follow the learned natives already

cited, than our own countryman.]

[Footnote 112: Diction. des Monogram. p. 67.]

[Footnote 113: See Tiraboschi, 1st. Lett. tom. vi. p. 119.]

[Footnote 114: The prints of Schoen, even such as represent works in gold

and silver, are executed with admirable knowledge and delicacy. Huber,

tom. i. p. 91.]

[Footnote 115: The Florentine merchants, during the fourteenth and

fifteenth centuries, especially such as advanced money upon interest,

abounded in Germany; insomuch that part of a town was called _Borgo

Fiorentino_. This I learn from Dottore Gennari, a Paduan gentleman, not

long since lost to the republic of letters. The number of German Princes

who coined money in Florence, may be gathered from the work of Orsini,

and other writers, upon our modern coinage.]

[Footnote 116: The direction given by the Ab. Zani for similar specimens

is this: "The engravings of the Venetian school, generally speaking, are

of a delicate, soft, and full design; the figures are large, few, and

very beautiful in the extremities. Those of the Florentines are engraved

in a stronger manner, and are less soft and round; sometimes even harsh;

the figures are small, pretty numerous, with the extremities less highly

finished." Materiali, p. 57.]

[Footnote 117: Cellini, in his preface to his Treatise upon the art of

working in gold, asserts that Maso himself copied from the designs of

Pollaiuolo, which has been completely refuted by the Ab. Zani.

Materiali, p. 40.]

[Footnote 118: Boccaccio, Decamerone, Giorn. vi. Nov. 6.]

[Footnote 119: See Taia, Description of the Vatican Palace, p. 404].

[Footnote 120: Forty of these I find cited, and I am informed of some

others not yet edited. The Ab. Zani (p. 142) assures us "that the

genuine impressions which are now acknowledged to be from the hand of

Mantegna, do not amount to twenty; and nearly all of them are executed

with few figures." Such an assertion appears no less singular to me than

to others on whose judgment I could rely, whom I have consulted. How can

we admit its accuracy, when confronted with the account of Mantegna's

fellow citizen and contemporary Scardeone, who collected his works, and

who expressly declares, as cited by the Ab. Zani, "that Mantegna

engraved Roman triumphs, Bacchanalian festivals, and marine deities:

also the descent of Christ from the cross, and the burial," engravings

exhibiting a variety of figures, and in number more than a dozen. After

this enumeration the historian adds, "et alia permulta," and many

others. To confute this excellent testimony, the Ab. Zani refers only to

the words of the same Scardeone, who thus continues: "Those plates are

possessed by few, and held in the highest esteem; nine of them, however,

belong to me, all of them different." This writer therefore, in spite of

his expression "et alia permulta," confesses that he had only nine

specimens from the hand of his fellow citizen. Yes, I reply, he

confesses his scanty portion, but admits the superior number that exists

in various cabinets, and what reason have we for believing the first

assertion and not the second? For my part, I give credit to the

historian; and if any one doubt, from a diversity of style between the

plates, that there is any exaggeration in his statement, I should not

hence conclude that they are from different hands, but executed by the

same hand, the works of the artist's early life being inferior to his

last. For what artist ever devoted himself to a new branch, and did not

contrive to cultivate and improve it? It is sufficient that the taste be

not wholly opposite.]

[Footnote 121: Panzer, Ann. Typogr. tom. ii. p. 4.]

[Footnote 122: The Catalogue of the Libreria Heideggeriana is cited as

the first source; but after fresh research, nothing certain has been

discovered. Volta conjectures that this edition _de Venenis_ was not a

separate book, but a part of the Conciliatore of Pietro d'Abano, printed

in folio at Mantua, 1472.]

[Footnote 123: This splendid copy has been transferred from the

Biblioteca Foscarini, into the choice selection of old prints and books

illustrated by the Ab. Mauro Boni.]

[Footnote 124: See de Bure, Bibliographie Instructive, Histoire, tom. i.

p. 32. From the tenor of this opinion, which I shall not examine, we are

authorized in adding to the inscription, ANNO MCCCCLXII another X,

omitted by inadvertency, if not purposely; instances of which are to be

found in the dates of books belonging to the fifteenth century. In 1472,

Beroaldo was already a great scholar, and in 73 he opened his academy.]

[Footnote 125: This little work, whose title will be found in the second

Index, is now published, and has been well received by scholars on

account of its learning and bibliographical research. The author

approves the supposition that we ought to read 1472. We wish him leisure

to produce more such works as this, which, like those of Manuzi, at once

combine the character of the elegant typographer and the erudite

scholar.]

[Footnote 126: Maffei, Verona Illustrata, p. ii. col. 118.]

[Footnote 127: That is, in Rome, where he also taught the art of

printing books, as we are informed in the same preface. This last is

wholly devoted to Roman matters, and it would be vain to look in it for

the general history of typography and engraving in Italy. It appears

then, that Sweyneym instructed the artists of Rome in the best manner of

printing from copper plates with the press; though others may have

taught the art of printing them more rudely and in softer metal at

Bologna.]

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

EPOCH II.

_Vinci, Bonarruoti, and other celebrated artists, form the

most flourishing era of this School._

Nations have their virtues and their vices; and it is the duty of the

historian to give them credit for the one, and to confess the other.

Thus it is with the Schools of Painting; no one of which is so perfect

as to leave us nothing more to desire; no one so faulty that it has not

much in it to commend. The Florentine school (I do not speak of its

greatest masters, but of the general practice of the others) had no

great merit in colouring, from which Mengs was induced to denominate it

a melancholy school; nor did it excel in its drapery, from which arose

the saying, that the drapery of figures appeared to be fashioned with

economy in Florence.

It did not shine in power of relief, a study not generally cultivated

till the last century, nor did it exhibit much beauty, because, long

destitute of fine Grecian statues, Florence was late in possessing the

Venus: and only through the attention of the Grand Duke Leopold, has

been enriched by the Apollo, the group of Niobe, and other choice

specimens. From these circumstances this school aimed only at a fidelity

of representation that resembles the works of those who copied exactly

from nature, and in general made a judicious selection of its objects.

It could not boast of superior grouping in the composition of a picture,

and it was more inclined to erase a superfluous figure, than to add one

unnecessarily to the rest. In grace, in design, and in historic

accuracy, it excels most other schools; chiefly resulting from the great

learning that always adorned this city, and invariably gave a bias to

the erudition of her artists.

Design forms the peculiar excellence of this school, and its hereditary

patrimony, to which the national characteristic of minute correctness

has greatly contributed; and it may justly be observed, that this people

has excelled others no less in the symmetrical delineation of the

figure, than in purity of idiom. It may also boast of having produced a

great many excellent painters in fresco; an art so superior to that of

painting in oil, that Bonarruoti looked on the latter as mere sport,

when compared with the former, as it necessarily requires great

dexterity, and the talent of executing well and with rapidity, very

difficult attainments in any profession. This school had but few

engravers on copper, from which circumstance, though abounding in

historians,[128] and rich in paintings, it has not a sufficient number

of prints to make it known in proportion to its merit; a defect which

the _Etruria Pittrice_ has in some measure supplied. Finally, the reader

may indulge in this very just reflection, that the Florentine school

first taught the method of proceeding scientifically, and according to

general rules. Some other schools have originated in an attentive

consideration of natural effects; by mechanically imitating, if we may

be allowed the expression, the external appearances of objects. But

Vinci and Bonarruoti, the two great luminaries of this school, like true

philosophers pointed out the immutable objects and established laws of

nature, thence deducing rules which their successors, both at home and

abroad, have followed with great benefit to the art. The former has left

a Treatise on Painting, and the public were induced to look for the

publication of the precepts of the latter, which have however never yet

been produced;[129] and we obtain some idea of his maxims only from

Vasari, and other writers. About this time also flourished Fra

Bartolommeo, Andrea del Sarto, Rosso, the young Ghirlandaio, and other

artists, whom we shall name in the sequel of this grand epoch, which

unfortunately was of short duration. Towards the middle of the sixteenth

century, when Michelangiolo, who survived the other great artists, was

still living, a less auspicious era began; but we must proceed with this

epoch.

Lionardo da Vinci, so called from a castle in lower Valdarno, was the

natural son of one Pietro, notary to the Florentine republic, and was

born in 1452.[130] He was endowed by nature with a genius uncommonly

elevated and penetrating, eager after discovery, and diligent in the

pursuit; not only in what related to the three arts dependant on design,

but in mathematics, in mechanics, in hydrostatics, in music, in poetry,

and also in the accomplishments of horsemanship, fencing, and dancing.

He was so perfect in all these, that when he performed any one, the

beholder was ready to imagine that it must have been his sole study. To

such vigour of intellect he joined an elegance of features and of

manners, that graced the virtues of his mind. He was affable with

strangers, with citizens, with private individuals, and with princes,

among whom he long lived on a footing of familiarity and friendship. On

this account, says Vasari, it cost him no effort always to behave and to

live like a man of high birth.

Verrocchio taught him painting; and as we have said, while still a

youth, he surpassed his master. He retained traces of his early

education through his whole life. Like Verrocchio, he designed more

readily than he painted; he assiduously cultivated mathematics; in his

design and in his countenances, he prized elegance and vivacity of

expression, more than dignity and fulness of contour; he was very

careful in drawing his horses, and in representing the skirmishes of

soldiers; and was more solicitous to improve the art than to multiply

his pictures. He was an excellent statuary, as is demonstrated by his S.

Tommaso in Orsanmichele at Florence, and by the horse in the church of

S. John and S. Paul at Venice. Vinci not only modelled in a superior

manner the three statues cast in bronze by Rustici, for the church of S.

John at Florence, and the colossal horse at Milan, but assisted by this

art, he gave that perfect relief and roundness, in which painting was

then wanting. He likewise imparted to it symmetry, grace, and spirit;

and these and his other merits gave him the title of the father of

modern painting,[131] though some of his works, as was observed by

Mariette, participate, in some degree, in the meanness of the old

school.

He had two styles, the one abounded in shadow, which gives admirable

brilliancy to the contrasting lights; the other was more quiet, and

managed by means of middle tints. In each style, the grace of his

design, the expression of the mental affections, and the delicacy of his

pencil, are unrivalled. Every thing is lively in his paintings, the

foreground, the landscape, the adventitious ornaments of necklaces,

flowers, and architecture; but this gaiety is more apparent in the

heads. In these he purposely repeats the same idea, and gives them a

smile which delights the mind of a spectator. He did not, however,

consider his pictures as complete, but from a singular timidity,[132]

often left them imperfect, as I shall more fully state under the

Milanese school. There he will appear with the dignity of a consummate

master, and a portion of his fame must at present suffice for his native

school.

The life of Lionardo may be divided into four periods, the first of

which includes the time he remained at Florence, while still a young

man. To this era may be referred, not only the Medusa of the royal

gallery, and the few pieces mentioned by Vasari; but some others also,

less powerful in the shadows, and less diversified in the folds of the

drapery, and which present some heads more delicate than select, and

apparently derived from the school of Verrocchio. Such is the Magdalen

of the Pitti palace at Florence, and that of the Aldobrandini palace at

Rome; some Madonnas and Holy Families which are in several collections,

as in the Giustiniani and Borghese galleries; and some heads of the

Redeemer and of the Baptist, which are to be seen in various places;

although it is often reasonable to suspend our judgment in regard to the

genuineness of such pieces, on account of the great number of Lionardo's

imitators. The child, laid in a bed richly ornamented, enveloped in its

clothes, and adorned with a necklace, which is in the house of his

excellency the Gonfaloniere of Bologna, is of a different class, and of

undoubted originality.

After this first period, Lionardo was brought to Milan by Lodovico

Sforza, "whom he highly gratified by his performance on the lyre; a

curious and new instrument, almost entirely of silver," which Lionardo

carried with him, and had constructed with his own hands. All the

musicians there assembled were vanquished, and the whole city being

struck with admiration of his extemporaneous poetry, and his eloquence,

he was retained by the prince, and remained there till 1499, engaged in

abstruse studies, and in mechanical and hydrostatical labours for the

service of the state. During this time he painted little, except the

celebrated Last Supper; but by superintending an academy of the fine

arts, he left a degree of refinement in Milan, which was so productive

of illustrious pupils, that this period may be reckoned the most

glorious era of his life.

After the misfortunes of Lodovico Sforza, he returned to Florence, where

having remained thirteen years, he went to Rome at the time his patron

Leo X. ascended the papal chair; but his stay there was short. Some of

his best works at Florence may be referred to this period; among which

number we may reckon the celebrated portrait of Mona Lisa, which was the

labour of four years, and yet was left unfinished; the Cartoon of S.

Anna, prepared for a picture in the church of the Servi, which was never

executed in colours; the cartoon of the battle of Niccolo Piccinino,

intended to dispute the palm of excellence with Michelangiolo in the

council chamber at Florence,[133] but like the other, never executed by

Vinci, after failing in an attempt to paint it in a new method in oil on

the wall. He probably employed another method in painting the Madonna

with the child in her arms, in the monastery of S. Onofrio, of Rome, a

picture in the style of Raffaello, but which is now peeling off the

walls in many places. There are some other fine pieces, which if we may

be allowed to hazard a conjecture, might be with propriety assigned to

this period, in which Lionardo, having attained his highest skill, and

unoccupied by other pursuits, painted in his best manner. Such is the

specimen that was preserved at Mantua, but which was stolen, and

concealed during the sack of the city; after many vicissitudes, however,

it was sold for a high price to the imperial court of Russia. The

subject is a Holy Family; in the back-ground is seen a woman of a very

beautiful and majestic countenance standing in an upright position. It

bears the cipher of Lionardo, consisting of a D interlaced with an L and

a V, as it is seen in the picture of the Signori Sanvitali, at Parma.

The Consigliere Pagave, who left a memorandum of it in his MSS. was the

first to observe and to recognise it, upon its being brought to Milan in

1775, where it was also kept concealed. The same judicious critic in

painting has conjectured that this production was executed in Rome, for

one of the princesses of Mantua, or rather for the sister-in-law of Leo

X.; inasmuch as it displayed a decided emulation of Raphael's manner, at

that time highly extolled in Rome. Such a conjecture might receive

support from his picture of a Madonna, which ornaments San Onofrio, also

in the Raphael manner; and in order that this picture, and that of

Mantua just mentioned, might not be confounded by posterity with the

works of Raffaello, Lionardo, according to Signor Pagave, took care to

affix the cipher of his name. Indeed, this is not at all improbable:

both writers and painters are impelled by their natural genius to adopt

a peculiar style; and whoever will compare the portraits that remain,

expressive of the elevated, touching, penetrating, and beautiful spirit,

incessantly bent upon acquiring something still more exquisite in art,

which inspired these two prodigies, will find little difficulty in

believing that both produced works, which owing to a similarity of

natural taste, selection and admiration of the same object, might be

mistaken for specimens of the same hand. Of this number is his own

portrait, at an age which corresponds with this period, in the ducal

gallery, a head that surpasses every other in that room for energy of

expression; also another head, which is in a different cabinet, and is

called a portrait of Raffaello; together with the half-length figure of

a young nun so much commended by Bottari, and which he points out as one

of the greatest treasures in the splendid mansion of the Marchese

Niccolini. In the same rank we may include the much admired specimens in

the possession of some of the noble families at Rome; as the picture of

Christ disputing in the Temple, and the supposed portrait of queen

Giovanna, ornamented with fine architecture, in the Doria palace; the

Vanity and Modesty in the Barberini palace, the tints of which no pencil

has been able to imitate; the Madonna of the Albani Palace, that appears

to be requesting the lily which the infant Jesus holds in his hand,

while he draws back, as if unwilling to part with it; a picture of

exquisite grace, and preferred by Mengs to every other painting

contained in that fine collection. It would, however, be presumptuous to

assign a date to every picture of an artist who became early a

distinguished painter, and who frequently discontinued a work before it

was completed.

When this celebrated artist had attained his sixty-third year, he

appears to have renounced the art for ever. Francis I. who saw his Last

Supper at Milan, about the year 1515, attempted to saw it from the wall,

that it might be transported to France; and not succeeding in his

project, was desirous of possessing the artist, though now an old man.

He invited Vinci to his court, and the artist felt little regret at

leaving Florence, where, since his return, he found in the young

Bonarruoti a rival that had already contended with him, and was even

employed in preference to Vinci both in Florence and in Rome; because

the former gave them works, if we may credit Vasari, while the latter

amused them with words.[134] It is known that they had a quarrel; and

Lionardo consulting his repose, which their emulation embittered, passed

over into France, where, before he had employed his pencil, he expired

in the arms of Francis I., in the year 1519.

Though his style is highly worthy of imitation, it was less followed in

Florence than in Milan; nor is this surprising. Vinci left at Florence

no picture in public; he there taught no pupil; and it appears that he

retained Salai, whom I shall notice among the Milanese artists, in the

station of a dependant, during his residence at Florence. In Florence we

meet with pictures in the possession of private individuals, that seem

the work of Vinci; and sometimes the dealers extol them as his, gravely

adding that they cost a large sum. Such pieces are probably the

productions of Salai, or of other imitators of Lionardo, who availed

themselves of his cartoons, his drawings, or his few paintings. We are

informed that Lorenzo di Credi, whose family name was Sciarpelloni, made

use of them more than any other Florentine. Educated, as well as Vinci,

in the school of Verrocchio, he followed rules nearly similar; he was

patient, and aimed at the same object; but he approached less closely to

the softness of the moderns. He copied, with such precision, a picture

by Lionardo, which was sent to Spain, that the copy was not

distinguishable from the original. Private houses contain many of his

circular Holy Families, of which the invention and gracefulness remind

us of Lionardo. I possess one which represents the Virgin sitting with

Christ in her arms, and at her side the young S. John, to whom she turns

as if to lay hold of him, at which the child seems timid, and draws

back: it is in a lovely manner; but the style is not well suited to such

a subject. Some of Credi's pictures, which Bottari did not meet with in

public places, are now exhibited; as the Magdalen with S. Nicholas and

S. Julian, adduced by Vasari as an example of a picturesque and highly

finished style. His Christ in the manger may be also seen at S. Chiara;

and it is one of his finest pictures, for the beauty of the faces, the

vigour of expression, the finish of the back-ground, and the good

colouring of the whole. Both in this, and in his other original

pictures, we may discern some imitation of Vinci, and of Pietro

Perugino, another friend of Credi: he possesses, however, some

originality, which his scholar, Giovanni Antonio Sogliani, successfully

imitated and improved.

This artist lived twenty-four years with Lorenzo; and in imitation of

his model was contented to paint less than his contemporaries, that he

might do it better. He likewise attempted to imitate Porta; but his

natural disposition led him rather to follow the simple grace of his

instructor, than the sublimity of this master. Few of this school can

compare with him for the natural appearance he gave the naked as well as

the clothed figure, or for the conception of "handsome, good-natured,

sweet, and graceful features."[135] Like Lionardo, he possessed the rare

talent of representing images of virtue by the faces of his saints, and

of vice by those of his wicked characters. This is exemplified in his

Cain and Abel, in the cathedral of Pisa, where he has introduced a

landscape, that of itself would do honour to any painter. With equal

felicity in the figure and the back-ground, he painted the crucifixion

of S. Arcadius, which was brought from another church to that of S.

Lorenzo at Florence, where it still remains. He entered into competition

with Perino del Vaga, with Mecherino, and Andrea del Sarto, at Pisa,

where he was noted for his dilatoriness, but admired for that happy

simplicity and elegance which he always preserved. Some have praised a

few of his pictures as inclining to the manner of Raffaello, a

commendation also bestowed on Luini, and other followers of Lionardo. He

had pupils who afterwards followed other masters: but a Zanobi di

Poggino, who painted many pictures for Florence, which are now unknown,

appears to have had no other master.

One of the best imitators of Vinci, almost equal to Luini himself, may

be recognized in the sacristy of S. Stephen, at Bologna, in which there

is a S. John in the Desert, with the inscription _Jul. Flor._ If this be

read _Julius Florentinus_, the artist is unknown; but perhaps we should

read _Julianus_, and ascribe it to Bugiardini. We are informed by Vasari

that he was at Bologna, and that he painted a Madonna between two

Saints, for the church of S. Francis; where it still is, and approaches

the style of Lionardo fully as much as any other manner. Both pictures,

on comparing the style, seem the work of the same artist; and to this

artist also belongs a Nativity, in the cloister of the canons of S.

Salvatore; and various pictures that may be found in some private houses

with a similar epigraph. If we embrace the opinion of Vasari, we must

consider Giuliano as a feeble painter, but uncommonly careful, and

consequently slow. We should rather suppose him the imitator of any

other artist than of Vinci; for he is described as the fellow student of

Bonarruoti, the assistant of Albertinelli, and the colourist of some

works of Fra Bartolommeo. One can readily perceive that Vasari was

wrong, as in many other instances, in his slight estimation of this

artist, on which account he has not paid a due attention to his works or

to his style. He has represented this man as amiable in disposition, as

a picture of contented poverty, as also an unbounded admirer of his

Madonnas, and very profuse in his own commendations; qualities which

rendered him highly amusing even to Michelangiolo. Intent on amusing his

reader with the character of the man, he has not perhaps sufficiently

rated the merits of the artist. This is proved by the little respect

with which he mentions the martyrdom of S. Catherine in S. Maria

Novella, which Bottari has called "a work worthy of admiration," not

only for the figures of the soldiers, which, as Giuliano found himself

unequal to the performance, were outlined with charcoal by

Michelangiolo, and afterwards painted by Giuliano; but for the other

parts of the story. The truth seems to be, that he had not much

invention, and did not adhere to one style; but now and then borrowed a

thought; as in the Nativity already noticed, where one may recognize the

style of Fra Bartolommeo. On considering each figure separately, he

appears on the whole happy in his imitations, especially in Bologna,

where the S. John is held in the highest esteem. In Florence he painted

many Madonnas and Holy Families, which, with the aid of the Bolognese

pictures, may perhaps be recognized as his by their clearness, the

masculine and somewhat heavy proportions, and the mouths sometimes

expressive of melancholy; although the subject did not properly call for

it. One of these is to be seen in the collection of the noble family

Orlandini.

Michelangiolo Bonarruoti, of whom memoirs were published by two of his

disciples while he was still living,[136] was born twenty-three years

after Lionardo da Vinci. Like him he was endowed with a ready wit, and

consummate eloquence. His bon mots rival those of the Grecian painters,

which are recorded by Dati, and he is even esteemed the most witty and

lively of his race. He possessed not the polish and elegance of Vinci,

but his genius was more vast and daring. Hence he attained the three

sister arts in an eminent degree, and has left specimens in painting,

sculpture, and architecture, sufficient to immortalize three different

artists. Like Vinci he gave proofs of talent in his boyish years, that

compelled his master to confess his own inferiority. This master was

Domenico Ghirlandaio, who sent his own brother Benedetto to paint in

France, from jealousy of his preeminence; and, perhaps, fearing the

wonderful powers of Bonarruoti, turned his attention to sculpture.

Lorenzo the Magnificent, desirous of encouraging the statuary art, which

was on the decline in his country, had collected in his gardens,

adjacent to the monastery of S. Mark, many antique marbles; and

committing the care of them to Bertoldo, a scholar of Donatello, he

requested of Ghirlandaio some young man to be there educated as a

sculptor; and this artist sent him Michelangiolo. This transaction was

disliked by his father, Lodovico, in whose mind the art appeared

degrading to his high birth; but he had no reason to repent it. On

obtaining his object, Lorenzo not only added to the fortune of Lodovico,

but retained Michelangiolo in his house, rather as a relation than a

dependant, placing him at the same table with his own sons, with

Poliziano, and other learned men who then graced his residence. During

the four years that he remained there he laid the foundation of all his

acquirements; he especially studied poetry, and thus was enabled to

rival Vinci in his Sonnets, and to relish Dante, a bard of a sublimity

beyond the reach of vulgar souls.[137] Bonarruoti studied design in the

chapel of Masaccio, he copied the antiques in the garden of Lorenzo, and

attended to anatomy, a science, to which he is said to have dedicated

twelve years, with great injury to his health, and which determined his

style, his practice, and his glory.[138] To this study he owed that

style from which he obtained the name of the Dante of the art. As this

poet made choice of materials very difficult to be reduced to verse, and

from an abstruse subject extracted the praise of sublimity and grandeur,

in like manner Michelangiolo explored the untrodden path of design, and

in pursuing it, displayed powers of execution at once scientific and

magnificent. In his works, man assumes that form which, according to

Quintilian,[139] Zeuxis delighted to represent; nervous, muscular, and

robust: his foreshortenings, and his attitudes are most daring; his

expression full of vivacity and energy. The poet and the painter have

other points of resemblance; a display of knowledge, from which Dante

appears sometimes to critics, a declaimer rather than a poet,

Bonarruoti, an anatomist rather than a painter; a neglect of elegance,

from which the first often, and, if we subscribe to the opinions of the

Caracci and of Mengs, the second sometimes, degenerated into

harshness.[140] On points like these, which depend wholly on taste, I

shall not decide, but content myself with warning the reader that such

comparisons should not be pushed too far: for this poet, from his desire

of surmounting difficulties in conception and versification, has

sometimes so deviated from the usual path, that he cannot always be

proposed as a model for imitation: but every design of Michelangiolo,

every sketch, as well as his more finished works, may be regarded as a

model in art; if in Dante we trace marks of labour, in Michelangiolo

every thing exhibits nature and facility.[141] It was one of his

observations, that the compasses ought to lie in the eyes; a principle

apparently drawn from Diodorus Siculus, where he asserts that the

Egyptians had the rules of measurement in their hands; the Greeks in

their eyes.[142] Nor is such eulogy inapplicable to our artist; who,

whether he handled his pen, his chisel, or a piece of charcoal, even in

sport, still displayed infallible skill in every part of his design.

Bonarruoti was extolled to the skies by Ariosto for his painting, as

well as for his sculpture;[143] but Condivi and others prefer his chisel

to his pencil; and he undoubtedly exercised it more professedly and with

greater reputation. His Moses on the tomb of Julius II. in the church of

S. Pietro in Vincoli, his Christ in the Minerva, his Piety in S. Pietro

Vaticano, and the statues in the church of S. Lorenzo at Florence, and

in the ducal palaces, must be acknowledged to be the finest specimens of

sculpture, in themselves forming schools of the revived art. I will not

extol them so highly as Vasari does the colossal David, placed near the

Palazzo Vecchio, when he says "that it bore away the palm from every

statue, modern or ancient, either Grecian or Roman;" nor shall I follow

his annotator, Bottari, in whose judgment Bonarruoti has greatly

surpassed the Greeks, who are not so successful in statues larger than

the life. I have heard competent judges remark, that we do an injury to

the Grecian masters, not only by preferring any modern to them, but even

by comparing them; but my pen ought not to wander too far from the

canvass and from colouring.

The few remaining drawings of Michelangiolo demonstrate how little he

painted. Conscious of his superiority in sculpture, he seems to have

dreaded appearing as a second or a third-rate painter. The majority of

his compositions that have reached our time, like those of Vinci, are

mere outlines; and therefore, though many cabinets are rich in his

drawings, none can boast the possession of his paintings. The cartoon of

the battle of Pisa, prepared for a competition with Vinci in the saloon

of the public palace at Florence, is said to have been a wonderful

production in this species of art. Mariette supposes, in the letter

above quoted, that the example of Vinci paved the way for this great

undertaking, which he confesses surpassed the original. Michelangiolo

did not rest satisfied with representing the Florentines cased in

armour, and mingling with their enemies; but choosing the moment of the

attack upon their van, while bathing in the river Arno, he seized the

opportunity of representing many naked figures, as they rushed to arms

from the water; by which he was enabled to introduce a prodigious

variety of foreshortenings, attitudes the most energetic, in a word, the

highest perfection of his peculiar excellences. Cellini observes in the

thirteenth chapter of his life, that when Michelangiolo "painted the

chapel of Pope Julius, he reached not half that dignity;" and Vasari

adds, that "all the artists who studied and designed after this cartoon,

became eminent;" among these he reckons the best Florentine artists of

the second epoch, from the time of Frate, and to them he joined

Raffaello d'Urbino. This is a point of critical disquisition not yet

sufficiently cleared up, though much has been written both for and

against the opinion of Vasari. I am not of the number of those who

suppose that the labours of Bonarruoti had no influence on the style of

Raffaello, because it appears dissimilar. It would seem to me an act of

injustice to this divine genius, to imagine that profiting as he did by

the finest productions of the art, he neglected those sources of

information. I therefore firmly believe, that Raffaello likewise studied

Michelangiolo, which he himself appears to acknowledge, as I shall

afterwards relate. I cannot, however, grant to Vasari that he saw this

cartoon on his first short visit to Florence.[144]

This cartoon has perished, and report accuses Baccio Bandinelli of

tearing it in pieces, either that others might not derive advantage from

viewing it, or because from partiality to Vinci, and hatred to

Bonarruoti, he wished to remove a subject of comparison, that might

exalt the reputation of the latter above that of Lionardo. This

circumstance is not authenticated, nor are we much interested in the

supposed criminal, who though eminent as a designer and a sculptor,

painted a very few pieces, that may almost all be reduced to an Ebriety

of Noah, and the Imprisonment of the Fathers of the Church. Baccio soon

renounced the pencil, and Michelangiolo appears to have done the same,

for he was called to Rome by Julius II. as a sculptor, and when the

Pope, about 1508, asked him to paint the ceiling of the chapel, he

declined it, and wished to transfer the commission to Raffaello.

He was, however, constrained to undertake it, and, unaccustomed to work

in fresco, he invited some of the best painters in this branch from

Florence,[145] that they might assist, or rather that they might

instruct him. When he had acquired what he deemed necessary, he effaced

their labours entirely, and set about the work without an assistant.

When the task was about half finished, he exhibited it for a little time

to the public. He then applied himself to the other part, but proceeding

more slowly than the impatience of the pontiff could endure, he was

compelled by threats to use quicker despatch, and without assistance

finished the greater part, then incomplete, in twenty months. I have

said that he was unaided, for such was the delicacy of his taste, that

no artist could please him; and as in sculpture, every piercer, file,

and chisel, which he used, was the work of his own hands, so in

painting, "he prepared his own colours, and did not commit the mixing

and other necessary manipulations to mechanics or to boys."[146] Here

may be seen those grand and finely varied figures of the Prophets and

the Sybils, the style of which is pronounced by Lomazzo, an impartial

judge, because an artist of a different school, "to be the finest in the

world."[147] There, indeed, the dignity of the aspects, the solemn

majesty of the eyes, a certain wild and uncommon casting of the drapery,

and the attitudes, whether representing rest or motion, announce an

order of beings who hold converse with the Deity, and whose mouths utter

what he inspires. Amid this display of genius, the figure most admired

by Vasari is that of Isaiah, "who, absorbed in meditation, places his

right hand in a book, to denote where he had been reading; and with his

left elbow on the book, and his cheek resting on that hand, he turns

round his head, without moving the rest of his body, on being called by

one of the children that are behind him; a figure which, if attentively

studied, might fully teach the precepts of a master." No less science is

displayed in his pictures of the Creation of the World, of the Deluge,

of Judith, and in the other compartments of that vast ceiling. All is

varied and fanciful in the garments, the foreshortenings, and the

attitudes: all is novel in the composition and the designs. He that

contemplates the pictures of Sandro and his associates on the walls, and

then, raising his eyes to the ceiling, beholds Michelangiolo "soaring

like an eagle above them all," can hardly believe that a man, not

exercised in painting, in what may be considered as his first essay,

should so nearly approach the greatest masters of antiquity, and thus

open a new career to modern artists.

In the succeeding pontificates, Michelangiolo, always occupied in

sculpture and architecture, almost wholly abandoned painting, till he

was induced by Paul III. to resume the pencil. Clement VII. had

conceived the design of employing him in the Sistine Chapel on two other

grand historical pictures; the Fall of the Angels, over the gate, and

the Last Judgment, in the opposite facade, over the altar. Michelangiolo

had composed designs for the Last Judgment, and Paul III. being aware of

this, commanded, or rather entreated him, to commence the work; for he

went to the house of Michelangiolo, accompanied by ten Cardinals, an

honour, except in this instance, unknown in the annals of the art. On

the suggestion of F. Sebastiano del Piombo, he was desirous that the

picture should be painted in oil; but this he could not procure, for

Michelangiolo replied, that he would not undertake it except in fresco,

and that oil painting was employment only fit for women, or idlers of

mean capacity. He caused the plaister prepared by Frate to be thrown

down, and substituting a rough-cast suited to his purpose, he completed

the work in eight years, and exhibited it in 1541. If in the ceiling of

the chapel he could not fully satisfy himself, and was unable to retouch

it as he wished to do after it was dry, in this immense painting he had

an opportunity of fulfilling his intentions, and of demonstrating to the

full the powers of his genius. He peopled this space, and disposed

innumerable figures awakened by the sound of the last trumpet; bands of

angels and of devils, of elected and condemned souls: some of them

rising from the tomb, others standing on the earth; some flying to the

regions of bliss, while others are dragged down to punishment.

Bottari observes[148] that there have been some who affected to

depreciate this picture, on comparing it with the works of other

artists, by remarking how much he might have added to the expression, to

the colouring, or to the beauty of the contours: but Lomazzo,

Felibien,[149] and several others, have not failed on that account to

acknowledge him supreme in that peculiar branch of the profession, at

which he aimed in all his works, and especially in this of his Last

Judgment. The subject itself appeared rather created than selected by

him. To a genius so comprehensive, and so skilled in drawing the human

figure, no subject could be better adapted than the Resurrection; to an

artist who delighted in the awful, no story more suitable than the day

of supernal terrors. He saw Raffaello pre-eminent in every other

department of the art: he foresaw that in this alone could he expect to

be triumphant; and, perhaps, he indulged the hope also that posterity

would adjudge the palm to him who excelled all others in the most

arduous walk of art. Vasari, his confidant, and the participator of his

thoughts, seems to hint at something of this sort in two passages in his

Life of Michelangiolo.[150] He informs us, "that applying himself to the

human figure, the great object of art, he neglected the attractions of

colouring, all sporting of the pencil, and fantastic novelty:" and

again, "neither landscapes, trees, nor houses, are to be seen in it, and

we even look in vain for some degree of variety and ornament, which are

never attempted, probably because he disdained to submit his towering

genius to such objects." I cannot suppose in Michelangiolo such

arrogance, nor such negligence of his own improvement in an art which

embraces every object in nature, that he would limit himself to the

naked figure, which is a single branch, and to one only character, his

own sublime and awful manner. I rather imagine, that discovering his

strength in this style, he did not attempt any other. There he proceeded

as in his peculiar province, and, what one cannot wholly commend, he

observed no limits, and wished for no control. This Last Judgment was

filled with such a profusion of nudity, that it was in great danger of

being destroyed: from a regard to the decency of the sanctuary, Paul IV.

proposed to white-wash it, and was hardly appeased with the correction

of its most glaring indelicacies, by some drapery introduced here and

there by Daniel da Volterra, on whom the facetious Romans, from this

circumstance, conferred the nick-name of the _Breeches-maker_.[151]