Other corrections have been proposed in it by different critics, both

with regard to the costume and the conception. The artist has been

censured for confounding sacred with profane history; for introducing

the angels of Revelation with the Stygian ferryman; Christ sitting in

judgment, and Minos, who assigns his proper station to each of the

damned. To this profanity he added satire, by pourtraying in Minos the

features of a master of the ceremonies, who, in the hearing of the Pope,

had pronounced this picture more suitable for a bagnio than a

church;[152] but Bonarruoti did not set the example in such composition.

Scannelli has expressed a wish that there had been greater variety in

the proportion, and muscularity according to the diversity of age;[153]

although, by an evident anachronism, this criticism is attributed to

Vinci, who died in 1519. Albani, as quoted by Malvasia,[154] says, that

"had Michelangiolo contemplated Raffaello, he might have learned to

dispose the crowd that surround the judgment-seat of Christ in a

superior manner;" but here I am uncertain whether he blames the

composition or the perspective.[155] I can discover, however, an

anachronism in his imagining the Last Judgment an earlier work than it

really is by many years; as if it had been executed before Raffaello

came to Rome.

I find that Albani rendered justice to the merit of Michelangiolo; he

reckoned not three great masters in painting only, as is now commonly

done; but he added a fourth, and thought that Bonarruoti surpassed

Raffaello, Tiziano, and Coreggio, "in form and in grandeur."[156] We may

here observe, that when Michelangiolo was so inclined, he could obtain

distinction for those endowments in which the others excelled. It is a

vulgar error to suppose that he had no idea of grace and beauty; the Eve

of the Sistine Chapel turns to thank her maker, on her creation, with an

attitude so fine and lovely, that it would do honour to the school of

Raffaello. Annibale Caracci admired this, and many other naked figures

in this grand ceiling, so highly, that he proposed them to himself as

models in the art, and according to Bellori,[157] preferred them to

those of the Last Judgment, that appeared to him too anatomical. In

chiaroscuro Michelangiolo had not the skill and delicacy of Coreggio;

but the paintings of the Vatican have a force and relief much commended

by Renfesthein, an eminent connoisseur, who, on passing from the Sistine

Chapel to the Farnesian gallery, remarked how greatly in this respect

the Caracci themselves were eclipsed by Bonarruoti. Dolce speaks less

favourably of his colouring,[158] for this author was captivated by

Tiziano and the Venetian school: no one, however, can deny that the

colouring of Michelangiolo in this chapel is admirably adapted to the

design,[159] and the same, also, would have been the case with his two

pictures in the Pauline Chapel, the Crucifixion of S. Peter and the

Conversion of S. Paul, but they have sustained great injury from time.

None of his paintings are to be seen in public, except in those two

chapels; and those described as his in collections, are almost all the

works of other hands. During his residence at Florence he painted an

exquisite Leda for Alphonso, Duke of Ferrara, to whom however it was not

sold. Michelangiolo, offended at the manner in which it was demanded by

one of the courtiers of that prince, refused to let him have it: but

made a present of it to his pupil, Antonio Mini, who carried it to

France. Vasari describes it as "a grand picture, painted in distemper,

that seemed as if breathed on the canvass;" and Mariette affirms, in his

notes on Condivi, that he saw the picture in a damaged state, and that

it appeared as if Michelangiolo had there forgot his usual style, and

"approached the tone of Tiziano." This expression inclines one to

suspect that he is describing a copy taken in oil by some able painter;

especially as D'Argenville informs us that this painting was burnt in

the reign of Louis XIII. It is said there is also one of his pictures,

representing the Virgin and the Divine Infant, in an upright position,

standing near the cradle upon a rock, a figure drawn of the size of

nature, formerly in possession of the noble house of Mocci (Mozzi) at

Florence; and afterwards transferred to the cathedral of Burgos, where

it still remains.[160] Michelangiolo executed likewise a circular Holy

Family, with some naked figures in the distance, for Agnol Doni. It is

now in the tribune of the Florentine gallery, in a high state of

preservation. It is praised by Richardson and some others for the vigour

of its tints, and is painted in distemper. Placed among the works of the

greatest masters of every school that vie with each other in this

theatre of art, it appears the most scientific, but the least pleasing

picture: its author seems the most powerful designer, but the feeblest

colourist among them all. In it aerial perspective is neglected,

inasmuch as the figures are not indistinct in proportion to their

diminution, a fault not uncommon in that age. I cannot so readily decide

whether his style appears in certain pictures that are described as his

in several collections in Florence, Rome, and Bologna, as well as in the

catalogue of the imperial gallery at Vienna, and in the royal

collections in Spain, that represent the subjects of the

Crucifixion,[161] the Pieta,[162] the Infant Jesus asleep, and the

Prayer in the Garden. They resemble the design of Michelangiolo, but

their execution betrays another pencil. This is rendered probable by the

silence of Vasari; their high finish seems incredible in an artist, who,

even in sculpture, very rarely attempted it; and our scepticism is

confirmed by the opinion of Mengs, and other competent judges, whom I

have consulted to elucidate this point. Some of them, in which the

distribution of the tints was perhaps originally made under his

inspection, resemble his style. These may have been copied by

Fiamminghi, as the tints of some of them indicate, or by other Italian

artists of the various schools, since they differ so much in their mode

of colouring. Some copies may be the work of the scholars of

Michelangiolo, though Vasari informs us they were all but feeble

artists. He gives us the names of those who dwelt in his house; Pietro

Urbano of Pistoia, a man of genius, but very indolent; Antonio Mini of

Florence, and Ascanio Condivi da Ripatransone, both eager in their

profession, but of little talent, and therefore the authors of no work

worthy of record. The people of Ferrara include their countryman Filippi

in this school, an artist unknown to Vasari, but worthy of notice.

Lomazzi mentions Marco da Pino as one of the number. To these Palomino

adds Castelli of Bergamo, (whose master, while he was in Rome, is not

noticed by any of our writers) and Gaspar Bacerra, of Andalusia, a

celebrated Spanish painter. We may likewise add Alonzo Berrugese, who is

reckoned by Vasari only among those that studied the cartoon of

Michelangiolo, at Florence, with Francia, and other strangers, who were

not among his disciples. In the history of Spanish painting, there is

mentioned by all the writers a Roman, of the name of Matteo Perez

d'Alessio, or d'Alessi. They recount that he lived many years at

Seville, and produced many works there, among which his S. Cristoforo,

in the cathedral, which cost 4,000 crowns, is by far the grandest. They

add, that Luigi Vargas, a very able disciple of Perino del Vaga, having

returned from Rome, Alessi was glad to leave the field open to him, and

to return into Italy; where Preziado finds him. Indeed he rather finds

him at Rome, and at the Sistine Chapel, where two histories, painted

"opposite to the Last Judgment of his master," are ascribed to him;

these however are the production of Matteo da Leccio, who aimed at

imitating Michelangiolo and Salviati; but he is only despised by Taia,

and by every one who has a grain of sense. He executed this work in the

time of Gregory XIII.; and neither he nor the supposititious

Alessio,[163] an imaginary name, had any connexion with Michelangiolo.

The rest we refer to the note, in order to proceed without delay to

names which may boast a better title to such a connexion.

Many other figures and historic compositions were designed by

Michelangiolo, and painted at Rome by F. Sebastiano del Piombo, an

excellent colourist of the Venetian school. The Pieta in the church of

S. Francis of Viterbo,[164] the Flagellation, and Transfiguration, with

some other pieces at S. Pietro in Montorio, are of this number. Two

Annunciations, designed by Bonarruoti, were coloured for altar-pieces by

Marcello Venusti of Mantua, a scholar of Perino, who adopted the style

of Michelangiolo, without apparent affectation. The one was put up in

the church of S. Giovanni Laterano, the other in the Della Pace. He is

said to have painted also some cabinet pictures after designs of

Bonarruoti; as the Limbo,[165] in the Colonna palace; the Christ going

to Mount Calvary, and some other pieces in the Borghese; also the

celebrated copy of the Last Judgment, which he painted for Cardinal

Farnese, that still exists in Naples. Although a good designer, and the

author of many pieces described by Baglione, he obtained greater

celebrity by clothing the inventions of Michelangiolo in exquisite

beauty, especially in small pictures, of which, Vasari says, he executed

a great many. This writer, and Orlandi following him, have erroneously

named him Raffaello, not Marcello. Batista Franco coloured the Rape of

Ganymede, after a design of Bonarruoti, which was also done by the

artist who painted the small picture which D'Argenville describes in

France; and another on a larger scale, to be seen at Rome in the

possession of the Colonna family: it was also painted in oil by Giulio

Clovio. Pontormo employed himself in a similar manner at Florence, on

the design of Venus and Cupid; and on the cartoon of Christ appearing to

Mary Magdalen, a work which was re-executed by him for Citta di

Castello, Bonarruoti having said, that none could perform it better.

Francesco Salviati painted another of his designs, and Bugiardini, as we

have already noticed, executed some figures designed by him. Such is the

information transmitted to us by Vasari; and he would have been justly

reprehensible if he had written with such minuteness on the drawings of

Michelangiolo, and of those employed to finish them, and had neglected

to inform us as to those pieces which Michelangiolo himself executed.

Hence it is not easy to avoid scepticism on the genuineness of the

Annunciation, the Flagellation, or any other oil painting ascribed to

Bonarruoti by Bottari, D'Argenville, or the describers of collections.

We have noticed his aversion to this method of painting. We are informed

that during his lifetime he employed others in this branch; and we know

that after his death artists availed themselves of his designs; as

Sabbatini did in a Pieta for the sacristy of the Church of S. Peter, a

work copied by some other artist for the Madonna de' Monti, and some

others made known to us by Baglione. Can we then hesitate as to the

originality of any picture, if we give credit to the oil paintings of

Michelangiolo? The portraits of Bonarruoti ascribed to his own hand, are

also, in my opinion, supposititious. Vasari knew of no likeness of him

except the figure cast in bronze by Ricciarelli, and two portraits, the

one painted by Bugiardini, the other by Jacopo del Conte. From these are

derived the very old and well known portraits, preserved in the ducal

gallery, in the collection of the Capitol, in the Caprara palace at

Bologna, and that in the possession of Cardinal Zelada at Rome.

Franco, Marco da Siena, Tibaldi, and other foreign artists, who have

imitated Michelangiolo, shall be noticed under their respective schools.

The Florentine school abounded in them, and these we shall consider all

together in the succeeding epoch. I shall here only notice two, who

lived on intimate habits with him, who executed works under his own eye,

and for a long time received directions from his own lips; circumstances

which cannot be said of Vasari, of Salviati, nor of any other able

artist of his school. One of these was Francesco Granacci of Florence,

characterized by Vasari as an excellent artist, who derived much of his

merit from his early intimacy with Michelangiolo. He was the fellow

student of the latter, under Domenico Ghirlandaio, and also in the

garden of Lorenzo; and from his precepts, and by studying his cartoon,

he enlarged his own manner, and approached near the modern style. After

the death of his master, he remained with the brothers of that artist,

to complete some of the works of the deceased, and was employed in

painting some Holy Families, and cabinet pictures, in distemper, which

might easily pass under another name, as they resemble the best

productions of that school. In his new style he never entirely abandoned

the simplicity of the old manner; but there is a specimen in the church

of S. Jacopo without-the-walls, more studied in design, and more

determined in the colouring. In this picture S. Zanobi and S. Francis

appear near our Lady under a lofty canopy; a subject then familiar in

every school. His style seems more matured in an Assumption which was in

S. Pier Maggiore, a church now suppressed: here he inserted, between two

other figures, a S. Thomas, wholly in the manner of Michelangiolo. Few

other considerable paintings can be ascribed to this artist, who was

left in easy circumstances by his father, and painted rather as a

commendable amusement than from necessity.

Ricciarelli, usually known in history by the name of Daniele di

Volterra, enjoys a greater name, and is generally described as the most

successful follower of Michelangiolo. Educated in Siena, according to

report, by Peruzzi and Razzi, he became the assistant of Perino del

Vaga, and acquired an astonishing talent for imitating Bonarruoti, who

greatly esteemed him, appointed him his substitute in the labours of the

Vatican, brought him into notice, and assisted and enriched him with

designs. It is known that Michelangiolo was often with Daniele when he

painted in the Farnese palace, and it is said that Bonarruoti, during

his absence, "O vero o falso che la fama suoni," mounted the scaffold,

and sketched with charcoal a colossal head that is still seen there.

Volterra let it remain, that posterity might judge of the powers of

Bonarruoti, who without pre-meditation and in mere jest, had finished a

work in such proportion, and so perfect. Nor did Daniele execute,

without the assistance of Michelangiolo, the wonderful Descent from the

Cross in the Trinita de' Monti, which, together with the Transfiguration

by Raffaello, and the S. Girolamo of Domenichino, may be reckoned among

the finest paintings in Rome.[166] We seem to behold the mournful

spectacle, and the Redeemer sinking with the natural relaxation of a

dead body in descending: the pious men engaged in various offices, and

thrown in different and contrasted attitudes, appear assiduously

occupied with the sacred remains which they seem to venerate; the mother

of Jesus having fainted between the sorrowing women, the beloved

disciple extends his arms and bends over her. There is a truth in the

naked figures that seems perfect nature; a colouring in the faces and

the whole piece that suits the subject, and is more determined than

delicate; a relief, a harmony, and, in a word, a skill that might do

honour to the hand of Michelangiolo himself, had the picture been

inscribed with his name. To this the artist, I believe, alluded, when he

painted Bonarruoti with a mirror near it; as if in this picture he might

behold a reflection of himself. Volterra painted some other Crucifixions

in the Orsini Chapel, where he was employed for seven years; but they

are inferior to that described above. He employed his pupils in another

chapel of that church, (Michele Alberti, according to the Guide to Rome,

and Gio. Paolo Rossetti,) and supplied them with designs; one of which

he himself executed in a picture, with figures of a moderate size. The

subject is the Murder of the Innocents, and it is now deposited in the

Tribune of the Royal Gallery of Florence; an honour that speaks more for

it than my eulogy. The Grand Duke Leopold purchased it at a high price

from a church in Volterra, where there is now no other public specimen

of this master. The Ricciarelli family possess a fine Elijah, as an

inheritance and memorial of this great man; and a beautiful fresco

remains in a study in the house of the Dottor Mazzoni, relating to which

we may refer the reader to the excellent historiographer of Volterra,

(tom. i. p. 177).

There was a youth of Florence, named Baccio della Porta, because his

study was near a gate of that city; but having become a Dominican, he

obtained that of Fra Bartolommeo di S. Marco, from the convent where he

resided, or, more shortly, that of Frate. Whilst he studied under

Rosselli, he became enamoured of the grand _chiaro-scuro_ of Vinci, and

emulated him assiduously. We read that his friend Albertinelli studied

modelling, and copied ancient basso-relievos, from a desire of obtaining

correctness in his shadows; and we may conjecture the same of Baccio,

although Vasari is silent on this head. The Prince has a Nativity and

Circumcision of Christ in his early manner; most graceful little

pictures, resembling miniatures. About this period he also painted his

own portrait in the lay habit, a full-length figure, most skilfully

inclosed in a small space, and now in the splendid collection of the

Signori Montecatini at Lucca. He entered the cloister in 1500, at the

age of thirty-one, and for four years never handled the pencil. The

execution of Savonarola, whom he knew and respected, preyed upon his

mind; and, like Botticelli and Credi, he gave up the art. When he again

resumed it, he seems to have advanced daily in improvement, during the

last thirteen or fourteen years of his life; so that his earlier

productions, though very beautiful, are inferior to his last. His

improvement was accelerated by Raffaello, who came to Florence to pursue

his studies in 1504, contracted a friendship for him, and was at the

same time his scholar in colouring, and his master in perspective.[167]

Having gone to Rome some years after, to see the works of Bonarruoti and

Raffaello, if I am not deceived, he greatly elevated his style; but his

manner was at all times more conformable to that of his friend than of

his fellow citizen, uniting dignity with grace in his heads and in his

general design. The picture in the Pitti palace is a proof of this,

which Pietro da Cortona imagined to be the work of Raffaello, though

Frate had painted it before he went to Rome. In that place he appeared

with diminished lustre, says the historian, in the presence of those two

great luminaries of the art, and speedily returned to Florence; a

circumstance which also happened to Andrea del Sarto, to Rosso, and to

other truly eminent masters, whose modesty was equal to the confidence

of innumerable artists of mediocrity, who frequently enjoyed at Rome

much ill placed patronage. Frate left there two figures of the Chief

Apostles, that are preserved in the Quirinal palace; the S. Peter, which

was not finished, had its last touches from the hand of Raffaello. One

of his pictures is also in the Vatican palace, where it was deposited by

Pius VI., with many other choice paintings. A Holy Family exists in the

Corsini collection by the same hand, and is perhaps his finest and most

graceful performance.

His most finished productions are in Tuscany, which boasts various

altar-pieces, and all of them very valuable. Their composition is in the

usual style of the age, which may be observed in the production of every

school, not even excepting Raffaello, and which continued in the

Florentine until the time of Pontormo; viz. a Madonna seated, with an

infant Jesus, and accompanied by saints. But in this hackneyed subject,

Frate distinguished himself by grand architecture, by magnificent

flights of steps, and by the skilful grouping of his saints and

cherubims. He introduces them, one while seated in concert, another time

poised on their wings to minister to their king and queen; of whom some

support the drapery, others have charge of the pavilion, a rich and

happily conceived ornament, which he readily connected with such

thrones, even in cabinet pictures. He departed from this mode of

composition in a picture that he left at S. Romano of Lucca, called

Madonna della Misericordia, who sits in an attitude full of grace, amid

a crowd of devotees, shielding them with her mantle from the wrath of

heaven. His rivals occasioned the production of two more altar-pieces:

according to the example of other eminent men, he answered their sneers

by his classic performances; a retort the most galling to the invidious.

They had stigmatized him as unequal to large proportions; and he filled

a large piece with a single figure of S. Mark, which is admired as a

prodigy of art in the ducal gallery, and is described by a learned

foreigner as a Grecian statue transformed into a picture. He was accused

of being ignorant of the anatomy of the human figure; and to refute this

calumny he introduced a naked S. Sebastian in another picture, which was

so perfect in drawing and in colouring, that "it received the unbounded

applause of artists;" but becoming too much the admiration of the female

devotees of that church, it was first removed by the fathers into a

private room, and was afterwards sold, and sent into France.

To sum up all, he knew how to excel at pleasure, in every department of

painting. His design is most chaste, and his youthful faces are more

full and fleshy than was usual with Raffaello; and according to

Algarotti, they are but little elevated above the standard of ordinary

men, and approach to vulgarity. His tints at one period abounded with

shadows produced by lamp black or ivory black, which impairs the value

of some of his pictures; but he gradually acquired a better manner, and,

as we have related, was able to instruct Raffaello. In firmness and

clearness he yields not to the best of the school of Lombardy. He was

the inventor of a new method of casting draperies; having taught the use

of the wooden figure, with moveable joints, that serves admirably for

the study of the folds of drapery. None of his school painted them more

varied and natural, with more breadth, or better adapted to the limbs.

His works are to be seen in several private collections in Florence; but

they are rare beyond the precincts of that city: they are there eagerly

sought after by foreigners, but are very rarely to be sold. One of his

Madonnas was procured within these few years by his Excellency the

Major-Domo of the ducal household, whose collection may be reckoned

another Florentine Gallery in miniature, consisting of about thirty

pictures of the best masters of different schools. The Fathers of S.

Mark have a considerable number of his paintings in their private

chapel, and among these is a S. Vincenzo, said by Bottari to resemble a

work of Tiziano or Giorgione. His best and rarest performances are in

the possession of the Prince, in whose collection the last work of Fra

Bartolommeo remains, a large picture in chiaroscuro, representing the

patron saints of the city surrounding the Virgin Mary. The Gonfalonier

Soderini intended this piece for the Hall of the Council of State; but

it was left only as a design at the death of its author, in 1517, like

the projected works of Vinci and Bonarruoti. It would seem as if some

fatality attended the decoration of this building, which ought to have

employed the pencil of the greatest native artists. Among this number

Frate must undoubtedly be included; and Richardson remarks, that had he

possessed the happy combinations of Raffaello, he, perhaps, would not

have been second to that master.[168] The last mentioned production,

though imperfect, is looked upon as a model in the art. The method of

this artist was first to draw the figure naked, then to drape it, and to

form a chiaroscuro, sometimes in oils, that marked the distribution of

the light and shadow, which constituted his great study, and the soul of

his pictures. This large picture demonstrates such preparatives; and it

has as high a value in painting, as the antique plaster models have in

sculpture, in which Winckelmann discovers the stamp of genius and

compass of design better than in sculptured marbles.

Mariotto Albertinelli, the fellow student and friend of Baccio, the

sharer of his labours and his concerns, emulated his first style, and

approaches to his second in some of his works; but they may be compared

to two streams springing from the same source; the one to become a

brook, the other a mighty river. Some pictures in Florence are supposed

to be their joint performances; and the Marquis Acciaiuoli possesses a

picture of the Assumption, in the upper part of which are the Apostles,

by Baccio, and the lower is deemed the work of Mariotto. He is somewhat

dry in several of his pictures, as in the S. Silvestro, in Monte Cavallo

at Rome; where he also painted a S. Domenick, and a S. Catharine of

Siena, near the throne of the Virgin Mary. He should likewise be known

at Florence. He executed two pictures for the church of S. Giuliano,

remarkable for the force of colouring, and the many imitations of the

style of Frate. The best of all and the nearest to his model is the

Visitation, transferred from the Congregazione de' Preti to the Ducal

gallery, and even to its most honoured place, the Tribune. Albertinelli

obtained great credit by his two pupils, Franciabigio and Innocenzio da

Imola, of whom I shall speak in the proper place as ornaments of their

school. I find Visino praised beyond them both: he painted but little in

Florence, and that in private; but he was much employed in Hungary.

Benedetto Cianfanini, Gabriele Rustici, and Cecchin del Frate, who

inherited his master's name, were the scholars of Fra Bartolommeo in his

best time; but they are no longer known by any undoubted works. Fra

Paolo da Pistoia, his colleague, who was honoured in his own country

with a medal, which I have seen, with those of many eminent men of

Pistoia, in the possession of the Sign. Dottor Visoni, obtained the

richest inheritance in all the studies of Baccio; and from his designs

this artist painted many pictures at Pistoia, one of which may be seen

in the parochial church of S. Paul, over the great altar. Those designs

were afterwards carried to Florence, and in the time of Vasari there was

a collection of them at the Dominican convent of S. Catharine, in the

hands of Sister Plautella Nelli. The noble family of this lady possesses

a Crucifixion painted by her, in which there is a multitude of small

figures most highly finished. She seems on the whole a good imitation of

Frate; but she also followed other styles, as may be seen in her

convent. A Descent from the Cross is there shewn, said to be the design

of Andrea del Sarto, but the execution is by her; and likewise an

Epiphany, entirely her own, in which the landscape would do honour to

the modern, but the figures savour of the old school.

Andrea Vannucchi, called Andrea del Sarto, from the occupation of his

father, is commended by Vasari as the first artist of this school, "for

being the most faultless painter of the Florentines, for perfectly

understanding the principles of chiaroscuro, for representing the

indistinctness of objects in shadow, and for painting with a sweetness

truly natural: he, moreover, taught how to give a perfect union to

frescos, and in a great measure obviated the necessity of retouching

them when dry, a circumstance which gives all his works the appearance

of having been finished in one day." He is censured by Baldinucci, as

barren in invention; and undoubtedly he wanted that elevation of

conception, which constitutes the epic in painting as well as in poetry.

Deficient in this talent, Andrea is said to have been modest, elegant,

and endued with sensibility; and it appears that he impressed this

character on nature wherever he employed his pencil. The portico of the

Nunziata, transformed by him into a gallery of inestimable value, is the

fittest place to judge of this. Those chaste outlines that procured him

the surname of _Andrea the Faultless_, those conceptions of graceful

countenances, whose smiles remind us of the simplicity and grace of

Correggio,[169] that appropriate architecture, those draperies, adapted

to every condition, and cast with ease, those popular expressions of

curiosity, of astonishment, of confidence, of compassion, and of joy,

that never transgress the bounds of decorum, which are understood at

first sight, and gently affect the mind without agitating it, are charms

that are more readily felt than expressed. He who feels what Tubules is

in poetry, may conceive what Andrea is in painting.

This artist demonstrates the ascendancy of native genius over precept.

When a boy he was put under the tuition of Giovanni Barile, a good

carver in wood, employed on the ceilings and doors of the Vatican, after

the designs of Raffaello, but a painter of no celebrity. While still a

youth, he was consigned to Pier di Cosimo, a practical colourist, but by

no means skilled in drawing or in composition: hence the taste of Andrea

in these arts was formed on the cartoons of Vinci and Bonarruoti; and,

as many circumstances indicate, on the frescos of Masaccio and of

Ghirlandaio, in which the subjects were more suited to his mild

disposition. He went to Rome, but I know not in what year; that he was

there, appears not to me to admit of dispute, as in the case of

Correggio. I do not argue this from his style approaching near to that

of Raffaello, as it appeared also to Lomazzo and other writers, though

with less of ideal beauty. Raffaello and Andrea had studied the same

originals at Florence; and nature might have given them corresponding

ideas for the selection of the beautiful. I ground my opinion entirely

on Vasari. He informs us, that Andrea was at Rome, that seeing the works

of the scholars of Raffaello, timidity induced him to despair of

equalling them, and to return speedily to Florence. If we credit so many

other stories of the pusillanimity of Andrea, why should we reject this?

or what faith shall we give to Vasari, if he was erroneous in a

circumstance relating to one who was his master, and which was written

in Florence soon after the death of Andrea, while his scholars, his

friends, and even his wife, were still living, an assertion, too,

uncontradicted in the second edition, in which Vasari retracted so much

of what he had affirmed in the first?

His improvement and his progress from one perfection in art to another

was thus not sudden, as has happened to some other artists; but was

gradually acquired during many years residence at Florence. There, "by

reflecting on what he had seen, he attained such eminence that his works

have been esteemed, and admired, and even more imitated after his death,

than in his lifetime:" so says the historian. This implies that he

improved at Rome; chiefly, however, by his own genius, which led him, as

it were, by the hand, from one step to another, as may be observed in

the Compagnia dello Scalzo, and in the convent of the Servi, where some

of his pictures, executed at different periods, are to be seen. At the

Scalzo, he painted some stories from the life of S. John in chiaroscuro,

the cartoons for which are in the Rinuccini palace: in this work we may

notice some palpable imitations, and even some figures borrowed from

Albert Durer. We may trace his early style in the Baptism of Christ; his

subsequent progress, in some other pictures, as in the Visitation,

painted some years after; and his greatest excellence and broadest

manner in others, especially in the Birth of the Baptist. In like

manner, the pictures from the life of S. Filippo Benizi, in the lesser

cloister of the Servi, are very beautiful productions, though they are

among the first efforts of Andrea's genius. The Epiphany of our Saviour,

and the Birth of the Virgin in the same place, are more finished works;

but his finest piece is that Holy Family in Repose, which is usually

called _Madonna del Sacco_, from the sack of grain on which S. Joseph

leans, than which few pictures are more celebrated in the history of the

art. It has frequently been engraved; but after two centuries and a

half, it has at length employed an engraver worthy of it in Morghen, who

has recently executed it, and also a similar composition after

Raffaello. Both prints are in the best collections; and to those who

have not seen either Rome or Florence, Andrea appears rather a rival

than an inferior to the prince of painters. On examining this picture

narrowly, it affords endless scope for observation: it is finished as if

intended for a cabinet; every hair is distinguished, every middle tint

is lowered with consummate art, every outline marked with admirable

variety and grace: and amid all this diligence a facility is

conspicuous, that makes the whole appear natural and unconstrained.

In the ducal palace at Poggio a Caiano, there is a fresco picture of

Caesar, seated in a hall, ornamented with statues, on a lofty seat, to

whom a great variety of exotic birds and wild animals are presented as

the tribute of his victories; a work of itself sufficient to mark Andrea

as a painter eminent in perspective, in a knowledge of the antique, and

in every excellence of painting. The order for ornamenting that palace

came from Leo X.; and Andrea, who had there to contend with Franciabigio

and Pontormo, exerted all his energy to please that encourager of art,

and to surpass his competitors. The other artists seem to have been

discouraged, and did not proceed: some years after Alessandro Allori put

a finishing hand to the hall. The royal palace possesses a treasure in

the oil pictures of Andrea. Independent of the S. Francis, the

Assumption, and other pictures, collected by the family of the Medici,

the Grand Duke Leopold purchased a very fine _Pieta_ from the nuns of

Lugo, and placed it in the Tribune as an honour to the school. The

introduction of S. Peter and S. Paul in that piece, contrary to

historical facts, is not the error of the painter who represented them

so admirably, but of those who commissioned the picture. Critics have

remarked a slight defect in the dead Christ, which they think sustains

itself more, and has a greater fulness of the veins, than is suitable to

a dead body: but this is immaterial in a picture the other parts of

which are designed, coloured, and composed, so as to excite

astonishment. A Last Supper, if it were not confined to the cloisters of

the monastery of S. Salvi, would, perhaps, be equally admired. The

soldiers who besieged Florence in 1529, and destroyed the suburbs of the

city, undoubtedly admired it: after demolishing the belfry, the church,

and part of the monastery, they were astonished on beholding this Last

Supper, and had not resolution to destroy it; imitating that Demetrius

who, at the siege of Rhodes, is said to have respected nothing but a

picture by Protegenes.[170]

Andrea painted a great deal; and on this account is well known beyond

the limits of his own country. Perhaps his best performance in the hands

of strangers is a picture translated to a palace in Genoa from the

church of the Domenicans of Sarzana, who possess several others, very

beautiful. It is composed in the manner of F. Bartolommeo; and besides

the Saints distributed around the Virgin, or on the steps, four of whom

are standing and two on their knees, there are two large figures in the

foreground that seem to start from the lower part of the picture, and

are seen as high as the knee. I am aware that this disposition of the

figures displeases the critics; yet it gives variety in the position of

so many figures, and introduces a great distance between the nearest and

most remote, by which the space seems augmented, and every figure

produces effect. The best collections are not deficient in his Holy

Families. The Marquis Rinuccini, at Florence, possesses two; and some of

the illustrious Romans have even a greater number; but all different,

except that the features of the Virgin, which Andrea usually copied from

his wife, have always some resemblance. Many others may be seen in Rome

and in Florence, and not a few in Lombardy, besides those noticed in the

catalogues of foreign nations.

So much genius merited success: and yet if one was to write a book on

the misfortunes of painters, as has already been done on those of

authors, nothing would awaken more compassion than the lot of Andrea.

The poverty of Correggio is exaggerated, or perhaps untrue; the misery

of Domenichino had a termination; the Caracci were ill rewarded, but

lived in easy circumstances. Andrea, from his marriage with Lucrezia del

Fede until his death, was almost always pressed with griefs. In his

first edition, Vasari says, that he was despised by his friends, and

abandoned by his employers, from the time of his marriage with this

woman; that, the slave of her will, he left his father and mother to

starve; that through her arrogance and violence none of the scholars of

Andrea could continue long with him; and this must have happened to

Vasari himself. In the second edition he omitted this censure, either

because he repented of it, or was appeased; but did not, however,

conceal that she was a perpetual source of misfortune to her husband. He

there repeated that Andrea was invited to the French court by Francis I.

where, caressed and rewarded, he might have excited the envy of every

artist; but influenced by the womanish complaints of Lucrezia, he

returned to Florence; and remained in his own country, in violation of

his faith solemnly pledged to that monarch. He afterwards repented and

was anxious to regain his former situation; but his efforts were

ineffectual. He dragged out a miserable existence, amid jealousy and

domestic wretchedness, until, infected with the plague, and abandoned by

his wife and every other individual, he died, in 1530, in the

forty-second year of his age, and had a very mean funeral.

The two who approximated most nearly to the style of Andrea were Marco

Antonio Francia Bigi, as he is named by Baldinucci, called also

Franciabigio, or Francia, as Vasari denominates him, and Pontormo.

Francia was the scholar of Albertinelli for a few months, and then

appears to have formed himself on the best models of the school; and few

are commended so highly by Vasari for a knowledge of anatomy, for

perspective, for the daily habit of drawing the naked figure, and the

exquisite finish of all his performances. One of his Annunciations was

formerly in S. Pier Maggiore; the figures were small and highly

finished, accompanied by good architecture, but not without a certain

degree of dryness. Andrea, his friend, and the associate of his studies,

helped him to a more elevated style. From a companion Francia became his

enthusiastic follower; but, inferior in talents, he never attained the

art of representing such sweetness of disposition, affection so true,

and grace so natural. A semicircular piece of his, representing the

Marriage of the Virgin, may be seen near the works of Andrea, in the

cloister of the Nunziata, where we recognize him as a painter who sought

to attain by labour what the other accomplished by genius. This work was

never completed. Some of the monks having uncovered it before it was

finished, the artist was so offended that he struck the work some blows

with a hammer, in order to deface it; and though they prevented his

accomplishing this, he never after could be prevailed on to complete it,

and no other dared to undertake the task. He was a competitor with

Andrea also in the Scalzo, where he executed two histories that are not

much eclipsed by the pictures in their vicinity. He imitated his friend

likewise at Poggio a Caiano, in a picture of the return of Cicero from

exile: a work of merit, though never finished. It is the great glory of

his pencil, that it was so often employed in contending with Andrea, in

whom it awakened emulation and industry, from the fear of being

surpassed.

Jacopo Carrucci, called Pontormo, from the place of his nativity, was a

man of rare genius, whose early productions obtained the admiration of

Raffaello and Michelangiolo. He got a few lessons from Vinci, and was

afterwards under the care of Albertinelli, and Pier di Cosimo, but he

finally became the pupil of Andrea. He excited the jealousy of this

master, was induced by unhandsome treatment to withdraw from his school,

and afterwards became not only the imitator of Andrea, but his rival in

many undertakings. The Visitation in the cloister of the Servi, the

picture of several saints at S. Michelino, the two pictures of the

History of Joseph, represented in minute figures, in an apartment of the

ducal gallery, shew that he trod without difficulty in the footsteps of

his master, and that congeniality of talent led him into a similar path.

I use the term similar; for he is not a copyist, like those who borrow

heads or whole figures, but invariably retains a peculiar originality. I

saw one of his Holy Families in the possession of the Marquis Cerbone

Pucci, along with others by Baccio, by Rosso, and Andrea: the picture by

Pontormo vied with them all; but yet was sufficiently characteristic.

He had a certain singularity of disposition, and readily abandoned one

style to try a better; but he was often unsuccessful; as likewise

happened to Nappi, of Milan; to Sacchi, of Rome; and to every other

artist who has made this attempt, at an age too far advanced for a

change of manner. The Carthusian Monastery at Florence has some of his

works, from which connoisseurs have inferred the three styles attributed

to him. The first is correct in design, vigorous in colouring, and

approaches the manner of Andrea. In the second the drawing is good, but

the colouring somewhat languid; and this style became the model for

Bronzino and the artists of the succeeding epoch. The third is a close

imitation of Albert Durer, not only in the composition but in the heads

and draperies; a manner certainly unworthy of so promising an outset. It

is difficult to find specimens of Pontormo in this style, except some

histories of the Passion, which he servilely copied from the prints of

Albert Durer, for the cloister of that monastery, where he trifled away

several years. We might perhaps notice a fourth manner, if the Deluge

and Last Judgment, on which he spent eleven years at S. Lorenzo, had

still existed: but this his last performance, with the tacit consent of

every artist, was whitewashed. Here he attempted to imitate

Michelangiolo, and like him to afford a model of the anatomical style,

which at this time began to be extolled at Florence above every other:

but he taught us a different lesson, and only succeeded in demonstrating

that an old man ought not to become the votary of fashion.

Andrea pursued the custom of Raffaello and other artists of that age, in

conducting his works with the assistance of painters experienced in his

style, whether they were friends or scholars; a remark not useless to

those who may trace in his pictures the labours of another pencil. It is

known that he gave Pontormo some pieces to finish, and that he retained

one Jacone, and a Domenico Puligo; two individuals who possessed a

natural turn for painting, ready and willing to try every species of

imitation, and more desirous of recreation than of fame. The facade of

the Buondelmonte Palace, at S. Trinita, by the former, was highly

extolled. It was in chiaroscuro; the drawing, in which department he

excelled, was very beautiful, and the whole conducted in the manner of

Andrea. He also executed some oil pictures at Cortona, which are much

commended by Vasari. Domenico Puligo was less skilled in design than in

colouring: his tints were sweet, harmonious, and clear, but he

apparently aimed at covering the outline, to relieve him from the

necessity of perfect accuracy. By this mark he is sometimes recognized

in Madonnas and in cabinet pictures, (his usual occupation) which having

been perhaps designed by Andrea, at first sight pass for the work of

that master. Domenico Conti was likewise very intimate with Andrea, was

his scholar and the heir to his drawings; and that great artist was

honoured with a tomb and epitaph designed by Conti, in the vicinity of

his own immortal works in the Nunziata. Excepting this circumstance,

Vasari notices nothing praiseworthy in Conti, and therefore I shall take

no more notice of him. He gives a more favourable opinion of

Pierfrancesco di Jacopo di Sandro, on account of his three pictures in

the church of S. Spirito. He makes honourable mention of two other

artists, who lived long in France, viz. Nannoccio and Andrea Squazzella,

who always retained a similarity to the style of Andrea del Sarto. It is

not our present business to notice those who abandoned it; for in this

work it is my wish to keep sight rather of the different styles than of

the masters.

The fine copies that so often pass for originals, in Florence and other

places, are chiefly the work of the above mentioned artists; nor does it

seem credible that Andrea copied so closely his own inventions, and

reduced them with his own hand from the great scale to small dimensions.

I have seen one of his Holy Families, in which S. Elizabeth appears, in

ten or twelve collections; and other pictures in three or four private

houses. I found the S. Lorenzo surrounded by other saints, at the Pitti

Palace, in the Albani gallery; the Visitation, in the Giustiniani

palace; the Birth of our Lady, in the convent of the Servi, in the

possession of Sig. Pirri, at Rome: all these are beautiful little

pictures, all on small panels, all of the old school, and all believed

the work of Andrea. It seems to me not improbable that the best of these

were at least painted in his studio, and retouched by him, a practice

adopted by Tiziano, and even by Raffaello.

Rosso, who contended in the cloisters of the Nunziata, with the best

masters, and who appears in his Assumption to have aimed at a work not

so much superior in beauty as in size to the productions of the other

artists, is among the greatest painters of his school. Endowed with a

creative fancy, he disdained to follow any of his countrymen or

strangers; and indeed one recognizes much originality in his style: his

heads are more spirited, his head dresses and ornaments are more

tasteful, his colouring more lively, his distribution of light and shade

broader, and his pencilling more firm and free, than had been hitherto

seen in Florence. He appears in short to have introduced into that

school a peculiar spirit, that would have been unexceptionable, had it

not been mingled with something of extravagance. Thus, in the

Transfiguration at Citta di Castello, instead of the Apostles he

introduced a band of gypsies at the bottom of the picture. His picture

in the Pitti palace, however, is far removed from any such fault. It

exhibits various saints, grouped in so excellent a manner, that the

chiaroscuro of one figure contributes to the relief of another; and it

has such beautiful contrasts of colour and of light, such energy of

drawing and of attitude, that it arrests attention by its originality.

He likewise painted for the State: an unfinished Descent from the Cross

may be seen in the oratory of S. Carlo, in Volterra; and another in the

church of S. Chiara at Citta S. Sepolcro; in the cathedral of which

there are many old pictures. Its great merit consists in the principal

group, and that twilight, or almost nocturnal tint, that gives a tone to

the whole piece, sombre, true, and worthy of any Flemish artist. The

works of this painter are very scarce in Italy; for he went to France

into the employment of Francis I. during his best time, and

superintended the ornamental painting and plaster work then going on at

Fontainebleau. Whilst engaged in this work, he unhappily put an end to

his existence by poison; and in the enlargement of the building many of

his works were defaced by Primaticcio, who was a rival, but not a

follower, as is pretended by Cellini.[171] Thirteen pictures, dedicated

to the fame and actions of Francis I. have escaped, and are described by

Abbe Guget, in his Memoir on the Royal Academy of France.[172] Among

these is the remarkable one of Ignorance Banished by that monarch; a

picture that has been three different times engraved. He was assisted in

those works by several artists, amongst whom were three Florentine

painters, Domenico del Barbieri, Bartolommeo Miniati, and Luca Penni,

the brother of that Gianfrancesco, called Il Fattore in the school of

Raffaello.

Ridolfo di Domenico Ghirlandaio lost his father in his infancy; but was

so well initiated in the art, first by his paternal uncle Davide, and

afterwards by Frate, that when Raffaello d'Urbino came to Florence, he

became his admirer and his friend. On his departure from that city he

left with him a Madonna, intended for Siena, that it might be completed

by him; and having soon after gone to Rome, he invited him to assist in

the decorations of the Vatican. Ridolfo declined this, unfortunately for

his own name, which might thus have rivalled that of Giulio Romano. He

undoubtedly possessed a facility, elegance, and vivacity of manner, to

enable him to follow closely the style of his friend. That he was

ambitious of imitating him, may be inferred from the pictures in his

early manner, preserved in the church of S. Jacopo di Ripoli, and S.

Girolamo, that bear some resemblance to the manner of Perugino, like the

early productions of Raffaello. His taste is displayed to more advantage

in two pictures, filled with many moderate sized figures, which were

transferred from the Academy of Design to the Royal Gallery. They

represent two stories of S. Zenobi, and perhaps approach nearer to the

two pictures by Pinturicchio, in the cathedral of Siena, that were

painted under the direction, and partly by the assistance of Raffaello,

than to any other model; with this exception, that they retain more

traces of the old school. We may remark, in the pictures of Ridolfo,

some figures strikingly like those of Raffaello; and in the whole there

appears a composition, an expression, and skill in improving nature to

the standard of ideal beauty, apparently proceeding from principles

conformable to the maxims of that great master. That he did not

afterwards perfect them, is to be attributed to his not having seen the

best productions of his friend, and to his study of the art having been

retarded by his commercial pursuits.

On modernizing his manner, and by this means obtaining reputation, he

aimed at nothing further; and continued to study painting rather as an

amusement, than as a profession. He assembled round him artists of every

description, and disdained not to impart advice to painters of ensigns,

of furniture, or of scenes; still less to those who executed pictures

for cabinets or churches. Many such who flourished about the middle of

the sixteenth century, are mentioned in history either as his pupils, or

his companions. The following is a brief catalogue of them. Michele di

Ridolfo assumed his name; because, on passing from the schools of Credi

and Sogliani into that of Ridolfo, he was treated not so much as a

companion as a son, till the death of Ghirlandaio. They painted many

pictures conjointly, which always pass under their name; and of this

number is the S. Anne of Citta di Castello; an exquisite picture, both

for elegance of design, and a peculiar fulness of colouring. Michele was

particularly eminent in this department, which he diligently studied in

his own works, and employed in his fresco pictures over several of the

gates of the city; and he was selected by Vasari as the companion of his

labours. Mariano da Pescia must have been much esteemed by Ridolfo; for

when this master painted the frescos in the State Chapel of the Old

Palace, a work which gained him high honour, he wished the smaller

pieces to be painted by Mariano. There is a Holy Family in that place,

in a firm but agreeable style: it is the only remaining production of

this artist, who died young. He was of the Gratiadei family; a piece of

information for which, with various others, I am indebted to the

politeness of his fellow citizen Sig. Innocenzio Ansaldi, an able

writer, both in poetry and prose, in whatever relates to the art. Carlo

Portelli da Loro in Valdarno, proceeded from the same school. He painted

much in the City, and sometimes with little harmony: yet the testimony

of Vasari, and the picture of S. Romulus, which remains at the Santa,

demonstrate his ability as an artist. Of Antonio del Ceraiuolo, little

remains to commemorate the painter but the name. Mirabello da

Salincorno, who was employed on the funeral obsequies of Bonarruoti,

devoted himself to cabinet pictures; and an Annunciation, with his name,

and the date of 1565, is said to be in the hands of the Baldovinetti

family. It would be tiresome to follow Vasari, who, in several passages

of his history, mentions artists now sunk into oblivion, that might have

found a place here. I close the list with two illustrious names, Perino

del Vaga, already noticed, but afterwards to be more frequently

mentioned; and Toto del Nunziata, reckoned by the English the best of

the Italian artists, who, in that century visited their island; though

almost unknown among us.[173] He was the son of an obscure artist, but

obtained celebrity; and Perino himself had not a more formidable rival

in the school of Ridolfo.

This glorious epoch was not deficient in good landscape painters;

although the art of landscape painting without figures was not yet in

great repute. Vasari highly praises in this line one Antonio di Donnino

Mazzieri, a scholar of Franciabigio, a bold designer, and a man of great

invention in representing horses, and in landscape.

The grotesque came into fashion through the efforts of Morto da Feltro,

and Giovanni da Udine. Both artists were settled at Florence, and there

painted; especially the second, who decorated the palace of the Medicean

family, and the chapel in the church of S. Lorenzo. Andrea, called di

Cosimo, because he was the scholar of Rosselli, learnt this art from

Morto,[174] and he obtained the surname of Feltrini, or perhaps

Feltrino, from his best known master. He exercised the invention not

only on walls but on furniture, on banners and festive decorations:

abounding in fancy, he was the leader of a taste originating with him,

and much imitated in Florence. His ornaments were more copious and rich

than those of the ancients; were united in a different manner, and his

figures were admirably adapted to them. Mariotto and Raffaello Mettidoro

were his associates; but no artist was more employed than he in

designing foliage for brocades on cloth, or in ornamental painting. Pier

di Cosimo, and Bachiacca, or Bachicca, were very eminent in the

grotesque; of whom, with others who began the study about the end of the

first Epoch, I have already treated, among the old masters: but none of

them modernized more than the latter, who was usually employed on small

subjects, particularly on the furniture of private houses, and on small

pictures, many of which were sent to England. About the time of his

decease he was employed by the Duke Cosmo. He drew most elegant small

historical designs for tapestry and beds, which were executed by his

brother Antonio, an embroiderer whom Varchi commends; and by Gio. Rossi,

and Niccolo Fiamminghi, who introduced the art of tapestry weaving into

Florence.[175] His best work was a cabinet, which he ornamented

divinely, says Vasari, with flowers and birds in oil colours.

Perspective was not cultivated in Italy during the 15th century, except

so far as subservient to historical painting, and in this department the

Venetian and Lombard masters were no less eminent than those of Florence

or of Rome. After this period, artists began to represent arches,

colonnades, porticos, and every other kind of architecture, in pictures

appropriated to such subjects, to the great ornament of the theatres,

and of religious and convivial festivities. One of the first who devoted

himself to this study was Bastiano di Sangallo, the nephew of Giuliano,

and of Antonio, and the brother of another Antonio, all of whom were

eminent in architecture. He got the surname of Aristotile, from his

disquisitions on anatomy, or on perspective, accompanied by a certain

philosophic authority and ingenuity. He acquired the principles of his

art from Pietro Perugino, but he soon abandoned his school, to adopt a

more modern style. He exercised himself for several years in painting

figures; he copied some subjects after his friends Michelangiolo and

Raffaello; and aided by the advice of Andrea and Ridolfo, he produced

not a few Madonnas and other pictures of his own composition: but not

possessing invention in an eminent degree he latterly dedicated his

attention wholly to perspective, in which he was initiated by Bramante;

and exercised it during this epoch, when Florence abounded with grand

funeral obsequies, and public festivities. Of these, the most memorable

were those instituted on the election of Leo X. in 1513, and on his

visit to Florence in 1515. He had in his train Michelangiolo, Raffaello,

and other professors of the art, to deliberate concerning the facade of

the church of S. Lorenzo, and other works which he meditated. His court

added pomp to every spectacle; and Florence became, as it were, a new

city. Arches were erected in the streets by Granacci and Rosso; temples

or new facades were designed by Antonio da San Gallo, and Jacopo

Sansovino; chiaroscuros were prepared by Andrea del Sarto; grotesques by

Feltrino; basso-relievos, statues, and colossal figures, by Sansovino

above mentioned, by Rustici, and Bandinelli; Ghirlandaio, Pontormo,

Franciabigio, and Ubertini, adorned with exquisite taste the residence

of the pontiff. I say nothing of the meaner artists, although in another

age even these would not have been classed with the vulgar herd, but

have obtained distinction: I shall content myself with observing that

this emulation of genius, this display of the fine arts, in short this

auspicious period, sufficed to confer on Florence the lasting

appellation of another Athens; on Leo the name of another Pericles or

Augustus.

Spectacles of this sort became afterwards more common to the citizens;

for the Medici, on commencing their domination over a people whom they

feared, affected popularity, like the Roman Caesars, by promoting public

hilarity. Hence, not only on extraordinary occasions, such as the

elevation of Clement VII. to the papal chair, of Alexander, and of Cosmo

to the chief magistracy of their country, on the marriage of the latter,

on that of Giuliano and of Lorenzo de' Medici, and on the arrival of

Charles V.; not only on such occasions, but frequently at other times,

they instituted tournaments, masquerades, and representations, of which

the decorations were magnificent, such as cars, robes, and scenery. In

this improved state of every thing conducive to exquisite embellishment,

industry became excited, and the number of painters and ornamental

artists increased. Aristotile, to return to him, was always much

employed; his perspectives were in great request in public places; his

scenes in the theatre: the populace, unaccustomed to those ocular

deceptions, were astonished; and it seemed to them as if they could

ascend the steps, enter the edifices, and approach the balconies and

windows in the pictures. The long life of Aristotile, coeval with the

best epoch of painting, permitted him to serve the ruling family and his

country, until his old age, when Salviati and Bronzino began to be

preferred to him. He died in 1551.

While the city of Florence acquired so much glory by the genius of her

artists, the other parts of the state afforded materials for future

history, chiefly through the assistance of the Roman school. This

happened more especially after 1527, when the sack of Rome dispersed the

school of Raffaello and its young branches. Giulio Romano trained

Benedetto Pagni at Pescia, who ought to be noticed among the assistants

of his master at Mantua. If we credit some late writers, his native

place possesses many of his works: but I acquiesce in the opinion of

Sig. Ansaldi, in refusing to admit any of them as genuine, except the

facade of the habitation of the Pagni family, now injured by time, and

the picture of the Marriage of Cana in the Collegiate church, which is

not his best production. Pistoia is indebted to Gio. Francesco Penni, or

perhaps to Fattore, for a respectable scholar: this was Lionardo, an

artist much employed in Naples and in Rome, where he was named Il

Pistoia. I find him surnamed Malatesta by some, Guelfo by others; but I

suspect that his true family name is to be collected from an inscription

on an Annunciation in the little chapel of the canons of Lucca, which

runs thus, _Leonardus Gratia Pistoriensis_. I am indebted to Sig. T. F.

Bernardi above mentioned for this fact: and the picture is worthy of a

descendant of Raffaello. I do not know that there is a single trace of

Lionardo remaining in his native place: at the village of Guidi, in the

diocese of Pistoia, one of his pictures is to be seen in the church of

S. Peter, where the titular, and three other saints, stand around the

throne of the Virgin.[176] Sebastiano Vini came from Verona, in I know

not what year of the 16th century, and was enrolled among the citizens

of Pistoia. His reputation and his pictures did honour to the country

that adopted him. He left many works both in oil and fresco; but his

most extraordinary production was in the suppressed church of S.

Desiderio. The facade over the great altar was storied with the

crucifixion of the ten thousand martyrs, a work abounding in figures and

invention. I have noticed the younger Zacchia of Lucca, who belongs to

this epoch, in the preceding one, that I might not separate the father

and the son. I am unable to find any other artists sufficiently worthy

of record in this district of Tuscany.

On the opposite side of it we may turn our eyes to Cortona, and notice

two good artists. The one was Francesco Signorelli, the nephew of Luca,

who, though unnoticed by Vasari, shows himself a painter worthy of

praise, by a circular picture of the patron saints of the city, which

was executed for the council hall, in 1320; after which period he lived

at least forty years. The other was Tommaso Paparello, or Papacello,

both which names are given him by Vasari, when writing of his two

masters, Caporali and Giulio Romano. He assisted them both, but I can

discover no trace of any work wholly his own.

Borgo, afterwards named Citta San Sepolcro, could then boast its

Raffaello, commonly called Raffaellino dal Colle, born at a small place

a few miles from Borgo. He is reckoned among the disciples of Raffaello;

but rather belongs to the school of Giulio, whose pupil, dependant, or

assistant in his labours at Rome, and in the _Te_ at Mantua, he is

considered by Vasari. It is singular that he did not write a separate

life of this artist; but assigns him scanty praise in a few scattered

anecdotes. His merit is but little known to the public, as he painted

for the most part in his native place, or the neighbouring cities; and I

am able to add to the catalogue of his pictures from having seen them.

He has two pictures at Citta San Sepolcro, his only works specified by

Vasari. One represents the resurrection of our Saviour, who, full of

majesty, regards the soldiers around the sepulchre with an air of

displeasure, which fills them with terror. This very spirited picture is

in the Church of S. Rocco, and is repeated in the cathedral. The other,

which is in the Osservanti of S. Francis, represents the Assumption of

the Virgin; a piece agreeable both in colouring and design, but its

value is diminished by a figure I am unable to explain, drawn at one

side of it by another hand. The same subject is treated in the church of

the Conventual friars, at Citta di Castello, where great beauty is

joined to the highest possible finish, but it loses something of its

effect by standing opposite to a fine picture by Vasari, which throws it

strongly into the shade. An entombing of Christ by Raffaellino, is in

the Servi; a very beautiful picture, but the colouring is less firm; and

there is another of his works at S. Angelo with S. Michael, and S.

Sebastian, who humbly presents an arrow, a type of his martyrdom, to the

infant Jesus and the Virgin. In this the composition is simple but

graceful in every part. A picture of our Lady, with S. Sebastian, S.

Rocco, and a canonized bishop, painted in a similar style, is to be seen

in the church of S. Francis of Cagli; in it the figures and the

landscape much resemble the manner of Raffaello. His Apostles in the

sacristy of the cathedral of Urbino are noble figures, draped in a grand

style, in small oblong pictures, firmly coloured. The Olivet monks of

Gubbio have in one of their chapels a Nativity by Raffaellino, and two

pieces from the history of S. Benedict, painted in fresco, in which he

was, I believe, assisted by his scholars. The former is certainly

superior to the two last, although he has introduced in them real

portraits, finely conceived architecture, and added a figure of Virtue

in the upper part, that seems a sister of the Sybils of Raffaello. He

also painted, in the castle of Perugia, and in the _Imperiale_ of

Pesaro, a villa of the duke of Urbino, to whom he afforded more

satisfaction than the two Dossi. After having assisted Raffaello and

Giulio, he disdained not to paint after the designs of less eminent

artists. On the arrival of Charles V. at Florence, in 1536, he assisted

Vasari, who was one of the decorators; and he painted cartoons after the

designs of Bronzino, for the tapestry of Cosmo I.; after which period I

do not find him mentioned. Another instance of his diffidence is the

following: on the arrival of Rosso at San Sepolcro, Raffaellino, out of

respect to that artist, gave up to him an order for a picture which he

was to have executed; a rare instance among painters, who are in the

habit of using kindly those artists only, who come merely to see a city,

and immediately leave it. He kept a school at San Sepolcro, whence

proceeded Gherardi, Vecchi, and other artists, some of whom, perhaps,

surpassed him in genius; but they did not equal him in grace, nor in

high finish.

About this time many artists flourished in Arezzo, but of these two only

are praised by Vasari, who is not sparing in his commendations of the

Florentines, as I have remarked, but deals them scantily to his own

townsmen. Giovanni Antonio, the son of Matteo Lappoli, was the scholar

of Pontormo, and the friend of Perino and of Rosso, with whom he lived

in Tuscany, and whose style he emulated in Rome. He was more employed in

painting for private houses than for churches. Guglielmo, surnamed Da

Marcilla, by Vasari, a foreigner by birth, became a citizen of Arezzo

from inclination and long residence; he was dear to the citizens, who

afforded him the means of enjoying life, and grateful to the city, where

he left most beautiful monuments of his genius. He had been a Dominican

in his own country; he became a secular priest on arriving in Italy, and

at Arezzo he was called the Prior. He was an excellent painter on glass,

and on this account, was brought to Rome by one Claude, a Frenchman, to

execute windows for Julius II.; but he also employed himself in fresco.

He studied design in Italy, and so improved in that art, that his works

at Rome seem designs of the fourteenth century, while the Aretine ones

appear the work of a modern. He painted some ceilings and arches in the

cathedral, with scriptural subjects in fresco. In design he followed

Michelangiolo, as nearly as he could; but his colouring was not firm.

His paintings on glass are quite in a different style; there, to very

good drawing, and uncommon expression, he joined tints that partake of

the emerald, the ruby, and of oriental sapphire, and which, when

illuminated by the sun, exhibit all the brilliance of the rainbow. In

Arezzo, there are so many windows of this glass at the cathedral, at S.

Francis, and at many other churches, that they might excite the envy of

much larger cities. They are so finely wrought with subjects from the

New Testament, and other scriptural histories, that they seem to have

reached the perfection of the art. The Vocation of S. Matthew, in a

window of the cathedral, is highly praised by Vasari; it exhibits

"perspectives of temples and flights of steps, figures so finely

composed, landscapes so well executed, that one can hardly imagine they

were glass, but something sent down from Heaven for the delight of

mankind."

This place and period remind me, that before I pass on to another epoch,

I ought to say a few words concerning the invention of painting on

glass, which was anciently likewise styled Mosaic, because it was

composed of pieces of different coloured glass, connected by lead, which

represented the shadows. We may observe glass windows that emulate well

composed pictures on canvass or on panel; and this art is treated of by

Vasari in the thirty-second chapter of the introduction to his work.

From the preface to the treatise _De omni scientia artis pingendi_, by

Theophilus the Monk, I find that France was celebrated for this art

beyond any other country;[177] and there the art seems to have been

invariably cultivated, and brought by degrees to perfection. From the

earliest ages of the revival of painting, the Italians wrought windows

with different coloured glasses, as is remarked by P. Angeli in his

description of the churches of Assisi, where the most ancient specimens

are to be seen. In the church likewise of the Franciscan friars at

Venice, we find that one _Frater Theotonius_, a German, worked in

tapestry and glass windows, and was imitated by one Marco, a painter,

who lived in the year 1335.[178] It may also be observed, that such

windows over the altars supplied the place of sacred paintings in

churches; Christian congregations, in lifting up their eyes, there

sought the resemblance of what "they hoped some time to behold in the

celestial paradise: che ancor lassu nel ciel vedere spera," and they

often addressed their supplications to those images. In the fifteenth

century Lorenzo Ghiberti, a man eminent in various arts, still further

improved this, and ornamented the oval windows of the facade of the

church of S. Francis, and of the cathedral of Florence with coloured

glass. In a similar manner he finished all the oval apertures in the

cupola of the cathedral, except that of the Assumption, executed by

Donatello. The glass was manufactured at Florence, for which purpose one

Domenico Livi, a native of Gambassi, in the principality of Volterra,

who had learnt and practised the art at Lubec, was invited to that

place, as is proved by Baldinucci in his correction of Vasari.[179] From

this school apparently came Goro, and Bernardo di Francesco, with that

train of Ingesuati, whose workmanship, exhibited at S. Lorenzo and

elsewhere, has been much commended by the Florentine historians. (See

Moreni, part vi. p. 41.) This art afterwards flourished at Arezzo, where

it was introduced by Parri Spinelli, a scholar of Ghiberti. About the

same time flourished in Perugia P. D. Francesco, a monk of Cassino, not

merely a painter in glass, but a master in that city; and some

conjecture that Vannucci profited by his school, though a comparison of

dates does not much favour such a supposition. This art also flourished

in Venice, about 1473, where one window was executed after the design of

Bartolommeo Vivarini, in the church of S. John and S. Paul, and another

was erected at Murano; but the art of painting glass could not be

unknown at this last place, where it originated.

It is true, that in process of time the Florentine and Venetian glass

appeared to be not sufficiently transparent for such purposes; and that

a preference was given to that of France and of England, the clearness

and transparency of which was better adapted for receiving the colours,

without too much obscuring the light. It had this other advantage, that

the colours were burnt in the glass, in the manner described by Vasari,

instead of being laid on with gums or other vehicles; hence they had

greater brilliancy, and were more capable of resisting the injuries of

time. This was a Flemish, or rather a French invention, and the Italians

unquestionably received it from France. Bramante invited from that

country the two artists above mentioned, who, besides the windows of the

Vatican palace, that were wrought with colours burnt into the glass, and

destroyed in the sack of Rome, in the time of Clement VII. ornamented

two in the church of S. Maria del Popolo, with those scriptural

histories that yet remain perfectly brilliant in colour, after the lapse

of three centuries. Soon after this Claude died at Rome. William

survived him many years, and from that time continued to reside in

Arezzo. He there was engaged in the service of the capital, where one of

his painted glass windows is preserved in the Capponi chapel, at the

church of S. Felicita; and he taught the art to Pastorino of Siena, who

exercised it very skilfully in the state saloon of the Vatican, after

the designs of Vaga, and in the cathedral of Siena. This artist is

reckoned the best scholar of his master. Maso Porro, Michelagnolo

Urbani, both natives of Cortona, and Batista Borro of Arezzo, were

trained in the same school, and were afterwards employed in Tuscany and

elsewhere. In ornamenting the old palace, Vasari availed himself of the

assistance of two Flemish artists, Walter and George, who wrought after

his designs. Celebrated equal to any artist is Valerio Profondavalle of

Louvain, who settled at Milan after the middle of the sixteenth century,

a man of fertile invention, and a pleasing colourist in fresco painting,

but chiefly eminent in painting on glass, as we are informed by Lomazzo.

Orlandi celebrates Gerardo Ornerio Frisio, and his windows executed

about 1575, in the church of S. Peter at Bologna. This art afterwards

declined, when custom, the arbiter of arts, by excluding it from palaces

and churches, caused it gradually to be forgotten.

Another method of painting on glass, or rather on crystal, was much in

fashion in the last century, and was employed for ornamenting mirrors,

caskets, and other furniture of the chambers of the great. Maratta and

his contemporaries on crystal for such works in the same style that they

employed in painting on canvass; and above all Giordano, who taught it

to several pupils. Among these, the best was Carlo Garofalo, who was

invited to the court of Charles II. of Spain, to practise this species

of painting,[180] the era of which does not embrace a great number of

years.

[Footnote 128: Although Vasari, Borghini, and Baldinucci, have also

treated of other schools, they have chiefly illustrated that of

Florence, with which they were best acquainted. To them succeeded the

respectable authors of the _Florentine Museum_, and of the _Series of

the most celebrated Painters_, containing choice anecdotes of those

masters, which are now republished, and accompanied by a print from the

work of each painter, in the _Etruria Pittrice_ of the learned Sig. Ab.

Lastri. Other anecdotes are to be found in the work of P. Richa _On the

Churches of Florence_, and in Sig. Cambiagi's _Guide_ to that City. Pisa

too, has its _Guide_ by the Cav. Titi; to which has succeeded the much

larger work of Sig. da Morrona, above noticed. Siena has one by Sig.

Pecci, Volterra another by Ab. Giachi, and Pescia and Valdinievole by

the Ab. Ansaldi. Sig. Francesco Bernardi, an excellent connoisseur in

the fine arts, prepared a guide to Lucca after Marchio; it remains

inedited since his death, together with his anecdotes of the painters,

sculptors, and architects of his native country. Meanwhile the _Diario_

of Mons. Mansi affords considerable information.]

[Footnote 129: Condivi promised to publish them, but this was never

performed. See Bottari's notes on the life of Michelangiolo, p. 152, in

Florent. edit. 1772.]

[Footnote 130: See the fine eulogy on him by Sig. Durazzini, among his

Panegyrics on illustrious Tuscans, where he corrects Vasari, his

annotators and others, who have fixed the birth of Lionardo before this

year. Tom. iii. n. 25.]

[Footnote 131: See Sig. Piacenza, in his edition of Baldinucci, t. ii.

p. 252. He has dedicated a long appendix to Vinci, in which he has

collected all the anecdotes scattered through Vasari, Lomazzo, Borghini,

Mariette, and other modern authors.]

[Footnote 132: "Leonardo seems to have trembled whenever he sat down to

paint, and therefore never finished any of the pictures he began; for by

meditation on the perfection of art, he perceived faults in what to

others appeared admirable." Lomazzo, _Idea del Tempio della pittura_,

page 114.]

[Footnote 133: Both have perished, after serving as models to the best

painters of that age, and even to Andrea del Sarto. See what has been

written by Vasari, and by M. Mariette, in the long letter concerning

Vinci, which is inserted in tom. ii. of _Lett. Pittoriche_.]

[Footnote 134: It was on account of the same procrastinating disposition

that Leo X. withdrew the patronage he had conferred on him, and which he

was accustomed to bestow upon all men of genius.]

[Footnote 135: Vasari.]

[Footnote 136: Vasari, who published a life of him in 1550, and enlarged

it in another edition; and Ascanio Condivi da Ripatransone, who printed

one in 1553, ten years before the death of Bonarruoti.]

[Footnote 137: He was very partial to this poet; whose flights of fancy

he embodied in pen-drawings in a book, which, unfortunately for the art,

has perished; and to whose memory he wished to sculpture a magnificent

monument, as appears from a petition to Leo X. In it the Medicean

Academy requests the bones of the divine poet; and among the subscribers

we read the name of Michelangiolo, and also his offer. _Gori Illustraz.

alla vita del Condivi_, p. 112.]

[Footnote 138: He projected a tract on "All the movements of the human

body, on its external appearances, and on the bones, with an ingenious

theory, the fruit of his long study." Condivi, p. 117.]

[Footnote 139: "Zeuxis plus membris corporis dedit, id amplius et

augustius ratus; atque ut existimant Homerum secutus, cui validissima

quaeque forma etiam in foeminis placet." Inst. Orat. lib. xii. c. 10.]

[Footnote 140: None however of these great men presumed to despise

Michelangiolo so much, as to compare the picture of Christ, in the

Minerva, to an executioner; like the author of the _Arte di Vedere_.

Mengs, whom he rather flatters than follows, would have disdained to use

this and similar expressions; but it is the office of adulators not

merely to approve the opinion of the object flattered, but greatly to

exaggerate it. Juvenal, with his peculiar penetration into the vices of

mankind, thus describes one of the race. (See Satire iii. v. 100.)

----"rides? majore cachinno

Concutitur; flet si lacrymam conspexit amici,

Nee dolet: igniculum brumae si tempore poscas

Accipit endromidem; si dixeris: aestuo, sudat."

]

[Footnote 141: Bottari confesses "that he shews somewhat of mannerism,

but concealed with such skill that it is not perceptible;" an art which

very few of his imitators possess.]

[Footnote 142: See Winckelmann in his "Gems of Baron Stochs," where he

records and comments upon the text of the historian, p. 316.]

[Footnote 143:

"Duo Dossi e quel che a par sculpe e colora

Michel piu che mortal Angiol divino."

Orl. Fur. Cant. xxxiii. 2.

]

[Footnote 144: Raffaello came to Florence towards the end of 1504.

(_Lett. Pitt._ tom. i. p. 2.) In this year Michelangiolo was called to

Rome, and left his cartoon imperfect. Having afterwards fled from Rome,

through dread of Julius II., he completed it in three months, in the

year 1506. Compare the Brief of Julius, in which he recals Michelangiolo

(_Lett. Pitt._ tom. iii. p. 320), with the relation of Vasari (tom. vi.

Ed. Fiorent. p. 191). During the time that Michelangiolo laboured at

this work, "he was unwilling to shew it to any person (p. 182); and when

it was finished it was carried to the hall of the Pope," and was there

studied (p. 184). Raffaello had then returned to Florence, and this work

might open the way to his new style, which, as a learned Englishman

expresses it, is intermediate between that of Michelangiolo and of

Perugino.]

[Footnote 145: He chose the companions of those who had painted in the

Sistine, Jacopo di Sandro (Botticelli), Agnolo di Donnino, a great

friend of Rosselli, and the elder Indaco, a pupil of Ghirlandaio, who

were but feeble artists. Bugiardini, Gianacci and Aristotile di S.

Gallo, of whom we shall take further notice in the proper place, were

there also.]

[Footnote 146: Varchio, in his Funeral Oration, p. 15.]

[Footnote 147: _Idea del Tempio della Pittura_, p. 47. Ed. Bologn.]

[Footnote 148: Tom. vi. p. 398.]

[Footnote 149: See _Entretiens sur les Vies et sur les Ouvrages des plus

excellens Peintres_, tom. i. p. 502.]

[Footnote 150: See pp. 245, 253.]

[Footnote 151: Lett. Pitt. tom. iii. lett. 227. Rosa, Sat. iii. p. 85.]

[Footnote 152: Salvator Rosa in his third satire, p. 84, narrates the

rebuke which the Prelate gave Michelangiolo for his indecency in

painting the Saints themselves without garments.]

[Footnote 153: Microscosmo, p. 6.]

[Footnote 154: Tom. ii. p. 254.]

[Footnote 155: He is also blamed for this part of the perspective by

others. (See P. M. della Valle in the "Prosa recitata in Arcadia," 1784,

p. 260, of the Giorn. Pis. tom, liii.)]

[Footnote 156: Malv. tom. ii. p. 254.]

[Footnote 157: Vite de' Pittori, &c. p. 44.]

[Footnote 158: Dialogo sopra la Pittura.]

[Footnote 159: _Idea del Tempio della Pittura_, p. 41.]

[Footnote 160: Conca, Descriz. Odeporica della Spagna, tom. i. page 24.]

[Footnote 161: The ignorant believe that Michelangiolo "nailed a man to

a cross and left him there to expire, in order to paint from the life a

figure of our Saviour on the cross." See Dati, in his notes of the Life

of Parrhasius, who is said to have committed a similar homicide. This

story of the latter is probably a fable, and undoubtedly it is so of

Michelangiolo. The crucifixions of this artist are often repeated,

sometimes with a single figure, sometimes with our Lady and S. John; at

other times with two Angels, who collect the blood. Bottari mentions

several of these pictures in different galleries. To these we may add

the picture of the Caprara palace, and those in the possession of

Monsignor Bonfigliuoli and of Sigg. Biancani in Bologna. Sig. Co.

Chiappini of Piacenza has a very good one, and there is another in the

church of the college of Ravenna.]

[Footnote 162: A name given by the Italians to pictures of a dead Christ

on the knees of his mother.]

[Footnote 163: Bottari, in his _Notes_ to the Letter of Preziado, doubts

whether this supposed scholar of Michelangiolo be Galeazzo Alessi,

remarking at the same time that this last was rather an architect than a

painter. I am inclined to think that the Matteo in question may have

been the foregoing Matteo da _Lecce_, or da Leccio, and that owing to

one of those errors, which Clerche in his "Arte Critica," calls _ex

auditu_, his name in Spain became D'Alessi, or D'Alessio, the letters

_c_ and _s_ in many countries being made use of reciprocally. Besides,

this _Leccese_, of whom we write in the fourth volume, flourished in the

time of Vargas, went to Spain, affected the style of Michelangiolo, and

never settled himself in any place from his desire of seeing the world.

Memoirs of him appear to have been collected in Spain, by Pacheco, who

lived in 1635 (Conca, iii. 252), who in his account, at this distance of

time, must have been guided by vulgar report; a bad authority for names,

particularly those of foreigners, as was noticed in the Preface. That he

should further be called Roman instead of Italian, in a foreign country,

and that he should there adopt the name of Perez, not having assumed any

surname in Rome, can scarcely appear strange to the reader, and the more

so as he is described as an adventurer--a species of persons who subsist

upon tricks and frauds.]

[Footnote 164: Sebastiano painted it again for the Osservanti of

Viterbo; and there is a similar one described in the Carthusian

Monastery, at Naples, which is painted in oil, and is supposed to be the

work of Bonarruoti.]

[Footnote 165: Limbo, among theologians of the Roman Church, is the

place where the souls of just men, who died before the coming of our

Saviour, and of unbaptized children, are supposed to reside.]

[Footnote 166: This noble fresco was ruined during the revolutionary

tumults at Rome.--Tr.]

[Footnote 167: That Raffaello was at this time well versed in

perspective it is unreasonable to doubt, as Bottari has done: he

proceeded from the school of Perugino, who was very eminent in that

science; and he left a good specimen at Siena, where he remained some

time before he came to Florence.]

[Footnote 168: Vol. iii. p. 126.]

[Footnote 169: This is conspicuous in a S. Raffaello with Tobias, which

was transferred from the royal gallery of Florence to the imperial

gallery of Vienna.--See Rosa Scuola Italiana, p. 141.]

[Footnote 170: Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. xxxv. cap 10.]

[Footnote 171: "Any excellence he possessed was stolen from the

admirable manner of our Florentine painter, Rosso; a man truly of

wonderful genius." Cellini, in his life, as quoted by Baldinucci, tom.

v. p. 72. He who writes thus of the ablest pupil of Giulio Romano,

either was unacquainted with his works in Bologna, and in Mantua,

executed before he knew Rosso, or blinded by party rage, was incapable

of appreciating them.]

[Footnote 172: Page 81.]

[Footnote 173: About the time when Michele taught, there resided in

Spain one Tommaso Fiorentino; one of whose portraits is mentioned by the

Sig. Ab. Conca, (tom. i. p. 90,) belonging to the Royal Palace at

Madrid. In the Ducal Palace of Alva, there are also galleries of

grotesques, where we read the name of Tommaso Fiorentino, the author, to

which is added (tom. ii. p. 362) "The name of this professor of the art

is quite new to me; in his grotesques we meet with the exact style of

the sons of Bergamasco, &c." I hardly know how the name can appear new

to the Ab. Conca, when he had already mentioned it elsewhere; nor how

the composition of an artist, who painted in 1521, could resemble that

of others who were still young in the year 1570, in which their father

died.]

[Footnote 174: Vasari, in his Life of Morto, says, that he came to

Florence in order to improve his skill in figures, in which he was

deficient, by studying the models of Vinci and of Michelangiolo. In

despair, however, he returned to his grotesques. Now I shall elsewhere

produce an unedited document shewing his ability in figure painting,

which I should not have occasion to do if the beautiful portrait of

Morto, in the Royal Gallery at Florence, was, as is conjectured, by his

hand. But I am inclined to think that it is the likeness of an unknown

person, who, as I have seen in other portraits, caused himself to be

drawn with a finger pointing to a death's head, in order to remind him

of his mortality, but in this picture the head has been capriciously

interpreted as a symbol of the name of Morto, and the painting given as

the portrait and work of Feltrese; of whom Vasari gives a very different

one.]

[Footnote 175: They wrought from the designs of Pontormo, and still more

those of Bronzino. They also wrought for the Duke of Ferrara after the

designs of Giulio Romano, published by Gio. Battista Mantuano, among his

prints.]

[Footnote 176: A similar composition is to be seen in an altar-piece in

the cathedral of Volterra. It is inscribed, _Opus Leonardi Pistoriens.

an. 1516_. This, however, ought not to be passed over on account of an

historical doubt started by the Cavalier Tolomei, whether there

flourished, at the same period, two Lionardi da Pistoja; thus

insinuating they were of different families. And this would appear to be

the case. The painter of the piece in Volterra was not Grazia, at

Naples, probably, surnamed Guelfo; since his master Penni, if we are to

believe Vasari, was in that year, 1516, still the scholar and assistant

of Raffaello; nor does it seem probable that he educated a pupil of so

much merit. The Leonardo, therefore, who painted in Volterra, must have

been some other of more proficiency.]

[Footnote 177: "Hic invenies quidquid diversorum colorum generibus et

mixturis habet Graecia ... quidquid in fenestrarum varietate pretiosa

diligit Francia."]

[Footnote 178: Zanetti, Nuova Raccolta delle Monete e Zecche d'Italia,

(tom. iv. p. 158). In this work we meet with a long Latin document,

which makes mention of a brother of Marco, named Paolo, also a painter;

qui habet in carta designatam mortem S. Francisci, et Virginis gloriose,

sicut picte sunt ad modum theutonicum in pano (i. e. panno) ad locum

minorum in Tarvisio.]

[Footnote 179: Tom. iii. p. 25.]

[Footnote 180: Bellori vite de' Pittori, &c. page 392.]

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

EPOCH III.

_The Imitators of Michelangiolo Bonarruoti._

After the time of the five great masters above mentioned, the

Florentines were so rich in fine specimens of art that they had no

occasion to apply to foreign schools for improvement. They had only to

select the best specimens from the works of native artists; as, for

instance, grandeur from Michelangiolo, grace from Andrea, and spirit

from Rossi; they could learn colouring and casting of draperies from

Porta, and chiaroscuro from Vinci. They appear, however, to have

assiduously applied to design, but to have paid little attention to the

other branches of painting. Even in that branch they imagined that every

thing was to be found in Bonarruoti; and imitated him alone. Their

choice was influenced by the celebrity,[181] the success, and very long

life of this artist, who, having survived all his eminent

fellow citizens, naturally recommended to employment the followers of

his maxims, and the adherents of his manner; hence it has been observed

by some, that Raffaello lived too short a time for the progress of the

fine arts, Michelangiolo too long. But artists ought to keep in mind the

opinion, or rather prophecy of Bonarruoti--that his style would be

productive of inept artists, which has invariably been the character of

those who have imitated him without judgment.

Their study and constant practice has been to design from his statues:

for the cartoon on which so many eminent men formed their style, had

already perished; and his paintings were not to be seen in Florence but

in Rome. They transferred into their compositions that statue-like

rigidity, that strength of limb, and those markings of the origin and

insertion of muscles, that severity of countenance, and those positions

of the hands and figures, which characterized his sublimely awful style;

but without comprehending the principles of this extraordinary man,

without thoroughly understanding the play of the softer parts of the

human figure, either by inserting them in wrong situations, or by

representing, in the same manner, those in action and at rest; those of

a slender stripling, and of the full-grown man. Contented with what they

imagined grandeur of style, they neglected all the rest. In some of

their pictures we may observe a multitude of figures arranged one above

the other, with a total disregard of their relative situations; features

that express no passion, and half naked figures that do nothing, except

pompously exhibit, like the Entellus of Virgil, _magna ossa

lacertosque_. Instead of the beautiful azure and green formerly

employed, they substituted a languid yellowish hue; the full body of

colour gave place to superficial tints; and, above all, the bold relief,

so much studied till the time of Andrea, went wholly into disuse.

In several passages Baldinucci confesses this decline, which, however,

scarcely extended to two or three generations, and seems to have

commenced about 1540. During this unfortunate era the Florentines did

not degenerate as much as some other schools. The churches are full of

pictures of this era, which, if they are not to be admired like those of

the preceding, are, at least, respectable. Whoever sees the church of S.

Croce, S. Maria Novella, and other places, where the best artists of

this era painted, will undoubtedly find more to praise than to condemn.

Few of them were eminent as colourists, but many in design; few were

entirely free from the mannerism above noticed; many, however, by

progressive improvement, at length attained gracefulness. We shall

proceed to consider them, chiefly following the steps of Vincenzio

Borghini, their contemporary; the author of _Il Reposo_, a dialogue

worthy of perusal, both for the matter and the style. We shall commence

with Vasari, who not only belongs to this epoch, but has ever been

charged with being one of the chief authors of the decline of the

art.[182]

Giorgio Vasari, of Arezzo, was descended from a family attached to the

fine arts; being the great grandson of Lazzaro, who was the intimate

friend of Pietro della Francesca, and the imitator of his paintings; the

nephew of another Giorgio, who, in modelling vases in plaster, revived

the forms of the antique, in their basso-relievos, and their brilliant

colours; specimens of whose art exist in the royal gallery at Florence.

Michelangiolo, Andrea, and some other masters, instructed him in design;

Guglielmo da Marcilla, called the Prior, and Rosso, initiated him in

painting: but he chiefly studied at Rome, whither he was brought by

Ippolito, Cardinal de' Medici, the person to whom he owed his success;

for by his means Giorgio was introduced to this family that loaded him

with riches and with honour. After having designed all the works of his

first master, and of Raffaello, at Rome, and likewise much after other

schools and antique marbles, he formed a style in which we may recognise

traces of his studies; but his predilection for Bonarruoti is apparent.

After acquiring skill in painting figures, he became one of the most

excellent architects of the age; and united in himself the various

branches which were known to Perino, Giulio, and their scholars, who

followed the example of Raffaello. He could unaided direct the

construction of a grand fabric, adorn it with figures, with grotesques,

with landscapes, with stuccos, with gilding, and whatever else was

required to ornament it in a princely style. By this means he began to

be known in Italy; and was employed as a painter in several places, and

even in Rome. He was much employed in the hermitage of the Camaldules,

and in several monasteries of the Olivets. In their monastery at Rimino

he executed a picture of the Magi, and various frescos for the church;

in that at Bologna three pieces from sacred history, with some ornaments

in the refectory; but still more in that at Naples, where he not only

reduced the refectory to the rules of true architecture, but splendidly

adorned it with stuccos and pictures of every description. Assisted by

many young men he spent a year in this work; and, as he himself says,

was the first who gave an idea of the modern style to that city. Some of

his pictures are to be seen in the Classe di Ravenna, in the church of

S. Peter at Perugia, at Bosco, near Alessandria, in Venice, at Pisa, in

Florence, and at Rome, where the largest part of them are in various

places of the Vatican, and in the hall of the Chancery. These pictures

are historical frescos of the life of Paul III. undertaken at the desire

of Cardinal Farnese; with whom originated the idea of writing the lives

of the painters, afterwards published at Florence. Brought into notice

by these works, honoured by the esteem and friendship of Bonarruoti, and

recommended by his multifarious abilities, he was invited to the court

of Cosmo I. He went there with his family in 1553; at which time the

artists above alluded to were either dead or very old, and, therefore,

he had little to fear from competitors. He superintended the magnificent

works executed by that prince; among which it would be wrong not to

distinguish the edifice for the public offices, which is esteemed among

the finest in Italy; and the old palace, with its several sub-divisions,

which were all painted and decorated by Vasari and his pupils for the

use of government. In one part of it, each chamber bears the name of

some distinguished member of the family, and represents his exploits.

This is one of his best works; and here the chamber of Clement VII. is

chiefly conspicuous, on the ceiling of which he represented the Pontiff

in the act of crowning Charles V., and all around disposed the emblems

of his virtues, his victories, and his most remarkable exploits. In this

work the magnificence of the prince is rivalled by the judgment and

taste of the artist. The reader may find notices of his other works,

which are either in churches or in private houses, and of his temporary

decorations for funerals or festivals, by consulting his life written by

himself down to 1567, and the continuation of it to 1574, the year of

Giorgio's decease.

It remains for us to discuss the merits of this artist, who has been

praised by some and condemned by other authors that have treated of the

fine arts, especially in Italy. I shall consider him first as a painter,

and next as a writer. Had all his works perished but some of those in

the old palace, the Conception, in S. Apostolo at Florence, which

Borghini commends as his finest production, the Decollation of S. John,

in the church of the Baptist at Rome, which is adorned by exquisite

perspective, the Feast of Ahasuerus, in the possession of the

Benedictines at Arezzo, some of his portraits, which Bottari scruples

not to compare with those of Giorgione, and some of his other pictures

that demonstrate his ability, his reputation would have been much

greater than it is. But he aimed at too much; and for the most part

preferred expedition to accuracy. Hence, though a good designer, his

figures are not always correct; and his painting often appears languid,

from his meagre and superficial colouring.[183] The habit of careless

execution is usually the companion of some maxim that may serve to

excuse it to others, as well as to our own self-love: Vasari has

recommended in his writings the acquirement of compendious methods,[184]

and "the expedition of practice;" in other words, to make use of former

exercises and studies in painting. This method is highly advantageous to

the artist, because it increases his profits; but is prejudicial to the

art, which thus degenerates into mannerism, or, in other words, departs

from nature: Vasari fell into this error in many of his works,

especially in his hasty productions, or where he borrowed the hand of

others; apologies which he frequently offers to the readers of his

"Lives." He was principally induced, I believe, to offer such apologies

for his practice, from the strictures on his paintings contained in the

hall of the Chancery, which were finished in a hundred days, according

to their author, in order to please the cardinal: but he ought then

rather to have excused himself to Farnese, and to have requested him to

employ some other artist, than to make his apology to posterity, and to

intreat us to excuse his faults. He ought to have listened to the

admonitions of his friends; among whom Caro did not fail to remind him

of the injury his reputation might sustain by such hasty

productions.[185] As he long superintended the decorations of the

capital, ordered by Cosmo I. and Prince D. Francesco, and was assisted

in them by many young men, Baldinucci affirms that he chiefly

contributed to that dry manner which prevailed in Florence.[186]

This opinion is probably not erroneous; for the example of a painter

employed by the court was sufficient to seduce the rising generation

from pristine diligence, to a more careless manner. After all, the

Florentines who assisted him were chiefly the scholars of Bronzino, and,

except two or three, they did not adopt the style of Vasari: some others

also may have done so for a little time. Francesco Morandini, called

Poppi, from his native place, was his disciple and imitator; and in his

picture of the Conception, at S. Michelino, in the superior one of the

Visitation, at S. Nicholas, and in his many other works, he appears a

follower of Giorgio; except that he was more minute, and attended more

to gay and cheerful composition. Giovanni Stradano Fiammingo, for ten

years a dependant of Vasari, adopted his colouring, but imitated the

design of Salviati; with whom and also with Daniele di Volterra he had

lived in Rome. There is a Christ on the Cross, by him, at the Serviti,

which is preferred to any other he painted at Florence, where he

executed many designs for tapestry, and many prints. He had a fertile

invention; he is praised by Vasari as highly as any other artist then in

the service of the court, and is considered by Borghini among the

eminent masters. Vasari after him retained Jacopo Zucchi, whose works

exhibit none of the carelessness of Giorgio. He sometimes imitated him;

but his style is better and more refined. He lived long at Rome, under

the protection of Ferdinando, Cardinal de' Medici, in whose house, and

more especially in the Rucellai palace, he painted in fresco with

incredible diligence. His picture of the Birth of the Baptist, in S.

Giovanni Decollato, is esteemed the best in that church; and in this

piece he appears more a follower of Andrea, than of any other master. He

usually introduced real portraits of distinguished characters and men of

letters in his compositions, and he shewed a peculiar grace in the

figures of children and of young people. Baglioni praises both this

artist and his brother Francesco, who was a good artist in mosaic, and

an excellent painter of fruit and flowers.