In considering Giorgio as a writer, I shall not consume much time;

having so frequently to notice him in the course of my work. He wrote

precepts of art and lives of the painters, as is well known; and he

added to them some dissertations on his own occupations,[187] and his

pictures.[188] He entered on this work at the instigation of Cardinal

Farnese, as well as of Monsig. Giovio; and he was encouraged in it by

Caro, Molza, Tolomei, and other literary men belonging to that court.

His first intention was to collect anecdotes of artists, to be extended

by Giovio. They wished him to commence with Cimabue; with which,

perhaps, he ought not to have complied; but this circumstance diminishes

the fault of Vasari in passing over the older masters in silence, and

raises the glory of Cimabue far above all his contemporaries. When it

was discovered that Vasari could write well,[189] and was capable of

extending the anecdotes in even more appropriate language than Giovio

himself, the whole task devolved on him; but in order to render the work

more worthy of the public, he had the assistance afforded him of men of

letters. In 1547, on finishing the book, he went to Rimino; and whilst

he was employed in painting for the fraternity of Olivets, Father D.

Gio. Matteo Faetani, abbot of the monastery, corrected his work and

caused it to be wholly transcribed; about the end of that year it was

sent to Caro for perusal. He signified his approbation of it, "as

written in a fine style, and with great care;"[190] except that in some

passages a less artificial style was desirable. After being corrected in

this respect, it was printed in two volumes by Torrentino, at Florence,

in the year 1550; in this edition he received considerable aid from

Father D. Miniato Pitti, then an Olivetine friar.[191] Vasari complained

that "many things were there inserted he knew not how, and were altered

without his knowledge or consent;"[192] but I cannot agree with

Bottari,[193] that these alterations were made by Pitti or any other

monk. If Vasari could not discover their author, we are much less likely

to find him out; and there is some ground for believing that Vasari had

offended many persons by certain invidious anecdotes, and thus

endeavoured to excuse himself as well as he could. Who can believe that

the many things cancelled in the second edition, which seems almost a

new work, were all liberties taken by other persons, "he did not know

how" and not mistakes, at least for the most part, made by himself?

In whatever way it happened, he had an opportunity of correcting his

lives, of augmenting them, and again printing them, accompanied by

portraits of the artists. After publication of the first edition he had

availed himself of the manuscripts of Ghiberti, of Domenico Ghirlandaio,

of Raffaello d'Urbino; and had himself collected a number of anecdotes

in his different journeys through Italy. He undertook a new tour in

1566, to prepare for the new edition, as he informs us in the life of

Benvenuto Garofolo; he again examined the works of different masters,

and obtained new information from his friends, some of whom he mentions

by name, when treating of the artists of Forli and Verona. He would have

been still more full of anecdote in his Lives, had his success

corresponded with his diligence. On this account, in the beginning and

at the end of the Life of Carpaccio, he laments that "he was not able to

obtain every particular of many artists;" nor to possess their

portraits; and he "entreats us to accept what he is able to offer,

although he cannot give all he might desire." He republished his Lives

in 1568, and affirmed in the Dedication to Cosmo I. that "as for himself

he wished for nothing more in them." The new edition issued from the

press of the Giunti; of the additions, consisting of fine observations

upon philosophy and Christian morality, which cannot be ascribed to

Giorgio, part was supplied by Borghini, and still more by Father D.

Silvano Razzi, a Camalduline monk, as Bottari conjectures in his

Preface,[194] but it does not follow that they assisted in correcting

the work. It is full of errors; sometimes in the grammatical

construction, often in the names, and frequently in the dates; and

though it was reprinted at Bologna, in 1648; at Rome, with the notes and

corrections of Bottari, in 1759; in Leghorn and Florence, in 1767, with

fresh notes and additions by the same; and lastly, in Siena, with those

of P. della Valle; it still remains not so much a judicious selection of

facts, as a mass of chronological emendations, some of which shall be

noticed in the sequel.[195]

This, if I am not deceived, is the objection that can be most

frequently, and almost continually urged against the work. The other

strictures to be met with in authors are, for the most part,

exaggerations of writers, offended at Vasari for his silence or his

criticisms, on the works of the artists of their country. There is

nothing so flattering to the vanity of an author, as defending the

character of his native place, and of those citizens who have rendered

her illustrious. In whatever manner he writes, all his countrymen, who

are all the world to him, think him in the right; and in the

coffeehouses he frequents, in the shops of the booksellers, and in all

public places, they hail him as the public advocate. Hence we need not

be surprised that such an author writes as if his country had appointed

him her champion, assumes a spirit of hostility, and then the transition

is easy from a just defence to an injurious attack. From such causes

some writers appear to me actuated by unbecoming enmity to Vasari. The

passages of the first edition, cancelled in the second, have been quoted

against him; he has incurred odium for some deformed portraits, as if he

was accountable for the defects of nature; his most innocent expressions

have been tortured into a sinister meaning; his enemies would have us

believe that, intending to exalt his darling Florentines, he neglected

the other Italian artists, as if, in order to do justice to these, he

had not travelled and sought for information, although often in vain, as

I before mentioned. The historians of all the other schools have used

him as the commentators of Virgil treated Servius; all have abused him,

and all have availed themselves of his labours. For if all the

information collected by Vasari concerning the old masters of the

Venetian, Bolognese, and Lombard schools be taken away, how imperfect

does their history remain? In my opinion, therefore, he deserves our

best thanks for what he has done, and much forbearance for what he has

omitted.

If his judgment appears less accurate on some artists of a different

school, he ought not, on that account, to be taxed with malignity and

envy, as is well observed by Lomazzo. He has protested that he has done

his best to adhere to truth, or to what he believed to be true,[196] and

it is sufficient to read him without prejudice to give him credit for

such justification. He seems a man who writes as he thinks. Thus, he

bestows commendations upon Baldinelli and upon Zuccaro, his

enemies,[197] as well as upon his friends: he distributes censure and

praise with an equal hand to Tuscan and other artists. If he discovers

painters of little merit in other schools, he finds them also in that of

Florence; if he relates the jealousies of foreign artists, he does not

conceal those of the Florentines, of which he speaks with a playful

freedom in the Life of Donatello, in his own, and more especially in

that of Pietro Perugino. His partial criticisms therefore on certain

artists arose less from his nationality, than from other causes. It is

certain that he saw but little of some masters; his opinion of others

was formed upon incorrect information; and he could not attain the same

certainty that we now boast, on what related to a number of artists then

living, who, as usually happens, were then more censured than admired.

Some allowance too should be made for his other avocations; by the

multiplicity of which he doubtless wrote as he painted, with the

expedition of his mode of practice. A proof of this is afforded by the

repetitions that occur, as we have before observed, in successive

passages, and the contradictory characters he sometimes gives of the

same picture, pronouncing it good in one sentence, and in another

allowing it scarcely the praise of mediocrity. This was particularly the

case in regard to Razzi, towards whom he seems to have entertained ill

will; arising, however, more from the bad reputation of the man than

from prejudice against the school of the artist. For the incorrectness

of such censures, in which he, however, was sincere, I blame his maxims

of art, and the age in which he lived. He reckoned Bonarruoti the

greatest painter that had ever existed;[198] and exalted him above the

ancient Greeks,[199] and, from his practice, held a bold and vigorous

design as the summit of perfection in painting; compared to which,

beauty and colouring were nothing.[200] From such fundamental principles

proceeded some of his obnoxious criticisms on Bassano, Tiziano, and on

Raffaello himself. But is this the effect of his malignity, or of his

education? Does it not happen in philosophy as in painting, that every

one gives a decided preference to those of his own sect. Has not

Petrarca generalized the observation, when he asks,

----"Or che e questo

Che ognun del suo saper par che si appaghi?"

We may, then, forgive in Vasari what appeared to this philosophic poet a

weakness of human nature; and may observe on a few passages in his work

what was applied to Tacitus; that we condemn his principles, but admire

his history. Such, I believe, was the opinion of Lomazzo, who though not

wholly satisfied with the opinions of Vasari, not only excused but

defended him;[201] and in this he acted properly.

Vasari is, moreover, the father of the history of painting, and has

transmitted to us its most precious materials. Educated in the most

auspicious era of the art, he has in some measure perpetuated the

influence of the golden age. In perusing his Lives, I fancy myself

listening to the individuals of whom he has collected the traditions and

the precepts. It was thus, think I, that Raffaello and Andrea imparted

these facts to their scholars; thus spoke Bonarruoti; the friends of

Giorgio heard this from Vinci and Porta, and in this manner must have

related it to him. I am delighted with the facts, and also with the

luminous, simple, and natural manner in which they are expressed,

interwoven with the technical terms that originated in Florence, and

worthy of every writer whose subject is the fine arts. Finally, should I

discover in him any prejudice of education, or, if you will, arising

from self-love, it seems to me unjust on account of such a fault, to

forget his many services, and to declare hostilities against him for

such blemishes.

Another service Vasari conferred on the fine arts yet remains to be

noticed, and that is the establishment of the Academy of Design in

Florence, about the year 1561, principally through his exertions. The

society of S. Luke there existed from the fourteenth century, but it had

fallen into decay, and was almost extinct, when F. Gio. Angiolo

Montorsoli Servita, a celebrated statuary, conceived the design of

reviving it. He communicated his idea to Giorgio, who so effectually

recommended it to Cosmo I., that, shortly after, it arose with new

vigour, and became at the same time a charitable institution and an

academy of the fine arts. The prince wished to be considered its head,

and D. Vincenzio Borghini was appointed his representative in

transacting his ordinary business, which situation was afterwards filled

by Cav. Gaddi, by Baccio Valori, and successively by some of the most

accomplished gentlemen of the city; an arrangement maintained by the

sovereigns down to the present day. The chapter house of the Nunziata,

"decorated with the sculpture and pictures of the best masters" of the

age, was granted to this college of artists for a hall, as we are

informed by Valori.[202] Another place was assigned for their meetings,

and they have frequently experienced the liberality of succeeding

princes. Their rules were drawn up by the restorers of this institution,

of whom Vasari was one. He wrote concerning it to Michelangiolo,[203]

and asserted that every member of this academy "was indebted to him for

what he knew;" and indeed this academy in all its branches partakes

strongly of his style. A similar doctrine, as we have observed, already

prevailed at Florence; but it would have been better that every one

followed the master whom his genius pointed out. In the choice of a

style nature ought to direct, not to follow; every one should make his

election according to his talents. It is true that the error of the

Florentines is common to other nations; and has given rise to an

opinion, that academies have had a baneful influence on the arts; since

they have only tended to constrain all to follow the same path; and

hence Italy is found fruitful in adherents to systems, but barren in

true painters. To me the institution of academies has always appeared

highly useful, when conducted on the plan of that of the Caracci, of

which we shall treat under their school. In the mean time I return to

the Florentine school.

The contemporaries of Vasari were Salviati and Jacopo del Conte, both of

whom lived also with Andrea del Sarto, and Bronzino, the scholar of

Pontormo. Like Giorgio, their genius led them to an imitation of

Michelangiolo. Francesco de' Rossi, called Salviati, from the surname of

his patron, was the fellow student of Vasari, under Andrea del Sarto and

Baccio Bandinelli. The last mentioned artist was an excellent sculptor,

who usually taught design to students in painting, an art which, like

Verrocchio, he sometimes practised for amusement. While at Rome,

Salviati, contracting an intimate friendship with Giorgio, pursued the

same studies, and adopted the same fundamental principles of the art. He

finally became a painter more correct, more elevated, and more spirited

than his companion, and Vasari classes him among the best artists then

in Rome. There he was employed in the palace of his patron, in the

Farnese and Riccio palaces, in the Chancery, in the church of S. Gio.

Decollato, and in various other places, where he filled extensive walls

with historical frescos, an employment which was his chief delight. His

invention was very fertile, his compositions varied, his architecture

grand; he is one of the few who have united celerity of execution with

scientific design, in which he was deeply versed, although occasionally

somewhat extravagant. His best production now in Florence is the battle

and triumph of Furius Camillus, in the saloon of the old palace, a work

full of spirit, that appears from the representations of armour,

draperies, and Roman customs, conducted by an able antiquary. There is

also in the church of Santa Croce, a Descent from the Cross; to him a

familiar subject, which he repeated at the Panfili palace at Rome, and

in the _Corpus Domini_ at Venice; and it may be seen in some private

collections, in which his Holy Families and portraits are not rare. The

octagonal picture of Psyche, in the possession of the Grimani family, is

highly celebrated, and Giorgio pronounces it the "finest picture in all

Venice." His remark would have been less invidious, had he said it was

the most scientific in design; but who can concede to him that it

appeared a paragon in that city? The features of Psyche have nothing

uncommon; and the whole, though well composed, and adorned with a

beautiful landscape, and an elegant little temple, cannot be compared to

the charming compositions of Tiziano, or of Paolo Veronese, in which we

sometimes behold, as Dante would express it, "the whole creation smile."

The design of Salviati was better than his colouring; and on this

account he did not meet with success at Venice; on his going to France

he was but little employed, and is now less sought after and esteemed

than Tiziano or Paolo. In ornamental arts such as poetry and painting,

it would seem that mankind are more easily contented with a mediocrity

in knowledge, than with mediocrity in the art of pleasing. It was very

correctly observed by Salvator Rosa, when requested to give his opinion

upon the relative merits of design and colouring, that he had been able

to meet with many Santi di Tito in the shops of the suburbs, at a very

low price, but that he had never seen there a single specimen of

Bassano. Salviati was the best artist of this epoch, and if he was

little employed at Florence, according to Vasari, it arose partly from

the envy of malevolent persons, partly from his own turbulent, restless,

and haughty demeanour. He trained up, however, some artists who belong

to this school. Francesco del Prato, an eminent goldsmith, and an

excellent artist in the inlaying of metals, when advanced in life,

imbibed the love of painting from Salviati, and became his pupil. Having

a good idea of design, he was soon able to execute cabinet pictures; two

of which, the Plague of Serpents and the Limbo, are pronounced most

beautiful by Vasari. It is not improbable that some of the minor

pictures ascribed to Salviati may be the work of this artist, who is as

little named as if he had never existed. Bernardo Buontalenti, a man of

rare and universal genius, was instructed in miniature painting by

Clovio, and had Salviati, Vasari, and Bronzino, for his masters in the

other branches of painting. He was so successful that his works were in

request by Francis I., by the emperor, and the king of Spain. His

portrait is in the royal gallery, besides which little in Florence can

be ascribed to him with certainty, for he dedicated his time chiefly to

architecture and to hydrostatics. Ruviale Spagnuolo, Domenico Romano,

and Porta della Garfagnana, belong to the school of Salviati. We shall

notice the last among the Venetians, among whom he lived. In the

treatise of Lomazzo, Romolo Fiorentino is assigned to the same school;

the individual conjectured by P. Orlandi to be the Romolo Cincinnato, a

Florentine painter, employed by Philip II. of Spain. He is very

honourably mentioned by Palomino, together with his sons and pupils,

Diego and Francesco, both eminent artists favoured by Philip IV. and

Pope Urban VIII. by whom they were knighted.

Jacopino del Conte, who is also noticed in the _Abecedario Pittorico_,

under the name of Jacopo del Conte, and considered not as the same

individual, but as two distinct artists, was little employed in

Florence, but in great request in Rome. He was eminent as a

portrait painter to all the Popes and the principal nobility of Rome,

from the time of Paul III. to that of Clement VIII., in whose

pontificate he died. His ability in composition may be discovered in the

frescos in S. Gio. Decollato, and especially in the picture of the

Deposition in that place, a work which is reckoned among his finest

productions. There the competition of his most distinguished countrymen

stimulated his exertions for distinction. He was an imitator of

Michelangiolo, but in a manner so free, and a colouring so different,

that it seems the production of another school. Scipione Gaetano, whom

we shall consider in the third book of our history, was his scholar. Of

Domenico Beceri, a respectable pupil of Puligo, and of some others of

little note, I have nothing further to add.

Angiolo Bronzino was another friend of Vasari, nearly of the same age,

and was enumerated among the more eminent artists, from the grace of his

countenances, and the agreeableness of his compositions. He is likewise

esteemed as a poet. His poems were printed along with those of Berni;

and some of his letters on painting are preserved in the collection of

Bottari.[204] Although the scholar and follower of Pontormo, he also

recals Michelangiolo to our recollection. His frescos in the old palace

are praised, adorning a chapel, on the walls of which he represented the

Fall of Manna, and the Scourge of the Serpents, histories full of power

and spirit; although the paintings on the ceiling do not correspond with

them, being deficient in the line of perspective. Some of his

altar-pieces are to be seen in the churches of Florence, several of them

feebly executed, with figures of angels, whose beauty appears too soft

and effeminate. There are many, on the other hand, extremely beautiful,

such as his Pieta at S. Maria Nuova, and likewise his Limbo at Santa

Croce, in an altar belonging to the noble family of Riccasoli. This

picture is better suited for an academy of design, from the naked

figure, than for a church; but the painter was too much attached to

Michelangiolo to avoid imitating him even in this error. This picture

has been lately very well repaired. Many of his portraits are in Italian

collections of paintings, which are praiseworthy for their truth and

spirit; but their character is frequently diminished by the colour of

the flesh, which sometimes partakes of a leaden hue, at other times

appears of a dead white, on which the red appears like rouge. But a

yellowish tint is the predominant colour in his pictures, and his

greatest fault is a want of relief.

The succeeding artists, who are chiefly Florentines, are named by Vasari

in the Obsequies of Bonarruoti, in the memoirs of the academicians,

written about the year 1567, and in several other places. Their works

are scattered over the city, and many of them are to be found in the

cloister of S. Maria Novella. If these semicircular pictures had not

been retouched and altered, this place would be, with regard to this

epoch, what the cloister of the Olivetines in Bologna is to that of the

Caracci; an era, indeed, more auspicious for the art, but not more

interesting in an historical point of view. Another collection, of which

I have spoken in my description of the tenth cabinet of the royal

gallery, is better preserved, and indeed is quite perfect. It now

occupies another apartment. It consists of thirty-four fabulous and

historical pictures, painted on the panels of a writing desk for Prince

Francesco,[205] by various artists of this epoch. Vasari, to whom the

work was entrusted, there represented Andromeda delivered by Perseus,

and procured the assistance of the academicians, who thus emulated each

other, and strove to recommend themselves to the court. Most of them

have put their names to their work;[206] and, if the defects common to

that age, or peculiar to the individual, are here and there visible in

the work, it demonstrates that the light of painting was not yet

extinguished in Florence. Nevertheless, I advise him who examines this

collection, to suspend his judgment on the merits of those artists until

he has considered their other productions in their own country or at

Rome, where some of them have a place in the choicest collections. They

may be divided in several schools: we shall begin with that of Angiolo.

Alessandro Allori, the nephew and pupil of Bronzino, whose surname he

sometimes inscribed on his pictures, is reckoned inferior to his uncle.

Wholly intent upon anatomy, of which he gave fine examples in the

Tribune of the Servi, and on which he composed a treatise for the use of

painters, he did not sufficiently attend to the other branches of the

art. Some of his pictures in Rome, representing horses, are beautiful;

and his sacrifice of Isaac, in the royal museum, is coloured almost in

the Flemish style. His power of expression is manifested by his picture

of the Woman taken in Adultery in the church of the Holy Spirit. He was

expert in portrait painting; but he abused this talent by introducing

portraits in the modern costume in ancient histories, a fault not

uncommon in that age. On the whole his genius appears to have been equal

to every branch of painting; but it was unequally exercised, and

consequently unequally expanded. He painted much for foreigners, and

enjoyed the esteem of the ducal family, who employed him to finish the

pictures at Poggio a Caiano, begun by Andrea del Sarto, Franciabigio,

and Pontormo, and by them left more or less imperfect. Opposite to these

pictures he painted, from his own invention, the Gardens of the

Hesperides, the Feast of Syphax, and Titus Flaminius dissuading the

Etolians from the Achaean league; all which historical subjects, as well

as those of Caesar and Cicero, were chosen as symbols of similar events

in the lives of Cosmo and Lorenzo de' Medici. Such was the manner of

thinking in that age; and moderns personified in ancient heroes obtained

a less direct, but higher honour from the art. Giovanni Bizzelli, a

disciple of Alessandro, of middling talents, painted in S. Gio.

Decollato, at Rome, and in some Florentine churches. Cristofano, a son

of Alessandro, became eminent; but he is to be considered hereafter.

Santi Titi, of Citta San Sepolcro, a scholar of Bronzino and Cellini,

studied long at Rome, whence he returned, with a style full of science

and of grace. His beautiful is without much of the ideal; but his

countenances exhibit a certain fulness, an appearance of freshness and

of health, that is surpassed by none of those who took nature for their

model. Design was his characteristic excellence; and for this he was

commended by his imitator, Salvator Rosa. In expression he has few

superiors in other schools, and none in his own. His ornaments are

judicious; and having practised architecture with applause, he

introduced perspectives, that gave a dignity and charm to his

compositions. He is esteemed the best painter of this epoch, and belongs

to it rather from the time in which he lived than his style; if we

except his colouring, which was too feeble, and without much relief.

Borghini, at once his critic and apologist, remarks that even in this

department he was not deficient, when he chose to exert himself; and he

seems to have studied it in the Feast of Emmaus, in the church of the

Holy Cross at Florence, in the Resurrection of Lazarus, in the cathedral

of Volterra, and in a picture at Citta di Castello, in which he

represents the faithful receiving the Holy Spirit from the hands of the

Apostles; a painting that may be viewed with pleasure, even after the

three by Raffaello which adorn that city.

Among his numerous pupils in design, we may reckon his son Tiberio; but

this artist attended less to the pursuits of his father, than to

painting small portraits in vermilion, in which he had singular merit;

these were readily received into the collection formed by Cardinal

Leopold, which now forms a single cabinet in the royal museum. Two other

Florentines are worthy of notice, viz. Agostino Ciampelli, who

flourished in Rome under Clement VIII.; and Lodovico Buti, who remained

at Florence. They resemble twins by the similarity between them; less

scientific, less inventive, and less able in composition, than Titi,

they possessed fine ideas, were correct in design, and cheerful in their

colouring, beyond the usage of the Florentine school; but they were

somewhat crude, and at times profuse in the use of red tints not

sufficiently harmonized. Frescos by the first may be seen in the

Sacristy at Rome, and the chapel of S. Andrea al Gesu, and an oil

painting of the Crucifixion at S. Prassede, in his best manner. A

Visitation, with its two companions, at S. Stephen of Pescia, may be

reckoned among his choicest works; to which the vicinity of Tiarini does

little injury. The second may be recognised by a picture of the miracle

of the loaves and fishes, abounding in figures, which is in the royal

gallery. Baccio Ciarpi, a pupil of the same school, is celebrated as the

master of Berrettini, and deserves to be commended for his diligence and

correctness. He was thought worthy of being employed at La Concezione at

Rome, a most splendid gallery, painted by the greatest artists of that

age. A portrait of one Andrea Boscoli, his pupil and imitator, remains

in the royal museum of Florence, and many of his paintings with horses

are dispersed through the city. He travelled into different parts,

leaving various specimens of his art in different countries, at S.

Ginesio, at Fabriano, and other places in the district of Piceno. His

largest work is a S. John the Baptist in the attitude of prayer, at the

Teresiani of Rimino; a picture that shews invention, but it was unknown

to Baldinucci, who compiled anecdotes of this artist. Constantino de'

Servi is conjectured by Baldinucci to be a scholar of Titi. He is well

known to have been originally his imitator, and having gone into

Germany, there adopted the style of Pourbus. In foreign countries he

seems to have painted few portraits, a branch in which he had greater

merit than employment. His celebrity was greater as a master architect

and engraver of gems, as we shall notice in a subsequent epoch. In

closing the account of the school of Santi, it may be proper to observe,

that his example reclaimed a great proportion of the succeeding

generation, and inclined artists to mitigate the severity of the style

of Michelangiolo, by introducing more grace in the contours, and a

better taste in the heads.

Batista Naldini holds the third rank among the scholars of Bronzino. He

was first the pupil of Pontormo, afterwards of Bronzino, and having

resided some time at Rome, he was chosen by Vasari as the companion of

his labours in the old palace, and retained by him about fourteen years.

The historian makes honourable mention of Naldini, even when a young

man, and denominates him a painter skilful and vigorous, expeditious and

indefatigable. Naldini obtained similar praise in Rome from Baglione,

especially for the chapel of John the Baptist, at Trinita de' Monti,

which he painted with the history of the saint. He painted many pictures

in his native city, some of which, as the taking down from the Cross,

and the Purification of the Virgin, are commended by Borghini for the

colouring and the design, for the disposition, the perspective, and the

attitudes. The defects observable in most of his pictures are, that the

knees are rather too much swollen, the eyes too open, and marked with a

certain fierceness, by which he may be generally recognized; his

colouring is also characteristic, and those changeable hues in which he

delighted more than any other artist of the age.

He taught according to the method then pursued by most masters, which

was to employ his scholars in designing after the chalk drawings of

Michelangiolo, and to give them his own finished pictures to copy; for,

like bees, artists were exceedingly anxious to work in secret, and ready

to wound all who overlooked them. Baldinucci has recorded several

instances of this peculiarity. From these circumstances the fault of the

scholars of Naldini was stiffness, the common failing of that age; they

had little of that free touch and taste in colouring which he possessed,

but yet they deserve to be recorded. Giovanni Balducci, called also

Cosci, from the surname of his maternal uncle, was long his assistant.

His Last Supper in the cathedral, the Finding of the Cross at the

Crocetta, his historical compositions in the cloister of the Domecans at

Florence, and in S. Prassede at Rome, prove his genius to have been more

refined than that of his master. To second the latter, he now and then,

perhaps, went beyond his province, and to some, his attitudes at times

appear affected. He resided and died at Naples, and he is deservedly

praised by the historians of that city. Cosimo Gamberucci appears to

have aimed at a totally different object. On examining a great part of

his works, we may say of him, as was observed of the ancient artist,

that he has not sacrificed to the Graces. He seems finally to have

improved, for he has left some fine pictures, worthy of the following

epoch. Peter healing the lame in S. Pier Maggiore, a picture in the

style of the Caracci, is the work of his hand. The Servitian monks have

a good picture by him in their public hall; and his holy families and

cabinet pictures of a high class are to be met with in the city. The

Cav. Francesco Currado had a still better opportunity of improvement,

for he lived ninety-one years, constantly employed in painting and in

teaching. One of his best pictures is on the altar of S. Saverio, in the

church of S. Giovannino. He was very eminent in small figures, and in

this style he painted the history of the Magdalen, and especially the

martyrdom of S. Tecla, of the royal gallery, which are works of his best

time. In the same school we may include Valerio Marucelli, and Cosimo

Daddi, both artists of some merit; the second is memorable for his

celebrated pupil Volterrano, in whose native place he married, and two

of his altar-pieces still remain there.

Giovanni Maria Butteri, and Lorenzo dello Sciorina, were two other

scholars of Bronzino, and assisted Vasari in the above mentioned

pictures on the escrutoire, and in his preparations for festivals. The

first imitated Vasari, his master, and Titi; but at all times his

colouring was inharmonious; the second has little to boast of beyond his

design. Both are honourably mentioned among the academicians; as is also

Stefano Pieri, who assisted Vasari in the cupola of the metropolitan

church. The sacrifice of Isaac, of the Pitti palace, is ascribed to him,

and it is the best of his works executed at Rome, which are censured as

hard and dry by Baglione. Cristofano dell'Altissimo, whose talent lay in

portrait painting, may be added to these. Giovio had formed the

celebrated collection of portraits of illustrious men, which is still

preserved at Como, though now divided between the two families of the

Conti Giovio, one of which possesses the portraits of learned men, the

other those of warriors. From this collection, which the prelate styled

his museum, that still existing at Mondragone was copied, and also the

collection now in the Florentine gallery, by the labours of Cristofano,

who was sent for that purpose to Como by Cosmo I. He copied the features

of those celebrated men, but attended little to other circumstances;

whence it happens that the Giovian collection exhibits many very

dissimilar manners, the Medicean one alone; but the features of the

originals are very faithfully expressed.

Michele di Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio instructed many artists in this

epoch. From his school, proceeded Girolamo Macchietti, or G. del

Crocifissaio, the assistant of Vasari for six years, who afterwards

studied for two years at Rome, though already an adept in the art. His

example merits imitation, for that school speaks more to the eye than

the ear; and he who there employs his eyes judiciously, cannot fail to

reap the advantage. After his return to Florence he finished a few

valuable pictures with care and assiduity, among which may be noticed an

Epiphany for the chapel of the Marquis Della Stufa, at S. Lorenzo, and a

martyrdom of S. Lorenzo S. Maria Novella, which is greatly praised by

Lomazzo. Borghini also, after commending the beauty, the expression, and

the picture in general, scarcely found any thing to censure. It is

certainly among the most striking pictures in that church. Macchietti

also went to Spain, and was not a little employed at Naples and at

Benevento, where he is said to have painted his best pictures. In the

Dizionario Storico of the professors of the fine arts at Urbino (Colucci

tom. xxxi.) I find mention that Girolamo Macchietti produced some

battle-pieces for the hall of the Albani at S. Giovanni; but I see no

reason why he should be admitted to a place among native artists

belonging to that city, or to the state of Urbino.

Vasari mentions Andrea del Minga, then a youth, as contemporary with

Macchietti; yet he is reckoned by Orlandi and Bottari, the

fellow student of Michelangiolo. He was among the last pupils of Ridolfo

del Ghirlandaio, when the school was chiefly under the direction of

Michele; and hence he rather followed the latter than the former. His

own works are by no means among the most excellent. In the Prayer in the

Garden, which remains in the church of the Holy Cross, he rivals any of

his contemporaries; and hence it is alleged, that he was assisted in

this picture by three of his friends. Francesco Traballesi, mentioned by

Baglione as the painter of some historical frescos in the Greek church

at Rome, was a pupil of Michele, but lived too short a time to do him

honour. The fable of Danae, on the writing desk, is the work of his

brother Bartolommeo.

About this time lived Bernardino Barbatelli, surnamed Poccetti, an

artist omitted by Vasari in the school of Michele, and in the catalogue

of the academicians; because at that period he painted only grotesques

and fronts of buildings, in which, though he had arrived at great

eminence, he had not the reputation he afterwards attained in Rome as an

architect, from assiduously studying the works of Raffaello, and of

other great masters. He subsequently returned to his native place, not

only a pleasing and graceful figurist, but rich and learned in his

compositions; hence he was enabled to adorn his historical subjects with

beautiful landscapes, with sea-views, with fruit, and flowers, not to

mention the magnificence of his draperies, and tapestries, which he

imitated to admiration. Very few of his pictures on panel or on canvass,

but many of his frescos, remain in almost every corner of Florence; nor

does he yield to many Italian masters in this art. Pietro da Cortona

used to express his astonishment that he was in his time less esteemed

than he merited; and Mengs never came to Florence without going to study

him, and diligently searching after his most forgotten frescos. He often

painted with careless haste, like a class of poets whose minds are

imbued with Parnassian fury and fine imagery, and who recite verses with

little preparation, and with little trouble. He is, however, always to

be admired, always shews facility and freedom, with that resolute and

firm pencil which never makes an erroneous touch; a circumstance from

which he has been denominated the Paul of his school. He often studied

and made great preparation for his works, and corrected his outline as

one would do in miniature painting. Whoever wishes to estimate the

powers of this artist should examine the Miracle of the drowned restored

to life in the cloister of the Santissima Nunziata, a picture reckoned

by some connoisseurs among the best in the city. His fresco works are to

be met with nearly throughout all Tuscany, and his circular pictures in

the cloister of the Servi at Pistoja, are greatly commended.

Maso Manzuoli, or M. di S. Friano, a scholar of Pierfrancesco di Jacopo

and of Portelli, is esteemed equal to Naldini and Allori by Vasari. Nor

will this appear strange to any one who beholds his Visitation, which,

for many years, decorated S. Pier Maggiore, and was afterwards carried

to Rome, where it was deposited in the gallery of the Vatican. It was

painted when he was about thirty years of age; and, in the opinion of

the historian, it abounds with beauty and grace in the figures, in the

draperies, in the architecture, and in every other circumstance. This is

his finest work, and is even among the best of that age. In his other

pictures at S. Trinita, in the ducal gallery, and elsewhere, he is

something dry; and may be compared to some writers who, though they

offend not against grammar, are not entitled to the praise of eloquence.

Alessandro Fei, or A. del Barbiere, was his companion, and partly his

scholar. This artist, who painted in private, received his first

instruction in the school of Ghirlandaio, and of Piero Francia. He had a

bold and fertile genius, adapted to large historical frescos, in which

he introduced fine architecture and grotesques. In his pictures he

attended more to design and expression than to colouring; except in some

pieces, supposed to be his last productions, and executed after the

reformation of the art by Cigoli. His picture of the Flagellation in S.

Croce is highly approved by Borghini. Baldinucci admires him, especially

in small historical subjects, such as, amongst the pieces on the writing

desk, are the Daniel at the Feast of Belshazzar, and that of the

goldsmith's art.

Federigo Zuccaro may be reckoned among the instructors of the artists of

this epoch; for whilst employed in painting the cupola of the cathedral,

where Vasari had only finished a few figures at his death, he taught

painting to Bartolommeo Carducci, who became an architect and statuary

under Amannati, and an artificer in stucco under another master.

Carducci acquired distinction by those talents in the court of his

Catholic Majesty, where he was introduced by Zuccaro; and where he

established himself and his younger brother and pupil, Vincenzio. Both

are mentioned by Palomino among the eminent artists who painted in the

court of Spain. Both must be well known there; especially the latter,

who lived but little at Florence, and who painted more pictures when in

the service of Philip III. and Philip IV. than any of his predecessors

or successors. He printed a dialogue in the Spanish tongue, _De las

Excelencias de la Pintura_, from which Baldinucci has quoted some

passages in the account of this artist.

Of some of the artists mentioned by Vasari as his assistants in the

decoration of the palace, in the preparations for the marriage of Prince

Francesco, in the funeral obsequies of Bonarruoti, or in the collection

of pictures on the writing desk, the masters are unknown; and the

knowledge would be of little consequence. Such artists are Domenico

Benci, and Tommaso del Verrocchio, whom he names in his third volume at

page 873, and Federigo di Lamberto, a Fleming, called F. del Padovano,

whom he had a little before noticed as a new citizen of Florence, and as

a considerable ornament to the academy. Omitted by Vasari, but inscribed

on the writing desk, we find the names of Niccolo Betti, who painted the

story of Caesar; of Vittor Casini, who there represented the Forge of

Vulcan; of Mirabello Cavalori, who pourtrayed Lavinia Sacrificing, and

also the emblems of the art of weaving; of Jacopo Coppi, who there

painted the Family of Darius, and the invention of gunpowder. I suspect

that they were all scholars of Michele; and Vasari has more than once

thus generally noticed them. Perhaps Cavalori is the Salincorno

mentioned in another place, and Coppi is believed to be that Jacopo di

Meglio, who is more severely treated by Borghini than any other in the

church of the Holy Cross; and not without reason; for his _Ecce Homo_ in

that place has all the defects of this epoch. Whether Coppi is to be

identified with this person or not, he cannot be equally reprehended for

his pictures on the writing desk; and in S. Salvator at Bologna, he

produced a picture of the Redeemer Crucified by the Jews, that might vie

with the best pictures in that city previous to the time of the Caracci,

and is yet one of those most full of subject and most carefully studied.

He imitated Vasari in colouring, and in propriety of invention, in

variety of figures, and in diligence in every part, I have seen no

picture of Vasari by which it is surpassed. It bears the date of 1579,

together with his name. There is an account of two of his frescos in the

Guida di Roma; one of which, very copious in subject, is placed in the

tribune of S. Pietro in Vincoli.

To the same period belongs the name of Piero di Ridolfo, by whom there

is a large altar-piece, consisting of the Ascension, and bearing the

date 1612; it is supposed that he took his name from the last of the

Ghirlandai, in whose service he may have been during his early life.

Whoever may be desirous of adding to the list of names, will find a

great number in a letter of Borghini to the Prince D. Francesco (Lett.

Pittor. tom. i. p. 90), in which he suggests a plan for the preparations

of the Prince's nuptials, as well as the artists best qualified to

conduct them. The names, however, I here give would be more than amply

sufficient, were it not my wish to illustrate Vasari by every means in

my power.

After considering the artists of Florence, on turning to the rest of

Tuscany, we find in many places other associates of Giorgio, who,

perhaps, had as many assistants in painting as bricklayers in

architecture. Stefano Veltroni, of Monte Sansavino, his cousin, was a

man of slow parts, but very respectable in the art. He assisted Vasari

in the vineyard of Pope Julius; or rather he superintended the grotesque

works in that place; and followed his cousin to Naples, to Bologna, and

to Florence. I know not whether Orazio Porta, likewise a native of

Sansavino, and Alessandro Fortori of Arezzo, ever left Tuscany; they

appear to have painted chiefly in their native city and its vicinity.

Bastiano Flori and Fra Salvatore Foschi, both natives of Arezzo, were

employed in the Roman Chancery, along with Bagnacavallo, and the

Spaniards Ruviale and Bizzerra. Andrea Aretino, the scholar of Daniello,

lived at a later period, or at least until 1615.[207]

About this time Citta San Sepolcro was a seminary for painters, who were

either wholly or chiefly educated by Raffaellino; and from this place

Vasari invited not only the master, but several of the scholars to

assist him in his labours. He was greatly assisted by Cristoforo

Gherardi, surnamed Doceno, whose life he has written. This artist was

his right hand, if we may be allowed the expression, in almost every

place where he was much employed. Gherardi followed his designs with a

freedom resulting from a genius pliant, copious, and natural, adapted to

ornamental works. Such was his talent for managing fresco colours, that

Vasari pronounces himself his inferior: but the grotesques of the

Vitelli palace, which are wholly his own, shew him not to have been more

vigorous in his colouring. The oil picture of the Visitation in the

church of S. Domenico, at Citta di Castello, is entirely his own; but

Vasari does not mention it. The upper part of the picture of S. Maria

del Popolo, at Perugia, is likewise his; and is no less elegant and

graceful, than the lower part, which is the work of Lattanzio della

Marca, is firm and vigorous. Doceno died in his native place in 1552;

and Cosmo I. honoured his tomb with a bust of marble, and an epitaph, in

which he is said to be _Pingendi arte praestantissimus_, and Vasari, who

had approved of his labours in the old palace, is called _hujus artis

facile princeps_. It is written in the name of all the Tuscan

painters,[208] and is alone sufficient to demonstrate the state of this

school, and the taste of Cosmo. After this specimen, it is not

surprising that the prince neglected to have his portrait painted by

Tiziano, whom he would esteem little in comparison to his own Vasari. It

is a true observation that virtues are not hereditary, or, as it is

expressed by the poet, they rarely spring up again in the branches. Leo

X. was the patron of the arts, and he knew how to appreciate them; but

Cosmo encouraged, without possessing taste to discriminate.

The Three Cungi (or Congi, as some will have it) are also claimed by San

Sepolcro. Gio. Batista was the servant of Vasari for seven years;

Lionardo is described to us as an eminent designer, in the life of

Perino, and in that of Zuccaro is said to have been a painter employed

in the pontifical palace about 1560, along with his countryman Durante

del Nero. For a knowledge of the third brother, Francesco, I am indebted

to my learned friend Sig. Annibale Lancisi; and I have since received

more particular information from Sig. Giachi, who gives an account of an

altar-piece of S. Sebastiano, in the cathedral at Volterra, together

with the receipt for its purchase money in 1587, where he is called

_Francesco di Leonardo Cugni da Borgo_. At Rome we cannot judge properly

of their style, but it may be discovered in their own country, in the

church of S. Rocco, at the convent of the Osservanti, and in other

places. Their compositions display great simplicity, their ideas are

chiefly drawn from nature, and they attended sufficiently to colouring.

Raffaele Scaminossi, a scholar of Raffaellino, painted in a similar but

somewhat more lively manner. I learn nothing of Giovanni Paolo del

Borgo, except that he was the assistant of Vasari in his very hasty

labours in the Chancery, about 1545. He cannot be the Gio. de' Vecchi

who painted so much in Rome, as we are informed by Baglione; and who

chiefly excelled at Caprarola, when contending with Taddeo Zuccaro, and

in the church of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, in the various histories of the

Martyr. He appears to have arrived at a later period, as did the three

Alberti, who were of a family in San Sepolcro, abounding in painters.

They went to study at Rome, and easily formed themselves on the style

common to artists in the time of Gregory XIII. There they took up their

abode, and there died, after having executed many works, especially in

fresco, in that city, and also some memorials of their art in their

native country.

The cathedral contains a Nativity by Durante, a subject which he handled

better in the Vallicella of Rome, and which is, perhaps, his best

performance in that city: in others he is often languid, both in design

and colouring, and appears rather a laborious artist than a man of

genius. Cherubino, the reputed son of Michele, and the assistant of

Daniel di Volterra,[209] was a celebrated engraver on copper, and from

this art he derived great assistance in design. Although late in

applying to painting, he obtained a name in those times. His proportions

were light and spirited; his choirs of angels were agreeable and

original; his penciling and whole composition were dexterous and

spontaneous. Such is the character of his Trinity in the cathedral of

Borgo, in which place there remains the facade of a palace, well

conceived, ornamented with arms, genii, and other fanciful devices. He

painted the ceiling of the chapel of Minerva in Rome with various

ornaments and figures, on a golden ground; in that city, however, he

generally assisted his younger brother Giovanni, who introduced a new

era in perspective; not only by his works, existing in the houses of

private individuals at San Sepolcro, and other cities, but by the fresco

perspectives which he executed at Rome. He claims admiration in the

sacristy of the church of S. Gio. Laterano, where he imitated the

salient and receding angles of architecture; and still more in the grand

Clementine salon, the most prodigious and exquisite work in perspective

then existing. Baglione highly commends the S. Clement and other figures

with which it is ornamented; and remarks that they are admirably

foreshortened, and are superior to those of Cherubino, who was not so

eminent in perspectives. Baglione mentions a Francesco, the son of

Durante, who died at Rome. I am uncertain whether he is the

Pierfrancesco to whom we attribute the Ascension, in the church of S.

Bartholomew at Borgo, with some pictures of no great merit in the church

of S. John, and in other places. History mentions also Donato, Girolamo,

Cosimo, and Alessandro Alberti, of whom I can collect nothing further.

The writers of Prato exalt their countryman, Domenico Giuntalocchio,

pupil to Soggi, in whose life Vasari mentions Domenico more as an

engineer than a painter. He describes him as a correct portrait painter,

but so extremely tardy in his works in fresco, that he became tiresome

to the Aretini, with whom he for some time dwelt. I cannot point out any

genuine picture from his hand; but his memory is still fresh in the

minds of his fellow citizens, because, instead of leaving his native

place ornamented with his pictures, he left 10,000 crowns as a fund to

be appropriated to the education of young artists.

After the death of Daniel, his scholar and relation Giovanni Paolo

Rossetti, retired to Volterra, and, as is attested by Vasari, executed

works of great merit in this his native place; among which we may reckon

the Deposto, in the church of S. Dalmatius. At a short distance from the

city is a place which gave name to Niccolo dalle Pomarance, of the

family of Circignani. Vasari describes him as a young man of ability. He

neglects to inform us who was his master; but he appears to have been

Titi, whom he assisted in the great salon of the Belvidere palace. He

grew old in Rome, where he left numerous specimens of the labours of his

pencil, which he employed with freedom, and at a good price. He shewed

himself greatly superior to the artists of this period, in some of his

works, as in the Cupola of S. Pudenziana. Cavalier Roncalli was a native

of the same place; there are pictures by them both at Pomarance; where

there are also some by Antonio Circignani, the son of the former, an

able artist, though little known. All three will again be treated of in

the third book.

Pistoia possessed at the same time two scholars of Ricciarelli; Biagio

da Cutigliano, noticed by Vasari,[210] and P. Biagio Betti Teatino, a

miniature painter, sculptor, and historical painter of merit, whom

Baglione represents as constantly employed in the service of the church

and convent to which he belonged. Leghorn gave birth to Jacopo

Rosignoli, pupil of an unknown master, who lived in Piedmont, where his

works must be sought. Baccio Lomi, whose style much resembles that of

Zuccaro, remained at Pisa: he owes much of his skill and of his

reputation to his two nephews, as we shall afterwards relate. Though

unknown beyond the limits of his native country, he must not be passed

over in silence. The Assumption, in the residence of the Canons, and

some of his other pictures, participate of the hardness of the age, but

exhibit very good design and colouring.

Paolo Guidotti distinguished himself in the neighbouring state of Lucca,

as a painter of genius and of spirit, no less than a man of letters, and

well grounded in anatomical knowledge; but his taste was not polished

and refined. He came to Rome in the distracted times of Gregory and

Sixtus, and lived there during the pontificate of Paul V., who created

him a knight, and conservator of Rome: he further permitted him to

assume the additional name of Borghese, the family name of the pontiff.

Many of his paintings in fresco are preserved at Rome, in the Vatican

library, in the Apostolic chamber, and in several churches: the artists

with whom he was associated, prove that he was reputed a good artist.

Several of his pictures are in his native place; and there is a large

piece representing the Republic, in the palace. Girolamo Massei pursued

a similar track, only confining himself to the art of painting.

Baglione, who gave an account of him, introduces him into Rome as an

artist, already much commended for his accuracy; to which Taia adds,

that he was both a good designer and colourist; so much so as to lead us

to distinguish him from the crowd of Gregorian and Sixtine

practitioners, in the same way that he was chosen by P. Danti to

ornament the chambers of the Vatican; of which more hereafter. He

returned to his native place in his old age, not to employ himself anew,

but to die in tranquillity among his friends. Benedetto Brandimarte, of

Lucca, is mentioned by Orlandi. I saw a decollation of S. John by this

artist in the church of S. Peter, at Genoa, which was but a miserable

performance; a single production, however, is not sufficient to decide

the character of an artist.

The name of a Pietro Ferabosco is mentioned only by the continuator of

Orlandi; he is supposed to have been a native of Lucca, though he is

referred to the academy of Rome, where he probably pursued his first

studies; I say _probably_, because the excellence of his colouring in

the Titian manner, would lead me rather to include him among the

Venetian artists. There are three of his half-length figures, together

with his name, and the date of 1616, reported as being in the possession

of a gentleman in Portugal; where he resided, most likely, a longer

period than in Italy.

We have already noticed some Tuscans who acquired distinction in the

inferior branches of painting; such as Veltroni, Constantino de' Servi,

Zucchi, and Alberti: Antonio Tempesti, of Florence, a scholar both of

Titi and Stradano, was among the first to acquire a celebrated name in

Italy for landscapes and for battles. He practised engraving on copper,

prepared cartoons for tapestry, and gave scope to his genius in the most

fanciful inventions in grotesque and ornamental work. He surpassed his

master in spirit, and was inferior to none, not even to the Venetians.

In a Letter on Painting by the Marquis Giustiniani,[211] he is adduced

as an example of great spirit in design, a gift conferred by nature, and

not to be acquired by art. He attempted few things on a large scale, and

was not so successful as in small pictures. The Marquis Niccolini, the

Order of the Nunziata, and several Florentine families, possess some of

his battles painted on alabaster, in which he appears the precursor of

Borgognone, who is said to have studied him attentively. He most

frequently painted in fresco, as at Caprarola, in the Este Villa at

Tivoli, and in many parts of Rome, from the time of Gregory XIII. Most

of the historical pictures in the Vatican gallery are the work of his

hands; the figures are a palm and a half high, and display astonishing

variety and spirit, accompanied by beautiful architecture and

landscapes, with every species of decoration. He is not, however, very

correct; and his tints are sometimes too much inclined to a brownish

hue; but all such faults are pardonable in him, as being occasioned by

that pictoric fury which inspired him, that fancy which hurried him from

earth, and conducted him through novel and sublime regions, unattempted

by the vulgar herd of artists.

[Footnote 181: "All painters seem to worship him as their great master,

prince, and god of design." It is thus Monsig. Claudio Tolomei writes in

a letter to Apollonio Filareto, towards the end of the fifth book. Such

is the opinion of the artists of the Leonine age, whatever may be the

judgment passed in the age of Pius VI.]

[Footnote 182: Baldinucci, tom. ix. p. 35.]

[Footnote 183: He executed a picture of S. Sigismund for the church of

S. Lorenzo, at the desire of the noble family of Martelli, which

delighted the Duke Cosmo. This picture ought to be removed from the

altar, for the tints are fading.]

[Footnote 184: We learn from Pliny, that Filosseno Eretrio, celeritatem

praeceptoris (Nicomachi) secutus breviores etiamnum quasdam picturae vias,

et compendiarias invenit. (Lib. XXXV. cap. 36.) We perceive, however,

from the context, that his pictures were no less perfect on that

account; and I believe that those compendious means were more

particularly connected with the mechanism of the art.]

[Footnote 185: See Lettere Pittoriche, tom. ii. let. 2.]

[Footnote 186: Bald. tom. ix. p. 35.]

[Footnote 187: See his "Description of the preparations for the marriage

of the Prince D. Francesco, of Tuscany." It is inserted in volume xi. of

the ed. of Siena, which we frequently allude to.]

[Footnote 188: "Treatises by the Cav. Giorgio Vasari, painter and

architect of Arezzo, upon the designs painted by him at Florence, in the

palace of their Serene Highnesses, &c.; together with the design of the

painting commenced by him in the cupola." It is a posthumous work,

supplied by his nephew Giorgio Vasari, who published it in 1588 at

Florence. It was republished at Arezzo in 1762, in 4to.]

[Footnote 189: He had been well imbued with literature at Arezzo, and,

when a youth at Florence, "he spent two hours every day along with

Ippolito and Alessandro de' Medici, under their master Pierio." Vasari

nella Vita del Salviati.]

[Footnote 190: See Lett. Pittoriche, tom. iii. lett. 104.]

[Footnote 191: Bottari adduces an authentic document of this in his

Preface, page 6.]

[Footnote 192: In the Dedicatory Letter to Cosmo I., prefixed to second

edit.]

[Footnote 193: See Lett. Pittor. tom. iii. let. 226.]

[Footnote 194: It is founded also on Vasari's remark, in his Life of

Frate: "_There is likewise a portrait by F. Gio. da Fiesole, whose life

we have given, which is in the part of the Beati_;" which cannot,

observes Bottari, apply to any other except D. Silvano Razzi, author of

the "Vite dei S. S. e Beati Toscani;" among which is found that of B.

Giovanni. But this indication would be little; or at least it is not

all. The document which clearly reveals the fact, has been pointed out

to me by the polite attention of Sig. Luigi de Poirot, Secretary to the

Royal Finances; and this is in the "Vite de' SS. e BB. dell' ordine de'

Frati Predicatori di Serafino Razzi Domenicano," published after the

death of Vasari, in Florence, 1577. In these, treating of works in the

fine arts in S. Domenico at Bologna, he adds; "we cannot give a

particular account of these histories, but whoever is desirous of it may

consult the whole, in the Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and

Architects, written, _for the most part_, by D. Silvano Razzi, my

brother, for the Cav. Giorgio Vasari of Arezzo, his very intimate

friend." After such information, we must suppose that Vasari, having

communicated his materials to this monk, received from him a great

number of Lives, that boast such elegant prefaces and fine reflections;

but that he here and there retouched them; adding things either from

haste or inadvertency, not well connected with the context, or repeated

elsewhere. And in this way we may account for the many inconsistencies

to be met with in a number of Lives, very finely written, but containing

passages that do not appear to come from the same pen, and frequently

make the author contradict himself.]

[Footnote 195: It is to be observed that Bottari wrote principally to

mark the changes that the works described by Vasari had undergone during

200 years. In regard to the emendations pointed out by us, he declares

in the Preface, that he could not undertake them for want of time,

health, books, and most of all, inclination. However, we are indebted

for not a few to him, and also to P. Guglielmo, though not equally so in

every school. Both are writers of merit; the former by his citations

from printed works, the second for his information of MSS. and unedited

authors.]

[Footnote 196: Tom. vii. p. 249.]

[Footnote 197: Vide Taia _Descrizione del Palazzo Vaticano_, p. 11.

Zuccaro did not so readily pardon Vasari, whose work he noted with

severity: as did also one of the three Caracci. Lett. Pittor. tom. iv.

lett. 210.]

[Footnote 198: Tom. viii. p. 203.]

[Footnote 199: P. 117.]

[Footnote 200: Tom. viii. p. 123.]

[Footnote 201: "Although I do not deny, that he shews himself a little

too much the partizan, he ought not to be defrauded of his due praise,

as is attempted by the ignorant and invidious; for the completion of

such an elegant and finished history must have cost him great study and

research, and demanded much ingenuity and discrimination." Idea del

Tempio, &c. cap. iv.]

[Footnote 202: Lett. Pittor. tom. i. p. 190.]

[Footnote 203: Lett. Pittor. tom. iii. p. 51.]

[Footnote 204: He examines the question, then keenly contested, whether

Sculpture or Painting was the most noble art. He decides in favour of

his own profession: and there are some other letters in that volume on

the opposite side of the question worthy of perusal. Bonarruoti, on

being asked this question by Varchi, was unwilling to give a decision.

(See tom. i. p. 7, and p. 22.) After Bonarruoti's decease the contest

was renewed, and prose and verse compositions appeared on both sides.

Lasca wrote in favour of painting, while Cellini defended sculpture.

(See Notes to the Rime of Lasca, p. 314.) Lomazzo is well worthy of

notice in his Treatise, lib. ii. p. 158, in which he gives a MS. of

Lionardo, drawn up at the request of Lodovico Sforza, where he prefers

painting to the sister art.]

[Footnote 205: For an account of this writing desk, which was made

during the life of Cosmo I., see Baldinucci, tom. x. p. 154 and 182.]

[Footnote 206: We there may read Allori, Titi, Buti, Naldini, Cosci,

Macchietti, Minga, Butteri, Sciorini, Sanfriano, Fei, Betti, Casini,

Coppi, and Cavalori; besides Vasari, Stradano, and Poppi, already

noticed.]

[Footnote 207: Baglione, in the Life of P. Biagio Betti.]

[Footnote 208: Pictores Hetrusci.]

[Footnote 209: Vasari calls him Michele Fiorentino, and the painter of

the Slaughter of the Innocents, which we have noticed at page 187.

Orlandi makes him the father of Cherubino, an assertion which is not

contradicted by Bottari. I follow Baglione, the contemporary of

Cherubino, who says that he was the son of Alberto Alberti, an eminent

engraver on copper.]

[Footnote 210: Vasari writes the name _da Carigliano_, in which he has

been followed by other writers on the art, including myself, until I was

informed by Sig. Ansaldi that it ought really to be written

_Cutigliano_, taken from a considerable territory in the Pistoiese.]

[Footnote 211: Tom. vi. p. 25.]

FLORENTINE SCHOOL.

EPOCH IV.

_Cigoli and his associates improve the style of Painting._

Whilst the Florentines regarded Michelangiolo and his imitators as their

models, they experienced the fate of the poets of the fifteenth century,

who fixed their eyes on Petrarca and his followers alone; they

contracted a strong similarity of style, and differed from each other

only according to their individual talents and genius. As we have above

remarked, they began to exhibit some diversity after the age of Titi;

but they were still languid colourists, and required to be impelled into

another career. About 1580 the period had at length arrived, when they

began to abandon the manner of their countrymen for that of foreign

artists; and then, as we shall have occasion to shew in treating of this

epoch, the Florentine styles became firm and varied. This revolution

originated with two young artists, Lodovico Cigoli and Gregorio Pagani.

We learn from Baldinucci, that, attracted by the celebrity of Barocci,

and a picture which he had recently sent from Urbino to Arezzo, which is

now in the royal gallery at Florence, they went together to see it; they

examined it attentively, and were so captivated with the style, that

they immediately renounced the manner of their master. Passignano

followed their steps, continues Baldinucci, and Cigoli, in his company,

took a second journey as far as Perugia, when Barocci had completed his

celebrated Deposition from the Cross; but here the historian fell into a

chronological error, inasmuch as Bellori, the accurate writer of

Barocci's life, describes his picture at Perugia as anterior to that at

Arezzo by several years. In whatever way the mistake ought to be cleared

up, it is certain that Passignano promoted the views of Cigoli. Their

example turned the rising generation from the old manner to a more

vigorous style. This was more especially the case with Empoli, with Cav.

Curradi, and some of those above mentioned, who were followed by

Cristofano Allori, and Rosselli, artists that transmitted the new method

to their new disciples. They did not, however, imitate Barocci so much

as Correggio, who was the model of Barocci. Unable to visit Lombardy,

they studied the few copies of his pictures, and still fewer originals,

that were to be met with in Florence, in order to acquire his management

of chiaroscuro, a branch of the art then neglected in Florence, and even

at Rome. To this end they began to model in clay and wax; they wrought

in plaster; they studied attentively the effects of light and shade;

they paid less attention to practical rules, and more to nature. Hence

arose a new style which, in my opinion, is among the best hitherto

attempted in Italy; corrected upon the model of the Florentine school;

soft and well relieved on that of Lombardy. If their forms had

approached to Grecian elegance, if their expression had been more

refined, the improvement of painting, which about this time took place

in Italy, should have been ascribed no less to Florence than to Bologna.

Some favourable circumstances assisted the progress of the Florentine

school; among these we may mention a succession of princes friendly to

the art;[212] the readiness with which the celebrated Galileo imparted

to artists his discoveries, and the laws of perspective; the travels of

several Florentine masters to Venice, and through Lombardy; and the long

residence of foreign artists, eminent as colourists, at the court of

Florence. But it was chiefly owing to Ligozzi, who studied under the

Venetian masters, then considered as the best in Italy, and who animated

the old Florentine style with greater spirit and brilliancy than it had

hitherto displayed. After noticing the good style of that period, we

must not omit to mention one less praiseworthy; a sombre manner, which

usurped the place of the other, and at this day renders many pictures of

that period of little or no value. Some ascribe the fault to the method

of mixing the colours, which was everywhere changed; and hence it is not

peculiar to the Florentines, but is found diffused over Italy. It was

partly owing likewise to the rage for chiaroscuro carried to excess. It

is the characteristic of every school of long standing to carry to an

erroneous excess the fundamental maxims of its master: this we have

remarked in the preceding epoch, this we shall find exemplified in every

period of painting, and this, if it were consistent with our present

undertaking, we might demonstrate to have happened in literature; for a

good rule extravagantly pursued leads to the corruption of taste. We

shall now direct our attention to the fourth epoch, in which, omitting

the two older authorities, Vasari and Borghini, we shall chiefly follow

Baldinucci, who was acquainted with the artists we are now to consider,

or with their successors.[213]

Lodovico Cardi da Cigoli, the scholar of Santi di Tito, first awakened

his countrymen to a nobler style, as we have already observed. The

additional observation of Baldinucci, that he perhaps surpassed all his

contemporaries, and that few or none derived such benefit as he did,

from the study of Correggio, will not readily be granted by those who

are conversant with Schedone, the Caracci, or even Barocci, when they

chose to imitate the manner of that great master. From the pictures that

have reached our time, Cigoli appears to have acquired a fine effect of

light and shade from Correggio; to have united this to a scientific

design, to a judicious perspective, the rules of which were previously

taught him by Buontalenti, and to a vivacity of colouring superior to

his countrymen, among whom he unquestionably holds a high rank. His

works, however, exhibit not that contrast of colouring, that mellowness

and clearness, that grace in foreshortenings and features, that

characterize the ornament of the Lombard school. In short he was the

inventor of a style always beautiful, but not always equal; especially

if we compare his early works with his pictures executed after his visit

to Rome. His general colouring savours of the school of Lombardy, his

draperies sometimes resemble those of Paolo Veronese, and he often

rivals the bold style of Guercino.

Independent of the great number of his pictures in the royal gallery,

and many in the possession of the noble family of Pecori, there are a

few in some private houses in Florence. The following are his most

esteemed pictures: the Trinity, in S. Croce; the S. Alberto, in S. Maria

Maggiore; the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, in the nunnery of Monte Domini,

which Pietro da Cortona considers one of the finest pictures in

Florence. Of the same class is the picture which he placed in the church

of the Conventualists at Cortona, in which S. Anthony is represented in

the act of converting an unbeliever, by a miracle of a mule that is seen

kneeling before the holy sacrament: in this piece he aspired at

surpassing any work of art in that highly decorated city. In the Vatican

he painted S. Peter healing the Lame, a wonderful production, which,

among the pictures in Rome, was reckoned by Sacchi next in excellence to

the Transfiguration by Raffaello, and the S. Girolamo by Domenichino.

The Florentine school may well be proud of this opinion, pronounced as

it was by a profound connoisseur, by no means usually lavish of his

commendations. This masterpiece, which obtained him the honour of

knighthood, is, however, utterly ruined by the dampness of the church,

and the ignorance of one who undertook to repair it: but his frescos in

the church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome still remain; and there, by some

error in perspective, he appears inferior to himself;[214] nor was he

permitted to retouch them, notwithstanding that he employed both

interest and entreaties to that effect. Fortune, in some degree,

persecuted this great artist; for had those frescos perished, and that

oil painting remained to our times, Cigoli would have enjoyed a higher

fame, and Baldinucci obtained more credit.

Andrea Comodi and Giovanni Bilivert, nearly approached Cigoli; Aurelio

Lomi followed at a greater distance. Of the latter, I shall speak among

the Pisan artists, a few pages further on; and of two Romans, belonging

to the same school, in the third book. Comodi, the associate rather than

the scholar of Cigoli, is almost unknown at Florence; but there are many

of his copies after celebrated masters, which often pass for originals,

both in that city and at Rome. This was his peculiar talent; in this he

was unrivalled; and it employed his best years. He produced, however,

several original works that are highly valuable for the design, the

exquisite finish, and the strong body of colouring they display. In

these we may trace the friend of Cigoli, and the copyist of Raffaello.

They are chiefly Madonnas, and are greatly admired for the disposition

of the fingers, which are somewhat spread out, for the graceful slender

neck, and a certain virgin air peculiarly his own. The Corsini family at

Rome possess a very fine one. Some of his fresco pictures remain in the

church of S. Vitale, in that city; and there is a picture of the Titular

saint in S. Carlo a' Catinari, which appears dark and cloudy; an

uncommon circumstance with so good a colourist.

Gio. Bilivert is a name which we in vain look for in Orlandi, who has

transformed him into two painters, one of whom he calls Antonio

Biliverti, and the other, in imitation of Baglione, whose knowledge of

him was inaccurate, Gio. Ballinert; both Florentines, and pupils of

Cigoli. Like the preceding artist, Bilivert is not always equal to

himself. He finished some pictures that had been left imperfect by

Cigoli, to whose design and colouring he endeavoured to unite the

expression of Titi, and a more avowed and frequent imitation of the

ornaments of Paolo Veronese. Bilivert is not sufficiently choice in

heads; but he abounds in expression, as may be seen at S. Gaetano and S.

Marco, where there are many of his historical pictures, particularly the

Raising of the Cross, esteemed one of his best performances. Those

pieces which he engaged to execute, and in which he never appears able

to satisfy himself, are repeated by his scholars: sometimes inscribed

with the initials of his name, especially when he himself retouched

them; at other times they are without an epigraph. None of his

productions are so worthy of being copied as Joseph with Potiphar's

wife; which arrests the eye of every spectator in the ducal gallery.

Many copies of it are to be found in Florence; it may be seen in foreign

collections, in the Barberini Palace at Rome, in the Obizzo collection

at Cattaio, and in several other places.

The ornamented style of Bilivert had many imitators, whose works, in

galleries and in private houses, would pass for those of Venetian

artists, had they greater spirit and a better colouring. Bartolommeo

Salvestrini is at their head; but he was cut off in his prime, by the

plague of 1630, so disastrous to Italy and the art. Orazio Fidani, an

assiduous artist, and skilled in the style of his master, painted much

at Florence; where his Tobias, that was finished for the fraternity of

Scala, but is now removed, is especially commended. Francesco Bianchi

Buonavita was engaged in few public works. He was chiefly employed in

copying ancient pictures, which the court presented to foreign princes,

and in furnishing cabinets with little historical pieces, that were at

that time in great request in countries beyond the Alps. They were

painted on jasper, agate, lapis lazzuli, and other hard stones; the

spots in which assisted in forming the shadows of the pictures. Agostino

Melissi contributed much to the tapestry of the ducal family, by

furnishing cartoons from the works of Andrea del Sarto, and also some of

his own invention. He likewise possessed a genius for oil painting; in

which branch his S. Peter at the Gate of Pilate, which he painted for

the noble family of Gaburri, is particularly praised by Baldinucci.

Francesco Montelatici, by some supposed a Pisan, by others a Florentine,

and surnamed Cecco Bravo, from his quarrelsome disposition, abandoned

the style of Bilivert, or at least mixed it with that of Passignano. He

was a fanciful and spirited designer, and not a bad colourist. A fine

painting of S. Niccolo Vescovo, by this artist, is to be seen at the

church of S. Simone; but his works are rare in churches, for he was

chiefly employed in painting for private, and sometimes for royal

collections. He died painter to the court of Inspruck. Giovanni Maria

Morandi remained but a little time with Bilivert, and on going to Rome,

adopted the style of that school.

Gregorio Pagani was the son of Francesco, who died young; but was highly

esteemed by his countrymen. He had studied the works of Polidoro and of

Michelangiolo, at Rome, and executed admirable imitations of them for

private gentlemen in Florence. Gregorio himself could scarcely

distinguish them. He received the rudiments of his art from Titi, but

was initiated in a better style by Cigoli. Strangers praised him as a

second Cigoli, whilst his country possessed at the Carmine the picture

of the Finding of the Cross, which has been engraved; but when the

painting, with the church, was consumed by fire, no great work of his

remained in public, except a few of his frescos; one of which, though

somewhat injured by time, is an ornament to the cloister of S. Maria

Novella. He is rarely to be met with in Florentine collections, as he

chiefly painted for foreigners. Of his school I here say nothing: it

only produced one eminent pupil; but this one was so conspicuous that he

may be said to form a new era, as we shall find in the sequel.

Another associate of Cigoli was Domenico da Passignano, the scholar of

Naldini and of Federigo Zuccaro, whom he resembles most, from his long

residence at Venice; where he likewise married. He became so decided an

admirer of the merits of this school, that he was accustomed to say that

he who had not seen Venice, ought not to boast that he was a painter.

This circumstance sufficiently accounts for his style, which is not the

most profound, nor the most correct; but it exhibits contrivance, is

vast, rich in architecture and in drapery, resembling more the manner of

Paolo Veronese, than that of the Florentine school. Sometimes he

resembles Tintoretto in his attitudes, and in that oily colouring which

ought to have been avoided; and through which many works of both artists

have perished. This has been the fate of his Crucifixion of St. Peter,

which he executed for the great church in Rome, under Paul V. and of the

Presentation of M. V. which he also painted at the same place under

Urban VIII. Several pictures, however, remain in some Italian cities,

that were begun by his scholars and finished by him, with a degree of

care that hands him down to posterity as a great artist. A dead Christ,

in the chapel of Mongradone, at Frascati, is in this style; as are an

Entombing of Christ, in the Borghese palace, at Rome; a Christ bearing

the Cross, in the college of S. Giovannino, and some other works of his

at Florence. Passignano, his native place, possesses what is perhaps his

most perfect work, in the font of the Church of the Fathers of

Vallombrosa. He there painted a Glory, that proclaims him an excellent

artist, and worthy of a place with his pupils, Lodovico Caracci, the

founder of the Bolognese school, and Tirani, one of its great ornaments.

His Tuscan pupils did not attain equal celebrity. Sorri of Siena, whom

we reserve for that school, is the one best known in Italy; having

painted with applause in several of her cities. Here we must consider

those artists connected with Florence.

Fabrizio Boschi is a spirited painter, whose characteristic excellence

appears to consist in novelty of composition, united to a precision

superior to the generality of his school. A S. Bonaventura in the act of

celebrating mass, in All Saints' church at Florence, is much praised:

and, perhaps, his two historical frescos of Cosmo II. which he painted

in the palace of Cardinal Gio. Carlo de' Medici, in emulation of

Rosselli, are superior to any of his other works. Ottavio Vannini became

eminent in colouring and was very attentive to every other branch of

painting; but he was sometimes poor and cold; and although good in each

part of his pictures, was not happy in the whole. Cesare Dandini, a

disciple of several schools, imitated Passignano in design, in

brilliancy, and also in the perishable nature of his colours: he was

diligent in other things, and very assiduous. His best picture is a S.

Carlo, surrounded by other saints, in the church of Ancona: the

composition is fine, and the whole in good preservation. Many works of

this artist, and of Vannini, decorate collections.

Nicodemo Ferrucci, the favourite pupil of Passignano, and the companion

of his labours at Rome, possessed much of the boldness and spirit of his

master. By his example he was led to affix a good price to his pictures,

mostly frescos executed at Florence, Fiesole, and for the State. He died

young at Fontebuoni; but many of his works, too good to be here omitted,

still remain in Rome; one of the most esteemed of which is found at S.

Gio. de' Fiorentini, besides two histories of Maria S. S. which, if I

mistake not, have suffered from being retouched.

Cristofano Allori was at perpetual variance with Alessandro, his father

and preceptor, on account of his attachment to the novel maxims of the

three masters we have just commended. In the opinion of many he is the

greatest painter of this epoch. When the excellence he attained, during

a long life, is considered, he appears to me in some degree, the

Cantarini of his school. They resembled each other in the beauty, grace,

and exquisite finish of their figures; with this difference, that the

beauty of Cantarini partakes more of the ideal, and that the flesh tints

of Allori are more happy. This circumstance is the more surprising,

inasmuch as he knew nothing of the Caracci, nor of Guido; but supplied

all by a nice discrimination, and an unwearied perseverance; for it was

his custom never to lift his pencil from the canvass until his hand had

obeyed the dictates of his fancy. From this method, and from vicious

habits that often seduced him from his labours, his pictures are

extremely rare, and he himself is little known. The S. Julian of the

Pitti palace is the grandest effort of his genius; and if it is not

among the finest pictures in this magnificent collection, it undoubtedly

claims the highest rank in the second class. His picture of Beato

Manetto, in the church of the Servi, a small piece, but excellent in its

kind, is reckoned the next in merit.

Many young men were sent to be instructed by him in the art of painting;

but few of them remained long: most of them were disgusted at the

dissipation of the master, and the insolence of some of their fellow

students. He formed some landscape painters, whom we shall notice under

their class; and also some copyists, whose labours may boast of hues and

retouching, the work of his hand. Of this class were Valerio

Tanteri,[215] F. Bruno Certosino, and Lorenzo Cerrini. These, and other

artists of this school, continued the Giovian series of the later race

of illustrious men, by transmitting to us many of their portraits, to

which he also lent his hand. To them we owe numerous duplicates of his

most celebrated pictures, which are scattered through Florence, and over

all Italy; more especially of that Judith, so beautifully and

magnificently attired, which is a portrait of his mistress; while her

mother appears in the character of Abra, and the head of Holofernes is

that of the painter, who permitted his beard to grow a considerable time

for this purpose. Zanobi Rosi lived to a later period, and finished some

pieces that were left imperfect by the death of Cristofano; but he never

obtained the praise of invention. The name of Giovanni Batista Vanni is

superior to any other scholar of the school of Allori. The Pisans claim

him as their countryman; Baldinucci assigns him to Florence. After

taking lessons from Empoli and other masters, he attended Allori for six

years; and whilst he imitated this master admirably in colouring, and

rivalled him in design, he also imbibed his lessons of intemperance. Had

he conducted himself with more propriety, and adhered more to fixed

principles, the genius he possessed might have raised him to more

celebrity. He visited the best schools of Italy, and copied on the spot,

or at least designed, the choicest productions of each. Many praise some

of his copies of Tiziano, of Correggio, and of Paolo Veronese: from the

works of the two last he likewise made etchings. Notwithstanding such

studies his colouring degenerated, and he became so much a mannerist,

that he has not left behind him a truly classical work. The S. Lorenzo

in the church of S. Simone, which is reckoned the masterpiece of Vanni,

has nothing uncommon, except it be that the light of the fire invests

the spectators, and gives the picture novelty and surprising harmony.

Jacopo da Empoli, a scholar of Friano, retains in most of his works the

stamp of his early education; but he adopted a second manner which is

not deficient in fulness of design, nor in elegance of colouring. Such

is his S. Ivo, which, among painters of great name in a cabinet of the

ducal gallery, surprises most strangers more than the other pictures. He

executed other works on similar principles, from which we might infer

that he belongs to an era favourable to the art. Painters cannot, like

authors, amend the first on a second edition of the same subject: their

second editions, by which they should be judged, pass as other pictures

superior to their first performances. Two of Jacopo's pictures in fresco

are commended by Moreni (tom. ii. p. 113), one belonging to the Certosa,

the other to the monastery of Boldrone; both which prove the extent of

his ability in this branch of the art; but after the period of his fall

from the scaffolding in the Certosa, he abandoned this method and

devoted himself wholly to painting in oil. Empoli gave all the beauty

and fine effect of large works to those pleasing pictures he painted for

private individuals, and in this style he was very successful.

This artist taught Vanni the principles of painting; but his greatest

pupil was Felice Ficherelli; a man of the most indolent disposition,

lazy in every occupation, and, as if afraid of disturbing his tongue,

usually silent unless when asked a question: hence he was named Felice

Riposo by the Florentines. He executed few pictures; but what proceeded

from his studio may be held up as an example of industry in the art;

simple, natural, and studied, without appearing to be so. There is a

picture of S. Anthony by him in S. Maria Nuova, where he seems to have

been directed by his intimate friend Cristofano, whose work it strongly

resembles. He is rare in collections; but always makes a good figure

there by his graceful design, his full body of colouring, and his

softness. The Adam and Eve driven out of Paradise, in the gallery of the

Rinuccini palace, is worthy such a collection. He copied Pietro

Perugino, Andrea del Sarto, and some other masters so well, that his

work might pass for the originals; and to this employment we may chiefly

attribute the exquisite finish of his pictures.

To this period we may assign some other artists, who, from whatever

cause, are, perhaps, less commended by historians than they deserve. Of

this number is Giovanni Martinelli, of whom there is a capital work in

the Conventualists of Pescia, viz. the Miracle of S. Anthony, a subject

mentioned a little above, as having been also executed by Cigoli. His

Feast of Belshazzar, in the ducal gallery at Florence, and his Guardian

Angel at S. Lucia de' Bardi, are pictures of note, but inferior to that

at Pescia. Of the same class also is Michel Cinganelli, a scholar of

Poccetti, who was employed in the metropolitan church of Pisa, where he

ornamented the corbels of the cupola, and strove to emulate the best

Tuscan artists of his age in an historical picture of Joshua. Such is

Palladino, mentioned in the Guide of Florence in reference to a S.

Giovanni Decollato; a work deserving notice, for its freedom from the

beaten track of his school. He seems to have studied the Lombard more

than native artists, and to have been acquainted with Baroccio. I saw

his altar-piece at S. Jacopo a' Corbolini. I suspect that this artist is

the same as Filippo Paladini, pointed out by Hackert, born and educated

at Florence, and who resided in foreign parts. He was compelled to fly

from Milan on account of some disturbance, and took refuge in Rome,

where he was received by Prince Colonna, and being pursued he went to

Sicily, and resided at Mazzarino, an estate belonging to the Colonna

family. There, as well as at Syracuse, Palermo, Catania, and elsewhere,

he left works that display much elegance and fine colouring, but not

free from mannerism, the fault also of the picture above cited at

Florence. Benedetto Veli painted in the cathedral of Pistoia an

Ascension of Christ, placed at the entrance to the presbytery, upon an

immense scale. It is the companion to one of the Pentecost by Gregorio

Pagani, which sufficiently proves that it has no common merit. There

lived some other painters about this time, of whom Tuscany, as far as I

know, retains no trace; but they are recognized in other schools: thus

Vaiano is recognized in the Milanese, and Mazzoni in the Venetian

schools, where we shall give some account of them.

Last among the great masters of this period I place Matteo Rosselli, a

scholar of Pagani and of Passignano, as likewise of several old masters,

under whom he studied assiduously at Rome and at Florence. He became so

distinguished a painter that he was invited to the court of the Duke of

Modena, and was retained by Cosmo II. Grand Duke of Tuscany, in his own

service. In painting, however, he had many equals; but very few in the

art of teaching, for which he was adapted by a facility of communicating

instruction, a total want of envy, and a judicious method of discovering

the talents of each pupil, and of directing his progress: hence his

school, like that of the Caracci, produced as many different styles as

he had pupils. His placid genius was not fitted for the conception of

novel and daring compositions, nor for pursuing them with the steadiness

that characterizes the painter of elevated fancy. His merit lies in

correctness in the imitation of nature; in which, however, he is not

always select; and there is a peculiar harmony and repose in the whole,

by which his pictures (though they are generally in a sombre tone)

please, even when compared with works of the most lively and brilliant

colouring. He excels in dignity of character; some of the heads of his

apostles, to be seen in collections, so strongly resemble the works of

the Caracci, that connoisseurs are sometimes deceived. At times he

strove to rival Cigoli: as in his Nativity of our Saviour at S. Gaetano,

which is thought to be his masterpiece, and in the Crucifixion of S.

Andrew in All Saints church, which has been engraved at Florence. His

fresco paintings are greatly admired: so well do his labours, on the

principles of the past age, preserve their freshness and brilliancy. The

cloister of the Nunziata has many of his semicircular pieces; and that

representing Alexander IV. confirming the Order of the Servi, appeared a

grand work to Passignano and Cortona. He ornamented a ceiling in the

royal villa of Poggio Imperiale with some histories of the Medicean

family. The chamber where this painting was placed was ordered to be

demolished in the time of the Grand Duke Peter Leopold; but so highly

was Rosselli esteemed that the ceiling was preserved, and transferred to

another apartment. His chief praise, however, arises from his preserving

that fatherly regard for pupils, which Quintilian thinks the first

requisite in a master: hence he became the head of a respectable family

of painters whom we shall now consider.

Giovanni da S. Giovanni (this is the name of his native place; his

family name was Manozzi), could boast of being one of the best fresco

painters that Italy ever possessed. Gifted by nature with a fervid and

bold genius, a lively and fertile imagination, celerity and freedom of

hand, he painted so much in the dominions of the Church, and even in

Rome, especially in the church of the Four Saints, so much in Tuscany,

in Florence, and even the Pitti palace,[216] we can scarcely believe

that he began to study at the age of eighteen, and died when only

forty-eight years old. His style is very far from the solid manner of

his master; he carried the celebrated maxim of Horace "_All is

allowable_" to excess; and in many of his works he preferred whim to

art. Amid choirs of angels he introduced the singular novelty of female

angels; if we may ascribe this to him, and not to the Cavalier d'Arpino

or Alessandro Allori, as some are inclined to do. But whatever exertions

he made (if we may so express it) to discredit himself, he did not

succeed. His spirit is greatly superior to the conceits of other

artists; and his performances at Florence, in which he bridled his

eccentricities, prove that he knew more than he was ambitious to shew.

Among these we may notice his Flight into Egypt in the royal academy,

some semicircular pieces in the church of All Saints, the Expulsion of

the Sciences from Greece, of the Pitti palace, in which the blind Homer

appears groping his way with great nature, as he is exiled from his

native land. It is related of Pietro di Cortona, that on seeing some one

of the works of Giovanni, which did him no credit, he did not therefore

condemn him; but, pointing to the piece, only observed, "Giovanni

painted that when he was already conscious of being a great man." His

pictures on panel and on canvass are less admired, nor are they always

exempt from crudity. He had a son called Gio. Garzia, who produced

several fresco works at Pistoia, tolerably well executed.

Baldassare Franceschini, surnamed Volterrano, from the place of his

nativity, and also the younger Volterrano, to distinguish him from

Ricciarelli, seemed to have been formed by nature to adorn cupolas,

temples, and magnificent halls, a style of work in which he is more

conspicuous than in painting cabinet pictures. The cupola and nave of

the Niccolini chapel, in the church of the Holy Cross, is his happiest

effort in this way; and surprises even an admirer of Lanfranco. That of

the Nunziata is most beautiful; and we must not omit the ceiling of a

chapel in S. Maria Maggiore, where Elias appears so admirably

foreshortened, that it calls to mind the S. Rocco of Tintoretto, by the

optical illusion occasioned by it. His talents excited the envy of

Giovanni da S. Giovanni, who having engaged him as his assistant in the

decoration of the Pitti palace, speedily dismissed him. His spirit is

tempered by judgment and propriety; his Tuscan design is varied and

ennobled by an imitation of other schools; to visit which, he was sent

to travel for some months by his noble patrons of the house of

Niccolini. He derived great advantages from studying the schools of

Parma and of Bologna. He knew Pietro di Cortona, and adopted some of his

principles, which was a thing not uncommon among the artists of this

epoch.

Volterrano painted a great many frescos in Florence, one in the Palazzo

del Bufalo at Rome, and some at Volterra, that are noticed by

Baldinucci. The praise bestowed on him by the historian appears rather

scanty than extravagant to those who duly consider the propriety of his

inventions, the correctness of his design, qualities so rare in this

class of artists, his knowledge of the perspective, of foreshortening

figures in ceilings,[217] the spirit of his attitudes, the clearness of

his graduated, well balanced, and properly united colours, and the

pleasing and quiet harmony of the whole. The same talents are

proportionally evident in his oil pictures, as may be observed in his S.

Filippo Benizi, in the Nunziata of Florence; in his S. John the

Evangelist, a noble figure which he painted along with other saints in

S. Chiara at Volterra; his S. Carlo administering the communion to those

sick of the plague, in the Nunziata of Pescia, and some of his other

paintings that are well finished, which was not the case with all his

works. The same observations apply to his cabinet pictures, which abound

in the ducal palace, and in the houses of the nobility of Volterra,

especially in those of the families of Maffei and Sermolli.

Cosimo Ulivelli is also a good historical painter; and his style is

sometimes mistaken for that of his master by less skilful judges; but a

good connoisseur discovers in him forms less elegant, a colouring less

strong and clear, a character approaching to mannerism and to

meagreness. We ought to form an opinion from the works of his best

period, such as his semicircular pieces in the cloister of the Carmine.

Antonio Franchi, a native of Lucca, who lived at Florence, is reckoned

by many inferior to Ulivelli; but he is generally more judicious, if I

do not mistake, and more diligent. His S. Joseph of Calassanzio, in the

church of the Fathers of Scolopi, is a picture of good effect, and is

commended also for the design. Another of his fine works is in the

parish church of Caporgnano, in the state of Lucca; it represents Christ

delivering the keys to S. Peter, and I am informed by an experienced

artist that it is the most esteemed of his productions; many more of

which may be found in the account of his Life, published at Florence, by

Bartolozzi. He was painter to the court, by which he was much employed,

as well as by private individuals. He was a moderate follower of

Cortona. He wrote a useful tract on the _Theory of Painting_, in which

he combated the prejudices of the age, and enforced the necessity of

proceeding on general principles. It was printed in 1739; and afterwards

defended by the author against certain criticisms made on it. Giuseppe

and Margherita, his two sons, have met with some commendation, and I am

told there is a fine altar-piece by the former, which adorns the parish

church at Borgo Buggiano. It is retouched, however, by his father, who

honourably makes mention of the fact. I repeat, honourably; because many

fathers are known to have aided their sons with a view of obtaining for

them a reputation beyond their deserts. Michelangiolo Palloni da Campi,

a pupil of Volterrano, is well known in Florence by a good copy of the

Furius Camillus, of Salviati, in the old palace; which was placed by the

side of the original. He resided long, and was much employed in Poland.

An eminent pupil of Baldassare, named Benedetto Orsi, was omitted by

Baldinucci. A fine picture of S. John the Evangelist, in the church of

S. Stephen, at Pescia, his native place, is attributed to him. He also

painted the Works of Mercy, for the religious fraternity of nobles.

These oil paintings were shewn to strangers among the curiosities of

that city; but they were dispersed on the suppression of the order.

There still exists a large circular picture which he produced at Pistoia

for S. Maria del Letto, enumerated by good judges among the finest works

of Volterrano, until an authentic document discovered the real author.

Last in this list I have to mention Arrighi, the fellow citizen of

Franceschini, and his favourite pupil. He has nothing remaining in

public, in which his master cannot boast a great share.[218]

After Franceschini, who may be considered the Lanfranco of the Rosselli,

or rather Florentine school, we proceed to Francesco Furini, who is its

Guido and its Albano. Foreigners recognized him as such: hence he was

invited to Venice, for the express purpose of painting a Thetis, as a

companion to an Europa by Guido Reni. He had seen the works of masters

of this class at Rome, and appears to have aspired at rivalling, rather

than at imitating them. His ideas certainly do not seem borrowed from

them, nor from any other artists. He spent a long time in meditating on

his subject, and was accustomed to consider his picture completed when

he had finished his studies for it; so little time and trouble did it

cost him to embody his ideas in colours. Having been ordained a priest

about his fortieth year, and becoming curate of S. Ansano in Mugello, he

executed some pictures truly valuable, both on account of the rarity of

his works and their excellence, for the neighbouring town of S. Lorenzo.

Above all, we may notice with admiration a S. Francis receiving the

Stigmata, and a Conception of the Blessed Virgin, in which, elevated

above mortality, she appears soaring and resplendent. But his great name

in Italy arose from his cabinet pictures, which are rare out of

Florence, and in Florence are highly esteemed, though considerable

numbers of them remain there. His Hylas carried away by the Nymphs,

which he painted for the family of Galli, and in which he introduced

noble figures that are grandly varied, is highly celebrated; not to

mention the three Graces of the Strozzi palace, and the many historical

pieces and half-length figures dispersed through the city that are

unnoticed in his life. They chiefly consist of nymphs, or of Magdalens,

no less naked than the nymphs; for Furini was a very expert painter of

delicate flesh, but not one of the most modest. Furini must have had a

great number either of pupils or imitators, as his pictures for private

houses before mentioned, which were copied, are of frequent occurrence

in Florence. They are often of a dusky hue, through the defect of their

ground, and Simone Pignone is made, often erroneously so, their most

common author. He was Francesco's best pupil; very delicate in the

colours of his fleshes, as we may judge from the altar-piece of B.

Bernardo Tolomei, at Monte Oliveto, where the Virgin and the Infant are

coloured very beautifully in the flesh, if not handsome in their

features. His picture of St. Louis, king of France, at S. Felicita, is

still more celebrated. It was much commended by Giordano, and the artist

received five hundred crowns for its execution. In the first volume of

Lettere Pittoriche we are informed, that Maratta only esteemed Gabbiani

and Pignone among all the Florentine painters of his time. He was also

praised by Bellini in the work entitled _Bucchereide_, where he coins a

new term for Pignone, (a liberty extremely common among our jocose

poets,) I know not how far susceptible of imitation in another tongue:

"_E l'arcipittorissimo de' buoni_."