"We have now arrived," says Lanzi, "at the most brilliant period of the
Roman school, and of modern painting itself. We have seen the art
carried to a high degree of perfection by Da Vinci and Buonarotti, at
the beginning of the sixteenth century, and it is remarkable that the
same period embraces not only Rafaelle, but also Correggio, Giorgione,
Titian, and the most celebrated Venetian painters; so that a man
enjoying the common term of life might have seen the works of all these
illustrious masters. The art in a few years thus reached a height to
which it had never before attained, and which has never been rivalled,
except in the attempt to imitate these early masters, or to unite in one
style their various and divided excellencies. It seems an ordinary law
of providence that individuals of consummate genius should be born and
flourish at the same period, or at least at short intervals from each
other, a circumstance of which Velleius Paterculus protested he could
never discover the real cause. 'I observe,' he says, 'men of the same
commanding genius making their appearance together, in the smallest
possible space of time; as it happens in the case of animals of
different kinds, which, confined in a close place, nevertheless, each
selects its own class, and those of a kindred race separate themselves
from the rest. A single age sufficed to illustrate Tragedy, in the
persons of Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides: ancient comedy under
Cratinus, Aristophanes, and Eumolpides, and in like manner the new
comedy under Menander, Diphilus, and Philemon. There appeared few
philosophers of note after the days of Plato and Aristotle, and whoever
has made himself acquainted with Isocrates and his school, is acquainted
with the summit of Grecian eloquence.' The same remark applies to other
countries. The great Roman writers are included under the single age of
Octavius: Leo X. was the Augustus of modern Italy; the reign of Louis
XIV. was the brilliant period of French letters; that of Charles II. of
the English."
This rule applies equally to the fine arts. _Hoc idem_, proceeds
Velleius, _evenisse plastis, pictoribus, sculptoribus, quisquis temporum
institerit notis reperiet, et eminentiam cujusque operis artissimis
temporum claustris circumdatum_. Of this union of men of genius in the
same age, _Causus_, he says, _quum sempre requiro, numquam invenio quas
veras confidam_. It seems to him probable that when a man finds the
first station in art occupied by another, he considers it as a post that
has been rightfully seized on, and no longer aspires to the possession
of it, but is humiliated, and contented to follow at a distance. But
this solution does not satisfy my mind. It may indeed account to us why
no other Michael Angelo, or Raffaelle, has ever appeared; but it does
not satisfy me why these two, and the others before mentioned, should
all have appeared in the same age. I am of opinion that the age is
always influenced by certain principles, universally adopted both by
professors of the art, and by amateurs; which principles happening at a
particular period to be the most just and accurate of their kind,
produce in that age some preëminent professors, and a number of good
ones. These principles change through the instability of all human
affairs, and the age partakes in the change. I may add that these happy
periods never occur without the circumstance of a number of princes and
influential individuals rivalling each other in the encouragement of
works of taste; and amidst these there always arise persons of
commanding genius, who give a bias and tone to art. The history of
sculpture in Athens, where munificence and taste went hand in hand,
favors my opinion, and it is confirmed by this golden period of Italian
art. Nevertheless, I do not pretend to give a verdict on this important
question, but leave the decision of it to a more competent tribunal.