WANDERINGS
Crowe and Cavalcaselle, in speaking of the beautiful picture at Cremona
dated 1494, refer to it as executed in Florence and sent to Cremona, but
there are grave reasons against accepting this statement. It is quite
clear that in that year Perugino was in Venice,[K] and it is more
natural to believe that he painted the picture in Cremona itself. The
picture is one of great beauty, but is singularly unlike most of the
painter's other creations in a sturdy robustness of pose and
countenance, both in the Madonna and in the Child, unlike the calm and
slightly insipid composure of other works. This characteristic may
perhaps be attributed to the recent influence of the works of Giovanni
Bellini and Antonello da Messina.
The picture represents the Blessed Virgin and Child on a throne, while
St. James is on one side, St. Augustine on the other of the central
figures. It is signed 1494, and still hangs in St. Augustine's Church,
Cremona, on the altar of the Roncadelli family.
In 1496 the Duke Il Moro of Milan was anxious to obtain the services of
another painter for the rooms at the Castello, and he wrote to his envoy
in Florence for information. The envoy replied, giving to the Duke
information as to the leading characteristics of each of the greater
Florentine artists. Of Perugino he wrote: "He is a rare and singular
artist, most excellent in wall painting. His faces have an air of the
most angelic sweetness." The Duke Lorenzo at once decided to employ
Perugino, and wrote to his friend Guido Arcimboldo, Archbishop of Milan,
who was then in Venice, begging him to inquire about Perugino, and, if
possible, engage him. The Archbishop replied on June 14th to say that
Perugino had left Venice. Unable to secure his services himself at that
time, the Duke recommended Perugino to the monks of the Certosa at
Pavia, and commissioned a great altar-piece from him. Accordingly, in
October 1496, we hear of Perugino being at Pavia working at the
altar-piece. In the following year, 1497, Il Moro again tried to secure
the services of Perugino for the Castello, and wrote to one of the
Baglioni, who at that time ruled over Perugia, begging him to send
Perugino to him; but the artist was then at work in Perugia, and so full
of commissions that he declined Il Moro's offer, and never went to the
Castello.
The two years, 1494 and 1495, saw the completion of the altar-piece for
the Magistrates' Chapel in Perugia--now in the Vatican Gallery and
already mentioned,--the great "Entombment" in the Pitti Palace, the
"Ascension" altar-piece for San Pietro, Perugia, the portrait of
Francesco delle Opere in the Uffizi, and the commencement of the
greatest work of all, which was finished in 1496, the "Crucifixion" at
Sta. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi.
[Illustration:
_Alinari photo_] [_Uffizi Palace, Florence_
PORTRAIT OF FRANCESCO DELLE OPERE, 1494]
The "Ascension" altar-piece is the first one that we have to consider
of that group of Perugino's altar-pieces which have been divided, the
component parts being scattered throughout Europe. To this division and
scattering fuller attention is given in the next chapter, and it will
suffice here to state that the centre part is at Lyons, the lunette at
St. Gervais, Paris, the predella in three panels at Rouen, and the
surrounding saints divided, three in the Vatican Gallery and five in the
church of S. Pietro, where at one time the complete work rested. The
picture at Borgo San Sepolcro is usually spoken of as a replica of the
centre piece of this great picture, but I am strongly disposed to take
an opposite view of the case.
Vasari records the painting of the Borgo picture, which was, he says,
"executed for the Abbot Simone de' Graziani and transported to the
church of San Gilio at Borgo on the backs of porters at very heavy
cost." He also records the painting of the picture for S. Pietro, naming
it almost at the close of his biographical notes on the artist; and of
this picture he says: "The whole of it is replete with evidences of
thought and care, insomuch that it is one of the best paintings in oil
executed by Pietro in Perugia." It is quite impossible to accept the
chronology Vasari gives, as he mixes up dates in the most hopeless
confusion; but in this instance I think he is right in putting the Borgo
picture before the Lyons one rather than _vice versâ_.
The picture at Borgo is in bad condition: the one at Lyons has been
transferred to canvas and very much repainted, and still shows signs of
two vertical splits in the panel; but, despite all these injuries, the
Borgo picture is, I consider, the finer of the two, and the Lyons one,
although by the same hand, a later and more careless replica.
In the Borgo picture the Virgin is in religious garb and has the head
covered: in the Lyons picture there is a more secular garb, the head
uncovered and short hair to be seen. In the Borgo picture the angels
carry loosely looped narrow ribbon carefully and gracefully drawn: the
ribbon in the Lyons picture is broader, more coarsely painted, lettered
throughout, and falling in awkward folds. The wings of the cherubs in
the mandorla at Borgo are painted with exquisite detail, every little
scale and feather being carefully represented; these details are almost
entirely absent in the Lyons picture, where the wings of the cherubs
appear to be hurriedly painted and lacking altogether in finish. There
is far greater sweetness in the faces at Borgo, especially those of the
Redeemer, the Virgin, St. Peter, and St. Paul, than at Lyons, where all
these four important faces are roughly and even coarsely delineated. In
some of the attendant disciples, the hair, which at Borgo is daintily
painted in, and flows in slightly ringletted form, hangs loosely at
Lyons and is of a harsher texture, and the wonderful trees sharply
delineated against the sky and full of exquisite foliage at Borgo, are
hardly to be seen at Lyons, and are represented by half-a-dozen dwarfish
shrubs.
The mandorla in the Borgo picture is a deep luminous band of mysterious
colour, out of which, and against the light fleecy clouds, rise the
cherub faces: at Lyons it is a flat band of heavy colour, the clouds
are woolly and thick, and the cherub faces, instead of rising from the
wondrous depth, lay superimposed upon the mandorla as upon a piece of
board.
[Illustration:
_Alinari photo_] [_Borgo San Sepolcro_
THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST]
I am strongly of opinion that the Borgo picture was the original work,
the Lyons one, for which he contracted to the monks of Cassino, March
6th, 1495, being either a somewhat hurried replica of it in which the
master grew tired of the monotony of repetition, or else that it was a
picture in which a certain amount of labour was left to assistants and
pupils. There is an important study for three apostles, in the Uffizi,
which was clearly prepared for the Borgo picture and not for the Lyons
one, as, while closely resembling the former, it differs from the latter
in one or two important details. This is not the accepted theory, I
know, and it is one that will probably not meet with universal
acceptance, but a careful comparison of the pictures leads me to a clear
opinion in the matter. With regard to the pilaster saints the case is
different. Those at the Vatican are all genuine work of the master and
are extremely fine, and the same may be said of three of the five at
Perugia, but two of them are not entirely Perugino's work, and bear
traces of a pupil's hand. The three predella pictures on the other hand,
which are at Rouen, are charming examples of the master's work, and are
bathed in that wonderful golden sunlight which is so distinctive of his
finest work. In each picture a strip of the foreground which was damaged
in transit has had to be restored: in the "Adoration" it is the very
slightest bit along the front of the whole picture; in the
"Resurrection" it is a wider piece, embracing part of the feet of three
of the sleeping soldiers and the edge of the stone slab on which the
tomb rests; but in the third picture, the "Baptism," the damage is
serious, as the foreground strip includes the feet of Our Lord and one
foot of the Baptist. In all other respects these three panels are
exquisite specimens of Perugino's fine and discriminative work.
With respect to the lunette it must be noted that Crowe and Cavalcaselle
and many other writers are in error in stating that it hangs in St.
Germain l'Auxerrois in Paris, whereas it is in St. Gervais, a very
different church. It is not in good condition, having suffered much from
cleaning and repair, and it has a horizontal split which nearly divides
it into two pieces. It is nevertheless clearly discernible as a fine
work from the master's hand. There is neither predella nor lunette at
Borgo S. Sepolcro. There is no question as to the date of the S. Pietro
altar-piece, as the original contract for painting it is still in
existence and appears in full in Orsini.[L] It is dated 8th March 1496,
and recites how the abbot and chapter of the monastery gave out on
contract to Perugino the picture of the High Altar for the price of 500
gold ducats. The Borgo picture was therefore, I contend, a little
earlier, but perhaps only a year in advance of the other. The picture of
Francesco delle Opere belongs to this same period, but as in the chapter
on the Cambio it will be further discussed, it may well be passed with
brief mention at this place. Finally, as part of the work of these two
prolific years, comes one of our artist's masterpieces, the
"Entombment," now in the Pitti Palace. Space composition is seen in
this picture in its full vigour. How quiet is the atmosphere of the
scene, how reverent and tender a mood it creates. How vast is the space
in which the episode is placed, and how marvellously is the sense of
immeasurable distance produced.
[Illustration:
_Brogi photo_] [_Pitti Palace, Florence_
THE ENTOMBMENT OF CHRIST, 1495]
The picture is one of the most beautiful that Perugino ever painted. The
composition is very clever, well balanced and well grouped, while the
faces are of a serene beauty that was never surpassed in later works. It
is well to notice that the dead body of Our Lord retains much of the
flexibility of life, while quite as clearly is seen the weight and the
looseness of death. The mourners around are full of tender pity, while
the grief of the Virgin is too great for words, and evinces itself in
the look of deep affection that fills that wonderful face. Each figure
is, however, distinct, self-centred, and enfolded in its own grief. It
is only the fact that each one is thinking of the great central figure
that gives to the picture, as a whole, any real completeness. It is a
sober, thoughtful composition, full of sentiment, but lacking any of the
strong moving force that other schools gave to a similar representation,
and, although the forerunner of Fra Bartolommeo's greater work, it has
none of the intensity that his more emotional nature could present.
Some delightful studies for this picture appear in the Uffizi, marked by
most careful study. The clenched hands of one of the two persons who
stand close to Nicodemus are very noteworthy. The action is so
expressive of intense, but restrained sorrow, and the drawing of the
fine, delicate, but muscular hands, is particularly excellent. In the
studies the richly-ornamented cap of the youth in the group does not
appear. The cap in the drawing is quite plain, and the face, which in
the picture is very expressive, is hard and uninteresting. Another large
pen drawing for this picture exists, and is in Christ Church, Oxford. By
some critics it is not accepted as a work of Perugino's. It is ascribed
to one of his pupils, or to a later man altogether, especially because
several of the faces are hard and unimpressive. Let, however, the
drapery be closely examined, and the curious formation with dark hollows
and oval curves will be recognised at once. The large projecting great
toe, and the manner in which it sets away from the other toes, leaving a
clear space between it and them, is noticeable, while the limp
flexibility of the bare flesh of the Christ is also an important
criterion in deciding on the origin of the drawing. To me it appears as
a thoroughly genuine work, marking out the general grouping of the
picture. The positions of Nicodemus, Mary Cleophas, and the youth,
underwent some slight changes, and the other figures near to Nicodemus
were introduced, but the picture preserves very closely the original
suggestions of the drawing.
The finished picture was executed for the nuns of Santa Chiara, but when
they had obtained it, so highly was it admired, that Vasari records that
a rich Florentine, Francesco del Pugliese, offered them three times the
price that they had paid for it, as well as a replica from the master's
own hand, but the tempting offer was declined, as Pietro had told them
that he did not think he could equal the one they possessed.
FOOTNOTES:
[K] _Vide_ Gaye ii. 69; and Morelli [1883], 287.
[L] Orsini, "Vita dell' egregio pittore Pietro Perugino," 1804, 140.