FLORENCE, PERUGIA, AND CITTA DELLA PIEVE
The date 1500 is attached to the great Vallombrosan altar-piece, and it
must, therefore, have been executed immediately after the completion of
the Cambio. Whether it was painted in Vallombrosa itself or not cannot
be stated with accuracy; but the general impression given by the
documents relating to the picture is that it was executed within the
precincts of the religious house. Vasari states clearly that the picture
was done _at_ Vallombrosa, but his statements of this sort have always
to be accepted with caution. It is, however, in this case more than
probable that he is correct.
The picture, now in the Accademia, is one of the finest that Perugino
ever produced. It presents, of course, many of Perugino's favourite
figures and arrangements. The mandorla recalls the altar-pieces of Borgo
and of Lyons. The Eternal Father above is similar to the scene in the
"Prophets and Sibyls" fresco in the Cambio. The angels with musical
instruments will be found again in the SS. Annunziata picture, and the
archangels attending upon the Eternal Father have already been seen
several times in earlier works. The general scheme of the picture is the
one which Pietro made somewhat hackneyed, but there are certain special
features that must not be overlooked. The Virgin is seated in the skies
within a glowing radiance of pure white light, and this of itself is an
unusual feature. Never has Perugino painted the Madonna so finely. There
is a celestial beauty upon her face, and her hands and robe are depicted
with the utmost skill and care. The angels are somewhat loosely drawn,
insipid in countenance, and lacking in proportion, especially in their
attenuated legs, and in the large size of their hands; but the artist's
main attention has been given to three points in the picture--the figure
of the Virgin, the four figures on the ground, and the landscape in the
rear. Crowe and Cavalcaselle speak of the four attendant saints as
"magnificent as isolated creations," and the words are none too strong.
The four figures are superb; they are well-balanced and stand firmly on
their feet; their draperies are in easy folds, and are painted with
unusual care, especially in their delicate gradations of colour; the
pose is in each instance suitable and sufficient, and there is tender,
reverent beauty in the faces, and the utmost dexterity and feeling in
the painting of the hands.
Still greater work, however, Perugino executed at Vallombrosa. He
painted the portraits of the Abbot Baldassare, and of Don Biagio
Milanesi, and triumphantly proved his right to be termed a great
portrait-painter. If all other works of Perugino had perished and we
possessed these two heads alone, the genius of the artist would be
revealed by them as of the highest order.
[Illustration:
_Alinari photo_] [_Accademia, Florence_
PORTRAIT OF THE ABBOT BALDASSARE OF VALLOMBROSA]
They are painted with the lightest of touch and with extraordinarily
little colour. The tone is that of old yellow parchment, and each
picture contains only the upturned head and a few inches of the brown
monastic robe; but the effect is perfect. The marvellous feature,
however, of each portrait is its absolute truth and its perfection of
modelling. There is no accessory; there is no cap, or hood, or costume;
there is only a plain brown background: but the effect is that of
living, breathing life. The very slightest touches reveal the bones of
the face and the corresponding hollows of the tightly-drawn skin. The
bare, shaven head, with its narrow tonsure, allowed no opportunity for
careless drawing. There was no hair with its rich shimmering colour to
hide inaccuracies of line or to cover up faults in execution; but the
master needed none of these excuses. The task was a stern one,
uncompromising in its severity; but it is nobly executed, and two
delineations of character are presented. Already allusion has been made
to the portraits of Francesco delle Opere and of the artist himself, and
if to them be added these two, and the faces of the standing figures in
the Vallombrosan altar-piece, a careful student can hardly fail to
acknowledge that the artist was, above all, a portrait-painter in the
truest sense of the term.
[Illustration:
_Alinari photo_] [_Accademia, Florence_
PORTRAIT OF DON BIAGIO MILANESI OF VALLOMBROSA]
There is a very puzzling picture which was probably painted at about
this time, and which was executed for San Francesco in Perugia and hangs
now in the Vatican Gallery. Vasari ascribes it to Perugino. Orsini
suggests that Raphael had a hand in it. Crowe gives it entirely to
Raphael as a very early work, and Morelli ascribes it entirely to the
hand of Lo Spagna. In the midst of so many conflicting theories it may
be allowable for me to agree with Vasari. It is not very likely that in
all his work Perugino would preserve the same level of beauty. The
master had, as was most natural, his successes and his failures. At
times his commissions were so numerous that some of them were carelessly
executed; at another time a subject was given him which did not
altogether appeal to his mind; at another he worked _con amore_, and put
his whole soul into his labour. We see fine results in the Cambio, and
in the Vallombrosan pictures, and I take it these are followed by this
"Resurrection," which is weak and unsatisfactory, and by others which
are even at a lower level. Later on we shall see important work at Rome,
in the Louvre, and at Città, followed by poor, inadequate work at
Spello. Then comes a recrudescence, of which the great altar-piece at
St. Agostino is the result, and this is followed by final work which is
weak and monotonous, but which still retains the perfume of the master's
nobler days.
The figure of the Saviour is inaccurate and badly drawn, the face is
quite unsatisfactory, the mandorla clumsy and rigid, the angels poor and
lacking in expression, and their draperies feeble. The colouring of the
picture, the landscape, the faces and hands, the wonderful detail, the
composition, the balance, and, above all, the technique, speak to me
strongly of the master, to whom I ascribe the picture unhesitatingly. I
can see no hand of Raphael in it, and while I see no special reason for
our crediting the story that gives the sleeping soldier on the right the
face of Raphael, yet even that statement but renders it less likely that
Raphael had a hand in the picture itself, while I believe that a close
comparison of the Cambio portrait with that of the flying soldier on the
left will dispose of the theory that in his face we have delineated the
countenance of the master himself.
[Illustration:
_Alinari photo_] [_Vatican, Rome_
THE RESURRECTION]
We must now retrace our steps and look at the artist at Perugia.
Mariotti records that in 1501 Perugino was one of the Priori of the
City, and, being salaried officers, the Priori were obliged, according
to Marchesi, to reside in the Palazzo Communale, and give daily
attendance for magisterial business. This involved a good deal of civic
duty, and doubtless consumed a great deal of time, and probably during
1501 Perugino did little painting. He was concerned also in domestic
matters, as Orsini states that in two deeds, dated December 11th, 1501,
and February 24th, 1502, he divided up certain property that had
belonged to his uncle, Giovanni, and which devolved to himself and his
two nephews, Agnolo and Giacomo di Giovanni. However, if he was at the
moment unable to paint, he was prepared to make contracts for future
work, and Mariotti records several of his interesting engagements.
One dated September 10th, 1502, is for some saints and angels around a
large crucifix carved in wood, belonging to the convent of San Francesco
al Monte, and for a "Coronation of the Virgin" to form the reverse side
of this altar-piece. For that he was to have 120 florins. In the same
year he agreed to supply to Baccio d' Agnolo designs for the intarsia
work in the stalls of St. Agostino, which Baccio was to make in one year
for 1120 florins, and for the due performance of his task Perugino
became surety. He was also to paint a double altar-piece for St.
Agostino, and was to design a frame for it which Tomaso was to carry
out.
By another contract he agreed to paint a "Sposalizio" for the Duomo.
This latter part of the contract I do not believe he ever carried out,
and the St. Agostino altar-piece was not finished for nearly twenty
years, as there is a record of its completion in a letter dated
September 1521, written to the Podesta of Trevi, advising him that the
Prior of St. Agostino had appointed a valuer for the picture, and
begging him to apprise Perugino, who was then at Trevi, of the fact.
Other commissions recorded by Mariotti were the decorating of the doors
of the palace, and the painting up of the arms of Pope Julius II., who
three years after was to visit Perugia in state, and also the designing
of a silver ship or _nef_, to be used as a credence table. Of all these
various works he certainly executed at this time the double altar-piece
for the Minorites at San Francesco al Monte, which has been removed to
the Pinacoteca. Probably little more than the design for one side of
this altar-piece was the work of Pietro, the execution being done by his
pupils. The picture is in very bad condition, and in places seriously
damaged, but there are certain features about it that distinguish it
from Perugino's own work. The long chain of flowers and pearls carried
by the angels is not Peruginesque. The master would have used a ribbon.
The cloud which cuts across the mandorla in two places, the awkward,
sentimental-looking faces of the disciples and women, the ill-drawn
feet, and weak draperies, all reveal the hands of a pupil, yet the idea
of the picture is distinctly Perugino's, and here and there are traces
of firmer, stronger work, which may well be due to the master himself.
The reverse side of the picture may, however, be safely ascribed to
Perugino. The Virgin is the same as in the Pazzi "Crucifixion," while
the figures of St. Mary Magdalen, St. Francis, and St. John, are to be
found in other altar-pieces by Pietro in the same gallery. In its
original condition the picture must have been a really fine one, and
although terribly damaged, enough remains to show how tender and
sympathetic must the whole composition have appeared. There is a rough
grandeur about the quatrocento carved wood crucifix which is laid on the
canvas; and the four figures and two angels grouped about it, so placid,
and calm, and so full of simple sorrow, must have formed a very
impressive work. The landscape is delicate and sunny, and there is every
reason to consider this picture entirely the work of the master, and to
regret very much that by reason of exposure, damp, and neglect it has so
seriously suffered.
[Illustration:
_Alinari photo_] [_Perugia Gallery_
THE CRUCIFIXION
(_Painted round a wooden crucifix_)]
In 1503, Perugino left Perugia, so Mariotti records, completing in the
October of that year the arms of Julius II. on the gates of the palace
and on the five entrances to the city. He settled down in Florence in
the Pinti quarter, and early in the year, on January 25th, 1504, was
present at the meeting called to choose a place for Michel Angelo's
gigantic statue of "David." This meeting resulted in some bitter
controversy. There were eighteen artists present, amongst whom were
Andrea della Robbia, Lorenzo di Credi, Sandro Botticelli, Perugino,
Leonardo da Vinci, Filippino Lippi, David Ghirlandajo. Various positions
were suggested for the statue, and a place under the Loggia met with
the greatest approval. Lippi and the goldsmith Salvestro di Lavacchio
having suggested that Michel Angelo himself would probably have given
grave consideration to a site, Piero di Cosimo proposed that he should
be given his choice. He chose the place occupied by the "Judith," which
was removed, and the "David" taken to the Palazzo Vecchio. With this
selection and decision Perugino did not agree, nor did those who voted
with him for the position in the Loggia, and a party came into existence
opposed to Michel Angelo and disliking his style. Many of these
objectors were in the habit of meeting in the botega of Perugino's old
friend, Baccio, the worker in intarsia, and on one of these occasions,
when some remarks antagonistic to Michel Angelo were passed round, the
sculptor, roused to exasperation, turned to Perugino and pronounced his
paintings to be "absurd and antiquated." In the light of the new classic
influence the statement was doubtless true, but it grievously annoyed
Perugino, and he was foolish enough to appeal to the Council of Eight,
but obtained no redress and only exposed himself to ridicule and
sarcastic remarks.
[Illustration:
[_Città della Pieve_] [_Perugia_] [_Città della Pieve_]
20th February 1504 30th March 1512 1st March 1504
THREE LETTERS FROM PERUGINO]
Within a few days after these occurrences Perugino left Florence again,
and went to Perugia. Here a letter reached him from the Priori of his
birthplace, Città della Pieve, begging him to come and paint a fresco
for them. On February 20th, 1504, he replied, stating that a fresco such
as they required would cost two hundred florins, but that, in
consideration of the commission being from his native town, he would
reduce his charge to one hundred florins, twenty-five to be paid at
once, and twenty-five every year for three years, and that he was
prepared to start at the work as soon as he heard from the Priori. The
price, even so reduced, was more than the Guild could afford, and
further correspondence ensued. Eventually, Perugino wrote again, on
March 1st, 1504, agreeing to abate another twenty-five florins and
execute the work for seventy-five, and this the town of Città accepted.
The two letters to which reference is made were discovered by Signor
Guiseppe Bolleti of Città, in 1835. He was excavating a terrace of earth
that made the wall damp on which is the famous fresco, and found in this
earth a number of paint pots, and a tin tube of about 4 inches long
containing these two letters, and a third one. Two are still preserved
between sheets of glass at Città, and the third is in the gallery at
Perugia, and my friend, Signor Andrea Ceccheti of Città della Pieve,
has, by permission of the authorities of Città and of Perugia,
photographed the three letters, so that I am able to present them in
this book. Two are reproduced for the first time, the third was in
Mezzanotte's scarce volume. The fresco covers a wall space of about 22
feet square. It is dated 1504.
There is in the centre the usual late Perugino erection, under which the
scene takes place, and away in the distance is the customary Umbrian
landscape. The whole picture is suffused with a delicious, sunny light,
and is very pleasing to behold. The fresco is a cherished possession of
the city of Città, and its inhabitants are always glad for the great
curtains to be drawn back that cover it, in order that they may feast
their eyes upon the picture. I cannot, however, refrain from mentioning
how touched I was by the exquisite and genuine courtesy of the people of
this city, so characteristic as it was of the Italian country-folk. The
little crowd that followed me into the oratory seemed to acknowledge
possession on my part in the picture for the time being, and begged my
permission, with many apologies, that they might look at the fresco
which I had paid to have uncovered. They eagerly took me through their
town, and pointed out every treasure that they possessed, giving up
gladly to me a considerable portion of their day, and only too anxious
that I should join with them in admiring the work of their great artist.
To understand the hill towns of Umbria, and to see them in all their
peaceful, sunny slumber, a visit must be paid to Città della Pieve.
Perugino's works find a more fitting resting-place in his old birthplace
than in any place that I know. The town is solemnly quiet and strangely
beautiful. It is like a petrified city, suddenly stopped in its growth,
left high and dry by the moving waters of civilisation. It is untouched
and unspoiled, and the visitor to-day finds the town very much as it was
when Perugino left it. It is a city of peace, and the peace glows on the
faces of the people. They are the kindest and most courteous of people;
many of them look as though they had stepped from the master's pictures:
they stand in quiet, meditative postures, and in church kneel in solemn
ecstacies of prayer. They are purely a pastoral people, working hard in
the day, coming quietly home at night, and full of tender devotion in
their religion, of ardent faith, and of deep domestic love in their
family circles. The very influence of Perugino's pictures seems still to
dwell in this little Umbrian town.
[Illustration:
_Private photo_] [_Città della Pieve_
THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI, 1504]
Another little town is Panicale, and here, in the following year,
Perugino painted a "San Sebastian." Lo Spagna, his pupil, is said to
have lived in this town, and therefore, Crowe suggests, had a hand in
the work; but the fresco is signed by Perugino, dated on the columns
=A.D. MDV.=, and is thoroughly typical of Perugino's work in every way.
There is no need to look for Lo Spagna's hand in the fresco, or to
expect it; but it is, of course, quite possible that he assisted
Perugino in painting it.
This work is not a true fresco, but _a secco_--that is, it was painted
on the dry wall.
The church of San Agostino, in the same town, contains a fresco of the
"Virgin and Child," and here the spectator will be safe in attributing
the greater part of the work to Lo Spagna.
It was in this year that Isabella d'Este Gonzaga, Duchess of Mantua,
commissioned a picture for her boudoir in the Ducal Palace. She gave
very definite instructions as to its subject, writing to the artist in
the following words: "My poetical idea, which I desire you should paint,
is a battle of Chastity against Love--that is, Pallas and Diana fighting
against Venus and Love. Pallas must have almost conquered Love; after
breaking to pieces the gold arrow and silver quiver that she has cast
down before her feet, she holds him with one hand by the bandage that
the blind one wears over his eyes, and she raises her other hand to
strike him. Between Diana and Venus victory must seem to be doubtful;
Venus shall be injured in some part of her dress only; as to Diana, her
clothes shall be set on fire by the torch of Venus, but the bodies of
the two goddesses shall suffer no wound."
In June 1505, Perugino wrote to the Duchess from Florence, having come
there from Panicale, explaining that he had executed her commission in
tempera, as he had deemed that to be the best medium in which to depict
the scene. He received eighty ducats for the picture, and it remained in
the Palace at Mantua La Gloriosa until the time of the plunder in 1630,
when it was removed to the castle of Richelieu, where it remained down
to the time of the Revolution, and it now hangs in the Louvre. The
master was evidently in this picture "cribb'd and confined" by the terms
of his commission. His genius was not allowed its own proper
development, and he was bound down to certain scenes, which his patron
had indicated so precisely. The consequence is, that there is no heart
in the picture. It is pleasing in a superficial way; the landscape and
the trees are delightful, although the latter are lacking in proportion;
but the composition is far too crowded, weak in drawing, and careless in
execution.
There is a real sense of movement in it, and its colouring is pleasant;
but the closer the picture is scrutinised the less it will be liked; and
faults in drawing abound on all hands. Most noticeable of all, perhaps,
is the carelessness shown in the sizes of the figures. They are of all
heights, some gigantic, and out of all proportion, others far too small
and grotesque in shape, and others again, in the middle distance, far
too gigantic for their position. There is a skilful bit of movement in
the figure of Mercury in the sky, and there is some shrewd originality
in the various fables represented in the background; but the picture is
far from satisfactory, and not worthy of the master.
[Illustration:
_Brogi photo_] [_Accademia, Florence_
THE DEPOSITION
(Filippino Lippi and Perugino)]
A fortnight after he had written to the Duchess he met Lorenzo di Credi
at the Duomo in Florence, as the two artists had been called in to
decide as to the respective merits of two heads in mosaic intended for
the chapel of San Zenobius.
Twice during the master's life was he called upon to complete another
man's work, once at S. Severo toward the end of his life, as will be
seen later on, and in the year now under consideration for the church of
Santissima Annunziata.
An important "Descent from the Cross" had been commissioned by one
Jacopo Federighi, a Knight of Malta, for the brethren of SS. Annunziata
de Servi, and the instruction given to Filippino Lippi. In 1503 he
commenced the work, but in 1505 he died, leaving it half finished, and
the monks called in Perugino to complete it, giving him also a
commission to paint an "Assumption" of the same size for the reverse of
the altar-piece. The first commission he executed well, the second so
carelessly that Vasari states that the monks gave the place of honour to
the picture begun by Filippino Lippi. Of this picture, now in the
Accademia, Lippi did the upper part, Perugino the lower, and it is right
to add that he so well blended his work with the work of Lippi that the
picture is harmonious and delightful.
The swooning of The Virgin on the left is not well drawn or pleasingly
represented, but the faces are good. The kneeling Magdalen is almost
dramatic, while the action of Joseph who is supporting the dead Body as
it is removed from the Cross is excellent. Faces, feet, and hands are
all good in this picture, those of the two men especially, and in the
completion Perugino evidently did his utmost, and succeeded. The
"Assumption" is, however, far different. Vasari expressly records the
story that "when the picture was first uncovered, all the new artists
censured it greatly, principally because Pietro had again adopted the
same figures that had been previously painted in other of his works, for
which his friends reproached him not a little, declaring that he had
taken no pains." Pietro's reply was: "I have painted in this work the
figures that you formerly commended, and which then pleased you greatly;
if they now displease you and you no longer extol them, what can I do?"
Our artist was, however, only begging the question. His habit of
repetition must by that time have been well known and understood. We
have already seen how the same figure appears again and again, in
somewhat different pose in his pictures, and the fault is a common one,
especially in the Umbrian school; but at least the pictures are
different in other respects, in arrangement, in grouping, in
composition. Here, however, the case is altered. The resemblance between
this "Assumption" and the "Ascension" at Lyons, the "Ascension" at Borgo
and the "Coronation" at Perugia, is so close as to show that the artist
had hardly troubled to make any change. The groups of angel musicians
around the mandorla in the "Assumption" and two "Ascensions" are
practically identical. The flying angels and cherubs below are also
alike, and the changes made in the group of apostles on the ground are
but slight. The Virgin who stands beneath the Christ in the "Ascension"
is replaced in the "Assumption" by St. Thomas, who stands in the
identical pose.
The empty tomb is, of course, introduced; the mandorla is composed of
rays instead of cherubs, and the emblems of St. Peter and St. Paul are
omitted; but in general effect the pictures are the same, and the group
in the "Coronation" at Perugia, attributed in the catalogue to Perugino,
closely resembles the group in the other three pictures. When to all
this is added the fact that the "Assumption" is painted in a slovenly
way, the landscape hardly more than suggested, the clouds streaky and
wooden, and the draperies formal and stiff, it will be seen that the
complaint made by both monks and artists was a well-founded one. The
picture is certainly charming in general effect and colouring,
especially in its present high position over a side altar; but it will
not bear inspection, and is no credit to the artist.
He was, however, becoming careless and indifferent to his work, and,
growing old, was more sensitive to the remarks of the younger and more
popular men. The satirical verses that this latest picture evoked, and
the complaints of his patrons and friends, were a cause of constant
irritation to him; and although, as Morelli records, he had taken a
house, and purchased in this very church, the SS. Annunziata, a
burial-place for himself and his descendants, he turned his back upon
Florence, and retired in great indignation to Perugia. His name appears
no longer on the rolls of the painters' guild in Florence, but in 1506
is again recorded on the similar rolls of Perugia.
A curious feature about this incident is that in the Uffizi appear
several drawings and studies which, it is said, were prepared for this
very picture. If it were so, it would imply that Perugino took great
pains in the preparation of the picture, and made elaborate studies for
it. At the first glance a drawing of five apostles, which is the most
important of these studies, might readily bear the name attributed to
it, but on very close scrutiny, it will be found that it does not
exactly or even closely resemble any group in the Annunziata picture,
nor in the "Ascensions" at Lyons or Borgo San Sepolcro, nor the
"Coronation of Our Lady" at Perugia. It much more closely resembles, and
is in parts identical with Perugino's later work at Rome, in the Camera
dell' Incendio, and it is for this work that I believe the studies were
prepared, which the Uffizi catalogues to the Annunziata picture.