_THE REV. S. W. KING—LANZI AND LOMAZZO_.
LEAVING Sir Henry Layard, let us turn to one of the few English writers
who have given some attention to Varallo—I mean to the Rev. S. W. King’s
delightful work “The Italian Valleys of the Pennine Alps.” This author
says—
“When we first visited Varallo, it was comparatively little known to
travellers, but we now found that of late years many more had
frequented it, and its beautiful scenery and great attractions were
becoming more generally and deservedly appreciated. Independently of
its own picturesque situation, and its advantages as head-quarters
for exploring the neighbouring Vals and their romantic scenery, the
works which it possesses of the ancient and famous Val Sesian school
of painters and modellers are most interesting. At the head of them
stands first and foremost Gaudenzio Ferrari, whose original and
masterly productions ought to be far more widely known and studied
than they as yet are; and some of the finest of them are to be found
in the churches and Sacro Monte of Varallo” (p. 498).
Of the Sacro Monte the same writer says—
“No situation could have been more happily chosen for the purpose
intended than the little mountain rising on the north of Varallo to a
height of about 270 feet”—[this is an error; the floor of the church
on the Sacro Monte is just 500 feet above the bridge over the
Mastallone]—“on which the chapels, oratories, and convents of that
extraordinary creation the New Jerusalem are grouped together.
Besides the beauty of the site and its convenient proximity to a town
like Varallo of some 3000 inhabitants, the character of the mountain
is exactly adapted for the effective disposition of the various
‘stations’ of which it consists”—[it does not consist of
“stations”]—“and on this account chiefly it was selected by the
founder, the ‘Blessed Bernardino Caimo.’ A Milanese of noble family,
and Vicar of the Convent of the Minorites in Milan, and also in
connection with that of Varallo, he was specially commissioned by
Pope Sixtus IV. to visit the Sepulchre and other holy places in
Palestine, and while there took the opportunity of making copies and
drawings, with the intention of erecting a facsimile of them in his
native country. On his return to Italy in 1491, after examining all
the likely sites within reasonable distance of Milan, he found the
conical hills of the Val Sesia the best adapted for his design, and
fixed upon Varallo as the spot; being probably specially attracted to
it from the fact of the convent and church of Sta. Maria delle
Grazie, already described, having been conveyed through him to the
‘Minori Osservanti,’ as appears from a brief of Innocent VIII., dated
December 21, 1486.”
Mr. King does not give the source from which he derived his knowledge of
the existence of this act, and I have not come across a notice of it
elsewhere, except a brief one in Signor Galloni’s work (p. 71), and a
reference to it in the conveyance of April 14, 1493. But Signor Arienta
of Varallo, whose industry in collecting materials for a history of the
Sacro Monte cannot be surpassed, showed me a transcript from an old plan
of the church of S. Maria delle Grazie, in which the inscription on
Bernardino Caimi’s grave was given—an inscription which (so at least I
understood Signor Arienta to say) is now covered by an altar which had
been erected on the site of the grave. The inscription ran:—
“Hic quiescunt ossa B. Bernardini Caimis Mediolan. S. Montis Varalli
Fundatoris An. 1486. Pontif. Dipl sub die 21 Xbris. Mortuus est
autem in hoc coenobio An. Vulg. Æræ 1499.”
It would thus appear that the Sacro Monte was founded four years earlier
than the received date. The formal deed of conveyance of the site on the
mountain from the town to Bernardino Caimi was not signed till the 14th
of April 1493; but the work had been already commenced, as is shown by
the inscription still remaining over the reproduction of the Holy
Sepulchre, which is dated the 17th of October 1491. Probably the work
was contemplated in 1486, and interrupted by B. Caimi’s return to
Jerusalem in 1487, not to be actively resumed till 1490.
“The first stone,” says Mr. King, “was laid by Scarognini, a Milanese
‘magnifico,’ who cordially entered into the scheme; and at his
expense the Holy Sepulchre was completed, and a hospice attached,
where the founder and a number of Franciscan brothers came to reside
in 1493. Caimo had planned a vast extension of this commencement,
but died within three years, leaving his designs to be carried out by
his successors.”
. . . . .
“Each oratory contains a group—in some very numerous—of figures
modelled in terra-cotta the size of life or larger; many of them of
great merit as works of art, others very inferior and mere rubbish.
The figures are coloured and occasionally draped with appropriate
clothing, the resemblance to life being heightened by the addition of
human hair”—[which, by the way, is always horse-hair]—“and the effect
is often very startling. Each chapel represents a different
‘mystery,’ and, beside the modelled figures, the walls are decorated
with frescoes. The front of each is open to the air, all but a wire
grating, through apertures in which the subject may be perfectly seen
in the position intended by the designer” (pp. 510–512).
Mr. King says, correctly, that Gaudenzio’s earliest remaining work on the
Sacro Monte is the Chapel of the Pietà, that originally contained the
figures of Christ bearing the cross, but from which the modelled figures
were removed, others being substituted that had no connection with the
background. I do not know, however, that Christ was actually carrying
the cross in the chapel as it originally stood. The words of the 1587
edition of Caccia (?) stand, “Come il N.S. fu spogliato de suoi panni, e
condotto sopra il Monte Calvario, ch’ e fatto di bellissimo e ben inteso
relievo.”
“The frescoes on the wall,” he continues, “are particularly
interesting, as having been painted by him at the early age of
nineteen”—[Mr. King supposes Gaudenzio Ferrari to have been born in
1484]—“when his ambition to share in the glory and renown of the
great work was gratified by this chapel being intrusted to him; a
proof of his early talent and the just appreciation of it. The
frescoes are much injured, but of the chief one there is enough to
show its excellence. On one side is St. John, with clasped hands
gazing upwards in grief, and the two Marys sorrowing, as a soldier in
the centre seems to forbid their following further; his helmet is
embossed and gilt as in the instances in the Franciscan church, while
the two thieves are led bound by a figure on horseback.”
These frescoes appear to me to have been not so much restored as
repainted—that is to say, where they are not almost entirely gone. The
green colour that now prevails in the shadows and half-tones is alien to
Gaudenzio, and cannot be accepted as his. I should say, however, that my
friend Signor Arienta of Varallo differs from me on this point. At any
rate, the work is now little more than a ruin, and the terra-cotta Pietà
is among the least satisfactory groups on the Sacro Monte. Mr. King
continues:—
“In the Chapel of the Adoration of the Magi we have a work of higher
merit, giving evidence of his studies under Raphael.”
Here Mr. King is in some measure mistaken. The frescoes in the Magi
Chapel are indeed greatly finer than those in the present Pietà, but they
were painted from thirty to forty years later, when Gaudenzio was in his
prime, and it is to years of intervening incessant effort and practice,
not to any study under Raphael, that the enlargement of style and greater
freedom of design is due. Gaudenzio never studied under Raphael; he may
have painted for him, and perhaps did so—no one knows whether he did or
did not—but in every branch of his art he was incomparably Raphael’s
superior, and must have known it perfectly well.
Returning to Mr. King, with whom, in the main, I am in cordial sympathy,
we read:—
“The group of ten figures in terra-cotta represents the three kings
just arrived with their immediate attendants, and alighting at the
door of an inner recess, where a light burns over the manger of
Bethlehem, and in which is a simple but exquisite group of St.
Joseph, the Virgin, and Child. On the walls of the chapel are
painted in fresco a crowd of followers, the varieties of whose
costumes, attitudes, and figures are most cleverly portrayed. In
modelling the horses which form part of the central group, Ferrari
was assisted by his pupil Fermo Stella.”—[Fermo Stella is not known
to have been a pupil of Gaudenzio’s, and was probably established as
a painter before Gaudenzio began to work at all.]—“But the greatest
of all Gaudenzio’s achievements is the large chapel of the
Crucifixion, a work of the most extraordinary character and masterly
execution. His first design for the subject, on the screen of the
Minorite Church, he has here carried out in life-like figures in
terra-cotta; twenty-six of which form the centre group, embodying the
events of the Passion; while round the walls are depicted with
wonderful power a crowd of spectators, numbering some 150, most of
whom are gazing at the central figure of the Saviour on the cross.
The variety of expression, costume, and character is almost infinite.
Round the roof are twenty angels in the most varied and graceful
attitudes, deserving of special attention; and also a hideous figure
of Lucifer.”
Gaudenzio’s devils are never quite satisfactory. His angels are divine,
and no one can make them cry as he does. When my friend Mr. H. Festing
Jones met a lovely child crying in the streets of Varallo last summer, he
said it was crying like one of Gaudenzio’s angels; and so it was.
Gaudenzio was at home with everything human, and even superhuman, if
beautiful; if it was only a case of dealing with ugly, wicked, and
disagreeable people, he knew all about this, and could paint them if the
occasion required it; but when it came to a downright unmitigated devil,
he was powerless. He could never have done Tabachetti’s serpent in the
Adam and Eve Chapel, nor yet the plausible fair-spoken devil, as in the
Temptation Chapel, also by Tabachetti.
To conclude my extracts from Mr. King. Speaking of the Crucifixion
Chapel, he says:—
“Though this combination of terra-cotta and fresco may not be as
highly esteemed in the present day as in the times when this
extraordinary sanctuary sprang into existence, yet this composition
must always be admired as one of the greatest of Ferrari’s works, and
undoubtedly that on which he lavished the full force of his genius
and the collected studies and experience of his previous artist
life.”
It is noteworthy, but not perhaps surprising, that this observant,
intelligent, and sympathetic writer, probably through inability to at
once understand and enter into the conventions rendered necessary by the
conditions under which works so unfamiliar to him must be both executed
and looked at, has failed to notice the existence of Tabachetti, never
mentioning his name nor referring to one of his works—not even to the
Madonna and Child in the church of S. Gaudenzio, which one would have
thought could hardly fail to strike him.
* * * * *
Mr. King has elsewhere in his work referred both to Lanzi and to Lomazzo
in support of his very high opinion of Gaudenzio Ferrari; it may,
therefore, be as well to give extracts from each of these writers. Lanzi
says:—
“If we examine into further particulars of his style, we shall find
Ferrari’s warm and lively colouring so superior to that of the
Milanese artists of his day, that we shall have no difficulty in
recognising it in the churches where he painted; the eye of the
spectator is directly attracted towards it; his carnations are
natural and varied according to his subjects; his draperies display
much fancy and originality, with middle tints blended so skilfully as
to equal the most beautiful produced by any other artist. And, if we
may say so,—he succeeded in representing the minds even better than
the forms of his subjects. He particularly studied this branch of
the art, and we seldom observe more marked attitudes or more
expressive . . . As Lomazzo, however, has dwelt so much at length on
his admirable skill both in painting and modelling, it would be idle
to insist on it further. But I ought to add that it is a great
reflection upon Vasari that he did not better know or better estimate
such an artist; so that foreigners who form their opinions only from
history are left unacquainted with his merit, and have uniformly
neglected to do him justice in their writings.”
Lomazzo says:—
“Now amongst the worthy painters who excelled herein, Raph. Urbine
was not the least who performed his workes with a divine kind of
maiesty; neither was Polidore”—[Polidoro Caldara da Caravaggio]—“much
behind him in his kinde, whose pictures seemed as it were passing
furious; nor yet Andreas Mantegna, whose vaine showed a very
laborious curiositie; nor yet Leonard Vincent”—[Leonardo da
Vinci]—“in whose doings there was never any error found in this
point. Wherof amongst all other of his works, that admirable last
supper of Christ in Refect. S. Maria de Gratia in Milane maketh most
evident proofe, in which he hath so lively expressed the passions of
the Apostles mindes in their countenances and the rest of their
bodies, that a man may boldly say the truth was nothing superior to
his representation, and neede not be afraide to reckon it among the
best works of oyle-painting (of which kind of painting John de Bruges
was the first inventor). For in those Apostles you might distinctly
perceive admiration, feare, griefe, suspition, love, &c.; all which
were sometimes to be seen together in one of them, and finally in
Judas a treason-plotting countenance, as it were the very true
counterfiet of a traitor. So that therein he has left a sufficient
argument of his rare perfection, in the true understanding of the
passions of the mind exemplified outwardly in the bodie. Which
because it is the most necessary part of painting, I purpose (as I
say) to handle in this present booke. I may not omit Mi. Angelo in
any case, whose skill and painfulnesse in this point was so greate,
that his pictures carry with them more hard motions expressed after
an unusual manner, but all of them tending to a certaine bould
stoutnesse. And as for Titian, he hath worthely purchased the name
of a great painter in this matter, as his pictures do sufficiently
witness; in each whereof there shineth a certain mooving vertue,
seeming to incite the beholder unto the imitation thereof. Of whom
this saying may well be verified, that he was beloved of the world
and envied of nature.
“Finally, mine old Master Gaudentius (though he be not much knowne)
was inferior unto fewe, in giving the apt motions to the Saintes and
Angels; who was not onely a very witty painter (as I have elsewhere
showed), but also a most profound philosopher and mathematician.
Amongst all whose all-praiseworthy workes (which are almost infinite,
especially in this point of motion) there are divers mysteries of
Christe’s passion, of his doing, but chiefly a crucifix called Mount
Calvary at the Sepulchre of Varallo; where he hath made admirable
horses and strange angels, not only in painting, but also in
plasticke, of a kinde of earth wrought most curiously with his own
hand cleane rounde”—[_di tutto rilievo_]—“through all the figures.
“Besides in the vault of the Chappell of S. Mary de Gratia in Milane
he hath wrought most naturall angels, I meane especially for their
actions; there is also that mighty cube of St. Mary de Serono, the
Cupola of S. Maria at Saronno, full of thrones of angells set out
with actions and habites of all sortes, carrying diversity of most
strange instruments in their hands. I may not conceal that goodly
chapel which he made in his latter time, in the Church of Peace in
Milan, where you shall find small histories of our Lady and Joachime
showing such superexcellent motions that they seem much to revive and
animate the spectators.
“Moreover, the story of S. Roccho done by him in Vercelli, with
divers workes in that city; although indeede almost all Lombardy be
adorned with his most rare workes, I will not conceal one saying,
which was that all painters delight to steale other men’s inventions,
but that he himself was in no great danger of being detected of theft
hereafter. Now this great painter, although in reason he might for
his discretion, wisedome, and worth be compared with the above named
in the first booke, cap. 29, yet notwithstanding is he omitted by
George Vasary in his lives of the famous painters, carvers, and
architects. An argument, to say no worse of him, that he intended to
eternise only his own Tuscanes. But I proceede to the unfoulding of
the originall causes of these motions. And first for our better
understanding I will beginne with those passions of the mind whereby
the body is mooved to the performance of his particular effects”
(Id., Book ii. pp. 7, 8).
What Gaudenzio said was that all painters were fond of stealing, but that
they were pretty sure to be found out sooner or later.
For my own part, I should like to say that I prefer Giovanni Bellini to
Gaudenzio; but unless Giotto and Giorgione, I really do not know who the
Italian painters should stand before him. Bernardino Luini runs him
close, but great as Bernardino Luini was, Gaudenzio, in spite of not a
little mannerism, was greater.
The passage above referred to by Lomazzo as from his twenty-ninth chapter
runs:—
“Now if any man be desirous to learne the most exact and smallest
parts of these proportions, together with the way how to transfer
them from one body to another, I refer him to the works of Le.
Vincent, Bramante, Vincentius Foppa, Barnard Zenale; and for prints
to Albert Durer, Hispill Peum, &c. And out of mine owne workes he
may gather that I have endeavoured if not performed these
proportions, done according to these rules; which all the best and
famous painters of our time have likewise observed; who have also
attained to the exquisite proportions of the seven planets. Amongst
whom Mi. Angelo hath merited the chiefest commendation; next him
Raph. Urbine was famous for making of delicate and Venereall bodies;
Leon. Vincent for expressing of solary bodies; Polidore Caldara of
Caravaggio for Martiall bodies; Titianus Vecellino for Lunaryes; and
Gaudentius Ferrato da Valdugia a Milaner for Jovialistes” (55 Bk. i.
p. 117).
Having been compelled to look through the greater part of Lomazzo’s work,
inasmuch as not one of the several writers who have referred to his high
opinion of Gaudenzio has given chapter and page, I would fain allow
myself to linger somewhat in the fascinating paths into which my subject
has led me. I should like to call further attention to this forgotten
work as “Englished” by one Richard Haydocke, “Student in Physik,” and
dedicated to no less a person than “to the Right Worshipful Thomas
Bodley, Esq.,” whose foundation of the library that bears his name is
referred to in the preface. Gladly would I tell him about Alexander the
Great, who, being overmatched by his enemies in India, “was seen to reake
forth from his bodie fier and light;” and of the father of Theodoricus,
who, “by the like vehement effect, breathed out of his heart, as from a
burning furnace, fierce sparkels; which flying forth, shone, and made a
sound in the aire.” I should like to explain to him about the motions of
the seven planets which are the seven governours of the world, and how
Saturn “causeth a complexion of colour between blacke and yeallowe,
meager, distorted, of an harde skinne, eminent vaines, an hairie bodie,
small eies, eie brows joyned together &c.,” and how “he maketh a man
subtle, wittie, a way-layer, and murtherer;” how, again, Jupiter is
“magnipotent, good natured, fortunate, sweete, pleasant, the best
wel-willer, honest, neate, of a good gate, honorable, the author of mirth
and judgement, wise, true, the revealer of truth, the chiefe judge,
exceeding all the planets in goodnesse, the bestower of riches and
wisedome;” how Mars “broaches bould spirites, bloud, brawles and all
disordered, inconsiderate, and headdy actions;” how “his gestures are
terrible, cruell, fierce, angry, proude, hasty and violent,” and how also
“he is reputed hoat and drie in the highest degree, bearing sway over
redde choler.” I should like to tell him about the passions, actions,
and the gestures they occasion, described as they are with a sweet and
silly unreasonableness that is very charming to read, and makes no demand
whatever upon the understanding. But charming as are the pages of
Lomazzo, those of Torrotti are more charming still, and they have a
connection with our subject which Lomazzo’s have not. Enough, therefore,
that Mr. Haydocke did not get through more than half Lomazzo’s treatise,
and that, glancing over the untranslated pages, I see frequent allusions
to Gaudenzio in the warmest terms, but no passage so important as the
longer of the two quoted above.