CHAPTER V.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH I.

_Account of the Ancients until the time of Vinci._

If in each of our pictoric schools we have adhered to the plan of tracing

back the memorials of more barbarous ages, and thence proceeding to more

cultivated periods, Milan more especially as the capital of Lombardy, and

the court of the Lombard kings, will afford us an epoch remarkable no less

for its lofty character than for the grandeur of its monuments. When Italy

passed from the dominion of the Goths to that of the Longobards, the arts,

which invariably follow in the train of fortune, transferred their primary

seat from Ravenna to Milan, to Monza, and to Pavia. Each of these places

still retains traces of the sort of design now entitled, both on account of

the place and the time, Longobardic, much in the same manner as in the

diplomatic science we distinguish by the same name certain characters

peculiar to that age, or rather to those ages, for after the Longobards

were driven from Italy, the same taste in writing and sculpture continued

to flourish during a great part of them. This style, as exhibited in works,

both of metal and of marble, is coarse and hard beyond the example of any

preceding age, and is seen most frequently and to most advantage in the

representation of monsters, birds, and quadrupeds rather than of human

figures. At the cathedral, at S. Michele, and at S. Giovanni in Pavia,

appear some friezes over the gates, consisting of animals chained in a

variety of ways to one another, sometimes in natural positions, and

sometimes with the head turned behind. In the interior of the same

churches, as well as in some others, we meet also with capitals, presenting

similar figures, not unfrequently united to historical representations of

men, differing so much from the human figure as to appear belonging to

another species. The same kind of abuse of the art was practised in places

under the sway of the Longobard dukes, one of which was the Friuli, which

still preserves a number of these barbarous efforts. In Cividale there is a

marble altar, first begun by Duke Pemmone, and completed by his son Ratchi,

who lived during the eighth century. The bassi-relievi consist of Christ

seated between different angels, his Epiphany, and the Visitation of the

Blessed Virgin.[38] Art would appear scarcely capable of producing any

thing more rude than these figures, yet whoever will be at the pains of

examining the frieze on a gate at the same place, or the capitals of the

pillars of S. Celso at Milan,[39] works of the tenth century, will admit

that it was susceptible of still greater corruption when it added absurdity

to its coarseness, and produced distorted and dwarfish figures, all hands

and all heads, with legs and feet incapable of supporting them. There are

an infinite number of similar marbles, and of like design, at Verona and

other places. To these, nevertheless, are opposed other monuments which

will not permit us to admit, as a general rule, that every trace of good

taste was then extinct in Italy. I might easily adduce instances, drawn

from different arts, and in particular from that of working in gold, which,

during the tenth century, boasted its Volvino, who produced the very

celebrated altar-piece at S. Ambrogio in Milan, a work which may be

pronounced equal in point of style to the finest specimens of the dittici,

or small ivory altar-pieces, that the museums of sacred art can boast.

Footnote 38: The inscription is annexed to it, and may be found

in Bertoli, _Antichita di Aquileia_, num. 516.

Footnote 39: See the Dottore Gaetano Bugati, in his Historical

and Critical account of the relics and the worship of San

Celso the Martyr, p. 1; and the P. M. Allegranza,

Explanations and Reflections relating to some sacred

monuments at Milan, p. 168.

Confining myself, however, to the subject before me, we know that

Tiraboschi remarked in the palace of Monza, some of the most ancient

pictures belonging to those ages, while other similar reliques are pointed

out at S. Michele in Pavia, although placed in too elevated a situation to

permit us to form an exact judgment of them. Others yet more extensive

exist in Galliano, of which a description is given in the _Opuscoli_ of P.

Allegranza, (p. 193). Upon this point I may observe, that the Treatise upon

Painting already mentioned, was discovered in a manuscript in the

University of Cambridge to have had this title:--_Theophilus Monachus_

(elsewhere _qui et Rugerius_), _de omni scientia artis pingendi. Incipit

Tractatus Lumbardicus qualiter temperantur colores, &c._ This is a

convincing proof, that if painting could then boast an asylum in Italy, it

must have been more particularly in Lombardy. And in the church of S.

Ambrogio, just mentioned, proofs of this are not wanting. Over the

Confessional is seen a ceiling in _terra cotta_, with figures in

basso-relievo, tolerably designed and coloured, resembling the composition

of the best mosaic-workers in Ravenna and in Rome, supposed to be the work

of the tenth century, or thereabouts. The figures of the Sleeping Saints

are also seen near the gate, which must have been painted about the same

time, and were at one time covered with lime, though they have since been

brought to light and very carefully preserved by the learned ecclesiastics

who are entrusted with the care of the temple. The portico has also a

figure of the Redeemer, with a holy man worshipping at his feet, wholly in

the Greek manner; besides a Crucifixion, which, to judge from the

characters, might more suitably be ascribed to the thirteenth century than

to the next. I omit the mention of several figures of the Crucified Saviour

and of the Virgin, interspersed through the city and the state; contenting

myself with referring to those of our Lady placed at S. Satiro and at

Gravedona, which are of very ancient date.

From the period of these first efforts, I am of opinion that the art of

painting continued to flourish throughout the state and city of Milan,

though we are not fortunate enough to retain sufficient memorials of it to

compile a full historical account. For little mention has been made by our

oldest writers concerning the artists, except incidentally, as by Vasari in

his Lives of Bramante, of Vinci, and of Carpi, and by Lomazzo, in his

Treatise, and in his Temple, or Theatre[40] of Painting. As little likewise

has been said by several of the more modern writers, nor that always with

good authority, such as Torre, Latuada, Santagostini, whose narratives were

collected by Orlandi, and inserted in his Dictionary. Some supplementary

information has been supplied by _Notices of the Paintings of Italy_ as to

a variety of artists, and their exact age; and by the New Guide to Milan,

truly new and unique until this period in Italy, and reflecting the highest

credit upon the Ab. Bianconi, who not only points out every thing most rare

in the city, but teaches us, by sound rules, how best to distinguish

excellence from mediocrity and inferiority in the art. To this we may add

the name of the Consiglier de' Pagave, who published very interesting

notices relating to this school, in the third, fifth, and eighth volumes of

the new Sienese edition of Vasari. I am also enabled to furnish

considerable information in addition, politely transmitted to me in

manuscript by the last writer, for the present work. From these I am happy

to announce we may become acquainted with the names of new masters, along

with much chronological information of a sounder kind, relating to those

already known, frequently derived from the _Necrologio_ of Milan, which had

been carefully preserved by one of the public functionaries of that city.

Footnote 40: He borrowed the idea of this work from the Theatre

of Giulio Camillo, with whom he compares his own Treatise in

chap. ix. Hence, as in the case of some books which have two

titles, I judge it best to call it by this name (Theatre)

also, as others have done.

By aid of these, and other materials I have to bring forward, I prepare to

treat of the Milanese School from as early a date as 1335, when Giotto was

employed in ornamenting various places in the city, which, down to the time

of Vasari, continued to be esteemed as most beautiful specimens of the art.

Not long subsequent to Giotto, an artist named Stefano Fiorentino was

invited thither by Matteo Visconti, and is celebrated as one of the most

accomplished pupils of the former. But he was compelled by indisposition to

abandon the work he had undertaken in that city; nor do we know that at

that period he had any successor in the Giotto manner. About the year 1370,

Gio. da Milano, pupil to Taddeo Gaddi, arrived there, so able an artist

that his master, at his death, entrusted to him the care of his son

Angiolo, and another son, whom he was to instruct in a knowledge of the

art. It is therefore evident that the Florentine early exercised an

influence over the Milanese School. We are informed at the same time of two

native artists, who, according to Lomazzo, flourished at the period of

Petrarch and of Giotto. These are Laodicia di Pavia, called by Guarienti,

_pittrice_, and Andrino di Edesia, also said to belong to Pavia, although

both his name and that of Laodicia lead us to conjecture that they must

have been of Greek origin. To Edesia and his school have been attributed

some frescos which yet remain at S. Martino and other places in Pavia.[41]

I cannot speak positively of the authors; their taste is tolerably good,

and the colouring partakes of that of the Florentines of the age. Michel de

Roncho, a Milanese, is another artist discovered by Count Tassi, at the

same time that he gives some account of the two Nova who flourished at

Bergamo. Michele is said to have assisted in their labours in the cathedral

of that city, from the year 1376 to 1377, and remnants of these paintings

survive, which shew that they approached nearer the composition of Giotto

than the artists of Pavia. There are some pictures in Domodossola that also

bring us acquainted with an able artist of Nova. They are preserved in

Castello Sylva and elsewhere, and bear the following memorandum--_Ego

Petrus filius Petri Pictoris de Novaria hoc opus pinxi_, 1370. Without,

however, going farther than Milan, we there find in the Sacristy of the

Conventuali, as well as in different cloisters, paintings produced in the

fourteenth century, without any indication of their authors, and most

frequently resembling the Florentine manner, though occasionally displaying

a new and original style, not common to any other school of Italy.

Footnote 41: See Notizie delle Pitture, Sculture, ed

Architetture d'Italia, by Sig. Bertoli, p. 41, &c.

Among these anonymous productions in the ancient style, the most remarkable

is what remains in the Sacristy of Le Grazie, where every panel presents us

with some act from the Old or the New Testament. The author would appear to

have lived during the latter part of the fourteenth and beginning of the

fifteenth centuries; nor is it easy to meet with any other Italian

production, conducted during that age by a single artist, so abundantly

supplied with figures. The style is dry, but the colouring, where it has

escaped the power of the sun, is so warm, so well laid on, so boldly

relieved from its grounds, that it yields in nothing to the best Venetian

or Florentine pieces of the time, insomuch that whoever be the artist he is

fully entitled to all the praise of originality. Another Lombard artist,

formerly believed to be a Venetian, is better known. His name has been

incorrectly given by Vasari, in his life of Carpaccio, and in that of Gian

Bellini, as well as by Orlandi and by Guarienti, in three articles inserted

in the Dictionary of art. In one article, following Vasari, he is called by

Orlandi, Girolamo Mazzoni, or Morzoni, and in the two others he is named

Giacomo Marzone, and Girolamo Morzone, by Guarienti, a writer happier

perhaps in adding to the errors and prejudices entertained about the old

painters, than in correcting them. His real name is to be found upon an

altar-piece which is still preserved at Venice, or in its island of S.

Elena, a piece representing the Assumption of the Virgin, with the titular

saint, S. Gio. Batista, S. Benedetto, and a holy Martyr, along with the

following inscription--_Giacomo Morazone a laura questo lauorier. An. Dni._

MCCCCXXXXI. The excellent critic Zanetti is persuaded, from its Lombard

dialect, as well as from the fact of the artist having painted a good deal

in different cities of Lombardy, as related by Vasari, that he does not

belong to the Venetian, but to the Lombard School, and the more so as he

took his name from Morazzone, a place in Lombardy. It is true, that

granting this, there is no great sacrifice made, inasmuch as this Giacomo,

who, when in Venice, was the competitor of Jacobello del Fiore, displayed

little merit, at least in this picture, which cannot boast even a foot

placed upon the ground according to the rules of perspective, nor any other

merit that raises it much above the character of the thirteenth century.

Michelino was an artist who also retained the ancient style, and continued

to the last the practice of making his figures large and his buildings

small, a practice blamed by Lomazzo even in the oldest painters. He assigns

to him a rank, however, among the best of his age on account of his designs

of animals of every kind, which he painted, says Lomazzo, wonderfully well,

and of the human figure, which he executed with effect, rather in burlesque

than in serious subjects; and in this style was esteemed the model of his

school. He would appear likewise to have been esteemed by foreigners, as we

find in the Notizia Morelli, that in the house of the Vendramini at Venice

there was preserved "a small book in 4to. bound in kid-skin, with figures

of animals coloured" by this artist. At a little interval, according to

Pagave, we are to place the period of Agostino di Bramantino, an artist

unknown to Bottari, as well as to more recent investigators of pictorial

history. I apprehend that an error committed by Vasari gave rise to an

additional one in the mind of Pagave, a very accurate writer. Vasari,

remarking that in a chamber of the Vatican, which was subsequently painted

by Raffaello, the previous labours of Pier della Francesca, of Bramantino,

of Signorelli, and of the Ab. di S. Clemente, were destroyed to accommodate

the former, supposes that the two first of the artists, thus sacrificed,

conducted them contemporaneously under Nicholas V. about 1450. Induced by

the esteem he had for the same Bramantino, he collected notices also of his

other works, and discovered him to be the author of the Dead Christ

foreshortened, of the Family which deceived the horse at Milan, and of

several perspectives; the whole of which account is founded in error, when

attributed to a Bramantino, who flourished about 1450, yet the whole is

true when we suppose them to have been the work of one Bramantino, pupil to

Bramante, who lived in the year 1529. I cannot perceive, however, in what

way the Consiglier Pagave could have detected Vasari's mistake in the

Milanese works; whilst in those of the Vatican, which, according to Vasari

himself, all belong to the same individual, he has taken occasion to repeat

it. He had better have asserted that the historian had erred in point of

chronology, in supposing that Bramantino painted under the pontificate of

Nicholas V. than have ventured on the hypothesis of the existence of an

ancient Bramantino, called Agostino, by whom a very beautiful work was to

be seen in the papal palace, and no other specimen at Rome, at Milan, or

elsewhere. I disclaim all belief then in this old artist until more

authentic proofs are brought forward of his existence, and I shall be

enabled to throw new light upon the subject before I conclude the present

epoch.

In the time of the celebrated Francesco Sforza, and of the Cardinal Ascanio

his brother, both desirous no less of enriching the city with fine

buildings than these last with the most beautiful decorations; there sprung

up a number of architects and statuaries, and, what is more to our purpose,

of very able painters for the age. Their reputation spread through Italy,

and induced Bramante to visit Milan, a young artist who possessed the

noblest genius, both for architecture and painting, and who, after

acquiring a name in Milan, taught the arts to Italy and to the world. The

former had made little progress in point of colouring, which, though

strong, was somewhat heavy and sombre, nor in regard to their drapery,

which is disposed in straight, hard folds, until the time of Bramante,

while they are also cold in their features and attitudes. They had improved

the art, however, in regard to perspective, no less in execution than in

writing on the subject; a circumstance that led Lomazzo to observe, that as

design was the peculiar excellence of the Romans, and colouring of the

Venetians, so perspective seemed to be the chief boast of the Lombards. It

will be useful to report his own words, from his Treatise upon Painting, p.

405. "In this art of correctly viewing objects, the great inventors were

Gio. da Valle, Costantino Vaprio, Foppa, Civerchio, Ambrogio and Filippo

Bevilacqui, and Carlo, all of them belonging to Milan. Add to these Fazio

Bembo da Valdarno, and Cristoforo Moretto of Cremona, Pietro Francesco of

Pavia, and Albertino da Lodi;[42] who, besides the works they produced at

other places, painted for the Corte Maggiore at Milan, those figures of the

armed barons, in the time of Francesco Sforza, first duke of Milan:" that

is to say, between the period of 1447 and 1466.

Footnote 42: Note that Lomazzo would not have passed over

the name of Agostino di Bramantino, were it true that he had

flourished as early as 1420, and employed himself at Rome,

an honour to which the rest of these Milanese did not

attain.

In treating of these artists, I shall observe nothing further in reference

to the last four, having described those of Cremona in their own place, and

not being aware that any thing more than the name of the other two survives

at Milan; I say at Milan, because Pier Francesco of Pavia, whose surname

was Sacchi, left, as we shall find, some fine specimens at Genoa, where he

resided during some time. It is doubtful whether any altar-piece remains by

the first of these, (Gio. della Valle,) it being impossible to ascertain

the fact. Nor do I know of any genuine work belonging to Costantino Vaprio,

though there is a Madonna painted by another Vaprio, surrounded by saints

in different compartments, at the Serviti, in Pavia, with this

inscription:--_Augustinus de Vaprio pinxit 1498_: a production of some

merit.

Vincenzio Foppa, said by Ridolfi to have flourished about the year 1407, is

esteemed almost the founder of the Milanese School, in which he

distinguished himself during the sovereignty of Filippo Visconti, and that

of Francesco Sforza. I alluded to his name in the Venetian School, to which

he is referable from his being of Brescia, whatever Lomazzo may on the

other hand contend. It is my wish to avoid all questions of nationality,

and the compendious method of my work will be a sufficient apology in this

respect, more particularly as far as relates to the names of less

celebrated artists. But with the head of a school, such as Foppa, I cannot

consider it a loss of time to investigate his real country, in particular

as the elucidation of many confused and doubtful points in the history of

the art is found to depend upon this. In Vasari's Life of Scarpaccia we

find it mentioned, that about the middle of the century "Vincenzio, a

Brescian painter, was held in high repute, as it is recounted by Filarete."

And in the life of this excellent architect, as well as in that of

Michelozzo, he says, that in some of their buildings, erected under Duke

Francesco, Vincenzo di Zoppa (read Foppa), a Lombard artist, painted the

interior, "as no better master was to be met with in the surrounding

states." Now that there was a Vincenzo, a Brescian artist, who then and

subsequently flourished, and who ranked among the best artists, is proved

by Ambrogio Calepino, in his ancient edition of 1505, at the word _pingo_.

There, after having applauded Mantegna beyond all other artists of his age,

he adds:--_Huic accedunt Jo. Bellinus Venetus, Leonardus Florentinus, et

Vincentius Brixianus, excellentissimo ingenio homines, ut qui cum omni

antiquitate de pictura possint contendere._ After so high a testimony to

his merits, written, if I mistake not, while Foppa was still living, though

edited after his decease, (as we noticed from the eulogy written by

Boschini on Ridolfi, in its proper place); let us next attend to that found

on his monument in the first cloister of S. Barnaba at Brescia, which runs

as follows:--_Excellentiss. ac. eximii. pictoris. Vincentii. de. Foppis.

ci. Br. 1492._ (Zamb. p. 32.) To these testimonials I may add that from the

hand of the author, which I discovered in the Carrara Gallery at Bergamo,

where, on a small ancient picture, conducted with much care, and a singular

study of foreshortening, extremely rare for the period, representing Christ

crucified between the two Thieves, is written:--_Vincentius Brixiensis

fecit, 1455._--What proof more manifest can be required for the identity of

one and the same painter, recorded by various authors with so much

contradiction with regard to name, country, and age?

It must therefore be admitted, after a comparison of the passages adduced,

that there is only a single Brescian artist in question, that he is not to

be referred to so remote a period as reported, and that he could not have

painted in the year 1407 of the vulgar era, inasmuch as he very nearly

reaches the beginning of the sixteenth century. We may for the same reasons

dismiss from history those specious accounts interspersed by Lomazzo,

asserting that Foppa drew the proportions of his figures from Lysippus;

that Bramante acquired the art of perspective from his writings, out of

which he composed a treatise of essential utility to Raffaello, to

Polidoro, and to Gaudenzio; and that Albert Durer and Daniel Barbaro

availed themselves, by plagiarism, of Foppa's inventions. Such assertions,

already in a great measure refuted by the learned Consiglier Pagave in his

notes to Vasari,[43] first took their rise in supposing that the age of

Foppa was anterior to Piero della Francesca, from whom perspective in Italy

may truly be said to have dated its improvement. Next to him Foppa was one

of the first who cultivated the same art, as clearly appears from the

little picture already mentioned at Bergamo. In Milan there are some of his

works remaining at the hospital, executed upon canvass, and a martyrdom of

S. Sebastiano, at Brera, in fresco, which, for design of the naked figure,

for the natural air of the heads, for its draperies and for its tints, is

very commendable, though greatly inferior in point of attitude and

expression. I have frequently doubted whether there were two Vincenzi of

Brescia, since Lomazzo, besides Vincenzo Foppa, whom, against the received

opinion, he makes a native of Milan, marks down in his index a Vincenzio

Bresciano, of whom I am not aware that he makes the slightest mention

throughout the whole of his work. I am led to suspect, that meeting with

some works bearing the signature of _Vincenzio Bresciano_, without the

surname of Foppa, beyond the limits of Milan, the historian, fixed in his

persuasion that Foppa must be a native of Milan, set down two artists of

the name instead of a single one, and that this, moreover, was perhaps an

old prejudice, prevailing in the Milanese School, and which Lomazzo was

unable to dismiss. National errors and prejudices are always the last to be

renounced. In the Notizia Morelli, a Vincenzo Bressano the elder is twice

mentioned, an adjunct, which, if not a surname, as it was in the instance

of Minzocchi, may have arisen from some false report connected with the two

Vincenzi Bresciani. Indeed we have repeatedly observed that the names of

artists have been very frequently drawn, not from authentic writings, but

from common report, which generally presents us with a worse account of

what has been ill heard or understood.

Footnote 43: Vasari, vol. iii. p. 233.

Vincenzo Civerchio, denominated by Vasari Verchio, to which Lomazzo, who

asserts him to have been a Milanese, added the surname of Il Vecchio, is an

artist whom we have recorded in the Venetian School, to which he is

referred as a native of Crema, though he resided at Milan and educated

several excellent pupils for that school, and with the exception of Vinci

is the best entitled of any master to its gratitude. Vasari, when he

praises his works in fresco, considers him in no way inferior to Foppa. In

his figures he was extremely studied, and admirable in his method of

grouping them in the distance, so as to throw the low grounds back, and

bring down the higher parts with a gentle gradation. Of this he affords a

model at S. Eustorgio in some histories of S. Peter Martyr, painted for a

chapel of that name, which are highly commended by Lomazzo, though they

have since been covered with plaister, there remaining only from the hand

of Civerchio the summits of the cupola, which we trust will enjoy a longer

date.[44] Ambrogio Bevilacqua is an artist known by a production at S.

Stefano, representing S. Ambrogio with saints Gervasio and Protasio

standing at his side. Other paintings procured for him the reputation of a

fine drawer of perspective, though in the specimen here mentioned he has

undoubtedly not adhered to its rules. The design, however, is such as

approaches, with some slight traces of dryness, to a good style. Memorials

of this artist are found as early as 1486; but of his brother Filippo, his

assistant, and of Carlo, a native of Milan, mentioned by Lomazzo in the

same work, I am able to find no account. There are two, however, who are

referred by our already highly commended correspondent to this more remote

epoch. These are Gio. de' Ponzoni, who left a picture of S. Cristoforo in a

church near the city, called Samaritana, and a Francesco Crivelli, who is

reported to have been the first who painted portraits in the city of Milan.

Footnote 44: The epochs relating to this artist appear difficult,

and almost irreconcileable. From Lomazzo's account he was a

painter as early as 1460, and according to Ronna, in his

_Zibaldone Cremasco_, for the year 1795, p. 84, there are

existing documents which prove that he was still living in

1535. If we give credit to these, Civerchio must have

flourished to an extreme age, so as to be ranked in this

point with Titian, with Calvi, and the other hoary-headed

octogenarians of the art.

Of those who here follow, a part formed the body of painters under the

government of Lodovico the Moor, during whose time Vinci resided at Milan,

and others were gradually making progress during the following years,

though not any wholly succeeded in freeing themselves from the old style.

The first on the list are the two Bernardi, as frequently also called

Bernardini, natives of Trevilio in the Milanese, the one of the family

Butinoni, the other of that of Zenale, both pupils of Civerchio, and his

rivals both in painting and in writing. Trevilio is a territory in the

Milanese, at that period included in that of Bergamo, and for this reason

comprehended by Count Tassi in its school. It is also a considerable

distance from Trevigi, where he took advantage of the resemblance of the

name to announce one Bernardino da Trevigi, a painter and architect, who

never existed. Vasari mentions a Bernardino da Trevio (he meant to say

Trevilio) who, in the time of Bramante, was an engineer at Milan, "a very

able designer, and esteemed an excellent master by Vinci, though his manner

was somewhat harsh and dry in his pictures;" and he then cites among his

other works a picture of the Resurrection at the cloister of the Grazie,

which presents some beautiful foreshortenings. It is surprising how Bottari

should have changed Trevio into Trevigi, and how Orlandi should have

understood Vasari as writing of Butinone, when, guided by Lomazzo, at page

271, and in other parts of the treatise, it was easy to conjecture that he

was there speaking of Zenale of Trevilio. He was a distinguished character,

in the confidence of Vinci,[45] and in the Treatise upon Painting compared

with Mantegna, besides being continually referred to as an example in the

art of perspective, on which, when old, in 1524, he composed a work, and

put down a variety of observations. There, too, among others, he treated

the question so long contested in those days, whether the objects

represented small and in the distance ought to be less distinct in order to

imitate nature, than those that are larger and more near, a question which

he explained in the negative, contending rather that distant objects should

be as highly finished and well proportioned as those more fully before the

eye. This, then, is the Bernardino, so much commended by Vasari, whose

opinion of this artist may be verified by viewing the Resurrection at Le

Grazie, and a Nunziata at San Sempliciano, presenting a very fine piece of

architecture, calculated to deceive the eye. This, however, is the best

portion of the painting, as the figures are insignificant, both in

themselves and in their drapery. In respect to Butenone, his contemporary,

and companion also when he painted at San Pietro in Gessato, we may

conclude that he displayed an excellent knowledge of perspective, since it

is affirmed by Lomazzo. For the rest, his works, with the exception of a

few pictures for rooms, better designed than coloured, have all perished.

There is a Madonna represented between some saints, which I saw in

possession of the Consiglier Pagave, at whose suggestion I add to the

pupils of Civerchio, a Bartolommeo di Cassino of Milan, and Luigi de'

Donati of Como, of whom authentic altar-pieces remain.

Footnote 45: Lomazzo, in his Treatise, (book i. chap, ix.),

relates that Vinci in his Supper had endued the countenance

of both the saints Giacomo with so much beauty, that

despairing to make that of the Saviour more imposing, he

went to advise with Bernardo Zenale, who to console him

said, "Leave the face of Christ unfinished as it is, as you

will never be able to make it worthy of Christ among those

Apostles," and this Leonardo did.

At the period when these artists were in repute, Bramante came to Milan.

His real name, as reported to us by Cesariani his disciple and the

commentator on Vitruvius, was Donato, and he was, as is supposed, of the

family of Lazzari, though this has been strongly contested in the Antichita

Picene, vol. x. There it is shewn, at some length, that his real country

was not Castel Durante, now Urbania, as so many writers assert, but a town

of Castel Fermignano. Both places are in the state of Urbino, whence he

used formerly to be called Bramante di Urbino. There he studied the works

of Fra Carnevale, though Vasari gives no further information respecting his

education. He continues to relate that on leaving his native place he

wandered through several cities in Lombardy, executing, to the best of his

ability, small works, until his arrival at Milan, where, becoming

acquainted with the conductors of the cathedral, and among these with

Bernardo, he resolved to devote himself wholly to architecture, which he

did. Before the year 1500 he went to Rome, where he entered the service of

Alexander VI. and Julius II., and died there in his seventieth year, in

1514. We may here conjecture that the historian gave himself very little

anxiety about investigating the memoirs of this great man. Sig. Pagave has

proved to be a far more accurate inquirer into the truth. Animated by his

love of this quality, the soul of all history, he at once renounced the

honour his country would have derived from having instructed a Bramante;

nor yet has he referred to him as a pupil to Carnevale, or to Piero della

Francesca, or to Mantegna, like some writers cited by Signor Colucci. He

has properly noticed his arrival at Milan, already as a master, in 1476,

after having erected both palaces and temples in the state of Romagna. From

this period, until the fall of Lodovico, that is until 1499, he remained at

Milan, where he executed commissions, with large salaries for the court,

and was employed as well by private persons in works of architecture, and

sometimes of painting.

Cellini in his second treatise denies Bramante the fame of an excellent

painter, placing him in the middling class, and at this period he is known

by few in lower Italy, where he is never named in collections, though he is

very generally met with in the Milanese. Cesariano and Lomazzo had already

asserted the same thing, the latter having frequently praised him in his

work when giving an account of his pictures both sacred and profane, in

distemper and in fresco, as well as of his portraits. His general manner,

he observes, much resembles that of Andrea Mantegna. Like him he had

employed himself in copying from casts, which led him to throw his lights

with too much force on his fleshes. In the same manner also as Mantegna he

covered his models with glued canvass, or with pasteboard, in order that in

the curves and folds he might correct the ancients. And like him he

employed for painting in distemper, a kind of viscous water, an instance of

which is adduced by Lomazzo, who repaired one of the specimens. Most of

Bramante's pictures in fresco, mentioned by Lomazzo and by Scaramuccia as

adorning the public places in Milan, are now destroyed or defaced, if we

except those that are preserved in the chambers of the Palazzi Borri and

Castiglioni, which are pretty numerous. There is also a chapel in the

Certosa at Pavia, said to have been painted by him. His proportions are

square, and sometimes have an air of coarseness, his countenances are full,

the heads of his old men grand, his colouring is very lively and well

relieved from the ground, though not free from some degree of crudity. This

character I have remarked in one of his altar-pieces, with various saints,

and with fine perspective, in possession of the Cav. Melzi, and the same in

a picture at the Incoronata in Lodi, a very beautiful temple erected by

Gio. Bataggio, a native of the place, from the design of Bramante. His

masterpiece, which is to be seen at Milan, is a S. Sebastiano, in that

saint's church, where scarcely a trace of the style of the fourteenth

century is perceptible. The Notizia Morelli points out his picture of a

Pieta, at S. Pancrazio, in Bergamo, which Pasta had mistaken for one of

Lotto, and mentions also his picture of the Philosophers, painted by

Bramante in 1486, belonging to the same city.

He educated two pupils in Milan, whose names have survived. One of these is

Nolfo da Monza, who is said to have painted from the designs furnished by

Bramante, at S. Satiro and other places; an artist who, if not equal to the

first painters, was nevertheless, it is remarked by Scanelli, of a superior

character. In the sacristy also of S. Satiro, placed near the beautiful

little temple of Bramante, are a number of old pictures, most probably from

the hand of Nolfo. The other artist is Bramantino, supposed by Orlandi to

have been the preceptor of Bramante, by others confounded with him, and

finally discovered to have been his favourite disciple, from which

circumstance he obtained his surname. His real name was Bartolommeo Suardi,

an architect, and, what is more to my purpose, a painter of singular merit.

In deceiving the eye of animals, he equalled the ancients, as we are

acquainted by Lomazzo in the opening of his third book. During a period he

followed his master; but on occasion of visiting Rome he improved his

style, though not so much in regard to his figures and proportions, as in

his colouring and his folds, which he made more wide and spacious. He was

doubtless invited or conducted to Rome by Bramante, and there, under Pope

Julius II., painted those portraits so highly praised by Vasari, and which,

when about to be removed, to give place to Raffaello's, were first copied

at the request of Jovius, who wished to insert them in his museum. It is

certain that the Vatican paintings by Bramantino do not belong to the time

of Nicholas V. as we have shewn. He returned from Rome to Milan, as we are

informed by Lomazzo; and to this more favourable period we may refer his

production of S. Ambrogio, and that of S. Michele, with a figure of the

Virgin, coloured in the Venetian style, and recorded in the select Melzi

gallery, and to be mentioned hereafter. There are also some altar-pieces

both designed and coloured by him, in the church of S. Francesco, which

display more elevation and dignity than belonged to his age. But his chief

excellence was in perspective, and his rules have been inserted by Lomazzo

in his work, out of respect to this distinguished artist. He likewise holds

him up as a model, in his picture of the Dead Christ between the Maries,

painted for the gate of S. Sepolcro, a work which produces a fine illusion;

the legs of the Redeemer, in whatever point they are viewed, appearing with

equal advantage to the eye. Other artists I am aware have produced the same

effect: but it is a just, though a trite saying, that an inventor is worth

more than all his imitators. The Cistercian fathers have a grand

perspective in their monastery, representing the Descent of Christ into

Purgatory, from his hand. It consists of few figures, little choice in the

countenances, but their colouring is both powerful and natural; they are

well placed, and well preserved in their distance, disposed in beautiful

groups, with a pleasing retrocession of the pilasters, which serve to mark

the place, united to a harmony that attracts the eye. He had a pupil named

Agostin da Milano, well skilled in foreshortening, and who painted at the

Carmine a piece that Lomazzo proposes, along with the cupola of Coreggio at

the cathedral of Parma, as a model of excellence in its kind. His name is

made very clear in the index of Lomazzo, as follows:--_Agostino di

Bramantino of Milan, a painter and disciple of the same Bramantino._ I

cannot imagine how such a circumstance escaped the notice of Sig. Pagave,

and how he was led to present us with that more ancient Agostino

Bramantino, (so called from his family name, not from that of his master)

whose existence we have shewn to have been ideal, wholly arising out of a

mistake of Vasari. The one here mentioned was real, though his name is so

little known at Milan, as to lead us to suppose he must have passed much of

his time in foreign parts. And we are even authorized to conjecture that he

may be the same _Agostino delle Prospettive_ whom we meet with in Bologna,

in 1525. All the circumstances are so strong, that in a matter of justice,

they would have proved sufficient to establish his identity; his name of

Agostino, his age, suitable to the preceptorship of Suardi, his excellence

in the art, which procured for him his surname, and the silence of

Malvasia, who could not be ignorant of him, but who, because he was drawing

up a history of the Bolognese School only, omitted to mention him.

There were other artists about 1500, who, as it is said, following Foppa,

painted in the style which we now call antico moderno. Ambrogio Borgognone

represented at S. Simpliciano the histories of S. Sisinio and some

accompanying martyrs, which adorn one of the cloisters. The thinness of the

legs, and some other remains of his early education, are not so displeasing

in this work, as we find its accurate study, and the natural manner in

which it is conducted, calculated to please. The beauty of his youthful

heads, variety of countenance, simplicity of drapery, and the customs of

those times, faithfully portrayed in the ecclesiastical paraphernalia, and

mode of living, together with a certain uncommon grace of expression, not

met with in this or any other school, are sufficient to attract attention.

Gio. Donato Montorfano painted a Crucifixion, abounding with figures for

the refectory of Le Grazie, where it is unfortunately thrown into the shade

by the Grand Supper of Vinci. He cannot compete with a rival to whom many

of the greatest masters are compelled to yield the palm. He excels only in

his colouring, which has preserved his work fresh and entire, while that of

Vinci shewed signs of decay in a few years. What is original in Montorfano

is a peculiar clearness in his features, as well as in his attitudes, and

which, if united to a little more elegance, would have left him but few

equals in his line. He represents a group of soldiers seen playing, and in

every countenance is depicted attention, and the desire of conquest. He has

also some heads of a delicate air, extremely beautiful, though the distance

in regard to their position is not well preserved. The architecture

introduced, of the gates and edifices of Jerusalem, is both correct and

magnificent, presenting those gradual retrocessions in perspective upon

which this school at the time so much prided itself. He retained the habit

which continued till the time of Gaudenzio at Milan, though long before

reformed in other places, of mixing with his pictures some plastic work in

composition, and thus giving in relief glories of saints, and ornaments of

men and horses.

Ambrogio da Fossano, a place in the Piedmontese,[46] was an artist, who, at

the grand Certosa in Pavia, designed the superb facade of the church, being

an architect as well as a painter. In the temple before mentioned there is

an altar-piece, which is ascribed either to him or his brother, not very

highly finished, but in a taste not very dissimilar from that of Mantegna.

Andrea Milanese, who has been confounded by one of Vasari's annotators with

Andrea Salai, extorted the admiration of Zanetti, by an altar-piece he

produced at Murano, executed in 1495, and it would appear that he studied

in Venice. I cannot agree with Bottari that he is the same as Andrea del

Gobbo, mentioned by Vasari in his life of Coreggio, since this last was a

disciple of Gaudenzio.[47] About the same time flourished Stefano Scotto,

the master of Gaudenzio Ferrari, much commended by Lomazzo for his art in

arabesques, and of his family is perhaps a Felice Scotto, who painted a

good deal at Como for private individuals, and left a number of pictures in

fresco at S. Croce, relating to the life of S. Bernardino. His genius is

varied and expressive, he displays judgment in composition, and is one of

the best artists of the fourteenth century known in these parts. He was

probably a pupil of some other school, his design being more elegant, and

his colouring more clear and open than those of the Milanese. We might

easily amplify the present list with other names, furnished by Morigia in

his work on the Milanese nobility, where we find mentioned with praise

Nicolao Piccinino, Girolamo Chiocca, Carlo Valli, or di Valle, brother to

Giovanni, all of them Milanese, besides Vincenzo Moietta, a native of

Caravaggio, who flourished in Milan about 1500, or something earlier, along

with the foregoing. About the same period the study of miniature was

greatly promoted by the two Ferranti, Agosto the son, and Decio the father,

three works by whom are to be seen in the cathedral at Vigevano, consisting

of a Missal, a book of the Evangelists, and one of the epistles illuminated

with miniatures in the most exact taste.

Footnote 46: A number of places which are now included in the

Piedmontese, formerly belonged to the state of Milan, as we

have already observed. The city of Vercelli was united to

the house of Savoy in 1427, and was subsequently subject to

a variety of changes. Many of its more ancient painters are

referred to the Milanese as their scholars; but they may be

enumerated among the Piedmontese as citizens. This remark

will apply to many different passages, both in this and in

the fifth volume.

Footnote 47: Lomazzo, Trattato, c. 37.

Other professors then flourished throughout the state, of whom either some

account remains in books, or some works with the signature of their names.

At that period the Milanese was much more extensive than it has been since

the cession of so large a portion to the house of Savoy. The artists

belonging to the ceded portion will be considered by me in this school, to

which they appertain, being educated in it, and instructing other pupils in

it, in their turn. Hence besides those of Pavia, of Como, and others of the

modern state, we shall in this chapter give some account of the Novarese

and Vercellese artists (of whom I shall also give the information found in

the prefaces to the tenth and eleventh volumes of Vasari, edited at Siena

by P. della Valle), with others who flourished in the old state. Pavia

boasted a Bartolommeo Bononi, by whom there is an altar-piece bearing the

date of 1507, at San Francesco, and also one Bernardin Colombano who

produced another specimen at the Carmine in 1515. In other churches I

likewise met with some specimens by an unknown hand, (but perhaps by Gio.

di Pavia, inserted by Malvasia in his catalogue of the pupils of Lorenzo

Costa,) partaking a good deal of the Bolognese style of that age. At the

same period flourished Andrea Passeri of Como, for whose cathedral he

painted the Virgin among different apostles, in which the heads and the

whole composition have some resemblance to the modern. But there is a

dryness in the hands, with use of gilding unworthy of the age, (1505) in

which his picture was painted. A Marco Marconi of Como, who flourished

about 1500, displayed much of the Giorgione manner, and was probably a

pupil of the Venetians. Troso da Monza was employed a good deal at Milan,

and painted some pieces at S. Giovanni in his native place. Several

histories of the Queen Teodelina, adorning the same church, executed in

various compartments in 1444, are now also ascribed to him. It is not very

easy to follow his inventions, somewhat confused and new in regard to the

drapery and the Longobardish customs which he has there exhibited. There

are some good heads, and colouring by no means despicable; for the rest, it

is a mediocre production, and perhaps executed early in life. He is an

artist much praised by Lomazzo for his other works which he left at the

Palazzo Landi. They consist of Roman histories, a production, says Lomazzo,

(p. 272) _quite surprising for the figures as well as the architecture and

the perspective, which is stupendous_. Father Resta, cited by Morelli, who

saw it in 1707, says that it almost astounded him by its surpassing

excellence, beauty, and sweetness. (Lett. Pittor. tom. iii. p. 342.)

In the new state of Piedmont is situated Novara, where, in the archives of

the cathedral, Gio. Antonio Merli painted in green earth Pietro Lombardo,

with three other distinguished natives of Novara; an excellent

portrait-painter for his age. In Vercelli, adjoining it, there flourished

about 1460 Boniforte, Ercole Oldoni, and F. Pietro di Vercelli, of which

last there is an ancient altar-piece preserved at S. Marco. Giovenone

afterwards appeared, who is esteemed in that city as the first instructor

of Gaudenzio, although Lomazzo is silent upon it. If he was not, he was

worthy of the charge. The Augustin fathers possess a Christ risen from the

Dead, between saints Margaret and Cecilia, with two angels, a picture of a

noble character, in the taste of Bramantino and the best Milanese artists,

and conducted with great knowledge of the naked figure and of perspective.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH II.

_Leonardo da Vinci establishes an Academy of Design at

Milan. His Pupils and the best native Artists down to the

time of Gaudenzio._

In treating of the Florentine School we took occasion to enter into a brief

examination of the pictoric education of Vinci, of his peculiar style, and

of his residence in different cities, among which was mentioned Milan, and

the academy which he there instituted. He arrived in that city, according

to the testimony of Vasari, in the year 1594, the first of the reign of

Prince Lodovico Il Moro; or rather he resided there, if not altogether, at

least for the execution of commissions, from 1482, as it has been recently

supposed,[48] and left it after its capture by the French in 1499. The

years spent by Lionardo at Milan were, perhaps, the happiest of his life,

and certainly productive of the most utility to the art of any in the whole

period of his career. The duke had deputed him to superintend an academy of

design, which, if I mistake not, was the first in Italy, which gave the law

to the leading ones in other parts. It continued to flourish after the

departure of Vinci, was much frequented, and formed excellent pupils,

maintaining in the place of its first director, his precepts, his writings,

and his models. No very distinct accounts indeed of his method have

survived; but we are certain that he formed it on scientific principles,

deduced from philosophical reasoning, with which Vinci was familiar in

every branch. His treatise upon painting is esteemed, however imperfect, as

a kind of second canon of Polycletes, and explains the manner in which

Lionardo taught.[49] We may also gather some knowledge of it from his other

numerous and various writings, which, having been left to the care of

Melzi, and in the course of time distributed, now form the ornament of

different cabinets. Fourteen volumes of these presented to the public, are

in the Ambrosian collection, and many of them are calculated to smooth the

difficulties of the art to young beginners. It is further known that the

author, having entered into a familiar friendship with Marcantonio della

Torre, lecturer of Pavia, united with him in illustrating the science of

anatomy, then little known in Italy, and that he represented with the

utmost exactness, in addition to the human figure, that of the horse, in a

knowledge of which he was esteemed quite unrivalled. The benefit he

conferred upon the art by the study of optics is also well known, and no

one was better acquainted with the nature of aerial perspective,[50] which

became a distinctive and hereditary characteristic of his school. He was

extremely well versed in the science of music, and in playing upon the

lyre, and equally so in poetry and history. Here his example was followed

by Luini and others; and to him likewise it was owing that the Milanese

School became one of the most accurate and observing in regard to antiquity

and to costume. Mengs has noticed before me that no artist could surpass

Vinci in the grand effect of his chiaroscuro. He instructed his pupils to

make as cautious an use of light as of a gem, not lavishing it too freely,

but reserving it always for the best place. And hence we find in his, and

in the best of his disciples' paintings, that fine relief, owing to which

the pictures, and in particular the countenances, seem as if starting from

the canvass.

Footnote 48: Amoretti, Memorie Storiche di Leonardo da Vinci,

p. 20.

Footnote 49: This work was reprinted at Florence, together

with the figures, 1792, an edition taken from a copy in the

hand of Stefano della Bella, belonging to the Riccardi

library. It was published by the learned librarian, the Ab.

Fontani, with the eulogy of Vinci, abounding with

information on his life and paintings, as well as on his

designs attached to it. To this is added the eulogy of

Stefano, and a Dissertation of Lami upon the Italian

painters and sculptors who flourished between the tenth and

the thirteenth centuries.

Footnote 50: Cellini declares that he borrowed a great number

of excellent observations upon perspective from one of

Vinci's discourses. (Tratt. ii. p. 153.)

For a long period past, the art had become gradually more refined, and

considered its subjects more minutely; in which Botticelli, Mantegna, and

others had acquired great reputation. As minuteness, however, is opposed to

sublimity, it ill accorded with that elevation in which the supreme merit

of the art would seem to consist. In my opinion Lionardo succeeded in

uniting these two opposite qualities, before any other artist. In subjects

which he undertook fully to complete, he was not satisfied with only

perfecting the heads, counterfeiting the shining of the eyes, the pores of

the skin, the roots of the hair, and even the beating of the arteries; he

likewise portrayed each separate garment and every accessary with

minuteness. Thus, in his landscapes also, there was not a single herb or

leaf of a tree, which he had not taken like a portrait, from the select

face of nature; and to his very leaves he gave a peculiar air, and fold,

and position, best adapted to represent them rustling in the wind. While he

bestowed his attention in this manner upon the minutiae, he at the same

time, as is observed by Mengs, led the way to a more enlarged and dignified

style; entered into the most abstruse inquiries as to the source and nature

of expression, the most philosophical and elevated branch of the art; and

smoothed the way, if I may be permitted to say so, for the appearance of

Raffaello. No one could be more curious in his researches, more intent upon

observing, or more prompt in catching the motions of the passions, as

exhibited either in the features or the actions. He frequented places of

public assembly, and all spectacles in which man gave free play to his

active powers; and there, in a small book always ready at hand, he drew the

attitudes which he selected; and these designs he preserved in order to

apply them, with expressions more or less powerful, according to the

occasion, and the degree of expression he wished to introduce. For it was

his custom, in the same manner as he gradually strengthened his shadows

until he reached the highest degree; so also in the composition of his

figures, to proceed in heightening them until he attained the perfection of

passion and of motion. The same kind of gradation he observed in regard to

elegance, of which he was perhaps the earliest admirer; since previous

artists appeared unable to distinguish grace from beauty, and still more so

to adapt it to pleasing subjects in such a way as to rise from the less to

the more attractive points, as was practised by Lionardo da Vinci. He even

adhered to the same rule in his burlesques; always throwing an air of

greater ridicule over one than another, insomuch that he was heard to say,

that they ought to be carried to such a height, if possible, as even to

make a dead man laugh.

The characteristic, therefore, of this incomparable artist, consists in a

refinement of taste, of which no equal example, either preceding or

following him, is to be found; if, indeed, we may not admit that of the old

Protogenes, in whom Apelles was unable to find any reason why he himself

should be preferred to him, except it were the superabundant industry of

his competitor.[51] And, in truth, it would appear, that Vinci likewise,

did not always call to mind the maxim of "ne quid nimis," in the observance

of which, the perfection of human pursuits is to be found. Phidias himself,

said Tully, bore in his mind a more beautiful Minerva and a grander Jove,

than he was capable of exhibiting with his chisel; and it is prudent

counsel, that teaches us to aspire to the best, but to rest satisfied with

attaining what is good. Vinci was never pleased with his labours if he did

not execute them as perfectly as he had conceived them; and being unable to

reach the high point proposed with a mortal hand, he sometimes only

designed his work, or conducted it only to a certain degree of completion.

Sometimes he devoted to it so long a period as almost to renew the example

of the ancient who employed seven years over his picture. But as there was

no limit to the discovery of fresh beauties in that work, so, in the

opinion of Lomazzo, it happens with the perfections of Vinci's paintings,

including even those which Vasari and others allude to as left imperfect.

Footnote 51: Plin. lib. xxxv. c. 10. Uno se praestare, quod

manum ille de tabula nesciret tollere. This he said in

reference to that Jalysus, on which Protogenes had bestowed

no less than seven years.

Before proceeding further, it becomes our historical duty, having here

mentioned his imperfect works, to inform the reader of the real sense in

which the words are to be taken when applied to Vinci. It is certain he

left a number of works only half finished, such as his Epiphany, in the

ducal gallery at Florence, or his Holy Family, in the archbishop's palace

at Milan. Most frequently, however, the report is grounded upon his having

left some portion of his pieces less perfectly finished than the rest; a

deficiency, nevertheless, that cannot always be detected even by the best

judges. The portrait, for instance, of M. Lisa Gioconda, painted at

Florence in the period of four years, and then, according to Vasari, left

imperfect, was minutely examined by Mariette, in the collection of the king

of France, and was declared to be carried to so high a degree of finish,

that it was impossible to surpass it. The defect will be more easily

recognized in other portraits, several of which are yet to be seen at

Milan; for instance, that of a lady belonging to the Sig. Principe Albani;

and one of a man, in the Palazzo Scotti Gallerati. Indeed Lomazzo has

remarked, that, excepting three or four, he left all the rest of his heads

imperfect. But imperfections and faults like his would have been accounted

distinguishing qualities in almost any other artist.

Even his grand Supper has been stated in history as an imperfect

production, though at the same time all history is agreed in celebrating it

as one of the most beautiful paintings that ever proceeded from the hand of

man. It was painted for the refectory of the Dominican fathers, at Milan,

and may be pronounced a compendium not only of all that Lionardo taught in

his books, but also of what he embraced in his studies. He here gave

expression to the exact point of time best adapted to animate his history,

which is the moment when the redeemer addresses his disciples, saying, "One

of you will betray me." Then each of his innocent followers is seen to

start as if struck with a thunderbolt; those at a distance seem to

interrogate their companions, as if they think they must have mistaken what

he had said; others, according to their natural disposition, appear

variously affected; one of them swoons away, one stands lost in

astonishment, a third rises in indignation, while the very simplicity and

candour depicted upon the countenance of a fourth, seem to place him beyond

the reach of suspicion. But Judas instantly draws in his countenance, and

while he appears as it were attempting to give it an air of innocence, the

eye rests upon him in a moment as the undoubted traitor. Vinci himself used

to observe, that for the space of a whole year, he employed his time in

meditating how he could best give expression to the features of so bad a

heart; and that being accustomed to frequent a place where the worst

characters were known to assemble, he there met with a physiognomy to his

purpose; to which he also added the features of many others. In his figures

of the two Saints Jacopo, presenting fine forms, most appropriate to the

characters, he availed himself of the same plan; and being unable with his

utmost diligence to invest that of Christ with a superior air to the rest,

he left the head in an unfinished state, as we learn from Vasari, though

Armenini pronounced it exquisitely complete. The rest of the picture, the

tablecloth with its folds, the whole of the utensils, the table, the

architecture, the distribution of the lights, the perspective of the

ceiling, (which in the tapestry of San Pietro, at Rome, is changed almost

into a hanging garden) all was conducted with the most exquisite care; all

was worthy of the finest pencil in the world. Had Lionardo desired to

follow the practice of his age in painting in distemper, the art at this

time would have been in possession of this treasure. But being always fond

of attempting new methods, he painted this masterpiece upon a peculiar

ground, formed of distilled oils, which was the reason that it gradually

detached itself from the wall, a misfortune which had also nearly befallen

one of his Madonnas, at S. Onofrio, at Rome, though it was preserved under

glass. About half a century subsequent to the production of his great

Supper, when Armenini then saw it, it was already _half decayed_; and

Scanelli, who examined it in 1642, declares that it "_was with difficulty

he could discern the history as it had been_." In the present century a

hope had been indulged of this magnificent painting being restored by aid

of some varnish, or other secret, as may be seen by consulting Bottari. In

regard to this, however, and the other vicissitudes of this great picture,

we ought also to consider what is stated in a tone of ridicule and reproach

by Bianconi, in his _New Guide_.[52] It will be sufficient for my purpose

to add, that nothing remains in the modern picture from the hand of Vinci,

if we except three heads of apostles, which may be said to be rather

sketched than painted. Milan boasts few of his works, as those which are

ascribed to him are for the most part the productions of his school,

occasionally retouched by himself, as in the altar-piece of S. Ambrogio _ad

nemus_, which has great merit. A Madonna, however, and Infant, in the

Belgioioso d'Este palace, as well as one or two other pictures in private

possession, are undoubtedly from his hand. We are assured, indeed, that he

left few pieces at Milan, as well from his known fastidiousness in

painting, as from his having been diverted from it, both by inclination and

by the commissions received from the prince, to conduct works connected

with engineering, hydraulics, and machinery for a variety of purposes,

besides those of architecture;[53] and especially in regard to that

celebrated model of a horse, of which, owing to its size, as we are told by

Vasari, no cast could be taken in bronze. And this writer is the more

entitled to credit, as well because he flourished near the period of which

he treats, as because he could hardly be ignorant of a work, which would

almost have placed the fame of our Italian on an equality with that of

Lysippus.[54]

Footnote 52: (Page 329.) The Sig. Baldassare Orsini has

likewise inveighed against the inconsiderate retouchings of

old paintings, in his _Risposta_, p. 77; where he also

alludes to a letter of Hakert's, in defence of varnishes,

and to another in reply, in which the use of them is

disapproved by force of examples. He moreover cites a

Supplementary Letter drawn from the Roman Journal of Fine

Arts, for December, 1788.

Footnote 53: A number of designs are to be seen in his MS.

volumes belonging to the Ambrosian collection. See

Mariette's letter, in vol. ii. of Lett. Pittoriche, p. 171;

and, also, "Observations upon the Designs of Lionardo," by

the Ab. Amoretti, Ed. of Milan, 1784.

Footnote 54: It was intended for the equestrian statue of

Francesco Sforza, father of Lodovico. The Cav. Fr. Sabba da

Castiglione has mentioned in his Ricordi, No. 109, that this

very ingenious model, so greatly celebrated in the annals of

the arts, which cost Vinci sixteen years to complete, was

seen by the writer in 1499, converted into a target for the

Gascon bowmen in the service of Louis XII. when he became

master of Milan.

Of all his labours in Milan, therefore, nothing is better deserving of our

notice than the academy which he founded, whose pupils constitute the

proudest and most flourishing epoch of this school. They are not all

equally well known; and we often find, both in collections and in churches,

that pictures are pointed out as being of the school of Vinci, without

specifying the particular artists. Their altar-pieces seldom display

composition, varying much from that common to other schools of the age;

namely, figures of the Virgin with the Infant, upon a throne, surrounded by

saints, chiefly in an erect posture, and a few cherubs on the steps.

Vinci's disciples, however, if I mistake not, were the first who conferred

on their figures some degree of unity in action, so as to give them the

appearance of conversing with each other. In the remaining parts, also,

they exhibit a pretty uniform taste; they represent the same faces, all

somewhat oval, smiling lips, the same manner in their precise and somewhat

dry outlines, the same choice of temperate colours, well harmonized,

together with the same study of the chiaroscuro, which the less skilful

artists overcharge with darkness, while the better ones apply it in

moderation.

One who approached nearest to his style, at a certain period, was Cesar da

Sesto, likewise called Cesare Milanese, though not recorded by Vasari, or

Lomazzo, in the list of his disciples. Still he is generally admitted by

more modern writers. In the Ambrosian collection is the head of an old man,

so extremely clear and studied, in the Vinci manner, by this artist, as to

surprise the beholder. In some of his other works he followed Raffaello,

whom he knew in Rome; and it is reported, that this prince of painting one

day said to him, "It seems to me strange that being bound in such strict

ties of friendship as we two are, we do not in the least respect each other

with our pencils," as if they had been rivals on a sort of equality. He was

intimate too with Baldassar Peruzzi, and was employed with him in the

castle of Ostia. In this work, which was one of the earliest efforts of

Baldassare, Vasari seems inclined to yield the palm of excellence to the

Milanese artist. He was esteemed Vinci's best pupil; and he is more than

once held up by Lomazzo, as a model in design, in attitude, and more

particularly in the art of using his lights. He cites an Herodias by him,

of which I have seen a copy in possession of the Consiglier Pagave, and the

countenance bore an extreme resemblance to the Fornarina of Raffaello. The

Cav. D. Girolamo Melzi has likewise one of his Holy Families, in the

Raffaello manner, which he obtained a few years ago at an immense sum, as

well as that celebrated altar-piece painted for S. Rocco. It is divided

into compartments; in the midst is seen the Titular Saint and the Holy

Virgin, with the Infant, imitated from a figure by Raffaello, which is at

Foligno. From his Dispute of the Sacrament he likewise borrowed the S. Gio.

Batista seated on a cloud, which is accompanied with the figure of St. John

the Evangelist, placed in the same position. These decorate the upper part

of the picture; the lower being occupied by the figures of the two

half-naked saints, Cristoforo and Sebastiano, both appropriately executed,

and the last exhibiting a new and beautiful foreshortening. They are on a

larger scale than the figures of Poussin, and with such resemblance to

Coreggio's, that, in the opinion of the Ab. Bianconi, they might have been

easily ascribed to him, in default of the artist's name; such is the

softness, union, and brightness of the fleshes, such their beauty of

colouring, and the harmony investing the whole painting. It used to be

closed with two panels, where, with a certain correspondence of subjects,

were drawn the two princes of the Apostles, with Saints Martino and Giorgio

on horseback; all of which display the same maxims, though not equal

diligence in the art. Hence we may infer that this artist did not, like

Vinci, aspire at producing masterpieces as an invariable rule, but was

content, like Luini, with occasional efforts of the kind.

At the church of Sarono, situated between Pavia and Milan, are seen the

figures of four Saints, drawn on four narrow pilasters; the two equestrian

saints, already mentioned, and Saints Sebastiano and Rocco, to whom

especially invocations are made against the plague. They are inscribed with

the name _Caesar Magnus_, f. 1533: the foreshortening is well adapted to the

place; and the figure of S. Rocco more especially displays a composition

such as we have mentioned. The features are not very pleasing, with the

exception of those of St. George, as they are somewhat too round and full.

These pieces are in general assigned to the artist of whom we here treat,

and many are inclined to infer, from the inscription, that he belonged to

the family of the Magni. But it is doubted by others; the frescos not

appearing to justify his high reputation, however excellent in their way.

Besides, I find the death of Cesare da Sesto recorded, in a MS.

communicated to me by Sig. Bianconi, as occurring in the year 1524, though

not in such a manner as to remove all kind of doubt. I find some reason for

inclining to an opposite opinion in the great diversity of style,

remarkable in this artist, the conformity of various ideas in the frescos

and in his altar-piece, together with the silence of Lomazzo, generally so

exact in his mention of the best Lombards, and who records no other Cesare

but da Sesto.

I ought not to separate the name of this noble figurist from that of

Bernazzano the landscape painter, as they were united no less in interest

than in friendship. It is uncertain whether he was instructed by Vinci; he

doubtless availed himself of his models, and in drawing rural landscape,

fruits, flowers, and birds, he succeeded so admirably as to produce the

same wonderful effects as are told of Zeuxes and Apelles, in Greece. This

indeed Italian artists have frequently renewed, though with a less degree

of applause. Having represented a strawberry-bed in a court-yard, the

peafowl were so deceived by its resemblance, that they pecked at the wall

until the painting was destroyed. He painted the landscape part for a

picture of the Baptism of Christ, and on the ground drew some birds in the

act of feeding. On its being placed in the open air, the birds were seen to

fly towards the picture, as if to join their companions. As this artist had

the sense to perceive his own deficiency in figures, he cultivated an

intimacy with Cesare, who added to his landscapes fables and histories,

sometimes with a degree of license that is reprobated by Lomazzo. These

paintings are held in high esteem, where the figure-painter has made a

point of displaying his powers.

Gio. Antonio Beltraffio, as his name is written on his monument, was a

gentleman of Milan, who employed only his leisure hours in painting, and

produced some works at Milan, and other places; but the best is at Bologna.

It is placed at the Misericordia, and bore his signature, with that of his

master Vinci, and the date 1500, though these have been since erased. In it

is represented the Virgin between Saints John the Baptist and Bastiano,

while the figure of Girolamo da Cesio, who gave the commission for the

picture, is seen kneeling at the foot of the throne. It forms the only

production of Beltraffio placed in public, and is on that account esteemed

the more valuable. The whole of it exhibits the exact study of his school

in the air of the heads, judicious in composition, and softened in its

outlines. His design, however, is rather more dry than that of his fellow

pupils; the effect, perhaps, of his early education, under the Milanese

artists of the fourteenth century, not sufficiently corrected.

Francesco Melzi was another Milanese of noble birth, enumerated among

Lionardo's disciples, though he had only the benefit of his instructions in

design during his more tender years. He approached nearest of any to

Vinci's manner, conducting pieces that are frequently mistaken for those of

his master; but he employed himself seldom, because he was rich.[55] He was

greatly esteemed by Vinci, inasmuch as he united a very fine countenance to

the most amiable disposition, his gratitude inducing him to accompany his

master on his last visit into France. He was as generously rewarded for it,

becoming heir to the whole of Vinci's designs, instruments, books, and

manuscripts. He promoted as far as possible the reputation of his master,

by furnishing both Vasari and Lomazzo with notices for his life; and by

preserving for the eye of posterity the valuable collection of his

writings. For as long as the numerous volumes deposited at the Ambrosian

library continue to exist, the world must admit that he was one of the

chief revivers, not only of painting but of statics, of hydrostatics, of

optics, and of anatomy.

Footnote 55: Amoretti, Mem. Stor. del Vinci, p. 130.

Andrea Salai, or Salaino, was, from similar qualities, a great favourite

with Vinci, who chose him according to the language of the times, as his

_creato_, using him as a model for beautiful figures, both of a human and

angelic cast. He instructed him, as we are told by Vasari, in matters

pertaining to the art, and retouched his labours, which I think must

gradually have changed their name; as a Salai is not now esteemed like a

Vinci. There is a St. John the Baptist pointed out as his, elegant, but

rather dry, in the archbishop's palace; a very animated portrait of a man,

in the Aresi palace; with a few other pieces. His picture in the sacristy

of S. Celso, is more particularly celebrated. It was drawn from the cartoon

of Lionardo, executed at Florence, and so greatly applauded, that the

citizens ran to behold it, as they would have done some great solemnity.

Vasari calls it the cartoon of St. Anna, who, with the Virgin, is seen

fondling the Holy Child, while the infant John the Baptist is playing with

him. Subsequently, this cartoon rose into such repute, that when Francis I.

invited Vinci to his court, he entreated that he would undertake the

colouring; but the latter, says Vasari, according to his custom, amused him

a long while with words. It appears, moreover, from a letter of P. Resta,

inserted in the third volume of the Lettere Pittoriche, that Vinci formed

three cartoons of his St. Anna, one of which was coloured by Salai. This

artist admirably fulfilled the design of the inventor, in the taste of his

well harmonised and low colours, in the agreeable character of his

landscape, and in grand effect. In the same sacristy, opposite to it, was

placed, for some time, a Holy Family by Raffaello, now removed to Vienna;

nor did it shrink from such competition. A similar copy of the same cartoon

was obtained from Vienna for our reigning sovereign, Ferdinand III. and now

adorns the ducal gallery at Florence, likewise, perhaps, from the hand of

Salai.

Marco Uglone, or Uggione, or da Oggione, ought to be included among the

best Milanese painters. He did not employ himself exclusively on favourite

pictures, like most of the scholars of Vinci, who preferred to paint little

and well; but was celebrated for his frescos; and his works at the Pace

still maintain their outline entire, and their colours bright. Some of

these are in the church, and a very magnificent picture of the Crucifixion

is to be seen in the refectory; surprising for the variety, beauty, and

spirit of its figures. Few Lombard artists attained the degree of

expression that is here manifested; and few to such mastery of composition

and novelty of costume. In his human figures, he aimed at elegance of

proportion; and in those of horses he is seen to be the disciple of Vinci.

For another refectory, that of the Certosa, in Pavia, he copied the Supper

of Lionardo, and it is such as to supply, in some measure, the loss of the

original. Milan boasts two of his altar-pieces, one at S. Paolo in Compito,

and another at S. Eufemia, in the style of the school we have described,

and both excellent productions; though the manner which he observed in his

frescos, is more soft and analogous to modern composition.

In the historical memoirs of Vinci, written by Amoretti, one Galeazzo is

mentioned as one of his pupils, though it is difficult to decide who he

was, along with other artists recorded in the Vinci MSS. These are one

Jacomo, one Fanfoia, and a Lorenzo, which might perhaps be interpreted to

be Lotto, did not the epochs pointed out by Count Tassi and P. Federici,

relating to this artist, appear inapplicable to the Lorenzo of Vinci, who

was born in 1488, and came to Lionardo in April, 1505, and probably while

Vinci was at Fiesole, since he was there in the month of March in that

year; that is, a month before,[56] and continued to reside with him at

least while he remained in Italy. I am inclined to believe he filled the

place of his domestic.

Footnote 56: See Amoretti, p. 90.

Father Resta, in his "Portable Gallery," cited by me in the third chapter,

inserts also, among Vinci's Milanese disciples, one Gio. Pedrini, and

Lomazzo, a Pietro Ricci, of whom I can learn nothing farther. Some, indeed,

include in the same list Cesare Cesariano, an architect and painter in

miniature, whose life has been written by Poleni. Lattuada, too, mentions

Niccola Appiano, and makes him the author of a fresco painting over the

gate of the Pace, which is certainly in the Vinci manner. Cesare Arbasia,

of whom we shall further treat in the sixth book of the fifth volume, under

the head of Piedmont, was erroneously referred, at Cordova, to the school

of Vinci, and is mentioned as his pupil by Palomino. This was impossible,

if we consider the epochs of his life, together with the character of his

paintings. Were a resemblance of style enough to decide the question of

preceptorship, I might here add to Leonardo's school a number of other

Milanese, both of the city and the state. I cannot, however, dispense with

a maxim, which, under a variety of forms, I have recommended to my readers;

that history alone can ascertain for us the real pupils, as style does such

as are imitators. Being unable, therefore, to pronounce them disciples, I

shall give to Vinci only as his imitators the names of Count Francesco

d'Adda, who was accustomed to paint on panels and on slate for private

cabinets; Ambrogio Egogui, of whom there remains at Nerviano a fine

altar-piece, executed in 1527; Gaudenzio Vinci, of Nova, who is

distinguished also for another altar-piece at Arona, with a date anterior

to the preceding. I never saw any of these; but it is agreed by all, that

they are in the Vinci manner; and that the last especially is an

astonishing production. Another work, which made its appearance only a few

years ago at Rome, representing the figure of the Virgin, and quite in

Leonardo's composition, as I have heard, bears the following inscription:

_Bernardinus Faxolus de Papia fecit_, 1518. It was purchased by the Sig.

Principe Braschi, for his very choice gallery; and it appeared truly

surprising at Rome, that such a painter should be presented to our age, as

it were alone, and without a word of recommendation from any historian. Yet

similar occurrences are not unknown in Italy, and it forms a portion of her

fame to enumerate her celebrated artists by ranks and not by numbers.

It remains for us to do justice to Vinci's most distinguished imitator,

Bernardin Lovino, as he writes it, or Luini, as it is generally expressed;

a native of Luino, in the Lago Maggiore. Resta asserts, that he did not

arrive at Milan until after the departure of Vinci, and that he was

instructed by Scotto. The author of the Guide, (at page 120) includes him

in the list of Lionardo's pupils, and this, from the period when he

flourished, might, I think, have been the case. Because if Gaudenzio, born

in 1484, _was at once the disciple of Scotto and of Lovino_, as we are

informed in the treatise of Lomazzo, (p. 421) it follows, that Bernardino

must already have been a master about 1500, the time when Vinci left Milan.

To much the same period Vasari refers Bernardino da Lupino, (he should have

said da Luino,) an artist who painted the Marriage and other histories of

the Virgin in so highly finished a taste at Sarono. One of Vasari's

annotators erroneously again changes the name of Lupino into _Lanino_, a

pupil of Gaudenzio. My supposition respecting the age of Bernardino, is

further confirmed by a portrait which he drew of himself at Sarono, in his

Dispute of the child Jesus with the Doctors, where he appears then old, and

this picture was executed in the year 1525, as appears from the date.

Luini, therefore, may have been one of Vinci's disciples; and he certainly

frequented his academy. Others indeed of the school surpassed him in

delicacy of hand, and in the pleasing effect of the chiaroscuro, a quality

for which Lomazzo commends Cesare da Sesto, declaring that Luini drew his

shadows in too coarse a style. Notwithstanding this, no artist approached

nearer Vinci, both in point of design and colouring than Bernardino, who

very frequently composed in a taste so like that of his master, that out of

Milan many of his pieces pass for those of Vinci. Such is the opinion of

true connoisseurs, as reported and approved by the author of the New Guide,

who is assuredly one belonging to this class. He adduces two examples in

the pictures at the Ambrosiana; namely, the Magdalen, and the St. John, who

is seen caressing his lamb, a piece which foreigners can hardly be

persuaded is not from Vinci's own hand. I have seen other pictures of

equal, or nearly equal, merit, in different Milanese collections which I

have frequently mentioned.

We must, however, add what I observed in reference to Cesare da Sesto just

before, that in some of his works there is great resemblance to the manner

of Raffaello, such as in a Madonna, belonging to the Prince of Keweniller,

and one or two others which I know were purchased under the impression of

their being Raffaello's. Hence, I imagine, must have arisen the opinion,

that he had visited Rome, which is very properly questioned by the Ab.

Bianconi, (p. 391), who rather inclines to the negative. Nor can I myself

admit it without some further proofs, a similarity of manner to me

appearing far too weak an argument to decide the fact. The same point was

discussed in the third chapter on the subject of Coreggio; and if we found

reason to conclude, that Coreggio succeeded in enlarging and refining his

divine genius to such a degree, without seeing either Raffaello or

Michelangiolo at Rome, we may admit the same to have been the case in the

instance of Luini. The book of nature is equally open to all artists; taste

is a sure guide to selection; and, by degrees, practice leads to the

complete execution of what is thus selected. Vinci's taste so nearly

resembled that of Raffaello in point of delicacy, grace, and expression of

the passions, that had he not been diverted by other pursuits, and had he

sacrificed some degree of his high finish, for the sake of adding to his

facility, amenity, and fulness of outline, his style would naturally have

run into competition with that of Raffaello, with whom, as it is, in some

of his heads especially, he has many points in common. It was the same with

Bernardino, who had embued himself with the taste of Vinci, and nourished

during a period that bordered on an improved degree of freedom and softness

of manner. At first, indeed, he adopted a less full and somewhat dry style,

such as we easily recognise in his Pieta, at the Passione; subsequently he

proceeded gradually to modernize it. Even that fine little picture of the

Ebriety of Noah, which is shewn at S. Barnaba, as one of his most exquisite

pieces, retains a certain precision in its design, a hardness of drapery

and a direction of folds, which remind us of the fourteenth century. He

becomes more modern in his histories of S. Croce, executed about 1520,

several of which he repeated at Sarono five years after, where he appears

to surpass his own productions. These last are the works which most

resemble Raffaello's composition; though they retain that minuteness in

decoration, the gilding of glories, and the abundance of little ornament in

the temples, such as we see in Mantegna and his contemporaries; all of

which were abandoned by Raffaello, when he arrived at his best manner.

It is my opinion, in fact, that this artist was not so much indebted to

Rome, from whose masters he probably only imitated some prints or copies,

as to Vinci's academy, with whose maxims he became completely familiar; and

more especially to his own genius, vast in its kind, and equalled by very

few. I say in its kind; for I allude to all that is sweet, beautiful,

pious, and sensitive in the art. In those histories of our Lady, at Sarono,

her features present us with a lovely union of beauty, dignity, and

modesty, such as approach to Raffaello, although they are not his. They

are, moreover, always consistent with the history the artist represents,

whether we behold the Virgin at the marriage, or listening with wonder to

the prophecies of Simeon; when, penetrated with the grand mystery, she

receives the wise men of the east; or when, with a countenance of mingled

joy and sorrow, she inquires of her divine son, teaching in the temple, why

he had thus left her. The other figures possess a corresponding beauty; the

heads appear to live, the looks and motions seem to be expecting a reply;

combined with variety of design, of drapery, and of passions, all borrowed

from nature; a style in which every thing appears natural and unstudied,

which gains at a first view, which compels the eye to study part by part,

and from which it cannot withdraw itself without an effort: such is the

character of Luini's style in that temple. We observe little variation in

his other pictures, which he executed with more care, and at a more mature

age, at Milan; nor can I imagine what could lead Vasari to assert _that the

whole of his works are tolerable_; when we meet with so many calculated to

excite our wonder. Let us consult his picture of Christ scourged, at S.

Giorgio, and inquire by what hand the countenance of our Redeemer has been

drawn more full of kindness, humility, and piety; or turn to his smaller

cabinet paintings in the possession of the Signori Litta, and other noble

houses, so beautifully finished, and inquire again how many artists in his

own times could have equalled him in these? The genius of Luini does not,

moreover, appear to have been at all fastidious or slow; at least in his

fresco paintings. Thus his Crown of Thorns, placed at the college of S.

Sepolcro, a picture abounding with figures, for which he received one

hundred and fifteen lire, occupied him thirty-eight days, besides eleven

more, during which one of his pupils was engaged on the work. He availed

himself of similar aid, likewise, in painting the choir of Sarono, in the

Monastero Maggiore, at Milan, in several churches of Lago Maggiore, and in

other places; and to these assistants we ought apparently to ascribe

whatever parts we find less perfect.

Two only of his disciples, his own sons, as far as I can learn, are known.

At the period when Lomazzo published his treatise, in 1584, they were both

living, and both mentioned by him with commendation. Of Evangelista, the

second brother, he remarks, that in the art of ornamenting and festooning,

he was equally ingenious and fanciful, at the same time giving him a high

rank in other branches of painting; though it is to be regretted that he

did not point out any of his productions. Aurelio Luini is frequently

praised in the same work, as well as in the Teatro, for his knowledge of

anatomy, and for his skill in landscape and perspective. He is subsequently

introduced in the Treatise upon Painting, among the most celebrated artists

of Milan who then flourished, as a successful rival of Polidoro's style, of

which a specimen is praised, consisting of a large fresco, on the facade of

the Misericordia. After the lapse of two centuries, Bianconi has written of

him with more freedom, declaring, that though the son, he was not the

follower of Bernardino, the purity of whose style he was far from

attaining. And, in truth, if we except his composition, there is not much

calculated to please in this artist. We may, indeed, often trace the

paternal manner, much deteriorated however, and tainted with mannerism; his

ideas are common, his attitudes less natural, the folds of his drapery are

minute, and drawn in a mechanical manner. This character prevails in some

genuine pieces of his that I have seen; among which is one in the Melzi

Collection, with his name and the date of 1570. Others, however, which I

have examined at Milan, are in a better taste, especially at S. Lorenzo,

where an altar-piece with the Baptism of Christ, is ascribed to him, that

would have done credit to Bernardino. Aurelio instructed in the art Pietro

Gnocchi; and, if I mistake not, he was surpassed by his pupil, both in

selection and in good taste. A Pietro Luini, having the reputation of a

soft and accurate hand, and esteemed the last of the Luini, being admitted

in history, I doubt whether he be not the Pietro of whom we here treat,

occasionally surnamed from the house of his master, as we find in the case

of Porta, and others of the sixteenth century. To him was ascribed the S.

Pietro, painted for S. Vittore, seen in the act of receiving the Keys; but

in the _New Guide_ it is correctly given to the hand of Gnocchi.

Having thus shewn, as in a family tree, the regular successors of Leonardo

at Milan, we must prepare to examine the other school, that traces its

origin to Foppa, and other artists of the fourteenth century, who are

mentioned in their place. It is not to be confounded with that of Vinci,

and is separately considered by writers on the subject, though it is known

to have derived great advantage from his models, and, I believe, from his

discourse, inasmuch as he is allowed, like Raffaello, to have been

extremely courteous and agreeable in his reception of every one, and in

communicating his knowledge to all who desired it without any feeling of

jealousy. If we take the pains to examine Bramantino and the rest of the

Milanese artists, subsequent to the middle of the sixteenth century, we

shall find them all more or less imitators of Vinci, aiming at his mode of

chiaroscuro and his expression, rather dark in their complexions, and

addicted to colour rather with force than with amenity. They are, however,

less studious of ideal beauty, less noble in their conceptions, less

exquisite in their taste, with the exception of Gaudenzio, who in every

thing rivals the first artists of his age; and he is the only one of the

ancient school who inculcated its maxims by teaching as well as by example.

Gaudenzio Ferrari da Valdugia is called by Vasari Gaudenzio Milanese. We

mentioned him among Raffaello's assistants, referring to the account of

Orlandi, who gives him as a pupil to Pietro Perugino, and noticing certain

pictures that are attributed to him in lower Italy. But in those parts,

where he only tarried a short time, or attempted some new method, he can

scarcely be recognized, the information regarding it being very doubtful,

which will be further shewn under the Ferrarese School. In Lombardy we may

now treat of him with more certainty, many of his works being met with, and

many particulars of him from the pen of Lomazzo, his successor in the art,

as we shall shortly shew. He mentions Scotto as his master, and next to him

Luini; and that previous to either of these he studied with Giovanone, is a

current tradition at Vercelli. Novara is thought to be in possession of one

of his first paintings, an altar-piece with various divisions at the

cathedral, in the taste of the fourteenth century, and with the gilt

decorations then so much in request. Vercelli possesses at S. Marco his

copy of the cartoon of S. Anna, to which are added the figures of S. Joseph

and some other saints. It is a youthful production, but which shews

Gaudenzio to have been an early imitator of Vinci, from whom, says Vasari,

he derived great assistance. He went young to Rome, where he is said to

have been employed by Raffaello, and acquired a more enlarged manner of

design, and greater beauty of colouring than had been practised by the

Milanese artists. Lomazzo, against the opinion of Scannelli, ranks him

among the seven greatest painters in the world, among whom he erred in not

including Coreggio. For whoever will compare the cupola of S. Giovanni at

Parma with that of S. Maria near Sarono, painted by Gaudenzio about the

same period, must admit that there are a variety of beauties in the former,

we may in vain seek for in the latter. Although we must admit that it

abounds with fine, varied, and well expressed figures, yet Gaudenzio will

be found in this, as in some other of his works, to retain traces of the

old style; such as a degree of harshness; too uniform a disposition of his

figures; his draperies, particularly of his angels, some of them drawn in

lines like Mantegna's; with figures occasionally relieved in stucco, and

then coloured, a practice he observed also in his trappings of horses, as

well as in other accessaries in the manner of Montorfano.