CHAPTER IX

THE REALISTS AND ECLECTICS

The Confusion following Raphael and Michelangelo—Giulio

Romano—Caravaggio and realistic Revolt—Salvator Rosa, romantic

Individualism and the Picturesque—The Carracci and the Eclectic

Ideal—Later Eclectics; Guido Reni—Domenichino—The Waning of

Italian Greatness—Influence of Italy on the Schools of France,

Flanders, and Spain.

Italian painting suddenly declined for lack of taste. The followers of

Raphael and Michelangelo possessed astonishing power and knowledge, but,

save their own cleverness, no longer had anything to express. Thus

painting became merely an art of self-exploitation and display, a matter

of difficult foreshortenings, complicated groupings, and novel

constructions in light and shade. Such at least was the case at Rome,

and partly at Florence. At Venice, Milan, Cremona, Ferrara, and

generally in the North the decline was gradual and benign. Sincere art

of a minor character was still produced. But in the artistic centre the

collapse was complete, and all the more disastrous that nobody realized

that a collapse had come.

It is staggering to find that Vasari, in the face of merited ridicule,

had no doubt that he was a great painter. How he boasts of his own

powers! “But what matters most for this art, is that they have made it

so perfect today, and so easy for him who possesses design, that where

formerly a picture was made by one of our masters in six years, today

our masters make six in one. And I am the credible witness of this both

by my observation and by my work. And many more perfect and finished

pictures are now seen, than formerly were made by the important

masters.” (Vol. IV, p. 13.) Nothing is more appalling than to find

Vasari at Florence and Lomazzo at Milan regularly naming Giulio Romano,

Polidoro and Maturino along with Raphael and Michelangelo. Evidently the

old sure taste of the Renaissance has yielded to confusion.

[Illustration:

FIG. 310. Giulio Romano. Battle for Troy. Fresco.—_Palazzo del Tè.

Mantua._

]

Indeed patronage had changed. It is no longer spontaneous but organized.

We now have academies, art schools, art criticism, exhibitions,

archæologists, picture dealers. Art no longer rests on generally

accepted ideas and broad approbations, but is a game between experts.

To enumerate the followers of Michelangelo and Raphael and allot to each

his due dispraise would be in no way profitable. Giulio Romano may

represent them all. With extraordinary powers as a draughtsman of the

figure, and with paradoxical taste in minor decoration, we know him

already as the vulgarizer of Raphael’s designs in the Stanza of

Heliodorus and of the Burning City. Later (1524–46) removed from

Raphael’s influence, at Mantua, he develops a coarse titanism. The old

Castello of the Gonzagas and the Palazzo del Tè, Figure 310, are

tediously full of sensational and occasionally obscene mythologies which

are done with amazing energy and facility, but are as restless and

undecorative in design as they are hot and foxy in color. And the

immoderations and indecencies have not even the excuse of naturalness,

they are coldly calculated and studied. Such talented Florentine

imitators of Michelangelo as Pontormo and Bronzino we have already

considered. At Rome, he left at least one disciple of talent, Daniele da

Volterra, in the composition of whose masterpiece the Deposition in the

Convent of the Trinità, at Rome, the master himself may have had a hand.

Rather than delay over these complacent epigones we do well to pass to

those few more intelligent artists who saw that something was amiss.

Michelangelo Amerighi, (1569–1608), called from his Lombard birthplace

Caravaggio, and Annibale Carracci of Bologna are here the outstanding

names. The former bitterly fought the grand style in the name of

naturalism, the latter attempted to reintegrate it through a critical

eclectism. Their influence is dominant from the last decade of the

sixteenth century.

Caravaggio[88] had carefully studied the impressionistic manner of late

Titian but finally adopts a harsh and resolute chiaroscuro with the

light restricted and the canvas mostly black. Thus his modelling is both

brutal and academic. His real fight was with the nobility of Raphael.

His saints are taken from the streets and often from the gutters. He

loves character above all, and wants it proletarian. Within his chosen

limitations he is a powerful and sincere artist. His masterpieces are

the Entombment in the Vatican, and the Death of the Virgin in the

Louvre, Figure 309, which created so much disapproval that it had to be

removed from its altar. Both pictures take the theme out of the realm of

legend, making it drastic and contemporary. Both, while rejecting all

grandeur in the figures, preserve the tradition thereof in the

composition. One gets Caravaggio in epitome in The Peter denying his

Lord of the Vatican. Figure 311. It is a powerful character study from

low life. Indeed character is his watchword. One finds it extravagantly

over-emphasized in his famous pothouse and gambling scenes, a

revolutionary innovation. The most famous and one of the best is The

Card Players, at Dresden, Figure 312. It is the symbol of the painter’s

love of low life. He killed his man in a duel, and died himself when

turned out of prison into the August sun.

Before that fitting end he had fled to Naples where amid the corruption

of the Spanish overlordship his proletarian ideals became generally

contagious. They were taken up eagerly by the Valencian, José Ribera,

who with an equal sense for character and a more genuine religious

feeling transmitted the manner to Seville and eventually to Velasquez.

So Caravaggio became the founder of the modern realistic and

impressionistic schools, a precursor of Courbet and Manet. Except for a

surplusage of too emphatic character studies, smiling and weeping

philosophers, Ribera was a true and most skilful artist. Having no

quarrel with an earlier grand style, he had the grace of simplicity.

[Illustration:

FIG. 311. Caravaggio. St. Peter denying his Lord.—_Vatican._

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 312. Caravaggio. The Card Players.—_Dresden._

]

Both at Rome and Naples swaggering Caravaggio had enormous success. His

heads, we read, brought more than other men’s compositions. He boasted

himself the greatest painter of all time, and was often believed. From

his swarthy tones his entire school took the name, the Tenebrists. His

experiments in interior and artificial lighting were widely imitated,

and again ultimately passed into recent Impressionism. His rejection of

noble form in favor of what one sees, and of decorative color in favor

of natural, was the sharpest possible challenge of the Renaissance

style, and outside of Italy where the noble tradition was only incipient

did much to arrest its diffusion. From the point of view of modern art

there are few more important figures. From the point of view of art

broadly he has his serious limitations. Most damaging is his waiver of

civilization, he looks at low life not with the eyes of a detached

artist but with those of a ruffian. He did not have the intelligence to

live up to his own formula. Annibale Carracci was once looking at

Caravaggio’s Judith, and, being pressed for an opinion, remarked that it

was “too natural.” He spoke as an admirer of the grand style. A modern

realist would make the far more radical criticism that Caravaggio is

never natural enough. He really makes no close study of the subtleties

of natural appearance or of the actual refinements of illumination, but

rather substitutes for the old stately formulas a new, more ugly, and

less studied formula of his own. Logically he should have gone forward

with Ribera and Velasquez to a real investigation of appearances. But

his logic was only that of scorn, and it would doubtless have somewhat

compensated him for a sordid and premature end, could he have forseen

that his biographers would credit him with the ruin of Italian painting.

Through Ribera, Caravaggio’s influence passes to the Neapolitan,

Salvator[89] Rosa (1615–1673). With greater vivacity and better color

Salvator repeats the character studies and tavern scenes, also bringing

the proletarian mood into mythology. He painted battle pieces of real

ferocity. He was an irascible, vain and capricious person, proud of

being so; a scorner of his own patrons and of the bourgeois generally; a

maker of epigrams, and a writer of satires. His specialty is the

sinister and picturesque, and he practices it with gusto and ability,

Figure 313. Salvator is the real discoverer of the picturesque, the

first enthusiast for the savage aspects of nature. Likewise he was one

of the first artists to study effects—sunsets, storms, mists, and

whirling clouds. He excursioned in the Abruzzo, equally savoring its

crags, torrents, and forests, and its ferocious banditti. His letters on

these wanderings are among the first and most important documents of the

modern cult of nature. He writes: “You have saddened me by giving me the

news of your having been in Garfagna, and having rejoiced in the

savagery of that country so congenial to my nature.... To be merely

reminded of it brings the tears to my eyes.” Again he writes from the

Adriatic Apennines: “I have been two weeks in continual travel and the

trip is much more strange and picturesque than that of Florence, beyond

comparison so, since there is such an extravagant mixture of the rough

and cultivated, of the level and precipitous that nothing more could be

desired for the satisfaction of the eye.”... “At Terni, four miles off

the road I saw the famous falls of the Velino, a thing to haunt and

possess the most insatiable mind because of its horrid beauty. To see a

river that plunges straight down a mountain for half a mile, and sends

up its foam as high!” Much of the stormy and energetic character of such

scenes is transcribed in the best landscapes of Salvator, Figure 314. In

their age they evoked little following. But these forests, cascades,

evening seaports, and ruined sites were freely bought by the English,

greatly admired and had their part in producing the literary enthusiasm

for wild nature in the eighteenth century.

[Illustration:

FIG. 313. Salvator Rosa. Landscape with figures.—_Pitti._

]

Salvator avows his “extravagant genius,” is driven by the lust for

novelty, is a modern and romantic spirit. Withal he was a man of

capacity and taste with an open-minded understanding of quite alien

merit. “Here, we esteem M. Poussin,” he writes in October, 1665, “more

than any one else in the world.”

Poussin could never have returned the compliment. His approbation was

for Raphael, the Carracci and Domenichino. Indeed a chief glory of the

Bolognese Eclectics was that their critical method sufficed to nurture

so classic a spirit as Poussin’s and so to establish the academic

tradition for Northern Europe.

[Illustration:

FIG. 314. Salvator Rosa. Landscape.—_Pitti._

]

Though the Eclectic movement is properly associated with the cousins

Lodovico and Annibale Carracci,[90] it somewhat antecedes them. The

impetus comes from Flanders with the painter of Antwerp, Denis Calvert,

who came to Bologna late in the sixteenth century and founded an art

school. Like all the better educated Flemings, he represented a profound

nostalgia for Renaissance grandeur, and also a certain detachment from

the particular Italian artists who had embodied the ideal of

_grandezza_. Such a man is, perforce, an eclectic, studying widely the

methods of his great predecessors and seeking to assimilate in his own

art their various perfections. Besides, methods of comparative study

which had formerly been extremely difficult if not impossible were now

easy. Casts were available of the antique marbles, fairly faithful

engravings were at hand for all the great painters. It is significant

that both the Carracci were reproductive engravers. Denis Calvert was no

genius, but a prudent and sagacious artist who made the most of a

slender endowment. His critical and assimilative spirit passed over to

his best pupils. Their reform, unlike Caravaggio’s, was not

revolutionary, but based on a careful restudy of the grand style, which

they had never wavered in venerating.

Annibale Carracci was reared in devotion to Raphael, whose fine St.

Cecilia was at Bologna. Venice lured him, but he was rebuffed by

Tintoretto. Annibale made profound studies of Correggio at Parma, whence

he writes that Raphael now seems wooden to him in comparison. He is now

launched on the impossible quest of combining with the austere grandeur

of the Roman School, the charm of Venetian coloring and the emotional

instability of Correggio. Thus it was an attempt to restore the grand

style largely in the name of one of its chief disintegrators, and as

such it was from the first headed for failure. Yet it was an attempt

dictated by the times, and the inevitable choice of any superior spirit

who wished to reknit the Renaissance tradition.

It was the moment of the Catholic Reaction and of the endeavor of the

new Jesuit Order to rebuild a shaken Church on the basis of persuasion.

Largely shorn of authority, the Church must now be popular or perish. It

wisely chose to be popular, adopting the thrilling novelties of Baroque

architecture, borrowing from the opera its swelling choral cadences,

everywhere stressing the note of charm, surprise and emotion. So the

moderation and austerity which underlay the Renaissance style were

forbidden to the Eclectics, and they chiefly differed from the rival

Naturalists in choosing to make their sensationalism as decorous as the

circumstances permitted. Such is the social background of the Carracci’s

reform, and they deserve utmost credit for achieving so much under such

limitations.

[Illustration:

FIG. 315. Lodovico Carracci. Assumption.—_Bologna._

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 316. Annibale Carracci. Madonna in Glory.—_Bologna._

]

Agostino (1568–1602) was the brains of the family, courtier, scholar,

man of the world. Annibale (1560–1609) was the nerves,—moody, shy,

solitary, with titan ambitions in a small and unprepossessing frame. His

cousin, Lodovico (1555–1619), was possibly the best artist of the three

if only because he attempted less and followed sentimentalism frankly

without too much bothering about grandeur.

Lodovico, Figure 315, and Annibale, Figure 316, enriched the churches of

Bologna with great animated altar-pieces which enthralled their

contemporaries, and today seem more than a little affected. But that is

merely because we no longer share what was an entirely sincere way of

religious feeling. They started an Academy in which the antique, the

nude, and competitive composition were the staple of instruction quite

as in French and British State art schools today. In the Bolognese

palaces the Carracci did in fresco great mythological series, consulting

Homer, Virgil and Ovid and Apollonius of Rhodes. In the main they had

friezes to do, and they drew heavily from Correggio, tempering his

alacrity with something of the heavier energy of the Roman style.

In 1585 the Carracci set up their Academy. It was soon thronged.

Agostino, a courtly, learned and accomplished person, was the leading

influence, being lecturer as well as drawing master. Even, Annibale,

habitually an offish and difficult man, is said to have been affable and

helpful to his disciples.

In studying his pictures, one feels that he was thwarted of his true

development. Not only was he much of a realist, painting tavern scenes,

Figure 317, after Caravaggio’s lead, but also a studious and charming

landscape painter, Figure 318. His soberly colored and gracefully

composed landscapes were an important influence on Poussin. Annibale’s

adventures in the grand style, though audacious and loudly applauded,

really did some violence to his modest and sensitive spirit. His was the

least academic temperament imaginable, and the final disastrous quarrel

with his eminently academic brother, Agostino, was inevitable.

[Illustration:

FIG. 317. Annibale Carracci. The Bean Eater.—_Prince Colonna, Rome._

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 318. Annibale Carracci. Flight to Egypt.—_Doria, Rome._

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 319. Annibale Carracci. Ceiling Detail.—_Farnese Palace, Rome._

]

Annibale and Agostino were called to Rome in 1595 to fresco Cardinal

Odoardo Farnese’s palace. Annibale was thirty-five years old, Agostino a

few years younger. Both had reaped all honors possible at Bologna, and

they came to the Eternal City at a fortunate moment. The favorite

decorators were men of routine talent, Taddeo Zuccaro and the Cavaliere

d’Arpino. Caravaggio’s amazing and perturbing genius had already

asserted itself, but he was not a mural painter. After a preliminary

series of mythologies in the riverside casino of the Palazzo Farnese,

Annibale turned, in 1597, to the decoration of the great hall. It was a

lofty tunnel-like room of refractory proportions. The theme was to be

the loves of the gods. But the great spaces in which are represented

Bacchus and Ariadne, the Judgment of Paris, Polyphemus and Galatea,

Cephalus and Aurora, Hero and Leander, amongst other subjects, yield in

effect to the general plan and the incidental decoration. Annibale, who

despite contemporary accounts to the contrary, controlled everything,

has taken as his motive the architectural framework which Michelangelo

designed for the Sistine, with its burden of decorative nudes. One looks

past heavy painted cornices, Figure 319, to painted statuary in

profusion, thickly set, and, behind, more nudes in natural hues, the

whole echoed by nudes in stucco relief on the walls. We have instead of

the relative flatness of Michelangelo and his predecessors a consistent

lumpiness, which, while theoretically tasteless, is actually rich,

satisfying, and even light. Only an extraordinary ability could have

kept any kind of unity in this wilful and extravagant complexity, Figure

320. But unity there is and coherent expression of a mood at once

pompous and festal.

[Illustration:

FIG. 320. Annibale Carracci and Helpers. Grand Hall, Farnese

Palace.—ROME.

]

The pictures, as we have noted, seem to count for less than their

borders. When we examine the love scenes, we find them at once coarse

and mannered. They are superficially like Giulio Romano at Mantua but

without his self-satisfied brutality. To this extent they are inferior,

and indeed the strain to be at once grand, graceful, and passionate is

only too apparent throughout the pictorial part. Yet as a whole the

decoration seems hardly inferior in power, ingenuity, and rhythmical

fulness to such ancient masterpieces of kindred inspiration as the

Pergamon frieze. For the moment the decoration was enthusiastically

acclaimed, after three-quarters of a century it taught Charles Le Brun

the way to decorate the Louvre and the Palace at Versailles, and even

today the admirer of the fountains of Rome and of her Baroque churches

must admit that Annibale caught the very spirit of his day, in its

superfluity of learned vaingloriousness and shortage of the simpler and

more noble passions.

[Illustration:

FIG. 321. Guido Reni. Madonna with two Saints.

]

For the artist the work brought only chagrin. The Cardinal treated him

with stinginess and personal spite. His irritation with his brother

reached the explosive point. Agostino left him staggering under the

weight of an ungrateful task, he fell into a dangerous melancholy, and

in 1609 died miserably, leaving his helpers Albani and Domenichino to

finish the gallery.

Of the followers of the Carracci, Guido Reni[91] (1575–1642) and

Domenichino (1581–1641), are the most important. At his worst Guido Reni

is the most repellant of sentimentalists, at his best a realist of the

calibre of Ribera himself. In his time there are no grander old men than

his, better painted or more fully realized as characters. You find them

at their best in the Madonna of St. Paul, at Berlin, or the Immaculate

Conception at Petrograd, or the Madonna with St. Jerome, in the Vatican,

Figure 321. It is hard to reconcile them with his sleek and cheaply

seductive Magdalens, Cleopatras and Venuses. What steadies him in his

inconsistency is a fine and simple sense of composition. He is lucid

where his masters, the Carracci, tend to be confused. His taste is more

coherent than his character. Under other conditions than those of

academic Bologna and Papal Rome he might easily have become a realist of

Zurbaran’s type. As it was, he undertook the usual synthesis of the

grand style with the new sentimentality. Generally speaking he is

neither grand nor sentimental enough, but superficial in both regards.

Yet his discretion saves him in such works as the ceiling of the Villa

Rospigliosi (1615) and the supremely elegant St. Michael, Figure 323, of

the Cappucini. I like the Aurora, Figure 322, nay love it well this side

of idolatry, for the same reason that I like Kipling’s lines

“An’ the dawn comes up like thunder

Outer China ’crost the bay.”

Both the fresco and the verses have the same pounding and obvious, yet

thrilling cadences, both bring lyricism to the brink of bombast without

letting it go over.

[Illustration:

FIG. 322. Guido Reni. Aurora. Ceiling Fresco.—_Casino Rospigliosi,

Rome._

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 323. Guido Reni. Saint Michael.—_Cappucini, Rome._

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 324. Domenichino. Last Communion of St. Jerome.—_Vatican._

]

Domenico Zampieri, called Domenichino,[92] (1581–1641) is a far more

serious figure. We see him best not in the sentimental sibyls which he

multiplied nor even in the studied emotionalism of his most famous

altar-piece, the Last Communion of St. Jerome, in the Vatican, Figure

324, but, rather in such decorations as those in S. Andrea della Valle,

and in the monastic church of Grotta Ferrata. Here we find a heavy and

simple emphasis, a great clarity both of figure construction and of

composition. For his personal awkwardness, patience and quietism his

comrades mockingly called him the Ox. It took character to play the ox

amid the febrile sprightliness of the Catholic Reaction. His gravity is

marked also in his color. He forsakes the old decorative conventions of

the Renaissance and works in olive and silvery tones which suggest in a

generalizing way the coolness and freshness of nature. Above all he is

not facile like most of his contemporaries, but studious, dilatory, and

considerate. At times he yields to the prevailing sentimentality, but

usually he is both spontaneous and reticent. He seldom insists, but

candidly lets the picture be seen. All these qualities appear in the

modestly hoydenish masterpiece, Diana and her Nymphs, in the Borghese

Gallery, Figure 325. It is completely captivating for its element of

surprise, its manly wholesomeness, its winsome setting of lithe girlish

bodies amid verdure under a gray sky. This unaffected mood in mythology

has rarely been recaptured. We have it in Vermeer’s little Diana at the

Hague and, only yesterday, in the Nausicaa of Lucien Simon. Such

qualities of lucidity, reserve, and simple nobility made Domenichino the

natural model for Nicholas Poussin. We can trace the influence through

Poussin’s masterpieces, and had France been wise enough to understand

her greatest painter, her academic tradition, which was promoted in

Poussin’s name, might have taken a much more fruitful course than it

actually did.

[Illustration:

FIG. 325. Domenichino. Diana and her Nymphs.—_Borghese, Rome._

]

An ill fate finally took Domenichino to Naples. There he found the

ruffianly local painters banded against every foreigner, and in

particular he met the systematic animosity of the truculent Spaniard,

Ribera. Outright terrorism alternated with petty persecution. They

defaced his work and tampered with his materials. Soon they broke his

delicate and timid spirit, even turned him against the wife with whom he

had lived on terms of ideal affection. Today it remains uncertain

whether he died of shattered nerves or was actually poisoned. Presumably

the barbarous Neapolitans would have done about the same to any visiting

artist, but doubtless they turned the screw a shade harder upon a gentle

idealist who brought into their realistic stews some afterglow of the

quietistic dignity of a Montagna or a Cima.

When all reservations are made, the Eclectics had fairly done their work

of correcting the disorder of the late Renaissance and of restoring

something of the old decorum. They made possible the revival of the

grand style at Rome, in the eighteenth century, by Carlo Maratta and

Raphael Mengs. The Eclectics were the bridge by which the classical

manner passed over into Western Europe, an indispensable link in the

chain of the great hellenistic tradition. That should be enough to keep

them in memory if not in unqualified honor.

Our review of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth, century in Italy

will have served its purpose if it has convinced the reader that this

was no time of stagnation. We have rather to do with activities of

exploration and reconstruction which are much too restless and various.

The intellectual power of the Italian painters had not greatly

diminished in comparison with the Renaissance. Italy still was capable

of giving the leads which have guided painting elsewhere ever since.

What was lacking was not energy but patience, reflection and taste. The

Italian artist tended to regard himself as a swift and resolute

executant first of all, and no longer knew how to nourish his spirit as

a man. Even as executants, the realists and eclectics had the

humiliation of finding themselves outdone by foreigners. Successively in

the seventeenth century Ribera, Rubens, Van Dyck, Velasquez, Claude

Lorrain and Poussin came to Italy and sojourned there. It was in every

case apparent that the foreigner excelled all native artists in his

field. The traditional authority of Italian painting still held, but its

contemporary glory was evidently waning.

But even in decline Italy was strong enough to hand on her torch to

newer hands. From Titian stems the florid classicism and aristocratic

portraiture of Rubens and Van Dyck, which dominated the whole eighteenth

century in France and England; through Caravaggio and Ribera, Italy made

Velasquez the founder of those most characteristic nineteenth century

movements, realism and impressionism; through Raphael, the Carracci and

Domenichino, she fed the white flame of Poussin’s classicism, which in

one way or another has determined the academic development of all

Western Europe. Thus Italian painting, eternally alive in the timeless

region where dwells the fame of Giotto, Masaccio, Leonardo, Giorgione,

Raphael, Michelangelo, Titian, is as well most practically and actually

alive in the recent and present struggles, failures, and triumphs of our

modern schools. Without understanding Italian painting we cannot

understand our own painting. And while the modern world will hardly

return to the coherence, solidity, and grace of the great Gothic and

Renaissance masters, I am confident that there can be no exit from our

present confusion and incoherence until our painters learn at least to

consult those great Italian predecessors who dwelt on the heights above

which is the abode of the human spirit’s creative rest.

ILLUSTRATIONS FOR CHAPTER IX

ON THE ECLECTIC IDEAL

The nearly contemporary account of Carlo Cesare Malvasia, _Felsina

Pittrice_, Bologna, 1841, Tom. I. p. 263 is instructive.

“Lodovico ... was the first who supplied a firm prop to tottering

painting and was able to save it from imminent harm and ruin. He was

the one who courageously opposed that vainglorious time, which

succeeded the most perfect age, and liberating it from the common ills

of those erroneous mannerisms which dared to tyrannize that fair

profession that had been raised so high, not only wished to restore it

to its first vigor, but also to a state still more perfect and

sublime.... Taking the best from all the best artists, one sees him,

with a facility no longer used and valued, form from them a brief

compendium, rather a precious extract, outside of and beyond which

little more remained for the studious to desire. And coupling and

uniting with the discretion of Raphael the intelligence of

Michelangelo, and adding withal with the color of Titian the angelic

purity of Correggio, he succeeded in forming from all these manners a

single one, which had nothing to envy in the Roman, Florentine,

Venetian and Lombard manners.”

A Sonnet supposed, without complete evidence, to have been addressed by

Annibale Carracci to the painter Niccolò d’Abate gives an even more

complete and correct account of the elements that blended in the style

of the Carracci. I quote it from Rouchès, _La Peinture Bolonaise_,

Paris, 1913, p. 123, note 1.

“To make a good painter let him have

At ready and eager hand the drawing of Rome,

The movement with the shading of Venice,

And the dignified coloring of Lombardy.

The terrible manner of Michelangelo

And Correggio’s pure and sovereign style

And the true symmetry of Raphael,

Tibaldi’s decorum and substance,

The inventiveness of learned Primaticcio

And a little of Parmigianino’s grace.

Not without having strenuously made such studies

Let him place before himself for imitation

The works which our Niccolò has left here.”

THE END

NOTES

CHAPTER I.

Footnote 1:

For the altar as tomb-shrine see Yrjö Hirn’s learned and fascinating

book, _The Sacred Shrine_, London, 1912.

Footnote 2:

For the Byzantine pictorial style see the excellent summary in _Fogg

Art Museum, Collection of Mediaeval and Renaissance Paintings_,

Harvard Univ. Press, 1919, pp. 3–10; also a more extended treatment in

O. M. Dalton _Byzantine Art and Archaeology_, Oxford, 1911, chapters

V, VI, VII.

Footnote 3:

For the influence of St. Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Francis

read the respective chapters in Taylor, _The Mediaeval Mind_; for St.

Francis, Thomas Okey’s translation, _The little Flowers of St.

Francis_ in “Everyman’s Library.” E. Gebhart, _Italie Mystique_,

Paris, 1908, is also enlightening.

Footnote 4:

_Burlington Magazine_, Vol. XXXII (1918) pp. 45–6. Mr. Berenson in

_Rassegna d’Arte, “Dedalo,”_ Vol. II., (1921) fasc. V, makes this

superb Madonna a Constantinople picture of the late 12th century. His

confessedly slight argument fails to convince me. Aside from the air

of the picture, the form of the wooden throne is specific for Tuscany

and the second half of the 13th century.

_Cimabue._ Andreas Aubert, _Cimabue Frage_, Leipzig, 1907, is the

standard work. The various views on the early frescoes of the Upper

Church at Assisi are well summarized in Brown and Rankin, _A Short

History_, pp. 54 and 57–59.

An unsuccessful attempt to reduce Cimabue to a myth has been made by

Langton Douglas in his edition of _C. &. C._, Vol. I., p. 187–193. The

constructive and accepted view is that of Aubert. My list differs

slightly from his and is:

Louvre Madonna, about 1275, Louvre.

Trinità Madonna, about 1285, Uffizi.

The frescoes of the Choir and transepts of S. Francesco at Assisi,

saving possibly the big Ascent to the Cross, circa 1296, Assisi.

Madonna with St. Francis (fresco), after 1290, Assisi, Lower Church of

San Francesco.

St. John in mosaic in the Apse of the Cathedral at Pisa, 1301.

Venturi’s endeavor to attach to Cimabue some of the later New

Testament mosaics in the vault of the Florentine Baptistry, see

_Storia_, Vol. V., p. 229—is plausible but not convincing. His

attribution of lost frescoes in the portico of old St. Peter’s, known

from sketch copies, _Storia_, Vol. V, p. 195—has no solid basis. Two

fresco fragments, heads of Peter and Paul, remain, and are published

by Wilpert, _Die Mosaiken &_, bd. I, fig. 144, and by him correctly

assigned to Cavallini or some Roman follower.

R. van Marle, in _La Peinture Romaine_, Strasbourg, 1921, has made a

most careful study of all the earliest frescoes in the Upper Church.

Generally I concur in his conclusions, but cannot see Cavallini in the

far abler work of the Isaac Master. The date, 1296, which Van Marle

found in the Choir at Assisi, makes it pretty certain that all the

frescoes in the Upper Church were executed between 1293–5 and 1300.

In _Toskanische Maler im XIII Jahrhundert_, Berlin, 1922, Dr. O. Sirén

makes a comprehensive survey of the earliest painters of Lucca, Pisa,

and Florence. He endeavors to reconstruct the works of Coppo di

Marcovaldo whom he regards as a formative influence on Cimabue. To the

usual list of Cimabue’s works Dr. Sirén adds, with Aubert, a great

Madonna in the Servi, Bologna; and also a Madonna in the Verzocchi

Collection, Milan; and an extraordinarily fine crucifixion in the

d’Hendecourt Collection, London. Dr. Sirén also accepts for Cimabue

the triptych of Christ, St. Peter and St James, which Berenson first

published in _Art in America_, for 1920. Of these accretions none but

the d’Hendecourt Crucifixion is at all persuasive to me.

Footnote 5:

The latest and fullest discussion of Pietro Cavallini is by Stanley

Lothrop in _Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome_, Vol. II, 1918. I

think he is in error in seeing Cavallini at Assisi and Perugia. Van

Marle, note above, has thrown additional light on the continuity of a

Roman school.

Footnote 6:

_C. &. C._ (Ed. Hutton) Vol. I, pp. 194–5. Zimmermann (_Giotto_ &c.,

Leipzig, 1899), H. Thode (_Franz von Assisi_, Berlin, 1904), and Fr.

Hermanin (_Gallerie nazionali Italiane_, Vol. V (1902), p. 113)

ascribe the Stories of Isaac and some other superior frescoes of the

upper row to youthful Giotto. They seem too accomplished and mature

for that and are all allied to Gaddo Gaddi’s mosaics at Rome.

Footnote 7:

_Giotto._ Osvald Sirén, _Giotto and Some of his Followers_, Cambridge,

Harvard Univ. Press, 1917, in 2 Vols., gives a reasonable chronology

and is valuable for illustrations.

Roger E. Fry, _Monthly Review_, Vol. I, pp. 126–151; Vol. II, pp.

139–157; Vol. III, pp, 96–121 is an admirable critical analysis of

Giotto’s style, but the ascriptions and chronology are often doubtful.

Excellent on the frescoes at Sta. Croce. The essay is reprinted in

_Vision and Design_, London, 1921.

J. B. Supino’s startling views in the chronology of Giotto, expressed

in _Giotto_, Florence, 1920, in 3 Vols., seem to me fantastic.

His general order is the Allegories of the Lower Church and the

Baroncelli altar-piece about 1300, the Arena frescoes 1305, the St.

Francis series in the Upper Church about 1310, the Peruzzi Chapel

about 1312, etc.

My list would be:

The Early Part of the St. Francis Series (II-XVIII) before 1300

The Mosaic of the Navicella (completely restored) about 1300

Stigmatization of St. Francis (Louvre) „ „

The Arena Frescoes about 1305

The Madonna of Ognissanti „ „

The Franciscan Allegories, Lower Church (design only) „ 1312–20

The Stefaneschi Altar-piece (in part) „ 1320, perhaps earlier

The Peruzzi Chapel, Santa Croce after 1320

The Bardi Chapel, „ „ about 1325

The Dormition of the Virgin, at Berlin „ 1325

Madonna, Ancona, Bologna (design only) „ 1330

The Paradise in the Bargello after 1330

Part of the Magdalen Legends there „ „

Part of the Magdalen Legends, Lower Church, Assisi „ „

Baroncelli Altar-piece (design only) „ „

Small panels of the Life of Christ

at New York, Fenway Court, Boston; „ „

Munich and Berenson Collection, „ „

Settignano (bottega works) „ „

Footnote 8:

Padre Angelis, _Collis Paradisi_, 1704, I, p. 33.

Footnote 9:

About the 28 stories of St. Francis there is no agreement except that

Nos. I and XXVI-VIII are by the “Cecelia Master.” Venturi sees Giotto

only in the later stories. I agree with Berenson that the ruder

frescoes, II-XVIII, which are based on the so-called Roman work above

show us Giotto at his beginnings. For the various views consult Brown

and Rankin, _A Short History_, pp. 48–9, 59, 61.

Footnote 10:

Alex. Romdahl’s attempt to set the upper row many years later than the

rest is entirely unconvincing to me. See _Jahrbuch der K. Preussischen

Kunstsammlungen_, 1911, pp. 3–18.

Footnote 11:

John Ruskin, _Mornings in Florence_, _passim_.

Footnote 12:

_Giotto’s Followers._ Osvald Sirén, _Giotto and Some of his

Followers_, see note 7, may be freely consulted for illustrations and

very cautiously for attributions.

Footnote 13:

Peleo Bacci’s ascription of the recently discovered Passion frescoes

in the Badia to Buffalmacco seems reasonable, _Bollettino d’ Arte_, V

(1911) pp. 1–27. Dr. Sirén ascribes these frescoes to Nardo di Cione

and follows Venturi in identifying Buffalmacco with the “Cecelia

Master.” _Burlington Magazine_, Vol. XXXVI, p. 10. The hypothesis

still lacks solid foundation.

Footnote 14:

By Vasari the Spanish Chapel was divided between Taddeo Gaddi and

Simone Martini. _C. &. C._ discovered that the work was by an Andrea

da Firenze who as a document attests painted stories of S. Ranieri at

Pisa, in 1377. The contract which proves this Andrea to have been

Andrea Bonaiuti, active 1343–77, was published in _Arte e Storia_,

Florence, Feb., 1917, p. 33. It gives the date of the contract for the

Spanish Chapel, 1365.

The very elaborate decoration of the Spanish Chapel is fully described

in _C. &. C._ (Hutton) Vol. I., pp. 309–312. There are useful literary

illustrations in Venturi, _Storia dell’ arte italiana_, Vol. V., pp.

792–809. Ruskin in _Mornings in Florence_ gives a partial analysis

which is fascinating from a literary point of view, but badly

overestimates the merit of the work.

CHAPTER II.—SIENA

GENERAL WORKS:

Langton Douglas. _A History of Siena._ New York, 1902.

Ferdinand Schevill. _Siena, the Story of a Mediæval Commune_, New York,

1909.

Edmund G. Gardiner. _The Story of Siena and San Gemignano_, London,

1902.

William Heywood and Lucy Olcott. _Guide to Siena, History and Art_,

London, 1903.

PAINTING, THE SCHOOL.

Emil Jacobsen. _Sienesische Meister des Trecento in der Gemälde

Galerie zu Siena_, Strassburg, 1907; _Das Quattrocento in

Siena_, Strassburg, 1908; _Sodoma und das Cinquecento in

Siena_, Strassburg, 1910; all very valuable for illustrations.

Venturi, _Storia dell’ Arte Italiana_, Vols. V and VII.

Bernard Berenson, _Central Italian Painters of the Renaissance_,

New York and London, 1909.

C. Ricci, _Il Palazzo Pubblico di Siena e la Mostra d’Antica Arte

Senese_, Bergamo, 1904, offers a good and inexpensive survey

of Sienese handicraft in general.

SIENESE PICTURES IN THE UNITED STATES. Consult the illustrated

catalogues of the Fogg Museum, Harvard; and of the Jarves

Collection, Yale. Also many special articles in _Art in America_,

especially the series in Vol. VIII-IX, by F. Mason Perkins, _Some

Sienese Paintings in American Collections_.

Footnote 15:

The fact that the Madonna of the Palazzo Pubblico had been much

repainted in Duccio’s time not unnaturally threw Milanesi and other

critics off the track. But the date is entirely genuine (see _C. & C._

[Douglas] Vol. I, p. 162, note 1*; and E. Jacobsen, _Das Trecento_, p.

18). The latter writes, “The signature and date are genuine. There is

no tenable ground for doubting them.”

I have satisfied myself by close inspection that such is the case, and

the half dozen or so other panels associated with this Madonna

stylistically all seem to belong to the first half of the 13th

century.

Footnote 16:

Sirén, _Burlington Magazine_, XXXII (1918) p. 45, ascribes this panel

to Cavallini. Berenson in _Dedalo_, Vol. II, fasc. v, allots it to

Constantinople at the end of the 12th century. Neither view is even

plausible to me.

Footnote 17:

_Duccio._ A. Lisini, _Notizie di Duccio_ &c. Siena, 1898. Curt

Weigelt, _Duccio di Buoninsegna_, Leipzig, 1911, the standard

monograph, well illustrated.

Footnote 18:

The whole matter of the Rucellai Madonna is well discussed by Douglas

in his edition of _C. & C._, Vol. I. Appendix to chapter VI. Andreas

Aubert, _Cimabue_, p. 138 ff., and Curt Weigelt, _Duccio_, both agree

that the Rucellai Madonna is the picture called for by the contract of

1285, hence is by Duccio. Aside from many stylistic similarities to

Duccio’s early Madonna with Franciscans in the Siena Academy, the

exquisitely drawn bare feet of the Angels in the Rucellai Madonna

amount almost to a signature for Siena’s greatest painter. H. Thode

and O. Sirén hold that a picture designed and begun by Duccio was

finished by Cimabue, _Toskanische Maler_, pp. 308–9, and note 41 to

latter page. The hypothesis that Duccio was strongly influenced by

Cimabue in this work seems simpler.

Footnote 19:

The contract is worth quoting in part from G. Fontana, _Due documenti

inediti riguardanti Cimabue_, Pisa, 1878; it is reprinted in

Strzygowski, _Cimabue und Rom_, Wien, 1888. The papers were recovered

from a grocer who was about to use them for wrappers.

“Which picture of the Majesty of Divine and Blessed Virgin Mary and of

the Apostles and other saints is to be made in columns and in the

predella and [main] spaces of the picture good and pure florin gold

shall be used; the other pictures which are to be made in the

aforesaid panel above the columns in tabernacles, gables, and frames

shall be made ... of good silver gilt.”

The picture apparently was a polyptych of three, five, or seven panels

with columns and round arches, with an upper order of gables and

tabernacles. It seems to have been the first well-peopled Madonna in

Majesty, and it probably served as Duccio’s exemplar. Cimabue died

before finishing it, but since in Nov. 1302 he received a large

installment of 40 Pisan _lire_, he must at least have fully drawn the

composition on the panel.

Footnote 20:

_Simone Martini._ See the standard work by Raimond van Marle, _Simone

Martini_, Strasbourg, 1920.

There is considerable difference among critics in dating these

frescoes, and no objective evidence. The early date, 1322–25,

suggested by Venturi and Van Marle, is confirmed by the stylistic

character of the work. It lacks the calligraphic, linear formulas

which abound in Simone’s works after 1330. The early date also agrees

with the general probabilities of the course of events in the

decoration of the Lower Church at Assisi.

Footnote 21:

Frey’s ed. Berlin, 1886, p. 42.

Footnote 22:

The contract for this altar-piece is translated in the illustrations

to chapter II, p. 106.

Footnote 23:

Venturi, Vol. V, pp. 680–694, offers a sensible compromise view of the

authorship of this series, assigning to Pietro himself only the

Deposition, Entombment, Stigmatization of St. Francis and a Madonna

and Saints, ascribing most of the subjects to an assistant. Dr. Ernest

Dewald in a forthcoming Princeton dissertation takes a more skeptical

view than Venturi as to Pietro’s presence at Assisi.

Footnote 24:

However the “Cecelia Master,” active about 1300, deals ably with such

spatial problems. See O. Sirén, _Burlington Magazine_, Vol. XXXIV, p.

234, and XXXVI, p. 4. and _Giotto_, plates 11–13, Vol. II.

Footnote 25:

_Sassetta._ Bernard Berenson. _A Painter of the Franciscan Legend_,

(Sassetta), London and New York, 1909.

Footnote 26:

_Matteo di Giovanni._ We have the standard work of G. Hartlaub,

_Matteo da Siena_, Strassburg, 1910. Mr. Berenson in _Essays in the

Study of Sienese Painting_, New York, 1918, essay on Cozzarelli, has

made useful criticisms of the list of pictures usually ascribed to

Matteo.

Footnote 27:

_Sodoma._ Hobart Cust, _Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, usually styled

“Sodoma,”_ New York, 1906.

CHAPTER III.—MASACCIO AND THE NEW REALISM

On the general matter of the realists of the Early Renaissance not much

has been added to Crowe and Cavalcaselle, but Mr. Berenson’s comment in

_Florentine Painters_ and _Central Italian Painters of the Renaissance_

is of high critical value. Vasari is interesting, but never more

inaccurate than when dealing with this group. As usual the latest

collected information is in Venturi. _Storia_, Vol. VII, part I, and

elsewhere.

Footnote 28:

Matteo Villani, _Istorie_, Florence, 1581, Lib. I, cap. iv, pp. 5–6.

Footnote 29:

_Lorenzo Monaco._ The standard work is by O. Sirén, _Don Lorenzo

Monaco_, Strassburg, 1905.

Footnote 30:

_Fra Angelico._ Langton Douglas. _Fra Angelico_, London and New York,

1900.

Vasari’s _Life_ is admirable and in essentials correct.

Footnote 31:

_Masolino-Masaccio._ The summary in _C. & C._ (Douglas) Vol. IV;

(Hutton), Vol. II, reasonably brings the controversy up to date. The

latest review is by Dr. Richard Offner, _Art in America_, Vol. VIII,

pp. 68–76, _A St. Jerome by Masolino_. Dr. Offner, in _Dedalo_, Mar.,

1923, publishes a fine St. Julian, by Masolino, which reveals in a new

light that artist’s romantic temperamentalism. Mr. Berenson, l. c.,

publishes a predella piece for the same panel.

The large album of plates accompanying August H. Schmarsow’s

_Masaccio, der Begründer des Klassischen Stils_ &c. Kassel, 1900, is

indispensable to the serious student. It is available in the great

libraries. Cuts of all the works involved in the controversy are more

readily attainable in P. Toesca’s _Masolino da Panicale_, Bergamo,

1908, and in Venturi, _Storia_, Vol. VII, pt. I.

Footnote 32:

The rider with his back turned at the left of the fresco of the

Calvary has a rondel protecting the nape of his neck. It is a

short-lived and unsuccessful invention which was not used before

1435–40. This information, which I owe to Dr. Bashford Dean of the

Metropolitan Museum, dates the Calvary well after Masaccio’s death,

and, inferentially, all the other frescoes in the same chapel.

Footnote 33:

_Cassoni_ and other Furniture Panels. The standard work is by Paul

Schubring, _Cassoni_ &c. Leipzig, 1915.

Many of the examples in American Collections have been published and

discussed by William Rankin and myself in the _Burlington Magazine_,

Vol. VIII, IX. See also a popular sketch by me in _Arts and

Decoration_, Dec. ’05. The furnishing and decoration of a patrician

Florentine house in the 15th century is learnedly and delightfully

treated by A. Schiaparelli, _La Casa fiorentina_ &c., Florence, 1908.

Footnote 34:

See my article in _Art in America_, Vol. VIII, p. 154, and in _Arts

and Decoration_, Note 6, above.

Footnote 35:

_Masaccio_, bibliography in Note 4 above.

In essentials the view and chronology of Masaccio’s works here given

differs from Cavalcaselle’s only in relegating the frescoes in S.

Clemente to Masolino and their proper date in the late 30s or early

40s. In this I have been partially anticipated by Pietro Toesca,

_Masolino da Panicale_, Bergamo, 1908.

The reader may justly wish me to commit myself on this most disputed

question to the extent of a list. I give it in a tentative

chronological order assuming that Masaccio may have begun to work as

early as 1420.

_Early Works under Masolino’s influence_:

Madonna and Saints (fresco). Shrine at Montemarciano near S. Giovanni.

Pietà (fresco). Cathedral, Empoli.

Miracle of healing by Christ (ruined by repainting). John C. Johnson

Coll., Philadelphia.

Madonna and St. Ann. Uffizi, Florence.

Adam and Eve Tempted (fresco). Brancacci Chapel.

Resuscitation of Tabitha (fresco). Brancacci Chapel.

_Later Works_:

St. Peter Preaching (fresco, possibly earlier). Brancacci Chapel.

Birth of St. John (salver). Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin.

Polyptych for the Carmine, Pisa, 1426.

The Madonna, some small pilaster pieces, and a small rondel with

bust of God Father. National Gallery, London.

Three predella panels (largely school work) and some small

pilaster pieces. Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin.

Crucifixion central pinnacle. Naples Museum.

A Saint (upper order). Civic Museum, Pisa.

A Saint (upper order). Lanckoronski, Vienna.

The Trinity (fresco). S. Maria Novella, Florence.

All the remaining frescoes of the Brancacci Chapel save the parts and

panels now universally assigned to Filippino Lippi.

Footnote 36:

Schmarsow, _Masaccio Studien_, bd. 3. p. 27, 8.

Footnote 37:

_Andrea del Castagno_, see the important articles by Herbert P. Horne

in the _Burlington Magazine_, Vol. VII, 1905. Richard Offner, in _Art

in America_, Vol. VII, pp. 227–35, first published the admirable

portrait in Mr. Morgan’s Library, New York. A magnificent tournament

shield with the figure of a David is in the Widener Collection, Elkins

Park, Penna., and was first published by Guido Cagnola in _Rassegna d’

Arte_, Vol. XIII (1913), p. 49.

Andrea worked at Venice in 1442. See G. Fiocca, _Burlington Magazine_,

Vol. XL, p. 11.

Footnote 38:

_Alesso Baldovinetti._ See E. Londi, _Alesso Baldovinetti_, Firenze,

1907.

CHAPTER IV.—FRA FILIPPO LIPPI AND THE NEW NARRATIVE STYLE

Footnote 39:

_Fra Filippo Lippi._ Edward C. Strutt, _Fra Filippo Lippi_, London,

1906. Vasari’s _Life_ is capital. Robert Browning’s poem, in _Men and

Women_, an admirable side-light.

Footnote 40:

_Benozzo Gozzoli._ I accept Col. G. F. Young’s date for these

frescoes. See _The Medici_, New York, 1909, Vol. I., Chapter vii,

where there is a good analysis of this decoration.

Footnote 41:

_Antonio Pollaiuolo._ Maud Crutwell’s _Antonio Pollaiuolo_, London and

New York, 1907. For later information consult Venturi, _Storia_, Vol.

VII, pt. I, pp. 558–578.

Footnote 42:

_Piero della Francesca._ W. G. Waters, _Piero della Francesca_,

London, 1901; and Corrado Ricci’s superbly illustrated folio, _Piero

della Francesca_, Rome, 1910.

Footnote 43:

_Early Frescoes of the Sistine Chapel._ Magnificently reproduced in

the album accompanying Ernst Steinmann’s _Die Sixtinische Cappelle_,

Munich, 1901.

Footnote 44:

_Francesco Pesellino._ Consult Dr. W. Weisbach’s able and beautifully

illustrated work, _Francesco Pesellino und die Romantik der

Frührenaissance_, Berlin, 1901. For cuts of _Cassoni_, Paul Schubring,

_Cassoni_, Leipzig, 1915, and the books and articles already cited in

note 6 to Chapter 3.

Footnote 45:

_Domenico Ghirlandaio._ A copious and satisfactory life is that of

Gerald S. Davies, _Ghirlandaio_, London and New York, 1909. Briefer

but of greater cultural scope is Ghirlandaio, by Henri Hauvette,

Paris, “Les maîtres de l’art.” For a summary criticism my article in

_The Nation_ (N. Y.), Aug. 20, 1908, p. 167. Ruskin’s famous assault

on Ghirlandaio in _Mornings in Florence_ is joyous reading if

whimsically exaggerated.

CHAPTER V.—BOTTICELLI AND LEONARDO DA VINCI

Footnote 46:

_Botticelli._ The standard work is Herbert P. Horne, _Sandro

Botticelli_, London, 1908. A little additional information may be

found in Crowe and Cavalcaselle, _A History of Painting in Italy_,

Hutton Ed. Vol. II, and in Venturi, _Storia dell’ Arte Italiana_, Vol.

VII, pt. 1.

Walter Pater’s essay in _The Renaissance_ offers beautifully a

one-sided view. The essays, the _Soul of a Fact_, and

_Quattrocentisteria_, in Maurice Hewlett’s _Earthwork out of Tuscany_

are poetically illuminative. Mr. Berenson’s analysis in _Florentine

Painters of the Renaissance_ is important. I have written more fully

on Botticelli in _Estimates in Art_, New York, 1912.

Botticelli’s Dante illustrations are published in a cheaper and more

sumptuous form by Friedrich P. Lippmann. _Botticelli, Zeichnungen von

Sandro Botticelli_, Berlin, 1896.

Lists of Botticelli’s works differ considerably. I incline to accept a

number of early paintings which are neglected by such exclusive

critics as Berenson and Horne. My own list, which for reasons of space

cannot be given here, would not differ much from that of A. Venturi,

in _Storia_ VII, i, 588–642.

Footnote 47:

_Filippino Lippi._ I. B. Supino, _Les deux Lippi_, Firenze, 1904.

Footnote 48:

_Piero di Cosimo._ Fritz Knapp, _Piero di Cosimo_, Halle, 1899. As

usual later information in Venturi, _Storia_, Vol. VII, pt. 1.

Footnote 49:

This extraordinary series of which four have been recovered is fully

discussed and somewhat differently interpreted by Roger E. Fry, in

_Burlington Magazine_, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 131_f._ See also letter on

page 257.

Footnote 50:

_Leonardo da Vinci._ The standard life is by W. von Seidlitz,

_Leonardo da Vinci_, Berlin, 1909. The early work of Leonardo and his

relations with Verrocchio have been thoroughly and lucidly analyzed by

Jens Thys, _Leonardo da Vinci_, London, 1913. Amid the confusingly

rich bibliography, the student may do well to stick to Vasari’s

admirable _Life_ in any of the translations, to Dr. O. Sirén’s

scholarly and cautious book _Leonardo da Vinci_, New Haven, and

London, 1916 and to the late Dr. J. P. Richter’s incomparable work

“The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci,” London, 1883, obtainable

only in libraries. Giovanni Poggi, _Leonardo da Vinci_, Firenze, 1919,

has thoroughly edited Vasari’s _Life_, and should be consulted for

latest views and for illustrations. My own view on the early

development of Leonardo, a most disputed matter, is set forth more

fully in _Art and Archæology_, Vol. IV. pp. 111–122.

For literary side-lights Walter Pater’s essay, in _The Renaissance_;

for an iconoclastic view Berenson in _Study and Criticism of Italian

Art_, Fourth Series, New York, 1920. Edward McCurdy’s selected

translations from _The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci_, New York,

1906, are valuable for those to whom Richter is inaccessible.

Leonardo’s drawings, which are no less important than his paintings,

may best be approached through Mr. Berenson’s monumental work, _The

Drawings of the Florentine Painters_, New York and London, 1903, while

the drawings before 1480 are clearly and ably discussed by Dr. Thys.

Footnote 51:

The capital mistake of the more exclusive critics of Leonardo’s early

work is that they set this delightful little masterpiece at the

beginning of the series in an impossibly early date. There is no such

manipulation of paint and no such feeling for unity of landscape

before 1475 or so. Being a revision of the design of the Uffizi

Annunciation, it is necessarily later.

My list of Leonardo’s would include, in approximate order:

1. In Verocchio’s Baptism. The landscape at left and distance, the

Angel kneeling to right, about 1470, Uffizi.

2. Madonna and Child with an Angel, design by Verrocchio, London.

3. The Annunciation, design mostly by Verrocchio, about 1475, Uffizi.

4. Portrait of a Girl, possibly a Verrocchio, Prince Liechtenstein,

Vienna.

5. Annunciation, Louvre.

6. Benois Madonna, about 1478–9, Petrograd.

7. St. Jerome, unfinished, Vatican, Rome.

8. Adoration of the Magi, left unfinished about 1481, Uffizi.

9. Cartoon of St. Ann, Burlington House, London.

10. Madonna of the Rocks, between 1480–83, Paris.

11. So-called Belle Ferronnière, perhaps bottega piece, about 1490,

Paris.

12. Girl with an Ermine, perhaps a bottega piece, about 1495, Cracow.

13. Clay model of the Sforza horse, destroyed in 1500.

14. Last Supper, 1498, Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan.

15. Cartoon for a St. Ann, lost but represented by sketches at Venice,

1503.

16. Madonna of the Distaff, represented by old copies.

17. Cartoon for Battle of Anghiari, only central group painted, partly

represented by sketches and old copies, 1504.

18. Portrait of Mona Lisa, Paris.

19. Cartoon for a standing Leda, probably only the figure, since

numerous old copies have widely varying accessories.

20. Madonna of the Rocks, 1507, London.

21. Cartoon for a Kneeling Leda, the figure only. Sketches and old

copies.

22. Madonna and St. Ann, Paris.

23. St. John, half-length, Paris.

All Leonardo’s main activity as a painter lies from 1470–1500. He

painted a picture about every two years.

Various sculptures have been ascribed to Leonardo. Of these only two,

which will have been made in Verrocchio’s _bottega_ and under his

direction, seem to me to deserve the distinction. A terra cotta

Madonna and Child in the Metropolitan Museum, there ascribed to

Verrocchio’s school, may represent Leonardo’s modelling about 1465. A

stucco Madonna owned by Mr. George Diblee, at Oxford, is perhaps ten

years later. The first is discussed by me in _Art and Archaeology_,

Vol. IV, p. 122; the second is reproduced and accepted as a Leonardo

by Prof. A. Venturi in _L’ Arte_, Vol. XXV, p. 131.

Footnote 52:

The best study of this picture and of its contemporary influence is

that of George Gronau in _Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst_. N. F. Vol.

XXIII, pp. 253–259. He fails to perceive that so primitive a picture

as late as 1478 furnishes the best reason for accepting most of the

rejected early Leonardos.

Footnote 53:

In all this matter Jens Thys’s admirable studies are indispensable.

See note 5 above.

Footnote 54:

The Lady and the Ermine and the Belle Ferronnière are thoroughly

discussed by H. Ochenkowski, _Burlington Magazine_, Vol. XXXIV, p. 186

_f._, where a full bibliography will be found.

Footnote 55:

This error which has persisted since Vasari was finally corrected by

the great restorer Cavenaghi in his report of the last restoration.

Malaguzzi Valeri in _Milano_, Bergamo, 1906, pt. 2, p. 14, first

advanced the correct view that the painting was done in tempera.

Footnote 56:

Kenyon Cox, _Concerning Painting_, New York, 1917, p. 73.

Footnote 57:

_Fra Bartolommeo._ The standard work is Fritz Knapp’s _Fra Bartolommeo

della Porta_, Halle, 1903. H. v. d. Gablentz, _Fra Bartolommeo_ in 2

vols., Leipzig, 1922.

Footnote 58:

_Andrea del Sarto._ H. Guinness, _Andrea del Sarto_, London and New

York, 1901. Andrea’s drawings are finely analyzed by Bernard Berenson

in _The Drawings of the Florentine Painters_.

Footnote 59:

_Bronzino._ Hans Schulze, _Die Werke Angelo Bronzino’s_, Strassburg,

1911.

Footnote 60:

_Pontormo._ We have two admirable books by the same writer, Dr. F. M.

Clapp; _Les Dessins de Pontormo_, Paris, 1914; _Pontormo, his Life and

Work_, New Haven, 1916.

Pontormo’s supreme masterpiece of portraiture, The Halberdier, is

published by myself in _Art in America_, Vol. X, p. 66.

CHAPTER VI.

THE HIGH RENAISSANCE. The indispensable books are, for leading ideas, J.

C. Burckhardt, _Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy_, New York,

1890; for the stylistic development in Art, H. Wölfflin, _The Art of the

Italian Renaissance_, New York, 1913. Very valuable for history and

biography are J. Addington Symonds’s _The Renaissance in Italy_, 5

Vols., London; and H. O. Taylor’s _Thought and Expression in the

Sixteenth Century_, New York, 1920. For Renaissance ideals of nobility

and moderation the capital contemporary work is _Il Cortegiano_, by

Baldassare Castiglione, translated as _The Courtier_ by L. E. Opdycke,

New York, 1905. For stylistic analysis Berenson’s introductions to

_Florentine Painters_, and to _Central Italian Painters of the

Renaissance_, are suggestive and important.

Footnote 61:

_Gentile da Fabriano._ A. Colasanti, _Gentile da Fabriano_. Bergamo,

1909. Also my Essay review. _The Nation_, Vol. 89 (1909) pp. 168–170.

Footnote 62:

_Andrea da Bologna._ _The Nation_ (N. Y.) Vol. 95. (1912) p. 392.

Footnote 63:

_Fifteenth Century Umbrians._ Walter Rothes, in _Anfänge ... der

Alt-Umbrischen Malerschulen_, Strassburg, 1908, gives excellent

illustrations for the Early Umbrian Artists. Also for cuts, U. Gnoli,

_La Mostra Umbra_, Bergamo.

Footnote 64:

_Melozzo da Forlì._ A. Schmarsow, _Melozzo da Forlì_, Berlin, 1886,

and C. Ricci, _Melozzo da Forlì_, Rome, 1911, are the standard works.

Footnote 65:

_Luca Signorelli._ Maud Crutwell, _Luca Signorelli_, London, 1901. See

Venturi, vii, as usual.

Footnote 66:

_Pietro Perugino._ Venturi, _Storia_, Vol. VII, pt. 2, ch. v, makes

Perugino the direct pupil of Piero della Francesca, ascribing to

Perugino many pictures formerly ascribed to Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. The

view while attractive is not wholly convincing to me. All of

Perugino’s works are published in _Klassiker der Kunst_, No. XXV,

Stuttgart, 1914. The best general estimate of Perugino is that of

Wölfflin and of Berenson, in _Central Italian Painters_.

Footnote 67:

The _Cambio_ frescoes. While it is inherently likely that Raphael

worked on these frescoes, Prof. Venturi’s plea for Raphael’s

authorship of God, the Prophets and Sibyls, _Storia_, Vol. VII, pt. 2,

p. 828 _ff._ depends largely on the shaky evidence of drawings

attributed arbitrarily to Raphael.

RAPHAEL AND MICHELANGELO. From the point of view of pure style the

best treatment of these artists and of the High Renaissance is that of

Heinrich Wölfflin in _The Art of the Italian Renaissance_, New York,

1913. It is a book that every student should read and if possible own.

Mr. Berenson’s treatment of space composition, in the introduction to

_Central Italian Painters of the Renaissance_, is perhaps his finest

achievement in criticism.

Footnote 68:

_Raphael._ Hermann Grimm’s two volume _Life of Raphael_ is still

valuable for background. Among the numerous popular books in English

none is outstanding. Henry Strachey’s _Raphael_, in “Great Masters of

Art,” is good, and so are Julia Cartwright’s two monographs: _The

Early Work of Raphael_ and _Raphael in Rome_, in the _Portfolio

Series_, London, 1895.

For Raphael’s participation in the frescoes of the Cambio it

seems to me that Professor Venturi, in _Storia dell’ Arte Italiana_,

Vol. VII, part 2, makes out only a plausible case.

Reproductions of all of Raphael’s works in _Klassiker der

Kunst_, No. I., _Raphael_, Stuttgart and Leipzig.

Among the innumerable essays on Raphael none is more

understanding than John La Farge’s, in _Great Masters_, New York,

1903.

Footnote 69:

_Michelangelo._ The best source for the study of Michelangelo,

painter, is the superb plates in Ernst Steinmann’s _Die Sixtinische

Cappelle_, Munich, 1901. Among recent short biographies that of

Charles Holroyd, _Michelangelo_, London and New York, 1911 and Romain

Rolland (a longer study, _The Life of Michelangelo_, New York, 1912; a

different and shorter work, _Michelangelo, a Study, &c._, New York,

1915) are perhaps the best. The two volume biographies by Hermann

Grimm and by J. Addington Symonds are valuable, especially for

historical background. But the reader may be wise to content himself

with one of the brief biographies and such contemporary lives as

Vasari’s, Ascanio Condivi’s, and Francesco d’Olanda’s. The two latter

are translated in Holroyd’s book. The drawings of Michelangelo are

admirably discussed and presented in a perfect selection by Mr.

Berenson in _The Drawings of the Florentine Painters_. The drawings

are chronologically arranged and beautifully reproduced by Karl Frey,

_Die Handzeichnungen Michelangelo’s_, 2 vols., Berlin, 1911. W. R.

Valentiner treats _The Late Years of Michelangelo_ (New York, 1914)

with insight, devoting himself chiefly to the more finished drawings.

For a brief yet comprehensive survey, John La Farge in _Great

Masters_, New York, 1903. The works are completely reproduced in

_Klassiker der Kunst_, No. VII. _Michelangelo_, Stuttgart and Leipzig.

CHAPTER VII.—EARLY VENETIAN PAINTING

Footnote 70:

Little literature of a general sort is available to the English

speaking reader. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, _A History of Painting in

Northern Italy_, admirably edited by Tancred Borenius, in three

volumes, London, 1913, is the chief repository of facts. Evelyn March

Phillipps, _The Venetian School of Painting_, London, 1912, is an

excellent brief survey. For readers of Italian Lionello Venturi’s _Le

Origini della Pittura Veneziana_, Venice, 1911, is the best book. A

treasure house of materials in Laudadeo Testi’s two volumes, _La

Storia della Pittura Veneziana_, Bergamo. John Ruskin’s masterpiece,

_Stones of Venice_, may be consulted with profit and delight. There

are treasures of antiquarian information in Pompeo Molmenti, _La

Storia di Venezia nella Vita Privata_, 3 vols., Bergamo, 1905.

Footnote 71:

_Jacopo Bellini._ The extraordinary and fascinating sketch books are

published in two forms, by Corrado Ricci, _Jacopo Bellini e i suo

libri di designi_, 2 vols., Florence, 1908, and by V. Goloubew, _Les

Dessins de Jacopo Bellini_, Bruxelles, 1908.

Footnote 72:

G. McNeill Rushforth, _Carlo Crivelli_, London, 1900.

Footnote 73:

_Andrea Mantegna._ The standard work is by Paul Kristeller, _Andrea

Mantegna_, London and New York, 1901. Maud Crutwell’s short biography,

_Andrea Mantegna_, London, 1901, is excellent. Mr. Berenson’s subtle

analysis in _North Italian Painters of the Renaissance_ perhaps

overstresses Andrea’s defects. Mantegna’s complete works are

reproduced in _Klassiker der Kunst_, No. XVI, Stuttgart, 1910.

Footnote 74:

_Antonello da Messina._ See L. Venturi, _Le Origini_, and A. Venturi,

_Storia_, VII, pt. 4. Recent attributions, Bernard Berenson, _Study

and Criticism of Italian Art_, 3rd Series, London, 1916, p. 79 _ff._

Footnote 75:

_Giovanni Bellini._ Nothing notable in English except casual criticism

by Ruskin and Roger E. Fry’s admirable little book, _Giovanni

Bellini_, London, 1899, which is unfortunately out of print. For such

as read German—Georg Gronau, _Die Künstler-familie Bellini_, Leipzig,

1907, with abundant illustrations. Recently discovered pictures and a

better chronology, in Bernard Berenson: _Venetian Painting in

America_, New York, 1916.

Footnote 76:

_Vettor Carpaccio._ Ludwig and Molmenti’s _The Life and Works of

Victor Carpaccio_, London, 1907, gives, aside from its main topic, a

vivid picture of the cultural condition of Venice about 1500. See my

essay review of it in _The Nation_, Vol. 86, (1908) pp. 315 _ff._ John

Ruskin’s delightful comments on Carpaccio are mostly in the _Guide to

the Academy_ at Venice and in _St. Mark’s Rest_, chapter _The Shrine

of the Slaves_, Library ed. Vol. XXIV.

Footnote 77:

_Giorgione._ For the smallest list L. Venturi, _Giorgione e il

Giorgionismo_, Milan, 1913; for the longest list Herbert Cook,

_Giorgione_; for a middle view L. Justi, _Giorgione_, 2 vols., Berlin,

1908, most useful plates.

The general conditions of the problem are clearly stated by the late

Richard Norton in _Bernini and other Studies_, New York, 1914. L.

Hourticq, in _La Jeunesse de Titien_, Paris, 1919, has lately worked

over the pictures which lie between Titian and Giorgione in an

interesting but highly subjective fashion. Kenyon Cox, _Art in

America_, Vol. I, pp. 115 _ff._, makes the plausible suggestion that

the several portraits signed V or VV are by Titian, the letters

meaning Vecellius Venetus. This would make the Berlin portrait a

Titian.

Walter Pater’s essay on _The School of Giorgione_, in _The

Renaissance_ is as masterly for insight as it is for verbal beauty.

I hesitate to add one more to the varying opinions concerning

Giorgione’s paintings. At least I may introduce a novelty by classing

them according to probability, or rather according to the completeness

of my own conviction. In the whole matter we are largely in the field

of taste and opinion. E means early.

_Paintings, m. j. surely by Giorgione_

1. The Shepherds finding the Infant Paris (repainted fragment, E)

Budapest

2. “The Soldier and the Gipsy” E. Prince Giovanelli

3. Madonna with St. Francis and St. George (1504) Castelfranco

4. The Three Philosophers (finished by Sebastiano del Piombo) Vienna

5. Orpheus and Eurydice (_cassone_ panel) Bergamo

6. The Sleeping Venus (landscape by Titian) Dresden

7. Fresco of Nude Woman, nearly effaced (1508), represented by

Zanetti’s print Fondaco de’ Tedeschi

8. Judith (cut down at sides) Petrograd

9. His own Portrait (much cut down and damaged) Brunswick

10. Christ with his Cross Church of S. Rocco

11. The Concert (finished by Titian? or repainted in his manner?)

Florence

_Paintings probably by Giorgione._ I accept these, but do not think

the evidence demonstrative.

12–13. Stories of the Infant Paris (two _cassone_ panels, E.) Sir

Martin Conway, Allington Castle, Maidstone, England

14. The Fire Ordeal of Moses (door panel, E.) Florence

15. The Judgment of Solomon (door panel, E.) Florence

16. Christ bearing his Cross, E. Fenway Court, Boston.

17. Homage to a Poet, E. London

18. Portrait of a Young Man (possibly an early Titian) Berlin

19. Boy With an Arrow (old copy?) Vienna

20. Shepherd with a Flute Hampton Court

21. David with Goliath’s Head (copy? or ruined original?) Vienna

22. Altar-piece of St. John Chrysostom (mostly executed by Sebastiano

del Piombo) S. Giovanni Crisostomo

23. The Pastoral Symphony (radically repainted in recent times.) Paris

24. Portrait of a Man New York

This list might still be extended by half a dozen numbers by including

pictures which may represent lost originals by Giorgione, but here we

are in a field too subjective for profitable discussion in a handbook.

_Pictures generally ascribed to Giorgione, I think erroneously._

The Knight of Malta (probably a Titian about 1515) Florence

Portrait of Broccardo Budapest

Storm Calmed by St. Mark (probably a Palma) Venice

Judgment of Solomon (Hourticq plausibly regards as copy of lost fresco

by Titian) Banks Coll., Kingston Lacy

Madonna with St. Antony and St. Roch (probably a Titian) Madrid

Portrait of a Woman Casino Borghese, Rome

The reason for excluding such works is their over-pathetic or

over-dramatic quality. The argument applies especially to the

Adulteress before Christ at Glasgow. Corroborative technical evidence

against this group may be found in L. Venturi’s excellent monograph.

CHAPTER VIII.—TITIAN AND THE VENETIAN RENAISSANCE

On the Venetian Renaissance in general we have the works cited at the

head of Notes for Chapter VII and for biographies and lists D. V.

Hadeln, new ed. Ridolfi, _Le Maraviglie dell’ Arte_, Berlin, 1914. A

brief survey by the late Kenyon Cox, in _Concerning Painting_, New York,

1917, pp. 98–132, is valuable.

Footnote 78:

_Titian._ Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s _The Life and Times of Titian_, in

2 vols., London, 1881, is still the fullest repository of information.

Georg Gronau’s popular but carefully done _Titian_, London and New

York, 1904, takes account of later documentary discoveries. As a

painter’s analysis of technical aims Charles Rickett’s _Titian_,

London, 1910, is noteworthy. Nearly all of Titian’s works are

published in _Klassiker der Kunst_, No. III, Stuttgart, 1906. Several

newly discovered pictures are reproduced in the recent volumes,

1918–22, of the _Burlington Magazine_, _Art in America_, and

_Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst_.

Footnote 79:

_Titian’s Age._ All the available material on this disputed matter is

offered by Mr. Herbert Cook and Dr. George Gronau in a controversy

printed as appendices to Cook’s _Giorgione_, London, 1907. The early

evidence is very conflicting.

Writing in 1557 Dolce implies Titian was born about 1489

„ „ 1566–7 Vasari „ „ „ „ 1489

„ „ 1564 A Spanish Envoy „ „ „ 1474

„ „ 1567 A Spanish Consul „ „ „ 1482

„ „ 1571 Titian himself „ „ „ „ 1477

„ „ 1584 Borghini „ „ „ „ 1478–9

Writing in 1545 and 1548 Titian refers to his old age and disabilities

(Cook, p. 141 note), expressions more natural if he was sixty-eight

and seventy-one than they would be if he were only fifty-six and

fifty-nine.

Mr. Cook’s theory that Titian and his Spanish official friends grossly

exaggerated his age to secure prompter remittances from the Emperor

seems to me gratuitous and flimsy. Dr. Gronau convinces me that

neither Dolce nor Vasari can be regarded as serious witnesses. L.

Hourticq in _La Jeunesse de Titien_, Paris, 1919, adds next to nothing

to Cook in maintaining the later date for Titian’s birth.

The whole weight of evidence points to the fact that Titian told the

broad truth about his age, perhaps, indulging in a round number. I am

sure he was well over ninety when he described himself as ninety-five

in the letter of 1571, and that he died all but a centenarian.

Footnote 80:

Pietro d’Achiardi, _Sebastiano de Piombo_, Roma, 1908.

Footnote 81:

Max von Boehn, _Giorgione und Palma Vecchio_, Leipzig, 1908.

Footnote 82:

Bernard Berenson, _Lorenzo Lotto_, London, 1905. Comprises also

careful studies of Alvise Vivarini, Cima, Montagna and other Venetic

painters. In _The Study and Criticism of Italian Art_, 3rd series,

London, 1916, the superb Saint Justine of the Valsecchi Collection is

rightly restored to Giovanni Bellini, l.c. p. 38 _ff._

Footnote 83:

_Correggio._ The standard work, C. Ricci, _Antonio Allegri da

Coreggio_, New York, 1896. A delightful critical study, T. Sturge

Moore, _Correggio_, London and New York, 1906. The complete works in

_Klassiker der Kunst_, No. XVII, Stuttgart.

A new and convincing view of Correggio’s date of birth and early

development in Venturi, _Storia_, Vol. VII, pt. iii, pp. 1152 _ff._

Footnote 84:

Evelyn March Phillipps, _Tintoretto_, London, 1911. Many of the

extraordinary tempera sketches are reproduced in the _Burlington

Magazine_ for January and February, 1910. H. Thode, _Tintoretto_,

Leipzig, 1901.

Many eloquent criticisms by Ruskin in _Modern Painters_ and _Stones of

Venice_ (see indices) and in the _Guide to the Academy at Venice_,

Library ed. Vol. XXIV.

Footnote 85:

_Paolo Veronese._ See Kenyon Cox’s masterly essay in _Old Masters and

New_, New York.

Footnote 86:

_G. B. Tiepolo._ The standard work is by Pompeo Molmenti. _G. B.

Tiepolo_, Milan, 1909.

Footnote 87:

G. A. Simonson. _Francesco Guardi_, London, 1905. Numerous additions

by the same author in the _Burlington Magazine_ for succeeding years.

CHAPTER IX.—THE REALISTS AND ECLECTICS

On this period there is little available literature in English, but

there are excellent sketches of most of the artists treated in this

chapter in C. Ricci, _Art in Northern Italy_, New York, 1911.

A. Pératé in A. Michel, _Histoire de l’Art_, Vol. Vª, gives a fuller

summary.

Footnote 88:

_Caravaggio._ W. Kallab, Austrian _Jahrbuch_, Vol. XXVI (1906), p. 272

_ff._, brief illustrated essay. Felix Witting, _Michelangelo da

Caravaggio_, Strassburg, 1916.

Footnote 89:

_Salvator Rosa._ Lady Morgan, _The Life and Times of Salvator Rosa_,

in two vols., Paris, 1824. Leandro Ozzola, _Vita e opere di Salvator

Rosa_, Strassburg, 1908.

The passages translated in the text are from Bottari, _Raccolta di

lettere sulla Pittura_ &c., Vol. I, pp. 447, 450 _f._, Milan, 1822.

Footnote 90:

_The Carracci._ The fundamental source is Carlo Cesare Malvasia’s

highly contentious and anecdotal work _Felsina Pittrice_; I have used

the two volume edition, Milan, 1841.

Gabriel Rouchès, _La Peinture Bolonaise à la Fin du XVI^e Siècle_,

Paris, 1913, is the standard work on the Eclectic School. On the

landscape of this school, which is highly important as preparatory to

Claude and Poussin, Rouchès has two remarkable essays in _Gazette des

Beaux Arts_, 5^e période Tome, III. (Jan. and Feb. nos. 1921) pp. 7

_ff._, and 119 _ff._

Hans Tietze, in Austrian _Jahrbuch_, Vol. XXVI (1906) p. 51 _ff._,

_Annibale Carracci’s Galerie im Palazzo Farnese und seine Römische

Werkstätte_—a very thorough and richly illustrated monograph on the

Carracci, including such scholars as Francesco Albani, and

Domenichino.

Footnote 91:

_Guido Reni._ Max von Boehn, _Guido Reni_, Leipzig, 1910, fully

illustrated.

Footnote 92:

_Domenichino._ Luigi Serra, _Domenico Zampieri detto Domenichino_,

Rome, 1909. Also Tietze’s article, above, note 3.

HINTS FOR READING

COMPREHENSIVE HISTORIES OF ITALIAN PAINTING. For English speaking

readers the greatest resource for reference is Crowe and Cavalcaselle,

_A New History of Painting in Italy_, which covers the Central Italian

field up to about 1500. I prefer the three volume edition by Edward

Hutton, published by J. M. Dent and Co., London; and E. P. Dutton, New

York, (1908–9) to the fuller six-volume edition annotated by Langton

Douglas and published conjointly by the Murrays of London and the

Scribners of New York. For the North Italian field Crowe and

Cavalcaselle’s _History of Painting in Northern Italy_, re-edited in

three volumes by Tancred Borenius, John Murray-Charles Scribner’s Sons,

1912, is indispensable. Both works are ordinarily cited as “C. & C.” The

Italian articles in A. Michel’s _Histoire de l’Art_, Paris, are

excellent.

MANUALS. Bernard Berenson’s four Handbooks, _Venetian Painters of the

Renaissance_, _Florentine Painters of the Renaissance_, _Central Italian

Painters of the Renaissance_, and _Northern Italian Painters of the

Renaissance_, New York and London, G. P. Putnam and Sons, are uniquely

useful. Each contains a thorough critical discussion and lists of the

works of the more important painters. The latest editions should be

used.

_A Short History of Italian Painting_, by Alice van Vechten Brown and

William Rankin, Dent-Dutton, 1914, offers brilliant, if uneven,

characterizations and able summaries of contested points.

TECHNIQUE. Consult the delightful _The Book of Art by Cennino Cennini_,

edited by Christiana J. Herringham, London: George Allen, 1922, for

methods of painting in tempera and fresco.

BIOGRAPHY. Giorgio Vasari’s picturesque _Lives of the Painters_ may most

profitably be read in the translation of Gaston DuC. de Vere, in ten

volumes, London: Philip Lee Warner; New York: The Macmillan Company.

There are many color-prints. The matter is available inexpensively in

the handy “Everyman’s Library.” Mrs. Ady, “Julia Cartwright,” has

epitomized the chief lives agreeably, with necessary corrections, in

_The Painters of Florence_, E. P. Dutton and Company, 1916.

PERIODICALS. The reader may most profitably cultivate the habit of

paging over the files of _The Burlington Magazine_ and _Art in America_,

_Rassegna d’Arte_ and _L’Arte_, which contain good reproductions of many

fine Italian pictures in private collections.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. Excellent the many Italian Chapters in Henry

Osborn Taylor’s _The Mediaeval Mind_, in two volumes, The Macmillan

Company, 1911. For Florentine conditions consult Guido Biagi, _Men and

Manners of Old Florence_, Chicago, A. C. McClurg and Company, 1909, and

_The Builders of Florence_, by J. Wood Brown, London, Methuen and

Company, 1907.

PHOTOGRAPHS, etc. The ideal way to use a handbook would be to skim it

before visiting a great European gallery and to reread it carefully

while the impression of the pictures themselves was still vivid. But the

student must also depend much on photographic reproductions. For Italy

those of Messrs. Alinari at Florence and of Dominick Anderson at Rome

are comprehensive, finely made, and remarkably cheap. Alinari has most

of the Italian paintings of the Louvre and Dresden Gallery; Anderson,

those of the Prado, Madrid, and National Gallery, London. The

collections of Hanfstaengl and of Bruckmann, Munich, cover most of the

galleries of Northern and Central Europe. Photographs of the Italian

pictures in the Metropolitan Museum, New York; the Museum of Fine Arts,

Boston; the Fogg Museum, Cambridge, Mass., and the Jarves Collection,

Yale University, New Haven, Conn., may be purchased from those museums.

Besides these four main collections of Italian pictures in America, that

of the New York Historical Society, New York, and of Mrs. John L.

Gardner, Fenway Court, Boston, occasionally open to the public, are

noteworthy. The art museums of Worcester, Mass., Providence, R. I.,

Cleveland, O., Indianapolis, Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis have

Italian pictures of quality. There is something in the Wilstach Gallery,

Philadelphia, and whenever the John G. Johnson Collection shall be

worthily exhibited, Philadelphia will be rich indeed in Italian art. The

student should not fail to utilize such local resources, however slight

they may seem, for one minor original thoroughly enjoyed is worth days

of poring over reproductions.

For students who cannot afford a considerable number of photographs the

_University Prints_, Newton, Mass., afford a tolerable substitute. For

quick reference the numerous cuts in Venturi’s monumental _Storia dell’

Arte Italiana_, Milan, Ulrico Hoepli, are very useful. The halftones in

the “Künstler Monografien,” Leipzig, Velhagen and Klasing, and the

larger prints in the “Klassiker der Kunst,” Stuttgart and Leipzig, serve

a similar purpose. Details may be had from any importing bookseller.

INDEX

Where an artist has a family name, that is the indexed word, e.g.,

Bellini, Giovanni. Where there is no surname, the Christian name is

used, e.g., Nardo di Cione, Andrea da Bologna. So is the Christian name

the index word when an apparent surname is really only descriptive of

birthplace or civil estate, e.g., Domenico Veneziano, Lorenzo Monaco. In

the case of well-known artists, the most familiar name is employed,

e.g., Angelico, Fra; Giorgione, Titian, Perugino, Raphael, Andrea del

Sarto, Pontormo, Botticelli, Michelangelo, etc.

Academic, light and shade, Leonardo, 226;

theory of generalization, Sir Joshua Reynolds, 318;

of selection and Belle Nature, Leonardo, 258;

L. Dolce, 445

Altar, as shrine and tomb, influence on subjects of painting, 7

Alunno (Niccolò Liberatore), 273

Andrea da Bologna, 271

Andrea del Castagno, 146–147, 201

Andrea del Sarto, 248–253

Angelico of Fiesole, Fra, 112, 114–122, 267

Antonello da Messina, 345–348, 355, 360

Antonio da Negroponte, 335

Ariosto, list of greatest painters, 385

Baldovinetti, Alesso, 148;

an official appraisal of his frescoes, 153

Barna of Siena, 88, 89

Bartolo di Fredi, 86

Baroque decorative painting, derives from Mantegna, 337, 340–341;

Correggio, 340, 415–416;

Tiepolo, 442;

Influence of Catholic Reaction on mood of, 459

Bartolommeo, Fra (Baccio della Porta), 246, 247–248, 282, 290

Bartolommeo della Gatta, Don, 177

Bellini, Gentile, 348–352, 364

Bellini, Giovanni, 324, 352–362, 369

Bellini, Jacopo, 330–333, 334

Bembo, Pietro, 373

Benvenuto di Giovanni, 99

Birth salvers (deschi da parto), 99, 128, 181

Bologna School and Eclecticism, _passim_, 458–465, 471

Bonfigli, Benedetto, 271

Botticelli, Sandro (Alessandro di Mariano Filipepi), 122, 163, 175,

184, 202–220, 255

Brancacci Chapel, problem of the frescoes, 131–141

Byzantine manner, 10–12;

in Venetia, 324, 326, 327

Bartolommeo di Giovanni, 183

Bassano, Jacopo and Leandro, 424

Bonauiti, Andrea, decorator of the Spanish Chapel, 51–53

Bronzino, Agnolo, 251

Brunellesco, investigator of perspective, 110

Canale, Antonio, 442

Caravaggio (Michelangelo Amerighi), 453–456, 470

Carpaccio, Victor, 364–370

Carracci, their academy at Bologna, 461.;

Carlo Malvasia on the Eclecticism of the C., 471

Carracci, Annibale, 453, 459–465;

sonnet ascribed to, 471

Cassone painters, before 1450, 127–130;

after 1450, 180–183

Castiglione, Baldassare, 266, 298;

list of greatest artists, 315

Cavallini, Pietro, 16–18

Cimabue, 12, 14–15, 20

Classic Spirit, Kenyon Cox on, 319

Correggio (Antonio Allegri), 340, 415–417;

Initiator of the Baroque Manner, 416

Cox, Kenyon, on the Classic Spirit, 319

Crivelli, Carlo, 267, 271, 334–335

Dante, 3, 8;

Giotto’s portrait of, 40;

Botticelli’s drawings for, 215

Domenico di Bartolo, 89

Domenico Veneziano, 147–148, 168, 201, 267, 271

Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri), 465, 467–469

Donatello, 110, 333

Duccio di Buoninsegna, 12, 13, 60, 63–72;

Procession on installation of his great Madonna, 106

Florence, about 1300 described, 2–4, 55;

the new looser manners after the plague of 1348, 110, 111;

Renaissance pageantry in, 195–196;

Savonarola’s revolution, 193, 215, 302;

End of liberty in and demoralization, 320

Folgore da San Gemignano, Sienese sonnet quoted, 104

Francesco di Giorgio, 100

Francis of Assisi, St., initiator of the new emotionalism in painting,

7, 8

Fresco, method of painting in, 6

Gaddi, Agnolo, 46

Gaddi, Gaddo, possibly to be identified with the “Isaac Master,” 18

Gaddi, Taddeo, 40, 45, 46

Gentile da Fabriano, 267–270, 328, 330

Ghiberti, Lorenzo, Sienese anecdote by, 104;

his studies, 109

Ghirlandaio (Domenico Bigordi), 122, 142, 143, 177, 184–194

Giorgione, 370–383;

problem of, 370;

early works, 371, 372;

his Arcadianism related to pastoral poetry, 373–374;

his dreamy and indeterminate mood, 374–377;

Castelfranco Madonna, and other later works, 378–380;

pastoral symphony, 380–382;

The Concert, its problems, 381–382;

Summary, 383;

Suggestion of G’s subjects in Leonardo’s “Trattato,” 385–386

Giottino, 46

Giotto’s pupils, “Master of the Right Transept,” 43–45;

Taddeo Gaddi, 45, 46;

Buffalmacco, 46;

Bernardo Daddi, 46;

Giottino, 46, 47

Giotto di Bondone, 18;

early work at Assisi, 20–22;

at Rome, 23;

at Padua, 23–29;

later work, the Allegories at Assisi, 31–34;

at Santa Croce, 34–39;

The Campanile and last phase, 40, 41;

general characterization, 42, 43;

poem by, 56;

mentioned, 136, 267

Giovanni di Paolo, 93–95

Girolamo di Benvenuto, 99

Giulio Romano, 294, 297, 452–453

Gozzoli, Benozzo, 142, 143, 165–166, 267, 271

Grand style defined, 265–266;

Sir Joshua Reynolds on, 318–319;

L. Dolce on, in Titian, 445

Guariento of Padua, 324

Goya, Francisco, quoted, 131

Guardi, Francesco, 443

Guido of Siena, 12

“Isaac Master,” perhaps Gaddo Gaddi, 18

Isabella d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua, relations with Mantegna, 343;

Opinion of him, 384

Landscape, new sense of the picturesque in, and Salvator Rosa, 456–457

LeBrun, Charles, dependence as decorator on A. Carracci, 465

Leonardo da Vinci, 1;

on Masaccio, 151, 202, 223–235, 260;

His new principles, 224;

Early Florentine period, 225–237;

Adoration of the Magi, 233–236;

Madonna of the Rocks, 236;

First Milanese period, 238–240;

Last Supper, 239–240;

Second Florentine Period; Mona Lisa, Anghiari, 239–241;

Second Milanese Period; St. Ann, Second Madonna of the Rocks,

243–244;

Roma and France, 244–245;

His Influence, 245–246;

Tractate on Painting, 257–260, 285, 286, 287, 290, 292, 300, 371,

383, 385

Lomazzo, Paolo, Great Italian painters compared with the poets, 385

Longhi, Pietro, 444

Lorenzetti, Ambrogio, 40, 42–45, 72, 76, 79, 84

Lorenzetti, Pietro, 76–78;

Followers of, at Assisi, 79;

Contract for Arezzo altar-piece, 105–106

Lorenzetti followers, Triumph of Death, Pisa, 88, 89

Lorenzettian, panoramic style, 86, 126, 172

Lotto, Lorenzo, 411–413

Lorenzo de’ Medici, his birth salver, 181–184

Lorenzo Monaco, Don, 112

Lorenzo da San Severino, 272

Lorenzo Veneziano, 326, 327

Mantegna, Andrea, 333, 337–345, 348, 352, 355, 356.;

Titian on, 324

Marcovaldo, Coppo di, 62

Masaccio (Tommaso di Ser Giovanni di Tommaso Guidi), 50, 130–142, 151,

201

Masolino da Panicale, 122–127

Matteo di Giovanni, of Siena, 97–99

Melozzo da Forlì, 273–274

Michelangelo Buonarotti, 19, 193, 263;

perturbing influence on Raphael, 288, 294, 295;

Early works;

Doni Madonna, The Bathers, 301–303;

The Sistine Ceiling, 304–313;

The Last Judgment, 313–314;

Defects of his followers, 315;

Advice on posture, 317,

on the unity of painting and sculpture, 317, 318, 407, 429

Michelozzo, 115

Modern sensibility, in Pontormo, 253;

Moretto, Lotto, Correggio, Tintoretto, 411

Moretto of Brescia, 412–413

Moroni, Giambattista, 423

Nardo di Cione, 48

Neroccio di Landi, 100

Oil Painting, introduced at Florence by Domenico Veneziano, 147,;

practiced in Lombardy by Antonello da Messina, 345

Orcagna (Andrea di Cione), 47–50;

Contract for Strozzi altar-piece, 56

Ottaviano Nelli, 271

Palma Giovine, on Titian’s technique, 390

Palma Vecchio, 407, 411

Paolo Veronese (Caliari), 436–440

Pastoral poetry as background of Giorgione’s inventions, 370–374

Perspective, discovery by Brunellesco, 110,;

Uccello’s experiments in, 144, 152;

Piero della Francesca’s book on, 169;

Mantegna’s illusionistic, 337, 339–340;

further developed by Correggio, 340, 415–416

Perugino (Pietro Vannucci), 117, 178, 223, 265, 269, 276–280, 283, 288,

297, 267, 271, 273, 278–282, 285, 290, 299

Pesellino, Francesco, 181

Piero della Francesca, 169–172, 201, 273

Pollaiuolo, Antonio, 158, 166–169, 201, 205

Piero di Cosimo, 177, 202, 221–223, 246

Pintorricchio, 101, 174

Pisanello (Antonio Pisano), 328

Plague banners, Umbrian, 263, 313

Poliziano, Angelo, his poetry as an inspiration for Botticelli,

Raphael, Titian, 255–256

Pontormo (Jacopo Carrucci), 253

Poussin, Nicholas, derives from Raphael and the Eclectics, 458

Raphael Sanzio, 19, 256, 263;

His Umbrian beginnings, 282–283.

At Florence, 283–288.

At Rome, The Segnatura, 289–293;

Stanze of Heliodorus and of the Incendio, 294–296.

Realists, Early Florentine, enumerated, 143

Reni, Guido, 465–466

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, on the Grand style, 318–319

Rodin, Auguste, on Michelangelo, 313

Roman revival before 1300, 16

Rosa, Salvator, 456–457

Rosselli, Cosimo, 172, 221

Rubens, Peter Paul,

his praise of Leonardo, 258,

derives from Titian, 468

Sannazaro, Jacopo, 373, 374

Sassetta (Stefano di Giovanni), 72, 90–92

Sebastiano del Piombo, 295, 408–409

Signorelli, Luca, 176, 273–278

Sistine Chapel, early frescoes analyzed, 173–179

Savonarola, Fra Girolamo, 193, 215, 217, 302

St. Dominic, 8, 52

Siena, the Sienese temperament illustrated, 59–61;

its artistic conservation, 61

Simone Martini, 72–76, 267

Sodoma (Antonio Bazzi), 102, 471

Squarcione, Francesco, School of, 334

Starnina, Gherardo, 50

Tempera, painting in, 5, 6

Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista, 440–442, 444

Tintoretto (Jacopo Robusti), 424–435

Titian of Cadore (Tiziano Vecellio), 256, 389–408, 418–423.

His calculating character and technique, 389–390;

his four periods, 390–391;

Early, Giorgionesque period, 392–398;

(1515–1533), 396–404;

(1533–1548), 404–407;

(1548–1577), subjective and impressionistic phase, 418–423.

Lodovico Dolce on T’s impressionism in landscape, 446;

G. F. Watt on T’s classical quality, 446

Tommé, Luca, 86

Torriti (Jacopo), 12

Uccello, Paolo, 143–144, 152, 201, 334

Umbria,

its characteristics, 266–267;

foreign painters in, 267

Vasari, Giorgio, on Masaccio, 151;

on Paolo Uccello, 152;

on a Trick to get a chapel, 196–197;

on the “Modern style,” 316, 317;

boasts of his own dexterity, 451.

Velasquez, draws from Caravaggio and the Italian Tenebrists, 456, 470

Venice, its colorful aspect, and nature of its civilization, 323–326

Veronese, see Paolo Veronese

Veronese, early panoramic manner, 328–330, 331

Verrocchio, Andrea, 158, 201, 203, 227–230

Villani, Giovanni, summary of Florence, 9, 54–56

Villani, Matteo, on the relaxation of Florentine morals after the

plague of 1348, 110–111

Vivarini, Antonio, 330, 363

Vivarini, Bartolommeo, 362, 363

Vivarini, Alvise, 363

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Books on Italians or on Rome

CROCE’S

=ARIOSTO, SHAKESPEARE AND CORNEILLE= $2.50

_J. E. Spingarn_: “I regard this book as the most important body of

criticism that has ever been translated into English from a modern

tongue.”

=THE POETRY OF DANTE= $2.00

_Keith Preston, in Chicago News_: “His design is to scrape off the

barnacles from his poet and present the essential poetry—free from

historical philosophical and allegorical incumbrances ... at the same

time he reviews the canons of art with vigor and sanity.”

TENNEY FRANK

=VIRGIL: A Biography= $2.00

_The New Republic_: “You will find a new force drawing you to _Virgil_,

and discover at what a heavy cost to you instruction in Latin has been

entrusted to grammarians, instead of Tenney Franks.”

=A HISTORY OF ROME=

_New York Times_: “From beginning to end, a narrative of vital interest

whose dramatic developments every now and then become profoundly

fascinating.”

American Historical Series: Library Edition, 8vo., 613 pp., $4.50

J. B. FLETCHER

=DANTE=

A brief book on his personal confessions, teaching and art.

Home University Library 90 cents

W. W. FOWLER

=ROME=

_The Spectator_: “A masterly sketch of Roman character and what it did

for the world.”

Home University Library 90 cents

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY PUBLISHERS (VI. ’23) NEW YORK

Books on Art

FRANK JEWETT MATHER, JR.’S

=HISTORY OF ITALIAN PAINTING= $3.50 In the Renaissance. _With over 325

illustrations._

=ESTIMATES IN ART= $2.00 _With 10 illustrations_

SYMONDS’

=SHORT HISTORY OF THE RENAISSANCE= $2.00

TAINE’S

=LECTURES ON ART: First Series= $2.50

A. W. M. STIRLING’S

=WILLIAM De MORGAN AND HIS WIFE= $6.00 _With illustrations of their art

works._

_In the Home University Library_ Each, 90 cents

SIR F. WEDMORE’S

=PAINTERS AND PAINTINGS= _With 16 full page illustrations._

W. R. LETHABY’S

=ARCHITECTURE= An Introduction to Its History and Theory. _With line

drawings._

A. C. BROCK’S

=WILLIAM MORRIS: His Work and Influence= The story of how Morris turned

from making works of art to remaking society.

_Art Books for the Young_

JOHN D. CHAMPLIN’S

=YOUNG FOLKS CYCLOPAEDIA: LITERATURE AND ART= $3.00 _With numerous

illustrations._

ANNA CURTIS CHANDLER’S

=MAGIC PICTURES OF THE LONG AGO= $1.40 _Illustrated from those in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York._

=MORE MAGIC PICTURES OF LONG AGO= $1.40 _Similarly illustrated._

MAUDE I. G. OLIVER’S

=FIRST STEPS IN THE ENJOYMENT OF PICTURES= _Illustrated._

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY

PUBLISHERS (VI ’23) NEW YORK

_Revised and Enlarged, Fifth Edition_

THE HOME BOOK OF VERSE

COMPILED BY

BURTON E. STEVENSON

(American and English 1580–1920)

The third edition was revised from end to end—590 poems added, pages

renumbered, author, title, and first line indices, and the biographical

matter corrected, etc., etc. In the two editions since there has been

little change beyond the noting of some dates of deaths, etc.

The hundreds of letters from readers and poets suggesting additions or

corrections as well as the columns of reviews of the first edition have

been considered. Poets who were chary of lending their support to an

unknown venture have now generously permitted the use of their work.

This edition includes the “new” poets such as MASEFIELD, CHESTERTON,

FROST, RUPERT BROOKE, DE LA MARE, RALPH HODGSON, etc.

“A collection so complete and distinguished that it is difficult to

find any other approaching it sufficiently for comparison.”—_New

York Times Book Review_ on the first edition.

_India Paper, 4096_ pages. _Gilt-edged. Boxed._

_Cloth, one volume, $15.00 net.

Cloth, two volumes, $18.50 net.

¾ Morocco, one volume, $20.00 net._

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY

PUBLISHERS NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in

spelling.

2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.

3. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers.

4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.

5. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.

6. Denoted superscripts by a caret before a single superscript

character, e.g. M^r.