The History Of Painting In Italy Volume Ii Part 1

The History of Painting in Italy.

Vol. 2.

by Luigi Antonio Lanzi.

ROMAN SCHOOL.

I have frequently heard the lovers of art express a doubt whether the Roman School possesses the same inherent right to that distinctive appellation as the schools of Florence, Bologna, and Venice. Those of the latter cities were, indeed, founded by their respective citizens, and supported through a long course of ages; while the Roman School, it may be said, could boast only of Giulio Romano and Sacchi, and a few others, natives of Rome, who taught, and left scholars there. The other artists who flourished there were either natives of the cities of the Roman state, or from other parts of Italy, some of whom established themselves in Rome, and others, after the close of their labours there, returned and died in their native places. But this question is, if I mistake not, rather a dispute of words than of things, and similar to those objections advanced by the peripatetic sophists against the modern philosophy; insisting that they abuse the meaning of their words, and quoting, as an example, the _vis inertiae_; as if that, which is in itself inert, could possess the quality of force. The moderns laugh at this difficulty, and coolly reply that, if the _vis_ displeased them, they might subst.i.tute _natura_, or any other equivalent word; and that it was lost time to dispute about words, and neglect things. So it may be said in this case; they who disapprove of the designation of school, may subst.i.tute that of academy, or any other term denoting a place where the art of painting is professed and taught. And, as the learned universities always derive their names from the city where they are established, as the university of Padua or Pisa, although the professors may be all, or in great part, from other states, so it is with the schools of painting, to which the name of the country is always attached, in preference to that of the master. In Vasari we do not find this cla.s.sification of schools, and Monsignor Agucchi was the first to divide Italian art into the schools of Lombardy, Venice, Tuscany, and Rome.[1] He has employed the term of schools after the manner of the ancients, and has thus characterised one of them as the Roman School. He has, perhaps, erred in placing Michel Angiolo, as well as Raphael, at the head of this school, as posterity have a.s.signed him his station as chief of the school of Florence; but he has judged right in cla.s.sing it under a separate head, possessing, as it does, its own peculiar style; and in this he has been followed by all the modern writers of art. The characteristic feature in the Roman School has been said to consist in a strict imitation of the works of the ancients, not only in sublimity, but also in elegance and selection; and to this we shall add other peculiarities, which will be noticed in their proper place. Thus, from its propriety, or from tacit convention, the appellation of the Roman School has been generally adopted; and, as it certainly serves to distinguish one of the leading styles of Italian art, it becomes necessary to employ it, in order to make ourselves clearly understood.

We cannot, indeed, allow to the Roman School so extensive a range as we have a.s.signed to that of Florence, in the first book; nevertheless, every one that chooses may apply this appellation to it in a very enlarged sense. Nor is the fact of other artists having taught, or having given a tone to painting in the capital, any valid objection to this term; since, in a similar manner, we find t.i.tiano, Paolo Veronese, and Ba.s.sano, in Venice, though all of them were strangers; but, as they were subjects of her government, they were all termed Venetians, as that name alike embraces those born in the city or within the dominions of the Republic. The same may be said of the subjects of the Pope. Besides the natives of Rome, there appeared masters from many of her subject cities, who, teaching in Rome, followed in the steps of their predecessors, and maintained the same principles of art. Pa.s.sing over Pier della Francesca and Pietro Vannucci, we may refer to Raffaello himself as an example. Raffaello was born in Urbino, and was the subject of a duke, who held his fief under the Roman see, and who, in Rome, held the office of prefect of the city; and whose dominions, in failure of male issue, reverted to the Pope, as the heritage of the church. Thus Raffaello cannot be considered other than a Roman subject. To him succeeded Giulio Romano and his scholars; who were followed by Zuccari, and the mannerists of that time, until the art found a better style under the direction of Baroccio, Baglione, and others. After them flourished Sacchi and Maratta, whose successors have extended to our own times. Restricted within these bounds, the Roman may certainly be considered as a national school; and, if not rich in numbers, it is at least so in point of excellence, as Raffaello in himself outweighs a world of inferior artists.

The other painters who resided in Rome, and followed the principles of that school, I shall neither attempt to add to, nor to subtract from the number of its followers; adopting it as a maxim not to interfere in the decision of disputes, alike idle and irrelevant to my subject. Still less shall I ascribe to it those who there adopted a totally different style, as Michelangiolo da Caravaggio, an artist whom Lombardy may lay claim to, on account of his birth, or Venice, from his receiving his education in that city, though he lived and wrote in Rome, and influenced the taste of the national school there by his own example and that of his scholars. In the same manner many other names will occasionally occur in the history of this school: it is the duty of the historian to mention these, and it is, at the same time, an incomparable triumph to the Roman School, that she stands, in this manner, as the centre of all the others; and that so many artists could not have obtained celebrity, if they had not seen Rome, or could not have claimed that t.i.tle from the world unless they had first obtained her suffrage.

I shall not identify the limits of this school with those of the dominions of the church, as in that case we should comprise in it the painters of Bologna, Ferrara, and Romagna, whom I have reserved for another volume. In my limits I shall include only the capital, and the provinces in its immediate vicinity, as Latium, the Sabine territories, the patrimony of the Church, Umbria, Picenum, and the state of Urbino, the artists of which district were, for the most part, educated in Rome, or under the eyes of Roman masters. My historical notices of them will be princ.i.p.ally derived from Vasari, Baglione, Pa.s.seri, and Leone Pascoli. From these writers we have the lives of many artists who painted in Rome, and the last named author has included in his account his fellow countrymen of Perugia. Pascoli has not, indeed, the merits of the three first writers; but he does not deserve the discredit thrown on him by Ratti and Bottari, the latter of whom, in his notes to Vasari, does not hesitate to call him a wretched writer, and unworthy of credit.

His work, indeed, on the artists of Perugia, shows that he indiscriminately copied what he found in others, whether good or bad; and to the vulgar traditions of the early artists he paid more than due attention. But his other work, on the history of the modern painters, sculptors, and architects, is a book of authority. In every branch of history much credit is attached to the accounts of contemporary writers, particularly if they were acquaintances or friends of the persons of whom they wrote; and Pascoli has this advantage; for, in addition to information from their own mouths, he derived materials from their surviving friends, nor spared any pains to arrive at the truth, (_see Vita del Cozza_). The judgment, therefore, which he pa.s.ses on each artist, is not wholly to be despised, since he formed it on those of the various professors then living in Rome, as Winckelmann has observed (tom. i. p. 450); and, if these persons, as it is pretended, have erred in their judgment on the Greek sculptors, they have certainly not erred in their estimate of modern painters, particularly Luti, to whom I imagine Pascoli, from esteem and intimacy, deferred more than to any other artist.

We have from Bellori other lives, written with more learning and criticism, some of which are supposed to be lost. He had originally applied himself to painting, but deserted that art, as we may conjecture from Pascoli (_vita del Canini_), and attached himself to poetry, and the study of antiquities: and his skill in both arts manifests itself in the lives he has left, which are few, but interspersed with interesting and minute particulars of the characters of the painters and their works. In his plan, he informs us he has followed the advice of Niccolo Poussin. He composed also a "Description of the figures painted by Raffaello, in the churches of the Vatican;" a tract which contains some severe reflections on Vasari,[2] but is nevertheless highly useful. We also find a profusion of entertaining anecdotes in Taja, in his "Description of the Vatican;" and in t.i.ti, in his account of the pictures, sculpture, and architecture of Rome. This work has recently been republished, with additions; and we shall occasionally quote it under the name of the _Guide_. Pesaro is indebted for a similar _Guide_ to Signor Becci, and Ascoli and Perugia to Signor Balda.s.sare Orsini, a celebrated architect. We have also the _Lettere Perugine_ of Sig.

Dottore Annibale Mariotti, which treat of the early painters of Perugia, with a store of information and critical ac.u.men that render them highly valuable. To these may also be added, the _Risposta_ of the above named Sig. Orsini, whom I regret to see entering on Etruscan ground, as he there repeats many ancient errors, which have been long exploded by common consent: in other points it is a treatise worth perusal. If we turn to _Descriptions_, we have them of several periods, as that of the Basilica Loretana, and that of a.s.sisi, composed by P. Angeli; and the account of the Duomo of Orvieto, written by P. della Valle; and the works on the churches of S. Francesco di Perugia, and S. Pietro di Fano, by anonymous writers. The Abbate Colucci has favoured us with recent notices on various artists of Piceno and Umbria, and Urbino, in his _Antichita Picene_, extended, as far as my observation goes, to tom.

x.x.xI.[3] The learned authors whom I have named, and others to whom I shall occasionally refer, have furnished the chief materials of my present treatise, although I have myself collected a considerable part from artists and lovers of art, either in conversation, or in my correspondence. Thus far in the way of introduction.

[Footnote 1: Bellori, Vite de' Pittori, p. 191. "The Roman School, of which Raffaello and Michel Angiolo were the great masters, derived its principles from the study of the statues and works of the ancients."]

[Footnote 2: Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. p. 323; and Dialoghi sopra le tre Arti del Disegno. In Lucca, 1754.]

[Footnote 3: This work contains contributions from various quarters. I have not, however, made an equal use of all; as I believe some pictures to be copies, which are there referred to as originals; and as several names there mentioned, may with propriety be omitted. In my references, I shall often cite the collections; sometimes also the authors of some more considerable treatises, as P. Civalli, Terzi, Sig. Agostino Rossi, Sig. Arciprete Lazzari, respecting whom I must refer to the second index, where will be found the t.i.tles of their respective works.]

ROMAN SCHOOL

EPOCH I.

_Early Artists._

If we turn our eyes for a moment to that tract of country which we have designated as falling within the limits of the Roman School, amidst the claims of modern art, we shall occasionally meet with both Greek and Latin pictures of the rude ages; from the first of which we may conclude, that Greek artists formerly painted in this part of Italy; and from the latter, that our own countrymen were emulous to follow their example. One of these artists is said to have had the name of Luca, and to him is ascribed the picture of the Virgin, at S. Maria Maggiore, and many others in Italy, which are believed to be painted by S. Luke the Evangelist. Who this Luca was, or whether one painter or more of that name ever existed, we shall presently inquire. The tradition was impugned by Manni,[4] and after him by Piacenza, (tom. ii. p. 120,) and is now only preserved among the vulgar, a numerous cla.s.s indeed, who shut their ears to every rational criticism as an innovation on their faith. This vulgar opinion is alike oppugned by the silence of the early artists, and the well attested fact, that in the first ages of the church the Virgin was not represented with the holy Infant in her arms;[5] but had her hands extended in the act of prayer. This is exemplified in the funeral vase of gla.s.s in the Museo Trombelli at Bologna, with the inscription MARIA, and in many ba.s.sirilievi of christian sarcophagi, where she is represented in a similar att.i.tude.

Rome possesses several of these specimens, and several are to be found in Velletri.[6] It is however a common opinion, that these pictures are by a painter of the name of Luca. Lami refers to a legend of the 14th century of the Madonna dell'Impruneta, where they are said to be the works of a Florentine of the name of Luca, who for his many christian virtues obtained the t.i.tle of saint.[7] They are not however all in the same style, and some of them bear Greek inscriptions, whence we may conclude that they are by various hands; although they all appear to be painted in or about the 12th century. This tradition was not confined to Italy alone, but found its way also into many of the eastern churches.

The author of the _Anecdotes des Beaux Arts_, relates that the memory of a Luca, a hermit, who had painted many rude portraits of the Virgin, was held in great veneration in Greece; and that through a popular superst.i.tion he had succeeded to the t.i.tle of S. Luke the Evangelist.

Tournefort (_Voyage, &c._) mentions an image of the Virgin at Mount Lebanon, attributed by the vulgar to S. Luke; but which was doubtless also the work of some Luke, a monk in one of the early ages.

More considerable remains both of the Greek and Italian artists of the 13th century are to be found in a.s.sisi, as related in my first book; and to those already mentioned as painted on the walls, may be added others on panel, and all by unknown artists; particularly a crucifixion in S.

Chiara, of which there is a tradition, that it was painted before Giunta appeared. Another picture anterior to this period, and bearing the date of 1219, is to be seen at Subiaco; it is a consecration of a church, and the painter informs us that _Conciolus pinxit_. If in addition to these artists we inquire after the miniature painters, we may find specimens of them in abundance, in the library of the Vatican, and other collections in Rome. I shall name S. Agostino, in the public library of Perugia, where the Redeemer is seen in the midst of saints, and the opening of Genesis is painted in miniature; a design which, from the angular folds of the drapery, partakes of the Greek style, but still serves to prove this art to have been known at that time in Umbria. In addition to what I have remarked, I may also observe, that in Perugia, in the course of the same century, the artists were sufficiently numerous to form an academy, as we may collect from the _Lettere Perugine_, and these, when we consider the time, must have been in great part miniature painters.

It is now time to notice Oderigi of Gubbio, a town very near to Perugia.

Vasari tells us that he was a man of celebrity, and a friend of Giotto, in Rome; and Dante, in his second _Cantica_, calls him an honour to Agobbio, and excelling in the art of miniature. These are the only authorities that Baldinucci could have for transferring this ancient artist to the school of Cimabue, and ingrafting him in his usual manner on that stock. Upon these he founded his conjecture; and, according to his custom, gave them more weight than they deserved. His opinion, however amplified, reduces itself to the a.s.sumption that Giotto, Oderigi, and Dante, were lovers of art, and common friends, and became therefore acquainted in the school of Cimabue; a very uncertain conclusion. We shall consider this subject more maturely in the school of Bologna, since Oderigi lived there, and instructed Franco, from whom Bologna dates the series of her painters. It is thought, too, that he left some scholars in his native place, and not long after him, in 1321, we find Cecco, and Puccio da Gubbio, engaged as painters of the Cathedral of Orvieto; and about the year 1342, Guido Palmerucci of the same place, employed in the palace of his native city. There remains a work of his in fresco in the hall, much injured by time; but some figures of saints are still preserved, which do not yield to the best style of Giotto. Some other vestiges of very ancient paintings are to be seen in the Confraternita de' Bianchi; in whose archives it is mentioned that the picture of S. Biagio was repaired by Donato, in 1374; whence it must necessarily be of a very early period. This and other interesting information I obtained from Sig. Sebastiano Rangliasci, a n.o.ble inhabitant of Gubbio, who has formed a catalogue of the artists of his native city, inserted in the fourth volume of the last edition of Vasari.

We are now arrived at the age of Giotto, and the first who presents himself to us is Pietro Cavallini, who was instructed by Giotto, in Rome,[8] in the arts of painting and mosaic, both of which he followed with skill and intelligence. The Roman Guide makes mention of him, and that of Florence refers to a Nunziata at S. Mark; and there are others mentioned by Vasari as being in the chapels of that city; one of which is in the Loggia del Grano. The most remarkable of his works is to be seen in a.s.sisi. It is a fresco, and occupies a large facade in one division of the church. It represents the crucifixion of our Saviour, surrounded by bands of soldiers, foot and horse, and a numerous crowd of spectators, all varying in their dress and the expression of their pa.s.sions. In the sky is a band of angels, whose sympathizing sorrow is vividly depicted. In extent and spirit of design it partakes of the style of Memmi, and in one of the sufferers on the cross he has shewn that he justly appreciated and successfully followed his guide. The colours are well preserved, particularly the blue, which there, and in other parts of the church, presents to our admiring gaze, to use the language of our poets, a heaven of oriental sapphire.

Vasari does not appear to have been acquainted with any scholar of Pietro Cavallini, except it be Giovanni da Pistoja; but Pietro, who lived in Rome the greater part of his life, which was extended to a period of eighty-five years, must have contributed his aid in no small degree to the advancement of art, in the capital, as well as in other places. However this may be, in that part of Italy, pictures of his school are still found; or at least memorials of art of the age in which he flourished. We have an Andrea of Velletri, of whom a specimen is preserved in the select collection of the Mus...o...b..rgia, with the Virgin surrounded by saints, a common subject at that period in the churches, as I have before observed. It has the name of the painter, with the year 1334, and in execution approaches nearer to the school of Siena than any other. In the year 1321 we find Ugolino Orvietano, Gio. Bonini di a.s.sisi, Lello Perugino, and F. Giacomo da Camerino, noticed by us in another place, all employed in painting in the Cathedral of Orvieto.

Mariotti, in his letters, mentions other artists of Perugia, and the memory of a very early painter of Fabriano is preserved by Ascevolini, the historian of that city, who informs us, that in the country church of S. Maria Maddalena, in his time, there was a picture in fresco, by Bocco, executed in 1306. A Francesco Tio da Fabriano, who in 1318 painted the tribune of the Conventuals at Mondaino, is mentioned by Colucci, (tom. xxv. p. 183). This work has perished; but the productions of a successor of his at Fabriano are to be seen in the oratory of S.

Antonio Abate, the walls of which remain. Many histories of the saint are there to be found, divided into pictures, in the early style, and inscribed, _Allegrettus Nutii de Fabriano hoc opus fecit 136_.... The art in these parts was not a little advanced by their proximity to a.s.sisi, where Giotto's scholars were employed after his death, particularly Puccio Capanna of Florence. This artist, who is esteemed one of the most successful followers of Giotto, after painting in Florence, in Pistoia, Rimino, and Bologna, is conjectured by Vasari to have settled in a.s.sisi, where he left many works behind him.

We shall find the succeeding century more fruitful in art, as the Popes at that time forsook Avignon, and, re-establis.h.i.+ng themselves in Rome, began to decorate the palace of the Vatican, and to employ painters of celebrity both there and in the churches. There does not appear any person of distinction amongst them as a native of Rome. From the Roman State we find Gentile da Fabriano, Piero della Francesca, Bonfigli, Vannucci, and Melozzo, who first practised the art of _sotto in su_; and amongst the strangers are Pisanello, Masaccio, Beato Angelico, Botticelli and his colleagues. Amongst these too, it is said, was to be found Mantegna, and there still remains the chapel painted by him for Innocent VIII. although since converted to another purpose. Each of these artists I shall notice in their respective schools, and shall here only mention such as were found in the country from the Ufente to the Tronto, and from thence to the Metauro, which are the confines of our present cla.s.s. The names of many others may be collected from books; as an Andrea, and a Bartolommeo, both of Orvieto, and a Mariotto da Viterbo, and others who worked at Orvieto from 1405 to 1457; and some who painted in Rome itself, a Giovenale and a Salli di Celano, and others now forgotten. But without pausing on these, we will advert to the artists of Piceno, of the State of Urbino, and the remaining parts of Umbria: where we shall meet with the traces of schools which remained for many years.

The school of Fabriano, which seems very ancient in Picenum, produced at that time Gentile, one of the first painters of his age, of whom Bonarruoti is reported to have said, that his style was in unison with his name. The first notice we have of him is among the painters of the church of Orvieto, in 1417; and then, or soon afterwards, he received from the historians of that period the appellation of _magister magistrorum_, and they mention the Madonna which he there painted, and which still remains. He afterwards resided in Venice, where, after ornamenting the Palazzo Publico, he was rewarded by the republic with a salary, and with the privilege of wearing the patrician dress of that city. He there, says Vasari, became the master, and, in a manner, the father of Jacopo Bellini, the father and preceptor of two of the ornaments of the Venetian school. These were Gentile, who a.s.sumed that name in memory of Gentile da Fabriano, born in 1421; and Giovanni, who surpa.s.sed his brother in reputation, and from whose school arose Giorgione and t.i.tian. He (Gentile da Fabriano) was employed in the Lateran, at Rome, where he rivalled Pisanello, in the time of Martin V.; and it is to be regretted that his works, both there and in Venice, have perished. Facio, who eulogizes him, and who had seen his most finished performances, extols him as a man of universal art, who represented, not only the human form and edifices in the most correct manner, but painted also the stormy appearances of nature in a style that struck terror into the spectator. In painting the history of St. John, in the Lateran, and the Five Prophets over it, of the colour of marble, he is said to have used more than common care, as if he at that time prognosticated his own approaching death, which soon afterwards occurred, and the work remained unfinished. Notwithstanding this, Ruggier da Bruggia, as Facio relates, when he went to Rome, in the holy year, and saw it, considered it a stupendous work, which placed Gentile at the head of all the painters of Italy. According to Vasari and Borghini, he executed a countless number of works in the Marca, and in the state of Urbino, and particularly in Gubbio, and in Citta di Castello, which are in the neighbourhood of his native place; and there still remain in those districts, and in Perugia, some paintings in his style. A remarkable one is mentioned in a country church called la Romita, near Fabriano.[9] Florence possesses two beautiful specimens: the one in S. Niccolo, with the effigy and history of the sainted bishop, the other in the sacristy of S. Trinita, with an Epiphany, having the date of 1423. They bear a near resemblance to the style of B. Angelico, except that the proportions of the figures are not so correct, the conception is less just, and the fringe of gold and brocades more frequent. Vasari p.r.o.nounces him a pupil of Beato, and Baldinucci confirms this opinion, although he says that Beato took religious orders at an early age in 1407, a period which would exclude Gentile from his tuition. I conjecture both the one and the other to have been scholars of miniature painters, from the fineness of their execution, and from the size of their works, which are generally on a small scale. The name of an Antonio da Fabriano appears in a Crucifixion, in 1454, painted on wood, which I saw in Matelica, in the possession of the Signori Piersanti; but it is inferior to Gentile in style.[10]

On an ancient picture, which is preserved in Perugia, in the convent of S. Domenico, is the name of a painter of Camerino, a place in the same neighbourhood, who flourished in 1447. The inscription is _Opus Johannis Bochatis de Chamereno_. In the same district is S. Severino, where we find a Lorenzo, who, in conjunction with his brother, painted in the oratory of S. John the Baptist in Urbino, the life of that saint. These two artists were much behind their age. I have seen some other works by them, from which it appears that they were living in 1470, and painted in the Florentine style of 1400. Other artists of the same province are named in the _Storia del Piceno_, particularly at S. Ginesio, a Fabio di Gentile di Andrea, a Domenico Balestrieri, and a Stefano Folchetti, whose works are cited, with the date of their execution attached to them.[11] In this district also resided several strangers, scarcely known to their native places, as Francesco d'Imola, a scholar of Francia, who, in the convent of Cingoli, painted a Descent from the Cross; and Carlo Crivelli, a Venetian, who pa.s.sed from one state to another, and finally settled in Ascoli. His works are to be met with there more frequently than in any other city of Picenum. I shall speak of his merits in the Venetian school, and shall here only add, that he had for a pupil Pietro Alamanni, the chief of the painters of Ascoli, a respectable _quattrocentista_, who painted an altarpiece at S. Maria della Carita, in 1489. About this time also we find amongst their names a Vittorio Crivelli, a Venetian, of the family, as I conjecture, and perhaps of the school of Carlo. There is frequent mention of him in the _Antichita Picene_.

Urbino, too, had her artists, as her princes were not behind the other rulers of Italy in good taste. At the restoration of the art, we find Giotto, and several of his scholars, there; and afterwards Gentile da Fabriano,[12] a Galeazzo, and, possibly, a Gentile di Urbino. At Pesaro, in the convent of S. Agostino, I have seen a Madonna, accompanied with beautiful architecture, and an inscription--_Bartholomaeus Magistri Gentilis de Urbino_, 1497; and at Monte Cicardo, I saw the same name on an ancient picture of 1508, but without his birthplace. (Ant. Pic. tom.

xvii. 145.) I am in doubt whether this _M. Gentilis_ refers to the father of Bartolommeo or his master, as the scholars at that time often took their designation from their masters. At all events, this artist is not to be confounded with Bartolommeo from Ferrara, whose son, Benedetto, subscribes himself _Benedictus quondam Bartholomaei de Fer.

Pictor._ 1492. This is to be seen in the church of S. Domenico di Urbino, on the altarpiece in the Chapel of the Muccioli, their descendants.

In the city of Urbino there remain some works of the father of Raffaello, who, in a letter of the d.u.c.h.ess Giovanna della Rovere, which is the first of the Lettere Pittoriche, is designated as _molto virtuoso_. There is by him in the church of S. Francis, a good picture of S. Sebastian, with figures in an att.i.tude of supplication. There is one attributed also to him in a small church dedicated to the same saint, representing his martyrdom, with a figure foreshortened, which Raffaello, when young, imitated in a picture of the Virgin, at Citta di Castello. He subscribed himself _Io. Sanctis Urbi._ (_Urbinas_). So I read it in the sacristy of the Conventuals of Sinigaglia in an Annunciation in which there is a beautiful angel, and an infant Christ descending from the father; and which seems to be copied from those of Pietro Perugino, with whom Raffaello worked some time, though it has a still more ancient style. The other figures are less beautiful, but yet graceful, and the extremities are carefully executed. But the most distinguished painter in Urbino was F. Bartolommeo Corradini d'Urbino, a Domenican, called Fra. Carnevale. To an accurate eye his pictures are defective in perspective, and retain in the drapery the dryness of his age, but the portraits are so strongly expressed that they seem to live and speak; the architecture is beautiful, and the colours bright, and the air of the heads at the same time n.o.ble and unaffected. It is known that Bramante and Raffaello studied him, as there were not, at that time, any better works in Urbino. In Gubbio, which formed a part of this dukedom, were to be seen in that age the remains of the early school.

There exists a fres...o...b.. Ottaviano Martis in S. Maria Nuova, painted in 1403. The Virgin is surrounded by a choir of angels, certainly too much resembling each other, but in their forms and att.i.tudes as graceful and pleasing as any contemporary productions.

Borgo S. Sepolcro, Foligno, and Perugia, present us with artists of greater celebrity. Borgo was a part of Umbria subject to the Holy See, and was, in 1440, pledged to the Florentines,[13] by Eugenius IV. at the time Piero della Francesca, or Piero Borghese, one of the most memorable painters of this age, was at the summit of his reputation. He must have been born about 1398, since Vasari states that "he painted about the year 1458,"[14] and that he became blind at sixty years of age, and remained so until his death, in his eighty-sixth year. From his fifteenth year he applied himself to painting, at which age he had made himself master of the principles of mathematics, and he rose to great eminence both in art and science.[15] I have not been able to ascertain who was his master, but it is probable that as he was the son of a poor widow, who had barely the means of bringing him up, he did not leave his native place; and that under the guidance of obscure masters he raised himself, by his own genius, to the high degree of fame which he enjoyed.

He first appeared, says Vasari, in the court of the elder Guidubaldo Feltro, Duke of Urbino, where he left only some pictures of figures on a small scale, which was the case with such as were not the pupils of the great masters. He was celebrated for a remarkable drawing of a Vase, so ingeniously designed that the front, the back, the sides, the bottom, and the mouth, were all shewn; the whole drawn with the greatest correctness, and the circles gracefully foreshortened. The art of perspective, the principles of which he was, as some affirm, the first among the Italians to develope and to cultivate, was much indebted to him;[16] and painting, too, owed much to his example in imitating the effects of light, in marking correctly the muscles of the naked figure, in preparing models of clay for his figures, and in the study of his drapery, the folds of which he fixed on the model itself, and drew very accurately and minutely. On examining the style of Bramante and his Milanese contemporaries, I have often thought that they derived some light from Piero, for, as I have before said, he painted in Urbino where Bramante studied, and afterwards executed many works in Rome, where Bramantino came and was employed by Nicholas V.

In the Floreria of the Vatican is still to be seen a large fresco painting, in which the above named pontiff is represented with cardinals and prelates, and there is a degree of truth in the countenances highly interesting. Taja does not a.s.sert that it is by Pietro, but says that it is attributed to him.[17] Those which are pointed out in Arezzo doubtless belong to him, and the most remarkable are the histories of the holy cross in the choir of the church of the Conventuals, which shew that the art was already advanced beyond its infancy; there is so much new in the Giotto manner of foreshortening, in the relief, and in many difficulties of the art overcome in his works. If he had possessed the grace of Masaccio he might with justice have been placed at his side. At Citta S. Sepolcro there still remain some works attributed to him; a S.

Lodovico Vescovo, in the public palace, at S. Chiara a picture of the a.s.sumption, with the apostles in the distance, and a choir of angels at the top, but in the foreground are S. Francis, S. Jerome, and other figures, which injure the unity of the composition. There are, however, still traces in them of the old style; a poverty of design, a hardness in the foldings of the drapery, feet which are well foreshortened, but too far apart. As to the rest, in design, in the air, and in the colouring of the figures, it seems to be a rude sketch of that style which was ameliorated by P. Perugino, and perfected by Raffaello.

In the latter part of this century there flourished several good painters at Foligno, but it is not known from whom they derived their instructions. In the twenty-fifth volume of the Antichita Picene we read, that in the church of S. Francesco di Cagli there exists (I know not whether it be now there) a most beautiful composition, painted in 1461, at the price of 115 ducats of gold, by M. Pietro di Mazzaforte and M. Niccolo Deliberatore of Foligno. At S. Venanzio di Camerino is a large altarpiece on a ground of gold, with Christ on the Cross, surrounded by many Saints, with three small evangelical histories added to it. The inscription is _Opus Nicolai Fulginatis_, 1480; it is in the style of the last imitators of Giotto, and there is scarcely a doubt that the artist studied at Florence. I believe him to be the same artist as Niccolo Deliberatore, or di Liberatore; and different from Niccol Alunno, also of Foligno, whom Vasari mentions as an excellent painter in the time of Pinturicchio. He painted in distemper, as was common before Pietro Perugino, but in tints that have survived uninjured to our own times. In the distribution of his colours he was original; his heads possess expression, though they are common, and sometimes heavy, when they represent the vulgar. There is at S. Niccol di Foligno a picture by him, composed in the style of the fourteenth century, the Virgin surrounded by saints, and underneath small histories of the Pa.s.sion, where the perspicuity is more to be praised than the disposition. In the same style some of his pieces in Foligno are painted after 1500. Vasari thinks they are all surpa.s.sed by his Pieta in a chapel of the Duomo, in which are represented two angels, "whose grief is so vividly expressed, that any other artist, however ambitious he might be, would find it difficult to surpa.s.s it."

Perugia, from whence the art derived no common l.u.s.tre, abounded in painters beyond any other city. The celebrated Mariotti formed a long catalogue of the painters of the fourteenth century, and among the most conspicuous are Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, and Bartolommeo Caporali, of whom we have pictures of the date of 1487. Some strangers were also to be found amongst them, as that Lello da Velletri, the author of an altarpiece, and its lower compartments, noticed by Signor Orsini.

Benedetto Bonfigli was distinguished above all others, and was the most eminent artist of Perugia in his day. I have seen by him, besides the picture in fresco in the Palazzo Publico, mentioned by Vasari, a picture of the Magi, in S. Domenico, in a style similar to Gentile, and with a large proportion of gold; and another in a more modern style, an Annunciation, in the church of the Orfanelli. The angel in it is most beautiful, and the whole picture would bear comparison with the works of the best artists of this period, if the drawing were more correct.[18]

What I have already adduced sufficiently proves that the art was not neglected in the Papal States, even in the ruder ages; and that men of genius from time to time appeared there, who, without leaving their native places, still gave an impulse to art. Florence, however, has ever been the great capital of design, the leading academy, and the Athens of Italy. It would be idle to question her indisputable claim to this high honour; and Sixtus IV., who, as we have before mentioned, sought through all Italy for artists to ornament the Sistine chapel, procured the greatest number from Tuscany; nor were there to be found amongst them any who were his own subjects, except Pietro Perugino, and he too had risen to notice and celebrity in Florence. These then are the first mature fruits of the Roman school, for until this period they had been crude and tasteless. Pietro is her Masaccio, her Ghirlandajo, her all.

We will here take a short view of him and his scholars, reserving, however, the divine Raffaello to the next epoch, which indeed is designated by his ill.u.s.trious name.

Pietro Vannucci della Pieve,[19] as he calls himself in some pictures, or of Perugia in others, from the citizens.h.i.+p which he there enjoyed, had studied under a master of no great celebrity, if we are to believe Vasari; and this was a Pietro da Perugia, as Bottari conjectured, or Niccol Alunno, as it was reported in Foligno. Mariotti pretends that Pietro advanced himself greatly in Perugia in the schools of Bonfigli, and Pietro della Francesca, from which he not only derived that excellence in perspective, which, from the testimony of Vasari was so much admired in Florence, but also much of his design and colouring.[20]

Mariotti then raises a doubt whether, when he went as an artist to Florence, he became the scholar of Verrocchio, as writers report, or whether he did not rather perfect himself from the great examples of Masaccio, and the excellent painters who at that time flourished there; and he finally determines in favour of the opinion held by Pascoli, Bottari, and Taja, and adopted by Padre Resta, in his _Galleria Portatile_, p. 10, that Verrocchio was never his master. It is well worth while to read the disquisitions of this able writer in his fifth letter, where we may admire the dexterity with which he settles a point so perplexed and so interesting to the history of art. I will only add that it appears to me not improbable, that Pietro, when he arrived at Florence, attached himself to this most celebrated artist, and was instructed by him in design, and in the plastic art particularly, and in that fine style of painting with which Verrocchio, without much practising it himself, imbued both Vinci and Credi. Traditions are seldom wholly groundless; they have generally some foundation in truth.

The manner of Pietro is somewhat hard and dry, like that of other painters of his time; and he occasionally exhibits a poverty in the drapery of his figures; his garments and mantles being curtailed and confined. But he atones for these faults by the grace of his heads, particularly in his boys and in his women; which have an air of elegance and a charm of colour unknown to his contemporaries. It is delightful to behold in his pictures, and in his frescos which remain in Perugia and Rome, the bright azure ground which affords such high relief to his figures; the green, purple, and violet tints so chastely harmonized, the beautiful and well drawn landscape and edifices, which, as Vasari says, was a thing until that time never seen in Florence. In his altarpieces he is not sufficiently varied. There is a remarkable painting executed for the church of S. Simone, at Perugia, of a Holy Family, one of the first specimens of a well designed and well composed altarpiece. In other respects Pietro did not make any great advances in invention; his Crucifixions and his Descents from the Cross are numerous, and of an uniform character. He has thus represented, with little variation, the Ascensions of our Lord and of the Virgin, in Bologna, in Florence, Perugia, and Citta di S. Sepolcro. He was reproached with this circ.u.mstance in his lifetime, and defended himself by saying that no one had a right to complain, as the designs were all his own. There is also another defence, which is, that compositions, really beautiful, are still seen with delight when repeated in different places; whoever sees in the Sistine his S. Peter invested with the keys, will not be displeased at finding at Perugia the same landscape, in a picture of the Marriage of the Virgin. On the contrary, this picture is one of the finest objects that n.o.ble city affords; and may be considered as containing an epitome of the various styles of Pietro. In the opinion of some persons, his frescos exhibit a more fertile invention, and greater delicacy and harmony of colour. Of these, his masterpiece is in his native city, in the Sala del Cambio. It is an evangelical subject, with saints from the Old Testament, and with his own portrait, to which his grateful fellow citizens attached an elegant eulogy. He is most eminent, and adopts a sort of Raffaellesque style, in some of his latter pictures. I have observed it in a Holy Family, in the Carmine in Perugia. The same may be said too of certain small pictures, almost of a miniature cla.s.s; as in the grado of S. Peter, in Perugia, than which nothing can be more finished and beautiful; and in many other pieces in which he has spared no pains,[21] but which are few in comparison to the mult.i.tude by his scholars, attributed to him.

In treating of the school of Pietro Perugino, it is necessary to advert to what Taja,[22] and after him the author of the _Lettere Perugine_, notices respecting his scholars, "that they were most scrupulous in adhering to the manner of their master, and as they were very numerous, they have filled the world with pictures, which both by painters and connoisseurs are very commonly considered as his." When his works in Perugia are inspected, he generally rises in the esteem of travellers, of whom many have only seen paintings incorrectly ascribed to him. In Florence there are some of his pictures in the Grand Duke's collection: and in the church of S. Chiara, his beautiful Descent from the Cross, and some other works; but in private collections both here and in other cities of Tuscany, many Holy Families are a.s.signed to him, which are most probably by Gerino da Pistoja, or some of his Tuscan scholars, of whom there is a catalogue in our first book. The Papal states also possessed many of his scholars, who were of higher reputation, nor so wholly attached to his manner as the strangers. Bernardino Pinturicchio, his scholar and a.s.sistant in Perugia and in Rome, was a painter little valued by Vasari, who has not allowed him his full share of merit. He has not the style of design of his master, and retains more than consistent with his age, the ornaments of gold in his drapery; but he is magnificent in his edifices, spirited in his countenances, and extremely natural in every thing he introduces into his composition. As he was on the most familiar footing with Raffaello, with whom he painted at Siena, he has emulated his grace in some of his figures, as in his picture of S. Lorenzo in the church of the Francescani di Spello, in which there is a small S. John the Baptist, thought by some to be by Raphael himself.

He was very successful in arabesques and perspective; in which way he was the first to represent cities in the ornaments of his fresco paintings, as in an apartment of the Vatican, where in his landscapes he introduced views of the princ.i.p.al cities of Italy. In many of his paintings he retained the ancient custom of making part of his decorations of stucco, as the arches, a custom which was observed in the Milanese school to the time of Gaudenzio. Rome possesses some of his works, particularly in the Vatican, and in Araceli. There is a good picture by him in the duomo of Spello.[23] His best is at Siena, in the magnificent sacristy of which we have already made mention. They consist of ten historical subjects, containing the most memorable pa.s.sages in the life of Pius II., and on the outside is an eleventh, which represents the Coronation of Pius III., by whom this work was ordered.

Vasari has added to the life of Pinturicchio that of Girolamo Genga, of Urbino, at first a scholar of Signorelli, afterwards of Perugino, and who remained some time pursuing his studies in Florence. He was, for a long period, in the service of the Duke of Urbino, and attached himself more to architecture than to painting, though, in the latter, he was sufficiently distinguished to deserve a place in the history of art. We cannot form a correct judgment of him, as a great part of his own works have perished; and as he a.s.sisted Signorelli in Orvieto and other places; and was a.s.sisted by Timoteo della Vite in Urbino, and in the imperial palace of Pesaro by Raffaelle del Colle, and various others. In the Petrucci palace at Siena, which now belongs to the n.o.ble family of Savini, some historical pieces are ascribed to him near those of Signorelli. They are described in the Lettere Senesi, and in the notes published at Siena to the fourth volume of Vasari. These pieces are praised as superior to those of Signorelli, and as in many parts approaching the early style of Raffaello. Nor do I see how, in the above mentioned letters, they could be supposed to be by Razzi, or Peruzzi, or Pacchiarotto, "_in their hard dry manner_" when history a.s.sures us that Girolamo was with Pandolfo a considerable time, which cannot be a.s.serted of the other three; and as it appears that Petrucci, to finish the work of Signorelli, selected Genga from among his scholars. If we deprive him of this work, which is the only one which can be called his own, what can he have executed in all this time? In this house there is no other picture that can be a.s.signed to him, although Vasari a.s.serts that he there painted other rooms. A most beautiful picture by Genga, and of the greatest rarity, is to be seen in S. Caterina da Siena in Rome; the subject is the Resurrection of our Saviour.

Of the other scholars of Perugino we have no distinct account; but we find some notice of them in the life of their master. Giovanni Spagnuolo, named Lo Spagna, was one of the many _oltramontani_ whom Perugino instructed. The greater part of these introduced his manner into their own countries, but Giovanni established himself at Spoleti, at which place, and in a.s.sisi, he left his best works. In the opinion of Vasari the colouring of Perugino survived in him more than in any of his fellow scholars. In a chapel of the Angioli, below a.s.sisi, there remains the picture described by Vasari, in which are the portraits of the brotherhood of S. Francis, who closed his days on this spot, and, perhaps, no other pupil of this school has painted portraits with more truth, if we except Raffaello himself, with whom no other painter is to be compared.

A more memorable person is Andrea Luigi di a.s.sisi, a compet.i.tor of Raffaello, although of more mature years, who, from his happy genius was named L'Ingegno. He a.s.sisted Perugino in the Sala del Cambio, and in other works of more consequence; and he may be said to be the first of that school who began to enlarge the style, and soften the colouring.

This is observable in several of his works, and singularly so in the sybils and prophets in fresco in the church of a.s.sisi; if they are by his hand, as is generally believed. It is impossible to behold his pictures without a feeling of compa.s.sion, when we recollect that he was visited with blindness at the most valuable period of his life. Domenico di Paris Alfani also enlarged the manner of his master, and even more than him Orazio his son, and not his brother, as has been imagined. This artist bears a great resemblance to Raffaello. There are some of his pictures in Perugia, which, if it were not for a more delicate colouring, and something of the suavity of Baroccio, might be a.s.signed to the school of Raffaello; and there are pictures on which a question arises whether they belong to that school or to Orazio; particularly some Madonnas, which are preserved in various collections. I have seen one in the possession of the accomplished Sig. Auditor Frigeri in Perugia; and there is another in the ducal gallery in Florence. The reputation of the younger Alfani has injured that of the other; and even in Perugia some fine pieces were long considered to be by Orazio, which have since been restored to Domenico. An account of these, and other works of eminent artists, may be found in modern writers; and particularly in Mariotti, who mentions the altarpiece of the Crucifixion, between S. Apollonia and S. Jerome, at the church of the Conventuals, a work by the two Alfanis, father and son. In commendation of the latter he adds, that he was the chief of the academy for design, which was founded in 1573, and which, after many honourable struggles, has been revived in our own time.

There are other artists of less celebrity in Perugia, though not omitted by Vasari. Eusebio da S. Giorgio painted in the church of S. Francesco di Matelica, a picture with several saints, and on the grado, part of the history of S. Anthony, with his name, and the year 1512. We may recognize in it the drawing of Perugino, but the colouring is feeble.

His picture of the Magi at S. Agostino is better coloured, and in this he followed Paris. The works of Giannicola da Perugia, a good colourist, and therefore willingly received by Pietro to a.s.sist him in his labours, however inferior to that artist in design and perspective, are recognized in the Cappella del Cambio, which is near the celebrated sala of Perugino, and was painted by him with the life of John the Baptist.

In the church of S. Thomas, is his picture of that Apostle about to touch the wounds of our Saviour, and excepting a degree of sameness in the heads, it possesses much of the character of Perugino. Giambatista Caporali, erroneously called Benedetto by Vasari, Baldinucci, and others, holds likewise a moderate rank in this school, and is more celebrated among the architects. Giulio, his natural son, afterwards legitimatized, also cultivated the same profession.