Читать книгу The History of Italian Painting - Luigi Lanzi - Страница 17

Table of Contents

The Imitators of Michelangiolo Bonarruoti.

After the time of the five great masters above mentioned, the Florentines were so rich in fine specimens of art that they had no occasion to apply to foreign schools for improvement. They had only to select the best specimens from the works of native artists; as, for instance, grandeur from Michelangiolo, grace from Andrea, and spirit from Rossi; they could learn colouring and casting of draperies from Porta, and chiaroscuro from Vinci. They appear, however, to have assiduously applied to design, but to have paid little attention to the other branches of painting. Even in that branch they imagined that every thing was to be found in Bonarruoti; and imitated him alone. Their choice was influenced by the celebrity,[181] the success, and very long life of this artist, who, having survived all his eminent fellow citizens, naturally recommended to employment the followers of his maxims, and the adherents of his manner; hence it has been observed by some, that Raffaello lived too short a time for the progress of the fine arts, Michelangiolo too long. But artists ought to keep in mind the opinion, or rather prophecy of Bonarruoti—that his style would be productive of inept artists, which has invariably been the character of those who have imitated him without judgment.

Their study and constant practice has been to design from his statues: for the cartoon on which so many eminent men formed their style, had already perished; and his paintings were not to be seen in Florence but in Rome. They transferred into their compositions that statue-like rigidity, that strength of limb, and those markings of the origin and insertion of muscles, that severity of countenance, and those positions of the hands and figures, which characterized his sublimely awful style; but without comprehending the principles of this extraordinary man, without thoroughly understanding the play of the softer parts of the human figure, either by inserting them in wrong situations, or by representing, in the same manner, those in action and at rest; those of a slender stripling, and of the full-grown man. Contented with what they imagined grandeur of style, they neglected all the rest. In some of their pictures we may observe a multitude of figures arranged one above the other, with a total disregard of their relative situations; features that express no passion, and half naked figures that do nothing, except pompously exhibit, like the Entellus of Virgil, magna ossa lacertosque. Instead of the beautiful azure and green formerly employed, they substituted a languid yellowish hue; the full body of colour gave place to superficial tints; and, above all, the bold relief, so much studied till the time of Andrea, went wholly into disuse.

In several passages Baldinucci confesses this decline, which, however, scarcely extended to two or three generations, and seems to have commenced about 1540. During this unfortunate era the Florentines did not degenerate as much as some other schools. The churches are full of pictures of this era, which, if they are not to be admired like those of the preceding, are, at least, respectable. Whoever sees the church of S. Croce, S. Maria Novella, and other places, where the best artists of this era painted, will undoubtedly find more to praise than to condemn. Few of them were eminent as colourists, but many in design; few were entirely free from the mannerism above noticed; many, however, by progressive improvement, at length attained gracefulness. We shall proceed to consider them, chiefly following the steps of Vincenzio Borghini, their contemporary; the author of Il Reposo, a dialogue worthy of perusal, both for the matter and the style. We shall commence with Vasari, who not only belongs to this epoch, but has ever been charged with being one of the chief authors of the decline of the art.[182]

Giorgio Vasari, of Arezzo, was descended from a family attached to the fine arts; being the great grandson of Lazzaro, who was the intimate friend of Pietro della Francesca, and the imitator of his paintings; the nephew of another Giorgio, who, in modelling vases in plaster, revived the forms of the antique, in their basso-relievos, and their brilliant colours; specimens of whose art exist in the royal gallery at Florence. Michelangiolo, Andrea, and some other masters, instructed him in design; Guglielmo da Marcilla, called the Prior, and Rosso, initiated him in painting: but he chiefly studied at Rome, whither he was brought by Ippolito, Cardinal de' Medici, the person to whom he owed his success; for by his means Giorgio was introduced to this family that loaded him with riches and with honour. After having designed all the works of his first master, and of Raffaello, at Rome, and likewise much after other schools and antique marbles, he formed a style in which we may recognise traces of his studies; but his predilection for Bonarruoti is apparent. After acquiring skill in painting figures, he became one of the most excellent architects of the age; and united in himself the various branches which were known to Perino, Giulio, and their scholars, who followed the example of Raffaello. He could unaided direct the construction of a grand fabric, adorn it with figures, with grotesques, with landscapes, with stuccos, with gilding, and whatever else was required to ornament it in a princely style. By this means he began to be known in Italy; and was employed as a painter in several places, and even in Rome. He was much employed in the hermitage of the Camaldules, and in several monasteries of the Olivets. In their monastery at Rimino he executed a picture of the Magi, and various frescos for the church; in that at Bologna three pieces from sacred history, with some ornaments in the refectory; but still more in that at Naples, where he not only reduced the refectory to the rules of true architecture, but splendidly adorned it with stuccos and pictures of every description. Assisted by many young men he spent a year in this work; and, as he himself says, was the first who gave an idea of the modern style to that city. Some of his pictures are to be seen in the Classe di Ravenna, in the church of S. Peter at Perugia, at Bosco, near Alessandria, in Venice, at Pisa, in Florence, and at Rome, where the largest part of them are in various places of the Vatican, and in the hall of the Chancery. These pictures are historical frescos of the life of Paul III. undertaken at the desire of Cardinal Farnese; with whom originated the idea of writing the lives of the painters, afterwards published at Florence. Brought into notice by these works, honoured by the esteem and friendship of Bonarruoti, and recommended by his multifarious abilities, he was invited to the court of Cosmo I. He went there with his family in 1553; at which time the artists above alluded to were either dead or very old, and, therefore, he had little to fear from competitors. He superintended the magnificent works executed by that prince; among which it would be wrong not to distinguish the edifice for the public offices, which is esteemed among the finest in Italy; and the old palace, with its several sub-divisions, which were all painted and decorated by Vasari and his pupils for the use of government. In one part of it, each chamber bears the name of some distinguished member of the family, and represents his exploits. This is one of his best works; and here the chamber of Clement VII. is chiefly conspicuous, on the ceiling of which he represented the Pontiff in the act of crowning Charles V., and all around disposed the emblems of his virtues, his victories, and his most remarkable exploits. In this work the magnificence of the prince is rivalled by the judgment and taste of the artist. The reader may find notices of his other works, which are either in churches or in private houses, and of his temporary decorations for funerals or festivals, by consulting his life written by himself down to 1567, and the continuation of it to 1574, the year of Giorgio's decease.

It remains for us to discuss the merits of this artist, who has been praised by some and condemned by other authors that have treated of the fine arts, especially in Italy. I shall consider him first as a painter, and next as a writer. Had all his works perished but some of those in the old palace, the Conception, in S. Apostolo at Florence, which Borghini commends as his finest production, the Decollation of S. John, in the church of the Baptist at Rome, which is adorned by exquisite perspective, the Feast of Ahasuerus, in the possession of the Benedictines at Arezzo, some of his portraits, which Bottari scruples not to compare with those of Giorgione, and some of his other pictures that demonstrate his ability, his reputation would have been much greater than it is. But he aimed at too much; and for the most part preferred expedition to accuracy. Hence, though a good designer, his figures are not always correct; and his painting often appears languid, from his meagre and superficial colouring.[183] The habit of careless execution is usually the companion of some maxim that may serve to excuse it to others, as well as to our own self-love: Vasari has recommended in his writings the acquirement of compendious methods,[184] and "the expedition of practice;" in other words, to make use of former exercises and studies in painting. This method is highly advantageous to the artist, because it increases his profits; but is prejudicial to the art, which thus degenerates into mannerism, or, in other words, departs from nature: Vasari fell into this error in many of his works, especially in his hasty productions, or where he borrowed the hand of others; apologies which he frequently offers to the readers of his "Lives." He was principally induced, I believe, to offer such apologies for his practice, from the strictures on his paintings contained in the hall of the Chancery, which were finished in a hundred days, according to their author, in order to please the cardinal: but he ought then rather to have excused himself to Farnese, and to have requested him to employ some other artist, than to make his apology to posterity, and to intreat us to excuse his faults. He ought to have listened to the admonitions of his friends; among whom Caro did not fail to remind him of the injury his reputation might sustain by such hasty productions.[185] As he long superintended the decorations of the capital, ordered by Cosmo I. and Prince D. Francesco, and was assisted in them by many young men, Baldinucci affirms that he chiefly contributed to that dry manner which prevailed in Florence.[186]

This opinion is probably not erroneous; for the example of a painter employed by the court was sufficient to seduce the rising generation from pristine diligence, to a more careless manner. After all, the Florentines who assisted him were chiefly the scholars of Bronzino, and, except two or three, they did not adopt the style of Vasari: some others also may have done so for a little time. Francesco Morandini, called Poppi, from his native place, was his disciple and imitator; and in his picture of the Conception, at S. Michelino, in the superior one of the Visitation, at S. Nicholas, and in his many other works, he appears a follower of Giorgio; except that he was more minute, and attended more to gay and cheerful composition. Giovanni Stradano Fiammingo, for ten years a dependant of Vasari, adopted his colouring, but imitated the design of Salviati; with whom and also with Daniele di Volterra he had lived in Rome. There is a Christ on the Cross, by him, at the Serviti, which is preferred to any other he painted at Florence, where he executed many designs for tapestry, and many prints. He had a fertile invention; he is praised by Vasari as highly as any other artist then in the service of the court, and is considered by Borghini among the eminent masters. Vasari after him retained Jacopo Zucchi, whose works exhibit none of the carelessness of Giorgio. He sometimes imitated him; but his style is better and more refined. He lived long at Rome, under the protection of Ferdinando, Cardinal de' Medici, in whose house, and more especially in the Rucellai palace, he painted in fresco with incredible diligence. His picture of the Birth of the Baptist, in S. Giovanni Decollato, is esteemed the best in that church; and in this piece he appears more a follower of Andrea, than of any other master. He usually introduced real portraits of distinguished characters and men of letters in his compositions, and he shewed a peculiar grace in the figures of children and of young people. Baglioni praises both this artist and his brother Francesco, who was a good artist in mosaic, and an excellent painter of fruit and flowers.

In considering Giorgio as a writer, I shall not consume much time; having so frequently to notice him in the course of my work. He wrote precepts of art and lives of the painters, as is well known; and he added to them some dissertations on his own occupations,[187] and his pictures.[188] He entered on this work at the instigation of Cardinal Farnese, as well as of Monsig. Giovio; and he was encouraged in it by Caro, Molza, Tolomei, and other literary men belonging to that court. His first intention was to collect anecdotes of artists, to be extended by Giovio. They wished him to commence with Cimabue; with which, perhaps, he ought not to have complied; but this circumstance diminishes the fault of Vasari in passing over the older masters in silence, and raises the glory of Cimabue far above all his contemporaries. When it was discovered that Vasari could write well,[189] and was capable of extending the anecdotes in even more appropriate language than Giovio himself, the whole task devolved on him; but in order to render the work more worthy of the public, he had the assistance afforded him of men of letters. In 1547, on finishing the book, he went to Rimino; and whilst he was employed in painting for the fraternity of Olivets, Father D. Gio. Matteo Faetani, abbot of the monastery, corrected his work and caused it to be wholly transcribed; about the end of that year it was sent to Caro for perusal. He signified his approbation of it, "as written in a fine style, and with great care;"[190] except that in some passages a less artificial style was desirable. After being corrected in this respect, it was printed in two volumes by Torrentino, at Florence, in the year 1550; in this edition he received considerable aid from Father D. Miniato Pitti, then an Olivetine friar.[191] Vasari complained that "many things were there inserted he knew not how, and were altered without his knowledge or consent;"[192] but I cannot agree with Bottari,[193] that these alterations were made by Pitti or any other monk. If Vasari could not discover their author, we are much less likely to find him out; and there is some ground for believing that Vasari had offended many persons by certain invidious anecdotes, and thus endeavoured to excuse himself as well as he could. Who can believe that the many things cancelled in the second edition, which seems almost a new work, were all liberties taken by other persons, "he did not know how" and not mistakes, at least for the most part, made by himself?

In whatever way it happened, he had an opportunity of correcting his lives, of augmenting them, and again printing them, accompanied by portraits of the artists. After publication of the first edition he had availed himself of the manuscripts of Ghiberti, of Domenico Ghirlandaio, of Raffaello d'Urbino; and had himself collected a number of anecdotes in his different journeys through Italy. He undertook a new tour in 1566, to prepare for the new edition, as he informs us in the life of Benvenuto Garofolo; he again examined the works of different masters, and obtained new information from his friends, some of whom he mentions by name, when treating of the artists of Forli and Verona. He would have been still more full of anecdote in his Lives, had his success corresponded with his diligence. On this account, in the beginning and at the end of the Life of Carpaccio, he laments that "he was not able to obtain every particular of many artists;" nor to possess their portraits; and he "entreats us to accept what he is able to offer, although he cannot give all he might desire." He republished his Lives in 1568, and affirmed in the Dedication to Cosmo I. that "as for himself he wished for nothing more in them." The new edition issued from the press of the Giunti; of the additions, consisting of fine observations upon philosophy and Christian morality, which cannot be ascribed to Giorgio, part was supplied by Borghini, and still more by Father D. Silvano Razzi, a Camalduline monk, as Bottari conjectures in his Preface,[194] but it does not follow that they assisted in correcting the work. It is full of errors; sometimes in the grammatical construction, often in the names, and frequently in the dates; and though it was reprinted at Bologna, in 1648; at Rome, with the notes and corrections of Bottari, in 1759; in Leghorn and Florence, in 1767, with fresh notes and additions by the same; and lastly, in Siena, with those of P. della Valle; it still remains not so much a judicious selection of facts, as a mass of chronological emendations, some of which shall be noticed in the sequel.[195]

This, if I am not deceived, is the objection that can be most frequently, and almost continually urged against the work. The other strictures to be met with in authors are, for the most part, exaggerations of writers, offended at Vasari for his silence or his criticisms, on the works of the artists of their country. There is nothing so flattering to the vanity of an author, as defending the character of his native place, and of those citizens who have rendered her illustrious. In whatever manner he writes, all his countrymen, who are all the world to him, think him in the right; and in the coffeehouses he frequents, in the shops of the booksellers, and in all public places, they hail him as the public advocate. Hence we need not be surprised that such an author writes as if his country had appointed him her champion, assumes a spirit of hostility, and then the transition is easy from a just defence to an injurious attack. From such causes some writers appear to me actuated by unbecoming enmity to Vasari. The passages of the first edition, cancelled in the second, have been quoted against him; he has incurred odium for some deformed portraits, as if he was accountable for the defects of nature; his most innocent expressions have been tortured into a sinister meaning; his enemies would have us believe that, intending to exalt his darling Florentines, he neglected the other Italian artists, as if, in order to do justice to these, he had not travelled and sought for information, although often in vain, as I before mentioned. The historians of all the other schools have used him as the commentators of Virgil treated Servius; all have abused him, and all have availed themselves of his labours. For if all the information collected by Vasari concerning the old masters of the Venetian, Bolognese, and Lombard schools be taken away, how imperfect does their history remain? In my opinion, therefore, he deserves our best thanks for what he has done, and much forbearance for what he has omitted.

If his judgment appears less accurate on some artists of a different school, he ought not, on that account, to be taxed with malignity and envy, as is well observed by Lomazzo. He has protested that he has done his best to adhere to truth, or to what he believed to be true,[196] and it is sufficient to read him without prejudice to give him credit for such justification. He seems a man who writes as he thinks. Thus, he bestows commendations upon Baldinelli and upon Zuccaro, his enemies,[197] as well as upon his friends: he distributes censure and praise with an equal hand to Tuscan and other artists. If he discovers painters of little merit in other schools, he finds them also in that of Florence; if he relates the jealousies of foreign artists, he does not conceal those of the Florentines, of which he speaks with a playful freedom in the Life of Donatello, in his own, and more especially in that of Pietro Perugino. His partial criticisms therefore on certain artists arose less from his nationality, than from other causes. It is certain that he saw but little of some masters; his opinion of others was formed upon incorrect information; and he could not attain the same certainty that we now boast, on what related to a number of artists then living, who, as usually happens, were then more censured than admired. Some allowance too should be made for his other avocations; by the multiplicity of which he doubtless wrote as he painted, with the expedition of his mode of practice. A proof of this is afforded by the repetitions that occur, as we have before observed, in successive passages, and the contradictory characters he sometimes gives of the same picture, pronouncing it good in one sentence, and in another allowing it scarcely the praise of mediocrity. This was particularly the case in regard to Razzi, towards whom he seems to have entertained ill will; arising, however, more from the bad reputation of the man than from prejudice against the school of the artist. For the incorrectness of such censures, in which he, however, was sincere, I blame his maxims of art, and the age in which he lived. He reckoned Bonarruoti the greatest painter that had ever existed;[198] and exalted him above the ancient Greeks,[199] and, from his practice, held a bold and vigorous design as the summit of perfection in painting; compared to which, beauty and colouring were nothing.[200] From such fundamental principles proceeded some of his obnoxious criticisms on Bassano, Tiziano, and on Raffaello himself. But is this the effect of his malignity, or of his education? Does it not happen in philosophy as in painting, that every one gives a decided preference to those of his own sect. Has not Petrarca generalized the observation, when he asks,

——"Or che è questo Che ognun del suo saper par che si appaghi?"

We may, then, forgive in Vasari what appeared to this philosophic poet a weakness of human nature; and may observe on a few passages in his work what was applied to Tacitus; that we condemn his principles, but admire his history. Such, I believe, was the opinion of Lomazzo, who though not wholly satisfied with the opinions of Vasari, not only excused but defended him;[201] and in this he acted properly.

Vasari is, moreover, the father of the history of painting, and has transmitted to us its most precious materials. Educated in the most auspicious era of the art, he has in some measure perpetuated the influence of the golden age. In perusing his Lives, I fancy myself listening to the individuals of whom he has collected the traditions and the precepts. It was thus, think I, that Raffaello and Andrea imparted these facts to their scholars; thus spoke Bonarruoti; the friends of Giorgio heard this from Vinci and Porta, and in this manner must have related it to him. I am delighted with the facts, and also with the luminous, simple, and natural manner in which they are expressed, interwoven with the technical terms that originated in Florence, and worthy of every writer whose subject is the fine arts. Finally, should I discover in him any prejudice of education, or, if you will, arising from self-love, it seems to me unjust on account of such a fault, to forget his many services, and to declare hostilities against him for such blemishes.

Another service Vasari conferred on the fine arts yet remains to be noticed, and that is the establishment of the Academy of Design in Florence, about the year 1561, principally through his exertions. The society of S. Luke there existed from the fourteenth century, but it had fallen into decay, and was almost extinct, when F. Gio. Angiolo Montorsoli Servita, a celebrated statuary, conceived the design of reviving it. He communicated his idea to Giorgio, who so effectually recommended it to Cosmo I., that, shortly after, it arose with new vigour, and became at the same time a charitable institution and an academy of the fine arts. The prince wished to be considered its head, and D. Vincenzio Borghini was appointed his representative in transacting his ordinary business, which situation was afterwards filled by Cav. Gaddi, by Baccio Valori, and successively by some of the most accomplished gentlemen of the city; an arrangement maintained by the sovereigns down to the present day. The chapter house of the Nunziata, "decorated with the sculpture and pictures of the best masters" of the age, was granted to this college of artists for a hall, as we are informed by Valori.[202] Another place was assigned for their meetings, and they have frequently experienced the liberality of succeeding princes. Their rules were drawn up by the restorers of this institution, of whom Vasari was one. He wrote concerning it to Michelangiolo,[203] and asserted that every member of this academy "was indebted to him for what he knew;" and indeed this academy in all its branches partakes strongly of his style. A similar doctrine, as we have observed, already prevailed at Florence; but it would have been better that every one followed the master whom his genius pointed out. In the choice of a style nature ought to direct, not to follow; every one should make his election according to his talents. It is true that the error of the Florentines is common to other nations; and has given rise to an opinion, that academies have had a baneful influence on the arts; since they have only tended to constrain all to follow the same path; and hence Italy is found fruitful in adherents to systems, but barren in true painters. To me the institution of academies has always appeared highly useful, when conducted on the plan of that of the Caracci, of which we shall treat under their school. In the mean time I return to the Florentine school.

The contemporaries of Vasari were Salviati and Jacopo del Conte, both of whom lived also with Andrea del Sarto, and Bronzino, the scholar of Pontormo. Like Giorgio, their genius led them to an imitation of Michelangiolo. Francesco de' Rossi, called Salviati, from the surname of his patron, was the fellow student of Vasari, under Andrea del Sarto and Baccio Bandinelli. The last mentioned artist was an excellent sculptor, who usually taught design to students in painting, an art which, like Verrocchio, he sometimes practised for amusement. While at Rome, Salviati, contracting an intimate friendship with Giorgio, pursued the same studies, and adopted the same fundamental principles of the art. He finally became a painter more correct, more elevated, and more spirited than his companion, and Vasari classes him among the best artists then in Rome. There he was employed in the palace of his patron, in the Farnese and Riccio palaces, in the Chancery, in the church of S. Gio. Decollato, and in various other places, where he filled extensive walls with historical frescos, an employment which was his chief delight. His invention was very fertile, his compositions varied, his architecture grand; he is one of the few who have united celerity of execution with scientific design, in which he was deeply versed, although occasionally somewhat extravagant. His best production now in Florence is the battle and triumph of Furius Camillus, in the saloon of the old palace, a work full of spirit, that appears from the representations of armour, draperies, and Roman customs, conducted by an able antiquary. There is also in the church of Santa Croce, a Descent from the Cross; to him a familiar subject, which he repeated at the Panfili palace at Rome, and in the Corpus Domini at Venice; and it may be seen in some private collections, in which his Holy Families and portraits are not rare. The octagonal picture of Psyche, in the possession of the Grimani family, is highly celebrated, and Giorgio pronounces it the "finest picture in all Venice." His remark would have been less invidious, had he said it was the most scientific in design; but who can concede to him that it appeared a paragon in that city? The features of Psyche have nothing uncommon; and the whole, though well composed, and adorned with a beautiful landscape, and an elegant little temple, cannot be compared to the charming compositions of Tiziano, or of Paolo Veronese, in which we sometimes behold, as Dante would express it, "the whole creation smile." The design of Salviati was better than his colouring; and on this account he did not meet with success at Venice; on his going to France he was but little employed, and is now less sought after and esteemed than Tiziano or Paolo. In ornamental arts such as poetry and painting, it would seem that mankind are more easily contented with a mediocrity in knowledge, than with mediocrity in the art of pleasing. It was very correctly observed by Salvator Rosa, when requested to give his opinion upon the relative merits of design and colouring, that he had been able to meet with many Santi di Tito in the shops of the suburbs, at a very low price, but that he had never seen there a single specimen of Bassano. Salviati was the best artist of this epoch, and if he was little employed at Florence, according to Vasari, it arose partly from the envy of malevolent persons, partly from his own turbulent, restless, and haughty demeanour. He trained up, however, some artists who belong to this school. Francesco del Prato, an eminent goldsmith, and an excellent artist in the inlaying of metals, when advanced in life, imbibed the love of painting from Salviati, and became his pupil. Having a good idea of design, he was soon able to execute cabinet pictures; two of which, the Plague of Serpents and the Limbo, are pronounced most beautiful by Vasari. It is not improbable that some of the minor pictures ascribed to Salviati may be the work of this artist, who is as little named as if he had never existed. Bernardo Buontalenti, a man of rare and universal genius, was instructed in miniature painting by Clovio, and had Salviati, Vasari, and Bronzino, for his masters in the other branches of painting. He was so successful that his works were in request by Francis I., by the emperor, and the king of Spain. His portrait is in the royal gallery, besides which little in Florence can be ascribed to him with certainty, for he dedicated his time chiefly to architecture and to hydrostatics. Ruviale Spagnuolo, Domenico Romano, and Porta della Garfagnana, belong to the school of Salviati. We shall notice the last among the Venetians, among whom he lived. In the treatise of Lomazzo, Romolo Fiorentino is assigned to the same school; the individual conjectured by P. Orlandi to be the Romolo Cincinnato, a Florentine painter, employed by Philip II. of Spain. He is very honourably mentioned by Palomino, together with his sons and pupils, Diego and Francesco, both eminent artists favoured by Philip IV. and Pope Urban VIII. by whom they were knighted.

Jacopino del Conte, who is also noticed in the Abecedario Pittorico, under the name of Jacopo del Conte, and considered not as the same individual, but as two distinct artists, was little employed in Florence, but in great request in Rome. He was eminent as a portrait painter to all the Popes and the principal nobility of Rome, from the time of Paul III. to that of Clement VIII., in whose pontificate he died. His ability in composition may be discovered in the frescos in S. Gio. Decollato, and especially in the picture of the Deposition in that place, a work which is reckoned among his finest productions. There the competition of his most distinguished countrymen stimulated his exertions for distinction. He was an imitator of Michelangiolo, but in a manner so free, and a colouring so different, that it seems the production of another school. Scipione Gaetano, whom we shall consider in the third book of our history, was his scholar. Of Domenico Beceri, a respectable pupil of Puligo, and of some others of little note, I have nothing further to add.

Angiolo Bronzino was another friend of Vasari, nearly of the same age, and was enumerated among the more eminent artists, from the grace of his countenances, and the agreeableness of his compositions. He is likewise esteemed as a poet. His poems were printed along with those of Berni; and some of his letters on painting are preserved in the collection of Bottari.[204] Although the scholar and follower of Pontormo, he also recals Michelangiolo to our recollection. His frescos in the old palace are praised, adorning a chapel, on the walls of which he represented the Fall of Manna, and the Scourge of the Serpents, histories full of power and spirit; although the paintings on the ceiling do not correspond with them, being deficient in the line of perspective. Some of his altar-pieces are to be seen in the churches of Florence, several of them feebly executed, with figures of angels, whose beauty appears too soft and effeminate. There are many, on the other hand, extremely beautiful, such as his Pietà at S. Maria Nuova, and likewise his Limbo at Santa Croce, in an altar belonging to the noble family of Riccasoli. This picture is better suited for an academy of design, from the naked figure, than for a church; but the painter was too much attached to Michelangiolo to avoid imitating him even in this error. This picture has been lately very well repaired. Many of his portraits are in Italian collections of paintings, which are praiseworthy for their truth and spirit; but their character is frequently diminished by the colour of the flesh, which sometimes partakes of a leaden hue, at other times appears of a dead white, on which the red appears like rouge. But a yellowish tint is the predominant colour in his pictures, and his greatest fault is a want of relief.

The succeeding artists, who are chiefly Florentines, are named by Vasari in the Obsequies of Bonarruoti, in the memoirs of the academicians, written about the year 1567, and in several other places. Their works are scattered over the city, and many of them are to be found in the cloister of S. Maria Novella. If these semicircular pictures had not been retouched and altered, this place would be, with regard to this epoch, what the cloister of the Olivetines in Bologna is to that of the Caracci; an era, indeed, more auspicious for the art, but not more interesting in an historical point of view. Another collection, of which I have spoken in my description of the tenth cabinet of the royal gallery, is better preserved, and indeed is quite perfect. It now occupies another apartment. It consists of thirty-four fabulous and historical pictures, painted on the panels of a writing desk for Prince Francesco,[205] by various artists of this epoch. Vasari, to whom the work was entrusted, there represented Andromeda delivered by Perseus, and procured the assistance of the academicians, who thus emulated each other, and strove to recommend themselves to the court. Most of them have put their names to their work;[206] and, if the defects common to that age, or peculiar to the individual, are here and there visible in the work, it demonstrates that the light of painting was not yet extinguished in Florence. Nevertheless, I advise him who examines this collection, to suspend his judgment on the merits of those artists until he has considered their other productions in their own country or at Rome, where some of them have a place in the choicest collections. They may be divided in several schools: we shall begin with that of Angiolo.

Alessandro Allori, the nephew and pupil of Bronzino, whose surname he sometimes inscribed on his pictures, is reckoned inferior to his uncle. Wholly intent upon anatomy, of which he gave fine examples in the Tribune of the Servi, and on which he composed a treatise for the use of painters, he did not sufficiently attend to the other branches of the art. Some of his pictures in Rome, representing horses, are beautiful; and his sacrifice of Isaac, in the royal museum, is coloured almost in the Flemish style. His power of expression is manifested by his picture of the Woman taken in Adultery in the church of the Holy Spirit. He was expert in portrait painting; but he abused this talent by introducing portraits in the modern costume in ancient histories, a fault not uncommon in that age. On the whole his genius appears to have been equal to every branch of painting; but it was unequally exercised, and consequently unequally expanded. He painted much for foreigners, and enjoyed the esteem of the ducal family, who employed him to finish the pictures at Poggio a Caiano, begun by Andrea del Sarto, Franciabigio, and Pontormo, and by them left more or less imperfect. Opposite to these pictures he painted, from his own invention, the Gardens of the Hesperides, the Feast of Syphax, and Titus Flaminius dissuading the Etolians from the Achæan league; all which historical subjects, as well as those of Cæsar and Cicero, were chosen as symbols of similar events in the lives of Cosmo and Lorenzo de' Medici. Such was the manner of thinking in that age; and moderns personified in ancient heroes obtained a less direct, but higher honour from the art. Giovanni Bizzelli, a disciple of Alessandro, of middling talents, painted in S. Gio. Decollato, at Rome, and in some Florentine churches. Cristofano, a son of Alessandro, became eminent; but he is to be considered hereafter.

Santi Titi, of Città San Sepolcro, a scholar of Bronzino and Cellini, studied long at Rome, whence he returned, with a style full of science and of grace. His beautiful is without much of the ideal; but his countenances exhibit a certain fulness, an appearance of freshness and of health, that is surpassed by none of those who took nature for their model. Design was his characteristic excellence; and for this he was commended by his imitator, Salvator Rosa. In expression he has few superiors in other schools, and none in his own. His ornaments are judicious; and having practised architecture with applause, he introduced perspectives, that gave a dignity and charm to his compositions. He is esteemed the best painter of this epoch, and belongs to it rather from the time in which he lived than his style; if we except his colouring, which was too feeble, and without much relief. Borghini, at once his critic and apologist, remarks that even in this department he was not deficient, when he chose to exert himself; and he seems to have studied it in the Feast of Emmaus, in the church of the Holy Cross at Florence, in the Resurrection of Lazarus, in the cathedral of Volterra, and in a picture at Città di Castello, in which he represents the faithful receiving the Holy Spirit from the hands of the Apostles; a painting that may be viewed with pleasure, even after the three by Raffaello which adorn that city.

Among his numerous pupils in design, we may reckon his son Tiberio; but this artist attended less to the pursuits of his father, than to painting small portraits in vermilion, in which he had singular merit; these were readily received into the collection formed by Cardinal Leopold, which now forms a single cabinet in the royal museum. Two other Florentines are worthy of notice, viz. Agostino Ciampelli, who flourished in Rome under Clement VIII.; and Lodovico Buti, who remained at Florence. They resemble twins by the similarity between them; less scientific, less inventive, and less able in composition, than Titi, they possessed fine ideas, were correct in design, and cheerful in their colouring, beyond the usage of the Florentine school; but they were somewhat crude, and at times profuse in the use of red tints not sufficiently harmonized. Frescos by the first may be seen in the Sacristy at Rome, and the chapel of S. Andrea al Gesù, and an oil painting of the Crucifixion at S. Prassede, in his best manner. A Visitation, with its two companions, at S. Stephen of Pescia, may be reckoned among his choicest works; to which the vicinity of Tiarini does little injury. The second may be recognised by a picture of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, abounding in figures, which is in the royal gallery. Baccio Ciarpi, a pupil of the same school, is celebrated as the master of Berrettini, and deserves to be commended for his diligence and correctness. He was thought worthy of being employed at La Concezione at Rome, a most splendid gallery, painted by the greatest artists of that age. A portrait of one Andrea Boscoli, his pupil and imitator, remains in the royal museum of Florence, and many of his paintings with horses are dispersed through the city. He travelled into different parts, leaving various specimens of his art in different countries, at S. Ginesio, at Fabriano, and other places in the district of Piceno. His largest work is a S. John the Baptist in the attitude of prayer, at the Teresiani of Rimino; a picture that shews invention, but it was unknown to Baldinucci, who compiled anecdotes of this artist. Constantino de' Servi is conjectured by Baldinucci to be a scholar of Titi. He is well known to have been originally his imitator, and having gone into Germany, there adopted the style of Pourbus. In foreign countries he seems to have painted few portraits, a branch in which he had greater merit than employment. His celebrity was greater as a master architect and engraver of gems, as we shall notice in a subsequent epoch. In closing the account of the school of Santi, it may be proper to observe, that his example reclaimed a great proportion of the succeeding generation, and inclined artists to mitigate the severity of the style of Michelangiolo, by introducing more grace in the contours, and a better taste in the heads.

Batista Naldini holds the third rank among the scholars of Bronzino. He was first the pupil of Pontormo, afterwards of Bronzino, and having resided some time at Rome, he was chosen by Vasari as the companion of his labours in the old palace, and retained by him about fourteen years. The historian makes honourable mention of Naldini, even when a young man, and denominates him a painter skilful and vigorous, expeditious and indefatigable. Naldini obtained similar praise in Rome from Baglione, especially for the chapel of John the Baptist, at Trinità de' Monti, which he painted with the history of the saint. He painted many pictures in his native city, some of which, as the taking down from the Cross, and the Purification of the Virgin, are commended by Borghini for the colouring and the design, for the disposition, the perspective, and the attitudes. The defects observable in most of his pictures are, that the knees are rather too much swollen, the eyes too open, and marked with a certain fierceness, by which he may be generally recognized; his colouring is also characteristic, and those changeable hues in which he delighted more than any other artist of the age.

He taught according to the method then pursued by most masters, which was to employ his scholars in designing after the chalk drawings of Michelangiolo, and to give them his own finished pictures to copy; for, like bees, artists were exceedingly anxious to work in secret, and ready to wound all who overlooked them. Baldinucci has recorded several instances of this peculiarity. From these circumstances the fault of the scholars of Naldini was stiffness, the common failing of that age; they had little of that free touch and taste in colouring which he possessed, but yet they deserve to be recorded. Giovanni Balducci, called also Cosci, from the surname of his maternal uncle, was long his assistant. His Last Supper in the cathedral, the Finding of the Cross at the Crocetta, his historical compositions in the cloister of the Domecans at Florence, and in S. Prassede at Rome, prove his genius to have been more refined than that of his master. To second the latter, he now and then, perhaps, went beyond his province, and to some, his attitudes at times appear affected. He resided and died at Naples, and he is deservedly praised by the historians of that city. Cosimo Gamberucci appears to have aimed at a totally different object. On examining a great part of his works, we may say of him, as was observed of the ancient artist, that he has not sacrificed to the Graces. He seems finally to have improved, for he has left some fine pictures, worthy of the following epoch. Peter healing the lame in S. Pier Maggiore, a picture in the style of the Caracci, is the work of his hand. The Servitian monks have a good picture by him in their public hall; and his holy families and cabinet pictures of a high class are to be met with in the city. The Cav. Francesco Currado had a still better opportunity of improvement, for he lived ninety-one years, constantly employed in painting and in teaching. One of his best pictures is on the altar of S. Saverio, in the church of S. Giovannino. He was very eminent in small figures, and in this style he painted the history of the Magdalen, and especially the martyrdom of S. Tecla, of the royal gallery, which are works of his best time. In the same school we may include Valerio Marucelli, and Cosimo Daddi, both artists of some merit; the second is memorable for his celebrated pupil Volterrano, in whose native place he married, and two of his altar-pieces still remain there.

Giovanni Maria Butteri, and Lorenzo dello Sciorina, were two other scholars of Bronzino, and assisted Vasari in the above mentioned pictures on the escrutoire, and in his preparations for festivals. The first imitated Vasari, his master, and Titi; but at all times his colouring was inharmonious; the second has little to boast of beyond his design. Both are honourably mentioned among the academicians; as is also Stefano Pieri, who assisted Vasari in the cupola of the metropolitan church. The sacrifice of Isaac, of the Pitti palace, is ascribed to him, and it is the best of his works executed at Rome, which are censured as hard and dry by Baglione. Cristofano dell'Altissimo, whose talent lay in portrait painting, may be added to these. Giovio had formed the celebrated collection of portraits of illustrious men, which is still preserved at Como, though now divided between the two families of the Conti Giovio, one of which possesses the portraits of learned men, the other those of warriors. From this collection, which the prelate styled his museum, that still existing at Mondragone was copied, and also the collection now in the Florentine gallery, by the labours of Cristofano, who was sent for that purpose to Como by Cosmo I. He copied the features of those celebrated men, but attended little to other circumstances; whence it happens that the Giovian collection exhibits many very dissimilar manners, the Medicean one alone; but the features of the originals are very faithfully expressed.

Michele di Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio instructed many artists in this epoch. From his school, proceeded Girolamo Macchietti, or G. del Crocifissaio, the assistant of Vasari for six years, who afterwards studied for two years at Rome, though already an adept in the art. His example merits imitation, for that school speaks more to the eye than the ear; and he who there employs his eyes judiciously, cannot fail to reap the advantage. After his return to Florence he finished a few valuable pictures with care and assiduity, among which may be noticed an Epiphany for the chapel of the Marquis Della Stufa, at S. Lorenzo, and a martyrdom of S. Lorenzo S. Maria Novella, which is greatly praised by Lomazzo. Borghini also, after commending the beauty, the expression, and the picture in general, scarcely found any thing to censure. It is certainly among the most striking pictures in that church. Macchietti also went to Spain, and was not a little employed at Naples and at Benevento, where he is said to have painted his best pictures. In the Dizionario Storico of the professors of the fine arts at Urbino (Colucci tom. xxxi.) I find mention that Girolamo Macchietti produced some battle-pieces for the hall of the Albani at S. Giovanni; but I see no reason why he should be admitted to a place among native artists belonging to that city, or to the state of Urbino.

Vasari mentions Andrea del Minga, then a youth, as contemporary with Macchietti; yet he is reckoned by Orlandi and Bottari, the fellow student of Michelangiolo. He was among the last pupils of Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio, when the school was chiefly under the direction of Michele; and hence he rather followed the latter than the former. His own works are by no means among the most excellent. In the Prayer in the Garden, which remains in the church of the Holy Cross, he rivals any of his contemporaries; and hence it is alleged, that he was assisted in this picture by three of his friends. Francesco Traballesi, mentioned by Baglione as the painter of some historical frescos in the Greek church at Rome, was a pupil of Michele, but lived too short a time to do him honour. The fable of Danaë, on the writing desk, is the work of his brother Bartolommeo.

About this time lived Bernardino Barbatelli, surnamed Poccetti, an artist omitted by Vasari in the school of Michele, and in the catalogue of the academicians; because at that period he painted only grotesques and fronts of buildings, in which, though he had arrived at great eminence, he had not the reputation he afterwards attained in Rome as an architect, from assiduously studying the works of Raffaello, and of other great masters. He subsequently returned to his native place, not only a pleasing and graceful figurist, but rich and learned in his compositions; hence he was enabled to adorn his historical subjects with beautiful landscapes, with sea-views, with fruit, and flowers, not to mention the magnificence of his draperies, and tapestries, which he imitated to admiration. Very few of his pictures on panel or on canvass, but many of his frescos, remain in almost every corner of Florence; nor does he yield to many Italian masters in this art. Pietro da Cortona used to express his astonishment that he was in his time less esteemed than he merited; and Mengs never came to Florence without going to study him, and diligently searching after his most forgotten frescos. He often painted with careless haste, like a class of poets whose minds are imbued with Parnassian fury and fine imagery, and who recite verses with little preparation, and with little trouble. He is, however, always to be admired, always shews facility and freedom, with that resolute and firm pencil which never makes an erroneous touch; a circumstance from which he has been denominated the Paul of his school. He often studied and made great preparation for his works, and corrected his outline as one would do in miniature painting. Whoever wishes to estimate the powers of this artist should examine the Miracle of the drowned restored to life in the cloister of the Santissima Nunziata, a picture reckoned by some connoisseurs among the best in the city. His fresco works are to be met with nearly throughout all Tuscany, and his circular pictures in the cloister of the Servi at Pistoja, are greatly commended.

Maso Manzuoli, or M. di S. Friano, a scholar of Pierfrancesco di Jacopo and of Portelli, is esteemed equal to Naldini and Allori by Vasari. Nor will this appear strange to any one who beholds his Visitation, which, for many years, decorated S. Pier Maggiore, and was afterwards carried to Rome, where it was deposited in the gallery of the Vatican. It was painted when he was about thirty years of age; and, in the opinion of the historian, it abounds with beauty and grace in the figures, in the draperies, in the architecture, and in every other circumstance. This is his finest work, and is even among the best of that age. In his other pictures at S. Trinità, in the ducal gallery, and elsewhere, he is something dry; and may be compared to some writers who, though they offend not against grammar, are not entitled to the praise of eloquence. Alessandro Fei, or A. del Barbiere, was his companion, and partly his scholar. This artist, who painted in private, received his first instruction in the school of Ghirlandaio, and of Piero Francia. He had a bold and fertile genius, adapted to large historical frescos, in which he introduced fine architecture and grotesques. In his pictures he attended more to design and expression than to colouring; except in some pieces, supposed to be his last productions, and executed after the reformation of the art by Cigoli. His picture of the Flagellation in S. Croce is highly approved by Borghini. Baldinucci admires him, especially in small historical subjects, such as, amongst the pieces on the writing desk, are the Daniel at the Feast of Belshazzar, and that of the goldsmith's art.

Federigo Zuccaro may be reckoned among the instructors of the artists of this epoch; for whilst employed in painting the cupola of the cathedral, where Vasari had only finished a few figures at his death, he taught painting to Bartolommeo Carducci, who became an architect and statuary under Amannati, and an artificer in stucco under another master. Carducci acquired distinction by those talents in the court of his Catholic Majesty, where he was introduced by Zuccaro; and where he established himself and his younger brother and pupil, Vincenzio. Both are mentioned by Palomino among the eminent artists who painted in the court of Spain. Both must be well known there; especially the latter, who lived but little at Florence, and who painted more pictures when in the service of Philip III. and Philip IV. than any of his predecessors or successors. He printed a dialogue in the Spanish tongue, De las Excelencias de la Pintura, from which Baldinucci has quoted some passages in the account of this artist.

Of some of the artists mentioned by Vasari as his assistants in the decoration of the palace, in the preparations for the marriage of Prince Francesco, in the funeral obsequies of Bonarruoti, or in the collection of pictures on the writing desk, the masters are unknown; and the knowledge would be of little consequence. Such artists are Domenico Benci, and Tommaso del Verrocchio, whom he names in his third volume at page 873, and Federigo di Lamberto, a Fleming, called F. del Padovano, whom he had a little before noticed as a new citizen of Florence, and as a considerable ornament to the academy. Omitted by Vasari, but inscribed on the writing desk, we find the names of Niccolo Betti, who painted the story of Cæsar; of Vittor Casini, who there represented the Forge of Vulcan; of Mirabello Cavalori, who pourtrayed Lavinia Sacrificing, and also the emblems of the art of weaving; of Jacopo Coppi, who there painted the Family of Darius, and the invention of gunpowder. I suspect that they were all scholars of Michele; and Vasari has more than once thus generally noticed them. Perhaps Cavalori is the Salincorno mentioned in another place, and Coppi is believed to be that Jacopo di Meglio, who is more severely treated by Borghini than any other in the church of the Holy Cross; and not without reason; for his Ecce Homo in that place has all the defects of this epoch. Whether Coppi is to be identified with this person or not, he cannot be equally reprehended for his pictures on the writing desk; and in S. Salvator at Bologna, he produced a picture of the Redeemer Crucified by the Jews, that might vie with the best pictures in that city previous to the time of the Caracci, and is yet one of those most full of subject and most carefully studied. He imitated Vasari in colouring, and in propriety of invention, in variety of figures, and in diligence in every part, I have seen no picture of Vasari by which it is surpassed. It bears the date of 1579, together with his name. There is an account of two of his frescos in the Guida di Roma; one of which, very copious in subject, is placed in the tribune of S. Pietro in Vincoli.

To the same period belongs the name of Piero di Ridolfo, by whom there is a large altar-piece, consisting of the Ascension, and bearing the date 1612; it is supposed that he took his name from the last of the Ghirlandai, in whose service he may have been during his early life. Whoever may be desirous of adding to the list of names, will find a great number in a letter of Borghini to the Prince D. Francesco (Lett. Pittor. tom. i. p. 90), in which he suggests a plan for the preparations of the Prince's nuptials, as well as the artists best qualified to conduct them. The names, however, I here give would be more than amply sufficient, were it not my wish to illustrate Vasari by every means in my power.

After considering the artists of Florence, on turning to the rest of Tuscany, we find in many places other associates of Giorgio, who, perhaps, had as many assistants in painting as bricklayers in architecture. Stefano Veltroni, of Monte Sansavino, his cousin, was a man of slow parts, but very respectable in the art. He assisted Vasari in the vineyard of Pope Julius; or rather he superintended the grotesque works in that place; and followed his cousin to Naples, to Bologna, and to Florence. I know not whether Orazio Porta, likewise a native of Sansavino, and Alessandro Fortori of Arezzo, ever left Tuscany; they appear to have painted chiefly in their native city and its vicinity. Bastiano Flori and Fra Salvatore Foschi, both natives of Arezzo, were employed in the Roman Chancery, along with Bagnacavallo, and the Spaniards Ruviale and Bizzerra. Andrea Aretino, the scholar of Daniello, lived at a later period, or at least until 1615.[207]

About this time Città San Sepolcro was a seminary for painters, who were either wholly or chiefly educated by Raffaellino; and from this place Vasari invited not only the master, but several of the scholars to assist him in his labours. He was greatly assisted by Cristoforo Gherardi, surnamed Doceno, whose life he has written. This artist was his right hand, if we may be allowed the expression, in almost every place where he was much employed. Gherardi followed his designs with a freedom resulting from a genius pliant, copious, and natural, adapted to ornamental works. Such was his talent for managing fresco colours, that Vasari pronounces himself his inferior: but the grotesques of the Vitelli palace, which are wholly his own, shew him not to have been more vigorous in his colouring. The oil picture of the Visitation in the church of S. Domenico, at Città di Castello, is entirely his own; but Vasari does not mention it. The upper part of the picture of S. Maria del Popolo, at Perugia, is likewise his; and is no less elegant and graceful, than the lower part, which is the work of Lattanzio della Marca, is firm and vigorous. Doceno died in his native place in 1552; and Cosmo I. honoured his tomb with a bust of marble, and an epitaph, in which he is said to be Pingendi arte præstantissimus, and Vasari, who had approved of his labours in the old palace, is called hujus artis facile princeps. It is written in the name of all the Tuscan painters,[208] and is alone sufficient to demonstrate the state of this school, and the taste of Cosmo. After this specimen, it is not surprising that the prince neglected to have his portrait painted by Tiziano, whom he would esteem little in comparison to his own Vasari. It is a true observation that virtues are not hereditary, or, as it is expressed by the poet, they rarely spring up again in the branches. Leo X. was the patron of the arts, and he knew how to appreciate them; but Cosmo encouraged, without possessing taste to discriminate.

The Three Cungi (or Congi, as some will have it) are also claimed by San Sepolcro. Gio. Batista was the servant of Vasari for seven years; Lionardo is described to us as an eminent designer, in the life of Perino, and in that of Zuccaro is said to have been a painter employed in the pontifical palace about 1560, along with his countryman Durante del Nero. For a knowledge of the third brother, Francesco, I am indebted to my learned friend Sig. Annibale Lancisi; and I have since received more particular information from Sig. Giachi, who gives an account of an altar-piece of S. Sebastiano, in the cathedral at Volterra, together with the receipt for its purchase money in 1587, where he is called Francesco di Leonardo Cugni da Borgo. At Rome we cannot judge properly of their style, but it may be discovered in their own country, in the church of S. Rocco, at the convent of the Osservanti, and in other places. Their compositions display great simplicity, their ideas are chiefly drawn from nature, and they attended sufficiently to colouring. Raffaele Scaminossi, a scholar of Raffaellino, painted in a similar but somewhat more lively manner. I learn nothing of Giovanni Paolo del Borgo, except that he was the assistant of Vasari in his very hasty labours in the Chancery, about 1545. He cannot be the Gio. de' Vecchi who painted so much in Rome, as we are informed by Baglione; and who chiefly excelled at Caprarola, when contending with Taddeo Zuccaro, and in the church of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, in the various histories of the Martyr. He appears to have arrived at a later period, as did the three Alberti, who were of a family in San Sepolcro, abounding in painters. They went to study at Rome, and easily formed themselves on the style common to artists in the time of Gregory XIII. There they took up their abode, and there died, after having executed many works, especially in fresco, in that city, and also some memorials of their art in their native country.

The cathedral contains a Nativity by Durante, a subject which he handled better in the Vallicella of Rome, and which is, perhaps, his best performance in that city: in others he is often languid, both in design and colouring, and appears rather a laborious artist than a man of genius. Cherubino, the reputed son of Michele, and the assistant of Daniel di Volterra,[209] was a celebrated engraver on copper, and from this art he derived great assistance in design. Although late in applying to painting, he obtained a name in those times. His proportions were light and spirited; his choirs of angels were agreeable and original; his penciling and whole composition were dexterous and spontaneous. Such is the character of his Trinity in the cathedral of Borgo, in which place there remains the façade of a palace, well conceived, ornamented with arms, genii, and other fanciful devices. He painted the ceiling of the chapel of Minerva in Rome with various ornaments and figures, on a golden ground; in that city, however, he generally assisted his younger brother Giovanni, who introduced a new era in perspective; not only by his works, existing in the houses of private individuals at San Sepolcro, and other cities, but by the fresco perspectives which he executed at Rome. He claims admiration in the sacristy of the church of S. Gio. Laterano, where he imitated the salient and receding angles of architecture; and still more in the grand Clementine salon, the most prodigious and exquisite work in perspective then existing. Baglione highly commends the S. Clement and other figures with which it is ornamented; and remarks that they are admirably foreshortened, and are superior to those of Cherubino, who was not so eminent in perspectives. Baglione mentions a Francesco, the son of Durante, who died at Rome. I am uncertain whether he is the Pierfrancesco to whom we attribute the Ascension, in the church of S. Bartholomew at Borgo, with some pictures of no great merit in the church of S. John, and in other places. History mentions also Donato, Girolamo, Cosimo, and Alessandro Alberti, of whom I can collect nothing further.

The writers of Prato exalt their countryman, Domenico Giuntalocchio, pupil to Soggi, in whose life Vasari mentions Domenico more as an engineer than a painter. He describes him as a correct portrait painter, but so extremely tardy in his works in fresco, that he became tiresome to the Aretini, with whom he for some time dwelt. I cannot point out any genuine picture from his hand; but his memory is still fresh in the minds of his fellow citizens, because, instead of leaving his native place ornamented with his pictures, he left 10,000 crowns as a fund to be appropriated to the education of young artists.

After the death of Daniel, his scholar and relation Giovanni Paolo Rossetti, retired to Volterra, and, as is attested by Vasari, executed works of great merit in this his native place; among which we may reckon the Deposto, in the church of S. Dalmatius. At a short distance from the city is a place which gave name to Niccolò dalle Pomarance, of the family of Circignani. Vasari describes him as a young man of ability. He neglects to inform us who was his master; but he appears to have been Titi, whom he assisted in the great salon of the Belvidere palace. He grew old in Rome, where he left numerous specimens of the labours of his pencil, which he employed with freedom, and at a good price. He shewed himself greatly superior to the artists of this period, in some of his works, as in the Cupola of S. Pudenziana. Cavalier Roncalli was a native of the same place; there are pictures by them both at Pomarance; where there are also some by Antonio Circignani, the son of the former, an able artist, though little known. All three will again be treated of in the third book.

Pistoia possessed at the same time two scholars of Ricciarelli; Biagio da Cutigliano, noticed by Vasari,[210] and P. Biagio Betti Teatino, a miniature painter, sculptor, and historical painter of merit, whom Baglione represents as constantly employed in the service of the church and convent to which he belonged. Leghorn gave birth to Jacopo Rosignoli, pupil of an unknown master, who lived in Piedmont, where his works must be sought. Baccio Lomi, whose style much resembles that of Zuccaro, remained at Pisa: he owes much of his skill and of his reputation to his two nephews, as we shall afterwards relate. Though unknown beyond the limits of his native country, he must not be passed over in silence. The Assumption, in the residence of the Canons, and some of his other pictures, participate of the hardness of the age, but exhibit very good design and colouring.

Paolo Guidotti distinguished himself in the neighbouring state of Lucca, as a painter of genius and of spirit, no less than a man of letters, and well grounded in anatomical knowledge; but his taste was not polished and refined. He came to Rome in the distracted times of Gregory and Sixtus, and lived there during the pontificate of Paul V., who created him a knight, and conservator of Rome: he further permitted him to assume the additional name of Borghese, the family name of the pontiff. Many of his paintings in fresco are preserved at Rome, in the Vatican library, in the Apostolic chamber, and in several churches: the artists with whom he was associated, prove that he was reputed a good artist. Several of his pictures are in his native place; and there is a large piece representing the Republic, in the palace. Girolamo Massei pursued a similar track, only confining himself to the art of painting. Baglione, who gave an account of him, introduces him into Rome as an artist, already much commended for his accuracy; to which Taia adds, that he was both a good designer and colourist; so much so as to lead us to distinguish him from the crowd of Gregorian and Sixtine practitioners, in the same way that he was chosen by P. Danti to ornament the chambers of the Vatican; of which more hereafter. He returned to his native place in his old age, not to employ himself anew, but to die in tranquillity among his friends. Benedetto Brandimarte, of Lucca, is mentioned by Orlandi. I saw a decollation of S. John by this artist in the church of S. Peter, at Genoa, which was but a miserable performance; a single production, however, is not sufficient to decide the character of an artist.

The name of a Pietro Ferabosco is mentioned only by the continuator of Orlandi; he is supposed to have been a native of Lucca, though he is referred to the academy of Rome, where he probably pursued his first studies; I say probably, because the excellence of his colouring in the Titian manner, would lead me rather to include him among the Venetian artists. There are three of his half-length figures, together with his name, and the date of 1616, reported as being in the possession of a gentleman in Portugal; where he resided, most likely, a longer period than in Italy.

We have already noticed some Tuscans who acquired distinction in the inferior branches of painting; such as Veltroni, Constantino de' Servi, Zucchi, and Alberti: Antonio Tempesti, of Florence, a scholar both of Titi and Stradano, was among the first to acquire a celebrated name in Italy for landscapes and for battles. He practised engraving on copper, prepared cartoons for tapestry, and gave scope to his genius in the most fanciful inventions in grotesque and ornamental work. He surpassed his master in spirit, and was inferior to none, not even to the Venetians. In a Letter on Painting by the Marquis Giustiniani,[211] he is adduced as an example of great spirit in design, a gift conferred by nature, and not to be acquired by art. He attempted few things on a large scale, and was not so successful as in small pictures. The Marquis Niccolini, the Order of the Nunziata, and several Florentine families, possess some of his battles painted on alabaster, in which he appears the precursor of Borgognone, who is said to have studied him attentively. He most frequently painted in fresco, as at Caprarola, in the Este Villa at Tivoli, and in many parts of Rome, from the time of Gregory XIII. Most of the historical pictures in the Vatican gallery are the work of his hands; the figures are a palm and a half high, and display astonishing variety and spirit, accompanied by beautiful architecture and landscapes, with every species of decoration. He is not, however, very correct; and his tints are sometimes too much inclined to a brownish hue; but all such faults are pardonable in him, as being occasioned by that pictoric fury which inspired him, that fancy which hurried him from earth, and conducted him through novel and sublime regions, unattempted by the vulgar herd of artists.

[181] "All painters seem to worship him as their great master, prince, and god of design." It is thus Monsig. Claudio Tolomei writes in a letter to Apollonio Filareto, towards the end of the fifth book. Such is the opinion of the artists of the Leonine age, whatever may be the judgment passed in the age of Pius VI.

[182] Baldinucci, tom. ix. p. 35.

[183] He executed a picture of S. Sigismund for the church of S. Lorenzo, at the desire of the noble family of Martelli, which delighted the Duke Cosmo. This picture ought to be removed from the altar, for the tints are fading.

[184] We learn from Pliny, that Filosseno Eretrio, celeritatem præceptoris (Nicomachi) secutus breviores etiamnum quasdam picturæ vias, et compendiarias invenit. (Lib. xxxv. cap. 36.) We perceive, however, from the context, that his pictures were no less perfect on that account; and I believe that those compendious means were more particularly connected with the mechanism of the art.

[185] See Lettere Pittoriche, tom. ii. let. 2.

[186] Bald. tom. ix. p. 35.

[187] See his "Description of the preparations for the marriage of the Prince D. Francesco, of Tuscany." It is inserted in volume xi. of the ed. of Siena, which we frequently allude to.

[188] "Treatises by the Cav. Giorgio Vasari, painter and architect of Arezzo, upon the designs painted by him at Florence, in the palace of their Serene Highnesses, &c.; together with the design of the painting commenced by him in the cupola." It is a posthumous work, supplied by his nephew Giorgio Vasari, who published it in 1588 at Florence. It was republished at Arezzo in 1762, in 4to.

[189] He had been well imbued with literature at Arezzo, and, when a youth at Florence, "he spent two hours every day along with Ippolito and Alessandro de' Medici, under their master Pierio." Vasari nella Vita del Salviati.

[190] See Lett. Pittoriche, tom. iii. lett. 104.

[191] Bottari adduces an authentic document of this in his Preface, page 6.

[192] In the Dedicatory Letter to Cosmo I., prefixed to second edit.

[193] See Lett. Pittor. tom. iii. let. 226.

[194] It is founded also on Vasari's remark, in his Life of Frate: "There is likewise a portrait by F. Gio. da Fiesole, whose life we have given, which is in the part of the Beati;" which cannot, observes Bottari, apply to any other except D. Silvano Razzi, author of the "Vite dei S. S. e Beati Toscani;" among which is found that of B. Giovanni. But this indication would be little; or at least it is not all. The document which clearly reveals the fact, has been pointed out to me by the polite attention of Sig. Luigi de Poirot, Secretary to the Royal Finances; and this is in the "Vite de' SS. e BB. dell' ordine de' Frati Predicatori di Serafino Razzi Domenicano," published after the death of Vasari, in Florence, 1577. In these, treating of works in the fine arts in S. Domenico at Bologna, he adds; "we cannot give a particular account of these histories, but whoever is desirous of it may consult the whole, in the Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, written, for the most part, by D. Silvano Razzi, my brother, for the Cav. Giorgio Vasari of Arezzo, his very intimate friend." After such information, we must suppose that Vasari, having communicated his materials to this monk, received from him a great number of Lives, that boast such elegant prefaces and fine reflections; but that he here and there retouched them; adding things either from haste or inadvertency, not well connected with the context, or repeated elsewhere. And in this way we may account for the many inconsistencies to be met with in a number of Lives, very finely written, but containing passages that do not appear to come from the same pen, and frequently make the author contradict himself.

[195] It is to be observed that Bottari wrote principally to mark the changes that the works described by Vasari had undergone during 200 years. In regard to the emendations pointed out by us, he declares in the Preface, that he could not undertake them for want of time, health, books, and most of all, inclination. However, we are indebted for not a few to him, and also to P. Guglielmo, though not equally so in every school. Both are writers of merit; the former by his citations from printed works, the second for his information of MSS. and unedited authors.

[196] Tom. vii. p. 249.

[197] Vide Taia Descrizione del Palazzo Vaticano, p. 11. Zuccaro did not so readily pardon Vasari, whose work he noted with severity: as did also one of the three Caracci. Lett. Pittor. tom. iv. lett. 210.

[198] Tom. viii. p. 203.

[199] P. 117.

[200] Tom. viii. p. 123.

[201] "Although I do not deny, that he shews himself a little too much the partizan, he ought not to be defrauded of his due praise, as is attempted by the ignorant and invidious; for the completion of such an elegant and finished history must have cost him great study and research, and demanded much ingenuity and discrimination." Idea del Tempio, &c. cap. iv.

[202] Lett. Pittor. tom. i. p. 190.

[203] Lett. Pittor. tom. iii. p. 51.

[204] He examines the question, then keenly contested, whether Sculpture or Painting was the most noble art. He decides in favour of his own profession: and there are some other letters in that volume on the opposite side of the question worthy of perusal. Bonarruoti, on being asked this question by Varchi, was unwilling to give a decision. (See tom. i. p. 7, and p. 22.) After Bonarruoti's decease the contest was renewed, and prose and verse compositions appeared on both sides. Lasca wrote in favour of painting, while Cellini defended sculpture. (See Notes to the Rime of Lasca, p. 314.) Lomazzo is well worthy of notice in his Treatise, lib. ii. p. 158, in which he gives a MS. of Lionardo, drawn up at the request of Lodovico Sforza, where he prefers painting to the sister art.

[205] For an account of this writing desk, which was made during the life of Cosmo I., see Baldinucci, tom. x. p. 154 and 182.

[206] We there may read Allori, Titi, Buti, Naldini, Cosci, Macchietti, Minga, Butteri, Sciorini, Sanfriano, Fei, Betti, Casini, Coppi, and Cavalori; besides Vasari, Stradano, and Poppi, already noticed.

[207] Baglione, in the Life of P. Biagio Betti.

[208] Pictores Hetrusci.

[209] Vasari calls him Michele Fiorentino, and the painter of the Slaughter of the Innocents, which we have noticed at page 187. Orlandi makes him the father of Cherubino, an assertion which is not contradicted by Bottari. I follow Baglione, the contemporary of Cherubino, who says that he was the son of Alberto Alberti, an eminent engraver on copper.

[210] Vasari writes the name da Carigliano, in which he has been followed by other writers on the art, including myself, until I was informed by Sig. Ansaldi that it ought really to be written Cutigliano, taken from a considerable territory in the Pistoiese.

[211] Tom. vi. p. 25.