The History of Painting in Italy, Vol. 2 (of 6)
by Luigi Lanzi · English · Gutenberg #34585 · 701,662 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of Painting in Italy, Vol. 2 (of 6)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The History of Painting in Italy, Vol. 2 (of 6)
Author: Luigi Lanzi
Translator: Thomas Roscoe
Release date: December 8, 2010 [eBook #34585]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34585
Credits: Produced by Barbara Tozier, Carol Brown, Bill Tozier and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF PAINTING IN ITALY, VOL. 2 (OF 6) ***
Produced by Barbara Tozier, Carol Brown, Bill Tozier and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
THE
HISTORY OF PAINTING
IN
ITALY.
VOL. II.
THE
HISTORY OF PAINTING
IN
ITALY,
FROM THE PERIOD OF THE REVIVAL OF
THE FINE ARTS,
TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY:
TRANSLATED
From the Original Italian
OF THE
ABATE LUIGI LANZI.
BY THOMAS ROSCOE.
_IN SIX VOLUMES._
VOL. II.
CONTAINING THE SCHOOLS OF ROME AND NAPLES.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR
W. SIMPKIN AND R. MARSHALL,
STATIONERS'-HALL COURT, LUDGATE STREET.
1828.
J. M'Creery, Tooks Court,
Chancery-lane, London.
CONTENTS
OF
THE SECOND VOLUME.
HISTORY OF PAINTING IN LOWER ITALY.
BOOK THE THIRD.
ROMAN SCHOOL.
Page
EPOCH I. _The old masters_ 1
EPOCH II. _Raffaello and his school_ 48
EPOCH III. _The art declines, in consequence of the
public calamities of Rome, and gradually
falls into mannerism_ 124
EPOCH IV. _Restoration of the Roman school by Barocci
and other artists, subjects of the Roman
state and foreigners_ 177
EPOCH V. _The scholars of Pietro da Cortona, from
an injudicious imitation of their master, deteriorate
the art_--_Maratta and others support
it_ 262
BOOK THE FOURTH.
NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.
EPOCH I. _The old masters_ 345
EPOCH II. _Modern Neapolitan style, founded on the
schools of Raffaello and Michelangiolo_ 368
EPOCH III. _Corenzio, Ribera, Caracciolo, flourish in
Naples_--_Strangers who compete with them_ 389
EPOCH IV. _Luca Giordano, Solimene, and their
scholars_ 426
HISTORY OF PAINTING
IN
LOWER ITALY.
BOOK III.
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 substitute _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 substitute 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 classification 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 assigned him his station as
chief of the school of Florence; but he has judged right in classing 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 assigned 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 Titiano, Paolo Veronese,
and Bassano, 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. Passing 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 title 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 principally derived from Vasari, Baglione, Passeri, 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 passes 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 Titi, 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 Baldassare 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 acumen 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 Assisi, 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.
XXXI.[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 titles 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 class 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 glass in the Museo Trombelli at
Bologna, with the inscription MARIA, and in many bassirilievi of
christian sarcophagi, where she is represented in a similar attitude.
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 title 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
superstition he had succeeded to the title 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 Assisi, 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 assumption 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 noble
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 Assisi. 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
passions. 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 Museo Borgia, 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
Assisi, 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
Assisi, 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 Assisi, 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-establishing 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 class. 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 assumed that
name in memory of Gentile da Fabriano, born in 1421; and Giovanni, who
surpassed his brother in reputation, and from whose school arose
Giorgione and Titian. 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 pronounces 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 passed 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 Duchess 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 attitude 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 noble 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 fresco by 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 attitudes 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 assert 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
Assumption, 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 Niccolo
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. Niccolo 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 Passion,
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 surpassed 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 surpass it."
Perugia, from whence the art derived no common lustre, 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 illustrious name.
Pietro Vannucci della Pieve,[19] as he calls himself in some pictures,
or of Perugia in others, from the citizenship 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
Niccolo 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
circumstance 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 noble 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 class; 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
multitude 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 assigned 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 assistant 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 principal 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 passages 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 assisted Signorelli in Orvieto and other
places; and was assisted 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 noble 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 assures us that
Girolamo was with Pandolfo a considerable time, which cannot be asserted
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 assigned to him, although Vasari asserts 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 Assisi, 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 Assisi, 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 Assisi, a competitor of
Raffaello, although of more mature years, who, from his happy genius was
named L'Ingegno. He assisted 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 Assisi; if they are by
his hand, as is generally believed. It is impossible to behold his
pictures without a feeling of compassion, 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 assigned
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 assist 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.
The succeeding names belonging to this school are not mentioned by
Vasari; a circumstance which does not prove the impropriety of their
admission, as there are many deserving of notice. Mariotti, our guide in
the chronology of this age, and a correct judge of the conformity of
style, notices Mariano di Ser Eusterio, whom Vasari calls Mariano da
Perugia (tom. iv. p. 162), referring to a picture in the church of S.
Agostino in Ancona, which is "not of much interest." In opposition to
this opinion of Vasari, however, Mariotti adduces another picture, of a
respectable class, by Mariano, to be found in S. Domenico di Perugia;
whence we may conclude that this painting is deserving of a place in the
history of art. He also mentions Berto di Giovanni, whom Raffaello
engaged as his assistant to paint a picture for the monks of Monteluci
(of which we shall speak in our notice of Penni) and who was appointed
in this contract by Raphael himself to paint the grado. This grado is in
the sacristy, and is so entirely in the manner of Raffaello, in the
history of the virgin which it represents, that we may conclude either
that Raffaello made the design, or that it was painted by one of his
school. If it was by Berto, it proves him to have been one of those who
exchanged the school of Perugino for that of Raffaello; and if he did
not paint it, he must always be held in consideration for the regard he
received from the master of the art. Of this artist more information may
be obtained from Bianconi, in the Antologia Romana, vol. iii. p. 121.
Mariotti enumerates also Sinibaldo da Perugia, who must be esteemed an
excellent painter from his works in his native place, and more so from
those in the cathedral at Gubbio, where he painted a fine picture in
1505, and a gonfalon still more beautiful, which would rank him among
the first artists of the ancient school. To the above painters Pascoli
adds a female artist of the name of Teodora Danti, who painted cabinet
pictures in the style of Perugino and his scholars.
From tradition, as well as conjecture, we may notice in Citta di
Castello a Francesco of that city, a scholar of Perugino, who, in an
altarpiece in the church of the Conventuals, left an Annunciation with a
fine landscape. He is named in the Guida di Roma, in the account of the
chapel of S. Bernardino in Ara Caeli, where he is supposed to have
worked with Pinturicchio and Signorelli. There is a conjecture, though
no decided proof, that a Giacomo di Guglielmo was a pupil of Pietro,
who, at Castel della Pieve, his native place, painted a gonfalon,
estimated by good judges in Perugia at sixty-five florins; and also a
Tiberio di Assisi, who, in many of the coloured lunettes in the convent
degli Angeli, containing the history of the Life of S. Francis, shews
clearly that Perugino was his prototype, though he had not talent enough
to imitate him. Besides Tiberio, some have assigned to the instructions
of Perugino, the most eminent painter of Assisi, Adone (or Dono) Doni,
not unknown to Vasari, who often mentions him, and particularly in his
life of Gherardi (vol. v. p. 142). He is there called of Ascoli, an
opinion which Bottari maintains against Orlandi, who, on the best
grounds, changed it to Assisi. In Ascoli he is not at all known, but he
is well known in Perugia by a large picture of the Last Judgment in the
church of S. Francis, and still better in Assisi, where he painted in
fresco, in the church of the Angeli, the life of the founder, and of S.
Stephen, and many other pieces, which, for a long period, served as a
school for youth. He had very little of the ancient manner; the truth of
his portraits is occasionally wonderful; his colouring is that of the
latest of the scholars of Perugino; and he appears to be an artist of
more correctness than spirit. I find also a Lattanzio della Marca, of
the school of Perugino, commemorated by Vasari in the above mentioned
life. He is thought to be the same as Lattanzio da Rimino, of whom
Ridolfi makes mention, among the scholars of Giovanni Bellino, as
painting a picture in Venice in rivalship with Conegliano.[24] We are
enabled more correctly to ascertain this from a document in the
possession of Mariotti, of which we shall shortly speak, from which we
not only learn to a certainty his native place, but further, that he was
the son of Vincenzo Pagani, a celebrated painter, as will hereafter be
seen, and that both were living in the year 1553. It appears, therefore,
very probable that Lattanzio was instructed by his father, and that we
may doubt of his being under Bellini, who died about 1516, or under
Perugino, among whose disciples he is not enumerated by the very
accurate Mariotti. It seems certain, that on the death of Vannucci he
succeeded to his fame, and obtained for himself some of the most
important orders in Perugia, as, for instance, the great work of
painting the chambers in the castle. He accomplished this task by the
assistance of Raffaellino del Colle, Gherardi, Doni, and Paperello. He
there commenced the picture of S. Maria del Popolo, and executed the
lower part, where there is a great number of persons in the attitude of
prayer; a fine expression is observable in the countenances, the figures
are well disposed, the landscape beautiful, and there is a strength and
clearness in the colouring, and a taste which, on the whole, is
different from that of Perugino. The upper part of the picture, which is
by Gherardi, has not an equal degree of force. Lattanzio finished his
career by being sheriff of his native city; and of this office, a more
honourable distinction than at the present day, it appears he took
possession in the year 1553, and at that time renounced the art. It is
certain, that, in the before mentioned paper, the Capitano Lattanzio di
Vincenzo Pagani da Monte Rubbiano acknowledges to have received six
scudi of gold from Sforza degli Oddi, as earnest money for a picture
representing the Trinity, with four saints; and engages that in the
ensuing August it should be executed by his father Vincenzo and Tommaso
da Cortona, and this must be the picture still existing in the chapel of
the Oddi in S. Francesco, since the figures particularized in the
agreement are found there; we shall have an opportunity of noticing it
again.
In the _Antichita Picene_, tom. xxi. p. 148, Ercole Ramazzani di
Roccacontrada is recorded as a scholar of Pietro Perugino, and for some
time of Raffaello. A picture of the circumcision, by him, is there
mentioned to be at Castel Planio, with his name and the date of 1588;
and in speaking of the artist it is added, that he possessed a beautiful
style of colour, a charming invention, and a manner approaching to
Barocci. I have never seen the above mentioned picture, nor the others
which he left in his native city, mentioned in the _Memorie_ of
Abbondanziere: but only one by a Ramazzani di Roccacontrada, painted in
the church of S. Francesco, in Matelica, in 1573. Although I cannot
affirm to a certainty that this painter called himself Ercole, I still
suspect him to be the same. It represents the conception of the Virgin,
in which the idea of the subject is taken from Vasari, where Adam, and
others of the Old Testament, are seen bound to the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, as the heirs of sin, while the Virgin triumphs over them
in her exemption from the penalty of the first parents. Ramazzani has
adopted this design, which he had probably seen, but he has executed his
picture on a much larger scale, with better colouring, and much more
expression in the countenances. To conclude, we do not see a trace of
the manner of Perugino, and the period at which he lived seems too late
for him to have received instructions from that artist; and it is most
probable that he was taught by some of his latter scholars, in whom, if
I mistake not, that more fascinating than correct style of colouring had
its origin, before it was adopted by Barocci.
I may further observe, that as Perugino was the most celebrated name at
the beginning of the sixteenth century, many other artists of the Roman
States, who studied the art about his time, are given to his school
without any sufficient authority; and particularly those who retained a
share of the old style. Such was a Palmerini of Urbino, a contemporary
of Raphael, and probably his fellow scholar in early life, of whom there
remains at S. Antonio, a picture of various saints, truly beautiful, and
approaching to a more modern style. In the same style I found, in the
Borghese Gallery at Rome, the Woman of Samaria at the Well, painted by a
Pietro Giulianello, or perhaps _da_ Giulianello, a little district not
far from Rome; an artist deserving to be placed in the first rank of
_quattrocentisti_, although not mentioned by any writer. There are
besides, some pictures by Pietro Paolo Agabiti, who in tom. xx. of the
_Ant. Pic._ is said to be of Masaccio, where he painted in 1531, and
some time afterwards. But I have seen a work by him in the church of S.
Agostino in Sassoferrato, a series of small histories, with an
inscription in which he names Sassoferrato as his native place, with the
date of 1514; a date that will carry him from the moderns to the better
class of the old school. Lorenzo Pittori da Macerata painted in the
church of the Virgin, highly esteemed for its architecture, a picture of
Christ in 1533, in a manner which has been called _antico moderno_. Two
artists, Bartolommeo, and Pompeo his son, flourished in Fano, and
painted in 1534 in conjunction, in the church of S. Michele, the
resurrection of Lazarus. It is wonderful to observe how little they
regarded the reform which the art had undergone. These artists strictly
followed the dry style of the quattrocentisti, with a thorough contempt
of the modern style. Nor was the son at all modernized on leaving his
father's studio. I found at S. Andrea di Pesaro a picture by him of
various saints, which might have done him honour in the preceding age.
Civalli mentions other works by him in a better style: and he certainly
in his lifetime enjoyed a degree of reputation, and was one of the
masters of Taddeo Zuccaro. There are a number of painters of this class,
of whom a long list might be compiled; they are generally represented to
be pupils of some well known master, and in such cases Pietro Perugino
is selected; though it would be more candid to confess our ignorance on
the subject.
It would be improper to pass on to another epoch of art, without
adverting to the grotesque. This branch of the art is censured by
Vitruvius[25] as a creation of portentous monsters beyond the reign of
nature, transferring to canvas the dreams and ravings of a disordered
fancy, as wild as the waves of a convulsed sea, lashed into a thousand
varying forms by the fury of the tempest. This style took its name from
the _grotte_, for so those beautiful antique edifices may be called,
where paintings of this kind are found, covered with earth, and with
buildings of a later period. This style was revived in Rome, where a
greater proportion of these ancient specimens is found, and was restored
at this epoch. Vasari ascribes the revival of them to Morto da Feltro,
and the perfecting of the style to Giovanni da Udine. But he himself,
notwithstanding the little esteem he had for Pinturicchio, calls him the
friend of Morto da Feltro, and allows that he executed many works in the
same manner in Castel S. Angelo. Before him too Pietro his master had
painted some of the same kind in the Sala del Cambio, which Orsini says
are well conceived, and to him likewise a precedent had been afforded by
Benedetto Bonfigli, of whom Taja, in his description of the Vatican
palace, says, that he painted for Innocent VIII. in Rome some singularly
beautiful grotesques. This branch of art was afterwards cultivated in
many of the schools of Italy, particularly in that of Siena. Peruzzi
approved of it in architecture, and adopted it in his painting, and gave
occasion to Lomazzo to offer a defence of it, and precepts, as I before
noticed, and as may be seen in the sixth book of his Trattato della
Pittura, chapter forty-eight.
[Footnote 4: _Dell'errore, che persiste_, &c. see the second index. It
was opposed by Crespi, in his _Dissertazione Anticritica_, referred to
in the same index. It was also opposed by P. dell'Aquila, in the
_Dizionario portatile della Bibbia, tradotto dal francese_, in a note of
some length, on the article S. Luca.]
[Footnote 5: See the _Opuscoli Calogeriani_, tom. xliii. where a learned
dissertation is inserted, which shews that this custom was introduced
about the middle of the fifth century, on occasion of the Council of
Ephesus.]
[Footnote 6: Engraved by command of the learned Cardinal Borgia. The
artists began about the middle of the fifth century, to represent her
with the Infant in her arms. See _Opuscoli Calogeriani_, as above.]
[Footnote 7: "The painter was a man of holy life, and a Florentine,
whose name was Luca, and who was honoured by the common people with the
title of saint." Lami, Deliciae Eruditorum, tom. xv.]
[Footnote 8: So says Vasari, who writes his life, but Padre della Valle
thinks it highly probable that he was the scholar of Cosimati, and not
of Giotto; as Cavallini was contemporary with Giotto. I agree that he
was only a very few years younger, and might have received some
instructions in the school of Cosimati: but who, except Giotto himself,
could have taught him that Giottesque and improved style scarcely
inferior to Gaddi?]
[Footnote 9: In the archives of the Collegiate Church of S. Niccolo, in
Fabriano, is preserved a catalogue of the pictures of the city, which
has been communicated to me by Sig. Can. Claudio Serafini. This picture,
which is divided into five compartments, is there mentioned; and it is
added, that "many celebrated painters visited the place to view this
excellent work, and in particular, the illustrious Raffaello."]
[Footnote 10: In the archives before alluded to, are also mentioned two
ancient pictures of a Giuliano da Fabriano, the one in the church of the
Domenicans, the other in the Church of the Capuchins.]
[Footnote 11: Tom. xxiii. page 83, &c. By the first, is the ancient
picture of S. Maria della Consolazione in that church, erected in 1442.
By the second, are the pictures in the church of S. Rocco, painted about
the year 1463. The third artist painted a picture in the church of S.
Liberato, in 1494.]
[Footnote 12: Galeazzo Sanzio and his sons will be noticed in the second
epoch.]
[Footnote 13: See Vasari, Bologna edition, p. 260.]
[Footnote 14: The commentators of Vasari remark, that when he uses this
phrase, he refers to the year of the death of the artist, or to the
period when he relinquished his art. Pietro must therefore have become
blind about the year 1458, in the sixtieth year of his age, and must
have died about 1484, aged eighty-six. This painter was intimately
connected with the family of Vasari. Lazaro the great-grandfather of
Vasari, who died in 1452, was the friend and imitator of Pietro, and
some time before his death assigned him his nephew Signorelli as a
scholar. We must, therefore, give credit to Vasari's account of
Borghese; for if we discredit him on this occasion, as some have done,
when are we to believe him? It is true, indeed, that he is guilty of a
strange anachronism in mentioning Guidubaldo, the old Duke of Urbino, as
his first patron; but this kind of error is frequent in him, and not to
be regarded.]
[Footnote 15: "Fu eccellentissimo prospettivo, e il maggior geometra de'
suoi tempi." Romano Alberti, Trattato della nobilta della pittura, p.
32. See also Pascoli, Vite, tom. i. p. 90.]
[Footnote 16: It appears that in this art he was preceded by Van Eych of
Flanders. See tom. i. p. 81, &c.; and also the eulogium on him by
Bartolommeo Facio, p. 46, where he praises his skill in geometry, and
refers to several of his pictures, which prove him to have been highly
accomplished, and almost unrivalled in perspective.]
[Footnote 17: If there be any truth in Pietro having been blind for
twenty-four years, I do not know how he could have painted Sixtus IV. On
the other hand this tradition of his blindness comes from Vasari, whose
family was so intimately connected with that of Pietro della Francesca,
that there was less room for error in the life of that artist than in
any other. This excellent picture, of which I have seen a beautiful copy
in the possession of the Duke di Ceri, I should myself rather attribute
to Melozzo.]
[Footnote 18: He is favorably mentioned by Crispolti, in the _Perugia
Augusta_; by Ciatti, in the _Istorie di Perugia_; Alessi, in the _Elogi
de' Perugini illustri_; and by Pascoli, in the _Vite de' Pittori Sc.
Arch. Perugini_; with whom I can in no manner concur in opinion, that
"Benedetto was equal to the best artists of his time, and probably the
first among the early masters who contributed to the introduction of an
improved style," (p. 21). An assertion singularly unjust to Masaccio.]
[Footnote 19: He subscribed himself _de Castro Plebis_, now _Citta della
Pieve_. There, according to Pascoli, the father was born, who afterwards
removed to Perugia, where Pietro was born; but the greater probability
is, that Pietro also was born in Citta della Pieve. _Mariotti._]
[Footnote 20: This resemblance might have arisen from his imitation of
the works of Borghese, (Pietro della Francesca) which he saw in Perugia,
as it most assuredly cannot be proved that Perugino was ever in his
school. P. Valle and others express great doubts of it, and when I
reflect that Vannucci was only twelve years old when Borghese lost his
sight, I regard it as an absurd tradition.]
[Footnote 21: Vasari, at the close of his Life observes, "none of his
scholars ever equalled Pietro in application or in amenity of colour."
Padre della Valle asserts on the contrary, "that he was indebted for a
great portion of his celebrity to the talents displayed by his
scholars;" and says that he detected the touch of Raffaello in his
picture in the Grand Duke's collection; but we must have a stronger
testimony before we submit ourselves to this decision.]
[Footnote 22: Descrizione del Palazzo Vaticano, p. 36.]
[Footnote 23: Consisting of three subjects from the Life of Christ, in
the Chapel of the Holy Sacraments. The Annunciation, the Birth of
Christ, and the Dispute with the Doctors, the best of the three. In one
of these he introduced his own portrait. Vasari does not mention this
fine production.]
[Footnote 24: He probably came to Venice from Rimino, or resided there
for some time. We find other early painters assigned first to one
country and then to another, as Jacopo Davanzo, Pietro Vannucci, Lorenzo
Lotto, &c.]
[Footnote 25: It is said that Mengs, who was desirous of being
considered a philosophical painter, coincided with Vitruvius in opinion.
But this opinion should be restricted to some indifferent specimens; for
when he afterwards saw them painted in the true style of the ancients,
he regarded them with extraordinary pleasure; as in Genoa, which
possesses some beautiful arabesques by Vaga. So the defender of Ratti
assures us.]
ROMAN SCHOOL.
EPOCH II.
_Raffaello and his School._
We are now arrived at the most brilliant period, not only of the Roman
School, but of modern painting itself. We have seen the art carried to a
high degree of perfection by Da Vinci and Bonarruoti, at the beginning
of the sixteenth century, and it is a remarkable fact that the same
period embraces not only Raphael, but also Coreggio, Giorgione, and
Titian, and the most celebrated Venetian painters: so that a man
enjoying the common term of life might have seen the works of all these
illustrious masters. The art in but a few years thus reached a height to
which it had never before attained, and which has never been rivalled,
except in the attempt to imitate these early masters, or to unite in one
style their varied and divided excellences. It seems indeed an ordinary
law of providence, that individuals of consummate genius should be born
and flourish at the same period, or at least at short intervals from
each other, a circumstance of which Velleius Paterculus, after a
diligent investigation, protested he could never discover the real
cause. I observe, he says, men of the same commanding genius making
their appearance together, in the smallest possible space of time; as it
happens in the case of animals of different kinds, which, confined in a
close place, nevertheless each selects its own class, and those of a
kindred race separate themselves from the rest, and unite in the closest
manner. A single age was sufficient to illustrate Tragedy, in the
persons of AEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides: ancient comedy under
Cratinus, Aristophanes, and Eumolpides; and in like manner the new
comedy under Menander, Diphilus, and Philemon. There appeared few
philosophers of note after the days of Plato and Aristotle, and whoever
has made himself acquainted with Isocrates and his school, is acquainted
with the summit of Grecian eloquence. The same remark applies also to
other countries. The great Roman writers are included under the single
age of Octavius: Leo X. was the Augustus of modern Italy; the reign of
Louis XIV. was the brilliant era of French letters, that of Charles II.
of the English.
This rule applies equally to the fine arts. _Hoc idem_, proceeds
Velleius, _evenisse plastis, pictoribus, sculptoribus, quisquis temporum
institerit notis reperiet, et eminentiam cujusque operis arctissimis
temporum claustris circumdatam._[26] Of this union of men of genius in
the same age, _Causas_, he says, _quum semper requiro, numquam invenio
quas veras confidam_. It seems to him probable that when a man finds
the first station in art occupied by another, he considers it as a post
that has been rightfully seized on, and no longer aspires to the
possession of it, but is humiliated, and contented to follow at a
distance. But this solution I confess does not satisfy my mind. It may
indeed account to us why no other Michelangiolo, or Raffaello, has ever
appeared; but it does not satisfy me why these two, and the others
before mentioned, should all have appeared together in the same age. For
myself, I am of opinion that the age is always influenced by certain
principles, universally adopted both by professors of the art, and by
amateurs: which principles happening at a particular period to be the
most just and accurate of their kind, produce in that age some
supereminent professors, and a number of good ones. These principles
change through the instability of all human affairs, and the age
partakes in the change. I may add, nevertheless, that these happy
periods never occur without the circumstance of a number of princes and
influential individuals rivalling each other in the encouragement of
works of taste; and amidst these there always arise some persons of
commanding genius, who give a bias and tone to art. The history of
sculpture in Athens, a city where munificence and taste went hand in
hand, favours my opinion, and it is further confirmed by this golden
period of Italian art. Nevertheless I do not pretend to give a verdict
on this important question, but leave the decision of it to a more
competent tribunal.
But although it be a matter of difficulty to account for this
developement and union of rare talent at one particular period, we may
however hope to trace the steps of a single individual to excellence;
and I would wish to do so of Raffaello. Nature and fortune seemed to
unite in lavishing their favours on this artist; the first in investing
him with the rarest gifts of genius, the other in adding to these a
singular combination of propitious circumstances. In order to illustrate
our inquiry it will be necessary to observe him from his earliest
years,[27] and to note the progress of his mind. He was born in Urbino
in 1483; and if climate, as seems not improbable, have any influence on
the genius of an artist, I know not a happier spot that could have been
chosen for his birth, than that part of Italy which gave to architecture
a Bramante, supplied the art of painting with a successor to Raffaello
in Baroccio, and bestowed on sculpture the plastic hand of a Brandani,
without referring to many less celebrated, but still deserving artists,
who are the boast of Urbino and her state. The father of this
illustrious artist was Giovanni di Santi,[28] or as he has been commonly
called Giovanni Sanzio, an artist of moderate talents, and who could
contribute but little to the instruction of his son; although it was no
small advantage to have been initiated in a simple style, divested of
mannerism. He made some further progress from studying the works of F.
Carnevale, an artist of great merit, for the times in which he
flourished; and being placed at Perugia, under Pietro, he soon became
master of his style, as Vasari observes, and had then probably already
formed the design of excelling him. I was informed in Citta di Castello,
that at the age of seventeen he painted the picture of S. Nicholas of
Tolentino in the church of the Eremitani. The style was that of
Perugino, but the composition differed from that of the age, being the
throne of our Saviour surrounded by saints. The Beato (beatified saint)
is there represented, while the Virgin and St. Augustine, concealed in
part by a cloud, bind his temples with a crown; there are two angels at
the right hand, and two at the left, graceful, and in different
attitudes; with inscriptions variously folded, on which are inscribed
some words in praise of S. Eremitano. Above is the Eternal Father
surrounded by a majestic choir of angels. The actors of the scene appear
to be in a temple, the pillars of which are ornamented in the minute and
laboured style of Mantegna, and the ancient manner is still perceptible
in the folds of the drapery, though there is an evident improvement in
the design, as in the figure of Satan, who lies under the feet of the
saint. This figure is free from the singular deformity with which the
ancient painters represented him; and has the genuine features of an
Ethiopian. To this picture another of this period may be added in the
church of S. Domenico; a Crucifixion, with two attendant angels; the one
receives in a cup the sacred blood which flows from the right hand, the
other, in two cups, collects that of the left hand and the side; the
weeping mother and disciples contribute their aid, while the Magdalen
and an aged saint kneeling in silence contemplate the solemn mystery;
above is the Deity. These figures might all pass for those of Pietro,
except the Virgin, the beauty of which he never equalled, unless perhaps
in the latter part of his life. Another specimen of this period is
noticed by the Abate Morcelli, (de Stylo Inscript. Latin, p. 476). He
states, that in the possession of Sig. Annibale Maggiori, a nobleman of
Fermo, he saw the picture of a Madonna, raising with both hands a veil
of delicate texture from the holy Infant, as he lies in a cradle asleep.
Nigh at hand is S. Joseph, whose eyes rest in contemplation on the happy
scene, and on his staff the same writer detected an inscription in
extremely minute characters, R. S. V. A. A. XVII. P. _Raphael Sanctius
Urbinas an. aetatis 17 pinxit_. This must have been the first attempt of
the design which he perfected at a more mature age, and which is in the
Treasury of Loreto, where the holy Infant is represented, not in the act
of sleeping, but gracefully stretching out his hand to the Virgin: of
the same epoch I judge the _tondini_ to be, which I shall describe in
the course of a few pages, when I refer to the Madonna della Seggiola.
Vasari informs us, that before executing these two pictures, he had
already painted in Perugia an Assumption in the church of the
Conventuals, with three subjects from the life of Christ in the grado;
which may however be doubted, as it is a more perfect work. This picture
possesses all the best parts of the style of Vannucci; but the varied
expressions which the apostles discover on finding the sepulchre void,
are beyond the reach of that artist's powers. Raffaello still further
excelled his master, as Vasari observes, in the third picture painted
for Citta di Castello. This is the marriage of the Virgin, in the church
of S. Francesco. The composition very much resembles that which he
adopted in a picture of the same subject in Perugia; but there is
sufficient of modern art in it to indicate the commencement of a new
style. The two espoused have a degree of beauty which Raffaello scarcely
surpassed in his mature age, in any other countenances. The Virgin
particularly is a model of celestial beauty. A youthful band festively
adorned accompany her to her espousals; splendour vies with elegance;
the attitudes are engaging, the veils variously arranged, and there is a
mixture of ancient and modern drapery, which at so early a period cannot
be considered as a fault. In the midst of these accompaniments the
principal figure triumphantly appears, not ornamented by the hand of
art, but distinguished by her native nobility, beauty, modesty, and
grace. The first sight of this performance strikes us with astonishment,
and we involuntarily exclaim, how divine and noble the spirit that
animates her heavenly form! The group of the men of the party of S.
Joseph are equally well conceived. In these figures we see nothing of
the stiffness of the drapery, the dryness of execution, and the peculiar
style of Pietro, which sometimes approaches to harshness: all is action,
and an animating spirit breathes in every gesture and in every
countenance. The landscapes are not represented with sterile and
impoverished trees, as in the backgrounds of Pietro; but are drawn from
nature, and finished with care. The round temple in the summit is
ornamented with columns, and executed, Vasari observes, with such
admirable art, that it is wonderful to observe the difficulties he has
willingly incurred. In the distance are beautiful groups, and there is a
figure of a poor man imploring charity depicted to the life, and, more
near, a youth, a figure which proves the artist to have been master of
the then novel art of foreshortening. I have purposely described these
specimens of the early years of Raphael, more particularly than any
other writer, in order to acquaint the reader with the rise of his
divine talents. In the labours of his more mature years, the various
masters whose works he studied may each claim his own; but in his first
flight he was exclusively supported by the vigour of his own talents.
The bent of his genius, which was not less voluptuous and graceful than
it was noble and elevated, led him to that ideal beauty, grace, and
expression, which is the most refined and difficult province of
painting. To insure success in this department neither study nor art is
sufficient. A natural taste for the beautiful, an intellectual faculty
of combining the several excellences of many individuals in one perfect
whole, a vivid apprehension, and a sort of fervour in seizing the sudden
and momentary expressions of passion, a facility of touch, obedient to
the conceptions of the imagination; these were the means which nature
alone could furnish, and these, as we have seen, he possessed from his
earliest years. Whoever ascribes the success of Raffaello to the effects
of study, and not to the felicity of his genius, does not justly
appreciate the gifts which were lavished on him by nature.[29]
He now became the admiration of his master and his fellow scholars; and
about the same time Pinturicchio, after having painted with so much
applause at Rome before Raffaello was born, aspired to become, as it
were, his scholar in the great work at Siena. He did not himself possess
a genius sufficiently elevated for the sublime composition which the
place required; nor had Pietro himself sufficient fertility, or a
conception of mind equal to so novel an undertaking. It was intended to
represent the life and actions of AEneas Silvius Piccolomini, afterwards
Pope Pius II.; the embassies entrusted to him by the council of
Constance to various princes; and by Felix, the antipope, to Frederick
III., who conferred on him the laurel crown; and also the various
embassies which he undertook for Frederick himself to Eugenius IV., and
afterwards to Callistus IV., who created him a Cardinal. His subsequent
exaltation to the Papacy, and the most remarkable events of his reign,
were also to be represented; the canonization of S. Catherine; his
attendance on the Council of Mantua, where he was received in a princely
manner by the Duke; and finally his death, and the removal of his body
from Ancona to Rome. Never perhaps was an undertaking of such magnitude
entrusted to a single master. The art itself had not as yet attempted
any great flight. The principal figures in composition generally stood
isolated, as Pietro exhibited them in Perugia, without aiming at
composition. In consequence of this the proportions were seldom true,
nor did the artists depart much from sacred subjects, the frequent
repetition of which had already opened the way to plagiarism. Historical
subjects of this nature were new to Raffaello, and to him, unaccustomed
to reside in a metropolis, it must have been most difficult, in painting
so many as eleven pictures, to imitate the splendour of different
courts, and as we may say, the manners of all Europe, varying the
composition agreeably to the occasion. Nevertheless, being conducted by
his friend to Siena, he made the sketches and cartoons of _all_ these
subjects, says Vasari in his life of Pinturicchio, and that he made the
sketches of the whole is the common report at Siena. In the life of
Raffaello he states that he made _some of the designs and cartoons for
this work_, and that the reason of his not continuing them, was his
haste to proceed to Florence, to see the cartoons of Da Vinci and
Bonarruoti. But I am more inclined to the first statement of Vasari,
than the subsequent one. In April, 1503, Raffaello was employed in the
Library, as is proved by the will of Cardinal Francesco Piccolomini.[30]
While the Library was yet unfinished, Piccolomini was elected Pope on
the twenty-first day of September; and his coronation following on the
eighth of October, Pinturicchio commemorated the event on the outside of
the Library, in the part opposite to the duomo. Bottari remarks, that in
this facade we may detect not only the design, but in many of the heads
the colouring also of Raffaello. It appears probable therefore that he
remained to complete the work, the last subject of which might perhaps
be finished in the following year, 1504, in which he departed to
Florence. We may here observe, that this work, which has maintained its
colours so well that it almost appears of recent execution, confers
great honour on a young artist of twenty years of age; as we do not find
a composition of such magnitude, in the passage from ancient to modern
art, conceived by any single painter. So that if Raffaello stood not
entirely alone in this work, the best part of it must still be assigned
to him, since Pinturicchio himself was improving at this time, and the
works which he afterwards executed at Spello and Siena itself, incline
more to the modern than any he had before done. This will justify us in
concluding that Raffaello had already, at that early age, far
outstripped his master; his contour being more full, his composition
more rich and free, accompanied by an ornamental and grander style, and
an ability unlimited, and capable of embracing every subject that was
presented to him.
The works which he saw in Florence did not lead him out of his own path,
as, to mention one instance, afterwards happened to Franco, who, coming
from Venice, applied himself to a style of design and a career entirely
new. Raffaello had formed his own system, and only sought examples, to
enlarge his ideas and facilitate his execution. He therefore studied the
works of Masaccio, an elegant and expressive painter, whose Adam and Eve
he afterwards adopted in the Vatican. He also became acquainted with Fra
Bartolommeo, who, about this time, had returned to the exercise of his
profession. To this artist he taught the principles of perspective, and
acquired from him, in return, a better style of colouring. We have not
any record to prove that he made himself known to Da Vinci; and the
portrait of Raffaello, in the ducal gallery in Florence, which is said
to be by Lionardo, is an unknown head. I would willingly, however,
flatter myself, that a congeniality of mind and an affinity of genius,
emulous in the pursuit of perfection, must have produced a knowledge of
each other, if it did not conciliate a mutual attachment. No one
certainly was more capable than Da Vinci, of communicating to Raffaello
a degree of refinement and knowledge, which he could not have received
from Pietro; and to introduce him into the more subtle views of art. As
to Michelangiolo, his pictures were rare, and less analogous to the
genius of Raffaello. His celebrated Cartoon was not yet finished, in
1504, and that great master was jealous of its being seen, before its
entire completion. He finished it some few years afterwards, when he
returned to Florence on his flight from Rome, occasioned by the anger of
Julius II. Raffaello therefore could not have had the opportunity of
studying it at that time, nor did he then long remain in Florence, for,
as Vasari states, he was soon obliged to return to his native place, in
consequence of the death of his parents.[31] In 1505 we find him in
Perugia: and to this year belongs the chapel of S. Severo, and the
Crucifixion, which was severed from the wall, and preserved by the Padri
Camaldolensi. From these works, which are all in fresco, we may
ascertain the style which he acquired in Florence; and I think we may
assert, that it was not anatomical, no traces of it being visible in the
body of the Redeemer, which was an opportunity well adapted for the
exhibition of it. Nor was it the study of the beautiful, of which he had
previously exhibited such delightful specimens; nor that of expression,
as there were not to be found in Florence, heads more expressive and
lovely than those he had painted. But after his visit to Florence, we
find his colouring more delicate, and his grouping and the
foreshortening of his figures improved; whether or not he owed it to the
example of Da Vinci or Bonarruoti, or both together, or to some of the
older masters. He afterwards repaired to Florence, but soon quitted it
again, in order to paint in the church of S. Francis, in Perugia, a dead
Christ entombed, the cartoon of which he had designed at Florence; and
which picture was first placed in the church of S. Francis, was
afterwards, in the pontificate of Paul V., transferred to Rome, and is
now in the Borghese palace. After this he returned again to Florence,
and remained there until his departure for Rome, at the end of the year
1508. In this interval, more particularly, he executed the works which
are said to be in his second style, though it is a very delicate matter
to attempt to point them out. Vasari assigns to this period the Holy
Family in the Rinuccini gallery, and yet it bears the date of 1506. Of
this second style is undoubtedly the picture of the Madonna and the
infant Christ and S. John, in a beautiful landscape, with ruins in the
distance, which is in the gallery of the Grand Duke, and others, some of
which are to be found in foreign countries. His pictures of this period
are composed in the more usual style of a Madonna, accompanied by
saints, like the picture of the Pitti palace, formerly at Pescia, and
that of S. Fiorenzo in Perugia, which passed into England. The
attitudes, however, the air of the heads, and smaller features of
composition, are beyond a common style. The dead Christ above mentioned,
is in a more novel and superior style. Vasari calls it a most divine
picture; the figures are not numerous; but each fulfils perfectly the
part assigned to it; the subject is most affecting; the heads are
remarkably beautiful, and the earliest of the kind in the restoration of
art, while the expression of profound sorrow and extreme anguish does
not divest them of their beauty. After finishing this work, Raphael was
ambitious of painting an apartment in Florence, one, I believe, of the
Palazzo Pubblico. There remains a letter of his, in which he requests
the Duke of Urbino to write to the Gonfaloniere Soderini, in April,
1508.[32] But his relative, Bramante, procured him a nobler employ in
Rome, recommending him to Julius II. to ornament the Vatican. He removed
thither, and was already established there in the September of the same
year.[33]
We at length, then, behold him fixed in Rome, and placed in the Vatican
at a period, and under circumstances calculated to render him the first
painter in the world. His biographers do not mention his literary
attainments; and, if we were to judge from his letter just cited, and
now in the Museo Borgia, we might consider him grossly illiterate. But
he was then writing to his uncle; and therefore made use of his native
dialect, as is still done even in the public acts in Venice; though he
might be master of, and might use on proper occasions, a more correct
language. Raffaello, too, was of a family fully competent to afford him
the necessary instructions in his early years. Other letters of his are
found in the _Lettere Pittoriche_, in a very different style; and of his
knowledge in matters of importance, it is sufficient to refer to what
Celio Calcagnini, an eminent literary character of the age of Leo,
states of him to Giacomo Zieglero: "I need not," he says, "mention
Vitruvius, whose precepts he not only explains, but defends or impugns
with evident justice, and with so much temper, that in his objections
there does not appear the slightest asperity. He has excited the
admiration of the Pontiff Leo, and of all the Romans, in such a way,
that they regard him as a man sent down from heaven purposely to restore
the eternal city to its ancient splendour."[34] This acknowledged skill
in architecture must suppose an adequate acquaintance with the Latin
language and geometry; and we know from other quarters, that he
assiduously cultivated anatomy, history, and poetry.[35] But his
principal pursuit in Rome was the study of the remains of Grecian
genius, and by which he perfected his knowledge of art. He studied, too,
the ancient buildings, and was instructed in the principles of
architecture for six years by Bramante, in order that on his death he
might succeed him in the management of the building of S. Peter.[36] He
lived among the ancient sculptors, and derived from them not only their
contours and drapery, and attitudes, but the spirit and principles of
the art itself. Nor yet content with what he saw in Rome, he employed
artists to copy the remains of antiquity at Pozzuolo and throughout all
Italy, and even in Greece. Nor did he derive less assistance from living
artists whom he consulted on his compositions. "The universal esteem
which he enjoyed,"[37] and his attractive person and engaging manners,
which all accounts unite in describing as incomparable, conciliated him
the favour of the most eminent men of letters of his age; and Bembo,
Castiglione, Giovio, Navagero, Ariosto, Aretino, Fulvio, and Calcagnini,
set a high value on his friendship, and supplied him, we may be allowed
to suppose, with hints and ideas for his works.
His rival Michelangiolo, too, and his party, contributed not a little to
the success of Raffaello. As the contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius
was beneficial to them both, so the rivalship of Bonarruoti and Sanzio
aided the fame of Michelangiolo, and produced the paintings of the
Sistine chapel; and at the same time contributed to the celebrity of
Raffaello, by producing the pictures of the Vatican, and not a few
others. Michelangiolo disdaining any secondary honours, came to the
combat, as it were, attended by his shield bearer; for he made drawings
in his grand style, and then gave them to F. Sebastiano, the scholar of
Giorgione, to execute; and by these means he hoped that Raffaello would
never be able to rival his productions either in design or colour.
Raffaello stood alone; but aimed at producing works with a degree of
perfection beyond the united efforts of Michelangiolo and Sebastian del
Piombo, combining in himself a fertile invention, ideal beauty founded
on a correct imitation of the Greek style, grace, ease, amenity, and an
universality of genius in every department of the art. The noble
determination of triumphing in such a powerful contest animated him
night and day, and did not allow him any respite. It also excited him to
surpass both his rivals and himself in every new work which he produced.
The subjects, too, chosen for these chambers, aided him, as they were in
a great measure new, or required to be treated in a novel manner. They
did not profess to represent bacchanalian or vulgar scenes, but the
exalted symbols of science; the sacred functions of religion; military
actions, which contributed to establish the peace of the world;
important events of former days, under which were typified the reigns of
the Pontiffs Julius and Leo X.: the latter the most powerful protector,
and one of the most accomplished judges of art. More favourable
circumstances could not have conspired to stimulate a noble mind. The
eulogizing of Augustus was a theme for the poets of his age, which
produced the richest fruits of genius. Propertius, accustomed to sing
only of the charms or the disdain of his Cinthia, felt himself another
poet when called on to celebrate the triumphs of Augustus; and with
newborn fervour invoked Jove himself to suspend the functions of his
divinity whilst he sang the praises of the emperor.[38] It is certain
that such elevated subjects, in minds richly stored, must excite
corresponding ideas, and thus both in poets and painters, give birth to
the sublime.
Raffaello, on his arrival in Rome, says Vasari, was commissioned to
paint a chamber, which was at that time called La Segnatura, and which,
from the subject of the pictures, was also called the chamber of the
Sciences. On the ceiling are represented Theology, Philosophy, Poetry,
and Jurisprudence. Each of them has on the neighbouring facade a grand
historical piece illustrative of the subject. On the basement are also
historical pieces which belong to the same sciences; and these smaller
performances, and the caryatides and telamoni distributed around, are
monocromati or chiaroscuri, an idea entirely of Raffaello, and
afterwards, it is said, continued by Polidoro da Caravaggio. Raffaello
commenced with Theology, and imitated Petrarch, who in one of his
visions has assembled together men of the same condition, though living
in different ages. He there placed the evangelists, whose volumes are
the foundation of theology; the sacred writers, who have preserved its
traditions; the theologists, S. Thomas, S. Bonaventura, Scotus, and the
rest who have illustrated it by their arguments; above all, the Trinity
in the midst of the beatified, and beneath on an altar the eucharist, as
if to express the mystery of that doctrine. There are traces of the
ancient style in this piece. Gold is made use of in the glories of the
saints, and in other ornamental parts; the upper glory is formed on the
plan of that of S. Severo, which I have already noticed: the composition
is more symmetrical and less free than in other pieces; and the whole,
compared with the other compositions, seems too minute. Nevertheless,
whosoever regards each part in itself, will find it of such careful and
admirable execution, that he will be disposed to prefer it to all other
works. It has been observed, that Raffaello began this piece at the
right side, and that by the time he had arrived at the left side
portion, he had made rapid strides in the art. This work must have been
finished about the year 1508: and such was the surprise and admiration
of the Pope, that he ordered all the works of Bramantino, Pier della
Francesca, Signorelli, l'Abate di Arezzo, and Sodoma (though some of the
ornamental parts by this last are preserved) to be effaced, in order
that the whole chamber might be decorated by Raffaello.
In the subsequent works of Raffaello, and after the year 1509, we do not
find any traces of his first style. He had adopted a nobler manner, and
henceforth applied all his powers to the perfecting of it. He had now to
represent, on the opposite side, Philosophy. In this he designed a
gymnasium in the form of a temple, and placed the learned ancients, some
in the precincts of the building, some on the ascent of the steps, and
others in the plain below. In this, more than on any other occasion, he
was aided by his favourite Petrarch in the third capitolo of his Fame.
Plato, "_che in quella schiera ando piu presso al segno_," is there
represented with Aristotle, "_piu d'ingegno_," in the act of
disputation; and they possess also in the composition, the highest place
of honour; Socrates is represented instructing Alcibiades; Pythagoras is
seen, and before him a youth holds a tablet with the harmonious
concords; and Zoroaster, King of Bactriana, appears with an elementary
globe in his hand. Diogenes is stretched near on the ground, with his
wooden bowl in his hand, "_assai piu che non vuol vergogna aperto_:"
Archimedes is seen "_star col capo basso_," and turning the compasses on
the table, instructs the youth in geometry; and others are represented
meditating, or in disputation, whose names and characters it would be
possible, with careful observation, to distinguish more truly than
Vasari has done. This picture is commonly called the School of Athens,
which in my judgment is just as appropriate, as the name of the
Sacrament bestowed on the first subject. The third picture, representing
Jurisprudence, is divided into two parts. On the left side of the window
stands Justinian, with the book of the Civil Law; Trebonian receives it
from his hand with an expression of submission and acquiescence, which
no other pencil can ever hope to equal. On the right side is seen
Gregory IX. who delivers the book of the Decretals to an advocate of the
Consistory, and bears the features of Julius II., who is thus honoured
in the character of his predecessor. In the concluding picture, which is
a personification of Poetry, is seen Mount Parnassus, where, in company
of Apollo and the muses, the Greek, Roman, and Tuscan poets are
represented in their own portraitures, as far as records will allow.
Homer, seated between Virgil and Dante, is, perhaps, the most striking
figure; he is evidently gifted with a divine spirit, and unites in his
person the characters of the prophet and the poet. The historical pieces
in chiaroscuro contribute, by their ornaments, to charm the sight, and
preserve the unity of design. Beneath the Theology, for instance, is
represented S. Augustine on the borders of the sea, instructed by the
angels not to explore the mystery of the Trinity, incomprehensible to
the human mind. Under the Philosophy, Archimedes is seen surprised and
slain by a soldier, whilst immersed in his studies. This first chamber
was finished in 1511, as that year appears inscribed near the Parnassus.
Vasari, until the finishing of the first chamber, does not speak of the
improvement of his manner; on the contrary, in his life of Raffaello, he
says, "although he had seen so many monuments of antiquity in that city,
and studied so unremittingly, still his figures, up to this period, did
not possess that breadth and majesty which they afterwards exhibited.
For it happened, that the breach between Michelangiolo and the Pope,
which we have before mentioned in his life, occurred about this time,
and compelled Bonarruoti to flee to Florence; from which circumstance,
Bramante obtaining possession of the keys of the chapel, exhibited it to
his friend Raffaello, in order that he might make himself acquainted
with the style of Michelangiolo;" and he then proceeds to mention the
Isaiah of S. Agostino, and the Sibyls della Pace, painted after this
period, and the Heliodorus. In the life of Michelangiolo, he again
informs us of the quarrel which obliged him to depart from Rome, and
proceeds to say, that when, on his return, he had finished one half of
the work, the Pope suddenly commanded it to be exposed; "whereupon
Raffaello d'Urbino, who possessed great facility of imitation,
immediately changed his style, and at one effort designed the Prophets
and Sibyls della Pace." This brings us to a dispute prosecuted with the
greatest warmth both in Italy and other countries. Bellori attacked
Vasari in a violent manner, in a work entitled: "_Se Raffaello ingrandi
e miglioro la maniera per aver vedute le opere di Michelangiolo_,"
(Whether Raffaello enlarged and improved his style on seeing the works
of Michelangiolo). Crespi replied to him in three letters, inserted in
the Lettere Pittoriche,[39] and many other disputants have arisen and
stated fresh arguments.
It is not, however, our province to engage the reader in these
disputations. It was greatly to the advantage of Michelangiolo's fame to
have had two scholars, who, while he was yet living, and after the death
of Raffaello, employed themselves in writing his life; and a great
misfortune to Raffaello not to have been commemorated in the same
manner. If he had survived to the time when Vasari and Condivi wrote, he
would not have passed over their charges in silence. Raffaello would
then have easily proved, that when Bonarruoti fled to Florence, in 1506,
he himself was not in Rome, nor was called thither until two years
afterwards; and that he could not, therefore, have obtained a furtive
glance of the Sistine chapel. It would have been proved too, that from
the year 1508, when Michelangiolo had, perhaps, not commenced his work,
until 1511, in which year he exhibited the first half of it,[40]
Raffaello had been endeavouring to enlarge his style; and as
Michelangiolo had before studied the Torso of the Belvidere, so
Raffaello also formed himself on this and other marbles,[41] a
circumstance easily discoverable in his style. He might too have asked
Vasari, in what he considered grandeur and majesty of style to consist;
and from the example of the Greeks, and from reason herself, he might
have informed him, that the grand does not consist in the enlargement of
the muscles, or in an extravagance of attitude, but in adopting, as
Mengs has observed, the noblest, and neglecting the inferior and meaner
parts;[42] and exercising the higher powers of invention. Hence he would
have proceeded to point out the grandeur of style in the School of
Athens, in the majestic edifice, in the contour of the figures, in the
folds of the drapery, in the expression of the countenances, and in the
attitudes; and he would have easily traced the source of that sublimity
in the relics of antiquity. And if he appeared still greater in his
Isaiah, he might have refuted Vasari from his own account, who assigns
this work to a period anterior to 1511, and therefore contemporary as it
were with the School of Athens: adding, that he elevated his style by
propriety of character, and by the study of Grecian art. The Greeks
observed an essential difference between common men and heroes, and
again between their heroes and their gods; and Raffaello, after having
represented philosophers immersed in human doubts, might well elevate
his style when he came to figure a prophet meditating the revelations of
God.[43] All this might have been advanced by Raffaello, in order to
relieve Bramante and himself from so ill supported an imputation. As to
the rest, I believe he never would have denied, that the works of
Michelangiolo had inspired him with a more daring spirit of design, and
that in the exhibition of strong character, he had sometimes even
imitated him. But how imitated him? In rendering, as Crespi himself
observes, that very style more beautiful and more majestic, (p. 344). It
is indeed a great triumph to the admirers of Raffaello to be able to
say, whoever wishes to see what is wanting in the Sibyls of
Michelangiolo, let him inspect those of Raffaello; and let him view the
Isaiah of Raffaello, who would know what is wanting in the prophets of
Michelangiolo.
After public curiosity was gratified, and Raffaello had obtained a
glimpse of this new style, Bonarruoti closed the doors, and hastened to
finish the other half of his work, which was completed at the close of
1512, so that the Pope, on the solemnization of the Feast of Christmas,
was enabled to perform mass in the Sistine chapel. In the course of this
year, Raffaello was employed in the second chamber on the subject of
Heliodorus driven from the Temple by the prayers of Onias the high
priest, one of the most celebrated pictures of the place. In this
painting, the armed vision that appears to Heliodorus, scatters
lightnings from his hand, while the neighing of the steed is heard
amidst the attendant thunder. In the numerous bands, some of which are
plundering the riches of the Temple, and others are ignorant of the
cause of the surprise and terror exhibited in Heliodorus, consternation,
amazement, joy, and abasement, and a host of passions, are expressed. In
this work, and in others of these chambers, Raffaello, says Mengs, gave
to painting all the augmentation it could receive after Michelangiolo.
In this picture he introduced the portrait of Julius II., whose zeal and
authority is represented in Onias. He appears in a litter borne by his
grooms, in the manner in which he was accustomed to repair to the
Vatican, to view this work. The Miracle of Bolsena was also painted in
the lifetime of Julius.
The remaining decorations of these chambers were all illustrative of the
history of Leo X., whose imprisonment in Ravenna, and subsequent
liberation, is typified by St. Peter released from prison by the angel.
It was in this piece that the painter exhibited an astonishing proof of
his knowledge of light. The figures of the soldiers, who stand without
the prison, are illuminated by the beams of the moon: there is a torch
which produces a second light; and from the angel emanates a celestial
splendour, that rivals the beams of the sun. He has here, too, afforded
another proof how art may convert the impediments thrown in her way to
her own advantage; for the place where he was painting being broken by a
window, he has imagined on each side of it a staircase, which affords an
ascent to the prison, and on the steps he has placed the guards
overpowered with sleep; so that the painter does not seem to have
accommodated himself to the place, but the place to have become
subservient to the painter. The composition of S. Leo the Great, who
checks Attila at the head of his army, and that of the other chamber,
the battle with the Saracens in the port of Ostium, and the victory
obtained by S. Leo IV., justify Raffaello's claim to the epic crown: so
powerfully has he depicted the military array of men and horse, the arms
peculiar to each nation, the fury of the combat, and the despair and
humiliation of the prisoners. Near this performance, too, is the
wonderful piece of the Incendio di Borgo (a city enveloped in fire),
which is miraculously extinguished by the same S. Leo. This wonderful
piece alternately chills the heart with terror, or warms it with
compassion. The calamity of fire is carried to its extreme point, as it
is the hour of midnight, and the fire, which already occupies a
considerable space, is increased by a violent wind, which agitates the
flames that leap with rapidity from house to house. The affright and
misery of the inhabitants is also carried to the utmost extremity. Some
rush forward with water, but are driven back by the scorching flames;
others seek safety in flight, with naked feet, robeless, and with
dishevelled hair; women are seen turning an imploring look to the
Pontiff; mothers, whose own terrors are absorbed in fear for their
offspring; and here a youth, who bearing on his shoulders his aged and
infirm sire, and sinking beneath the weight, collects his almost
exhausted strength to place him out of danger. The concluding subjects
refer to Leo III.; the Coronation of Charlemagne, by the hand of that
Pontiff, and the Oath taken by the Pope on the Holy Evangelists, to
exculpate himself from the calumnies laid to his charge. In Leo, is
meant to be represented Leo X., who is thus honoured in the persons of
his predecessors; and in Charlemagne is represented Francis I., King of
France. Many persons of the age are also figured in the surrounding
group, so that there is not an historical subject in these chambers that
does not contain the most accurate likenesses. In this latter department
of art, also, Raffaello may be said to have been transcendant. His
portraits have deceived even persons the most intimately acquainted with
the subjects of them. He painted a remarkable picture of Leo X., and on
one occasion the Cardinal Datary of that time, found himself approaching
it with a bull, and pen and ink, for the Pope's signature.[44]
The six subjects which relate to Leo, elected in 1513, were finished in
1517. In the nine years which Raphael employed on these three chambers,
and also in the three following years, he made additional decorations to
the Pontifical Palace; he observed the style of ornament suitable to
each part of it, and thus made the Pope's residence a model of
magnificence and taste for all Europe. Few have adverted to this
instance of his merit. He superintended the new gallery of the palace,
availing himself in part of the design of Bramante, and in part
improving on him. "He then made designs for the stuccos, and the various
subjects there painted, and also for the divisions, and he then
appointed Giovanni da Udine to finish the stuccos and arabesques, and
Giulio Romano the figures." The exposure of this gallery to the
inclemencies of the air, has left little remaining besides the squalid
grotesques; but those who saw it at an early period, when the unsullied
splendor of the gold, the pure white of the stuccos, the brilliancy of
the colours, and the newness of the marble, rendered every part of it
beautiful and resplendent, must have thought it a vision of paradise.
Vasari, in eulogizing it, says, "It is impossible to execute, or to
conceive, a more exquisite work." The best which now remain are the
thirteen ceilings, in each of which are distributed four subjects from
holy writ, the first of which, the Creation of the World, Raffaello
executed with his own hand as a model for the others, which were painted
by his scholars, and afterwards retouched and rendered uniform by
himself, as was his custom. I have seen copies of these in Rome,
executed at great cost, and with great fidelity, for Catherine, Empress
of Russia, under the direction of Mr. Hunterberger, and from the effect
which was produced by the freshness of the colours, I could easily
conceive how highly enchanting the originals must have been. But their
great value consisted in Raffaello having enriched them by his
invention, expression, and design, and every one is agreed that each
subject is a school in itself. It appears certain too, that he was
desirous of competing with Michelangiolo, who had treated the same
subject in the Sistine chapel; and of appealing to the public to judge
whether or not he had equalled him. To describe in a suitable manner the
other pictures in chiaroscuro, and the numerous landscapes and
architectural subjects, the trophies, imitations of cameos, masks, and
other things which this divine artist either designed himself or formed
into new combinations from the antique, is a task, says Taja, far above
the reach of human powers. Taja has however himself given us a
delightful description of these works.[45] It confers the highest honour
on Raffaello, to whom we owe the fifty-two subjects, and all the
ornamental parts.
Nor were the pavements, or the doors, or other interior works in the
palace of the Vatican, completed without his superintendence. He
directed the pavements to be formed of _terra invetriata_, an ancient
invention of Luca della Robbia, which having continued for many
generations as a family secret, was then in the hands of another Luca.
Raffaello invited him to Florence to execute this vast work, employed
him in the gallery, and in many of the chambers, which he adorned with
the arms of the Pope. For the couches and other ornaments of the Camera
di Segnatura he brought to Rome F. Giovanni da Verona, who formed them
of mosaic with the most beautiful views. For the entablatures of the
chambers, and for several of the windows and doors, he engaged Giovanni
Barile, a celebrated Florentine engraver of gems. This work was executed
in so masterly a manner, that Louis XIII., wishing to ornament the
palace of the Louvre, had all these intaglios separately copied. The
drawings of them were made by Poussin, and Mariette boasted of having
them in his collection. Nor was there any other work either of stone or
marble for which a design was required, which did not come under the
inspection of Raffaello, and on which he did not impress his taste,
which was consummate also in the sister art of sculpture. A proof of
this is to be seen in the Jonah, in the church of the Madonna del
Popolo, in the Chigi chapel, which was executed by Lorenzetto under his
direction, and which, Bottari says, may assume its place by the side of
the Greek statues. Among his most remarkable works may be mentioned his
designs for the tapestry in the papal chapel, the subjects of which were
from the lives of the Evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles. The
cartoons for them were both designed and coloured by Raffaello; and
after the tapestries were finished in the Low Countries, the cartoons
passed into England, where they still remain. In these tapestries the
art attained its highest pitch, nor has the world since beheld anything
to equal them in beauty. They are exposed annually in the great portico
of S. Peter, in the procession of the _Corpus Domini_, and it is
wonderful to behold the crowds that flock to see them, and who ever
regard them with fresh avidity and delight. But all these works of
Raffaello would not have contributed to the extension of art at that
period, beyond the meridian of Rome, if he had not succeeded in
extending the fruits of his genius, by the means of prints. We have
already noticed M. A. Raimondi, in the first book, and we have shewn
that this great engraver was courteously received, and was afterwards
assisted by Sanzio, whence an abundance of copies of the designs and the
works of this master have been given to the world. A fine taste was thus
rapidly propagated throughout Europe, and the beautiful style of
Raffaello began to be justly appreciated. In a short time it became the
prevailing taste, and if his maxims had remained unaltered, Italian
painting would probably have flourished for as long a period as Greek
sculpture.
In the midst of such a variety of occupations, Raffaello did not fail to
gratify the wishes of many private individuals, who were desirous of
having his designs for buildings, in which branch of art he was highly
celebrated, and also of possessing his pictures. I need only to refer to
the gallery of Agostini Chigi, which he ornamented with his own hand,
with the well known fable of Galatea. He afterwards, with the assistance
of his pupils, painted the Marriage of Psyche, at the banquet of which
he assembled all the heathen deities, with such propriety of form, with
their attendant symbols and genii, that in these fabulous subjects he
almost rivalled the Greeks. These pictures, and those also of the
chambers of the Vatican, were retouched by Maratta, with incredible
care; and the method he adopted, as described by Bellori, may serve as a
guide in similar cases. Raffaello also painted many altarpieces, with
saints generally introduced; as that Delle Contesse at Foligno, where he
introduced the Chamberlain of the Pope, alive, rather than drawn from
the life: that for S. Giovanni in Monte, at Bologna, of S. Cecilia, who,
charmed to rapture by a celestial melody, forgets her musical
instrument, which falls neglected from her hands; that for Palermo, of
Christ ascending Mount Calvary, called _dello Spasimo_, which, however
much disparaged by Cumberland, for having been retouched, is a noble
ornament of the royal collection at Madrid; and the others at Naples and
at Piacenza, which are mentioned by his biographers. He also painted S.
Michael for the King of France, and many other holy families[46] and
devotional subjects, which neither Vasari nor his other biographers have
fully enumerated.
But although the creation of these wonderful works was become a habit in
this great artist, still every part of his productions cannot be
considered as equally successful. It is known, that in the frescos of
the palace, and in the Chigi gallery, he was censured in some naked
figures for errors committed, as Vasari says, by some of his school.
Mengs, who varied his opinions at different periods of his life,
insinuates, that Raffaello for some time seemed to slumber, and did not
make those rapid strides in the art, which might have been expected from
his genius. This was, probably, when Michelangiolo was for some years
absent from Rome. But when he returned, and heard it reported that many
persons considered the paintings of Raffaello superior to his in colour,
of more beauty and grace in composition, and of a correspondent
excellence in design, whilst his works were said to possess none of
these qualities except the last; he was stimulated to avail himself of
the pencil of Fra Sebastiano, and at the same time supplied him with his
own designs. The most celebrated work which they produced in
conjunction, was a Transfiguration, in fresco, with a Flagellation, and
other figures, in a chapel of S. Peter in Montorio. Raffaello being
subsequently employed to paint a picture for the Cardinal Giulio de'
Medici, afterwards Clement VII., Sebastiano, in a sort of competition,
painted another picture of the same size. In the latter was represented
the raising of Lazarus; in the former, with the master's accustomed
spirit of emulation, the Transfiguration. "This is a picture which
combines," says Mengs, "more excellences than any of the previous works
of Raffaello. The expression in it is more exalted and more refined, the
chiaroscuro more correct, the perspective better understood, the
penciling finer, and there is a greater variety in the drapery, more
grace in the heads, and more grandeur in the style."[47] It represents
the mystery of the Transfiguration of Christ on the summit of Mount
Tabor. On the side of the hill he has placed a band of his disciples,
and with the happiest invention has engaged them in an action
conformable to their powers, and has thus formed an episode not beyond
the bounds of probability. A youth possessed is presented to them, that
they may expel the evil spirit that torments him; and in the possessed,
struggling with the presence of the demon, the confiding faith of the
father, the affliction of a beautiful and interesting female, and the
compassion visible in the countenances of the surrounding apostles, we
are presented with perhaps the most pathetic incident ever conceived.
Yet this part of the composition does not fix our regard so much as the
principal subject on the summit of the mountain. There the two prophets,
and the three disciples, are most admirably delineated, and the Saviour
appears enveloped in a glory emanating from the fountain of eternal
light, and surrounded by that chaste and celestial radiance, that is
reserved exclusively for the eyes of the elect. The countenance of
Christ, in which he has developed all his combined ideas of majesty and
beauty, may be considered the masterpiece of Raffaello, and seems to us
the most sublime height to which the genius of the artist, or even the
art itself, was capable of aspiring. After this effort he never resumed
his pencil, as he was soon afterwards suddenly seized with a mortal
distemper, of which he died, in the bosom of the church, on Good Friday,
(also the anniversary of his birthday,) 1520, aged thirty-seven years.
His body reposed for some days in the chamber where he was accustomed to
paint, and over it was placed this noble picture of the Transfiguration,
previous to his mortal remains being transferred to the church of the
Rotonda for interment. There was not an artist that was not moved to
tears at this affecting sight. Raffaello had always possessed the power
of engaging the affections of all with whom he was acquainted.
Respectful to his master, he obtained from the Pope an assurance that
his works, in one of the ceilings of the Vatican, should remain
unmolested; just towards his rivals, he expressed his gratitude to God
that he had been born in the days of Bonarruoti; gracious towards his
pupils, he loved them, and intrusted them as his own sons; courteous
even to strangers, he cheerfully lent his aid to all who asked his
advice; and in order to make designs for others, or to direct them in
their studies, he sometimes even neglected his own work, being alike
incapable of refusing or delaying his inestimable aid. All these
reflections forced themselves on the minds of the spectators, whose eyes
were at one moment directed to the view of his youthful remains, and of
those divine hands that had, in the imitation of her works, almost
excelled nature herself; and at another moment, to the contemplation of
this his latest production, which appeared to exhibit the dawn of a new
and wonderful style; and the painful reflection presented itself, that,
with the life of Raffaello, the brightest prospects of art were thus
suddenly obscured. The Pope himself was deeply affected at his death,
and requested Bembo to compose the epitaph which is now read on his
tomb; and his loss was considered as a national calamity throughout all
Italy. True indeed it is, that soon after his decease, Rome herself, and
her territory, experienced such unheard of calamities, that many had
just cause to envy him, not only the celebrity of his life, but the
opportune period of his death. He was not doomed to see the illustrious
Leo X., at a time when he extended the most exalted patronage to the
arts, poisoned by a sacrilegious hand; nor Clement VII., pressed by an
enraged enemy, seeking shelter in the Castle of S. Angelo, afterwards
compelled to fly for his life, and obliged to purchase, at enormous
sums, the liberty of his servants. Nor did he witness the horrors
attending the sacking of Rome, the nobility robbed and plundered in
their own palaces, the violation of hapless females in the convents;
prelates unrelentingly dragged to the scaffold, and priests torn from
the altars, and from the images of their saints, to whom they looked in
vain for refuge, slaughtered by the sword, and their bodies thrown out
of the churches a prey to the dogs. Nor did he survive to see that city,
which he had so illustrated by his genius, and where he had for so many
years shared the public admiration and esteem, wasted with fire and
sword. But of this we shall speak in another place, and shall here
adduce some observations on his style, selected from various authors,
and more particularly from Mengs, who has ably criticised it in his
works already enumerated by me, as well as in some others.
Raffaello is by common consent placed at the head of his art; not
because he excelled all others in every department of painting, but
because no other artist has ever possessed the various parts of the art
united in so high a degree. Lazzarini even asserts, that he was guilty
of errors, and that he is only the first, because he did not commit so
many as others. He ought, however, to have allowed, that his defects
would be excellences in any other artist, being nothing more in him than
the neglect of that higher degree of perfection to which he was capable
of attaining. The art, indeed, comprehends so many and such difficult
parts, that no individual artist has been alike distinguished in all;
even Apelles was said to yield to Amphion in disposition and harmony, to
Asclepiadorus in proportion, and to Protogenes in application.
The style of design of Raffaello, as seen in those drawings, divested of
colours, which now form the chief ornaments of cabinets, presents us, if
we may use the term, with the pure transcript of his imagination, and we
stand in amaze at the contours, grace, precision, diligence, and genius,
which they exhibit. One of the most admired of his drawings I once saw
in the gallery of the Duke of Modena, a most finished and superior
specimen, uniting in style all the invention of the best painters of
Greece, and the execution of the first artists of Italy. It has been
made a question whether Raffaello did not yield to Michelangiolo in
drawing; and Mengs himself confesses, that he did, as far as regards the
anatomy of the muscles, and in strong expression, in which he considers
Raffaello to have imitated Michelangiolo. But we need not say with
Vasari, that in order to prove that he understood the naked figure as
well as Michelangiolo, he appropriated to himself the designs of that
great master. On the contrary, in the figures of the two youths in the
Incendio di Borgo, criticised by Vasari, one of whom is in the act of
leaping from a wall to escape the flames, and the other is fleeing with
his father on his shoulders, he not only proved that he had a perfect
knowledge of the action of the muscles and the anatomy requisite for a
painter, but prescribed the occasion when this style might be used
without impropriety, as in figures of a robust form engaged in violent
action. He moreover commonly marked the principal parts in the naked
figure, and indicated the others after the example of the better ancient
masters, and where he wrought from his own ideas, his execution was most
correct. On this subject Bellori may be consulted at page 223 of the
work already quoted, and the annotations to vol. ii. of Mengs, (page
197,) made by the Cavaliere d'Azzara, minister of the king of Spain at
Rome, an individual, who, in conferring honour on the artist, has by his
own writing conferred honour on art itself.
In chasteness of design, Raffaello was by some placed on a level with
the Greeks, though this praise we must consider as extravagant. Agostino
Caracci commends him as a model of symmetry; and in that respect, more
than in any other, he approached the ancients; except, observes Mengs,
in the hands, which being rarely found perfect in the ancient statues,
he had not an equal opportunity of studying, and did not therefore
design them so elegantly as the other parts. He selected the beautiful
from nature, and as Mariette observes, whose collection was rich in his
designs, he copied it with all its imperfections, which he afterwards
gradually corrected, as he proceeded with his work. Above all things, he
aimed at perfecting the heads, and from a letter addressed to
Castiglione on the Galatea of the Palazzo Chigi, or of the Farnesina, he
discovers how intent he was to select the best models of nature, and to
perfect them in his own mind.[48] His own Fornarina assisted him in this
object. Her portrait, by Raffaello's own hand, was formerly in the
Barberini palace, and it is repeated in many of his Madonnas, in the
picture of S. Cecilia, in Bologna, and in many female heads. Critics
have often expressed a wish that these heads had possessed a more
dignified character, and in this respect he was, perhaps, excelled by
Guido Reni, and however engaging his children may be, those of Titian
are still more beautiful. His true empire was in the heads of his men,
which are portraits selected with judgment, and depicted with a dignity
proportioned to his subject. Vasari calls the air of these heads
superhuman, and calls on us to admire the expression of age in the
patriarchs, simplicity of life in the apostles, and constancy of faith
in the martyrs; and in Christ in the Transfiguration, he says, there is
a portion of the divine essence itself transferred to his countenance,
and made visible to mortal eyes.
This effect is the result of that quality that is called expression, and
which, in the drawing of Raffaello has attracted more admiration of late
years than formerly. It is remarkable, that not only Zuccaro, who was
indeed a superficial writer, but that Vasari, and Lomazzo himself, so
much more profound than either of them, should not have conferred on him
that praise which he afterwards received from Algarotti, Lazzarini, and
Mengs. Lionardo was the first, as we shall see in the Milanese School,
to lead the way to delicacy of expression; but that master, who painted
so little, and with such labour, is not to be compared to Raffaello, who
possessed the whole quality in its fullest extent. There is not a
movement of the soul, there is not a character of passion known to the
ancients, and capable of being expressed by art, that he has not caught,
expressed, and varied, in a thousand different ways, and always within
the bounds of propriety. We have no tradition of his having, like Da
Vinci, frequented the public streets to seek for subjects for his
pencil; and his numerous pictures prove that he could not have devoted
so much time to this study, while his drawings clearly evince, that he
had not equal occasion for such assistance. Nature, as I have before
remarked, had endowed him with an imagination which transported his mind
to the scene of the event, either fabulous or remote, in which he was
engaged, and awoke in him the very same emotions which the subjects of
such story must themselves have experienced; and this vivid conception
assisted him until he had designed his subject with that distinctness
which he had either observed in other countenances, or found in his own
mind. This faculty, seldom found in poets, and still more rarely in
painters, no one possessed in a more eminent degree than Raffaello. His
figures are passions personified; and love, fear, hope, and desire,
anger, placability, humility, or pride, assume their places by turns, as
the subject changes; and while the spectator regards the countenances,
the air, and the gestures of his figures, he forgets that they are the
work of art, and is surprised to find his own feelings excited, and
himself an actor in the scene before him. There is another delicacy of
expression, and this is the gradation of the passions, by which every
one perceives whether they are in their commencement or at their height,
or in their decline. He had observed their shades of difference in the
intercourse of life, and on every occasion he knew how to transfer the
result of his observations to his canvas. Even his silence is eloquent,
and every actor
"Il cor negli occhi, e nella fronte ha scritto:"
the smallest perceptible motion of the eyes, of the nostrils, of the
mouth, and of the fingers, corresponds to the chief movements of every
passion; the most animated and vivid actions discover the violence of
the passion that excites them; and what is more, they vary in
innumerable degrees, without ever departing from nature, and conform
themselves to a diversity of character without ever risking propriety.
His heroes possess the mien of valour; his vulgar, an air of debasement;
and that, which neither the pen nor the tongue could describe, the
genius and art of Raffaello would delineate with a few strokes of the
pencil. Numbers have in vain sought to imitate him; his figures are
governed by a sentiment of the mind, while those of others, if we except
Poussin and a very few more, seem the imitation of tragic actors from
the scenes. This is Raffaello's chief excellence; and he may justly be
denominated the painter of mind. If in this faculty be included all that
is difficult, philosophical, and sublime, who shall compete with him in
the sovereignty of art?
Another quality which Raffaello possessed in an eminent degree was
grace, a quality which may be said to confer an additional charm on
beauty itself. Apelles, who was supremely endowed with it among the
ancients, was so vain of the possession that he preferred it to every
other attribute of art.[49] Raffaello rivalled him among the moderns,
and thence obtained the name of the new Apelles. Something might,
perhaps, be advantageously added to the forms of his children, and other
delicate figures which he represented, but nothing can add to their
gracefulness, for if it were attempted to be carried further it would
degenerate into affectation, as we find in Parmegiano. His Madonnas
enchant us, as Mengs observes, not because they possess the perfect
lineaments of the Medicean Venus, or of the celebrated daughter of
Niobe; but because the painter in their portraits and in their
expressive smiles, has personified modesty, maternal love, purity of
mind, and, in a word, grace itself. Nor did he impress this quality on
the countenance alone, but distributed it throughout the figure in its
attitude, gesture, and action, and in the folds of the drapery, with a
dexterity which may be admired, but can never be rivalled. His freedom
of execution was a component part of this grace, which indeed vanishes
as soon as labour and study appear; for it is with the painter as with
the orator, in whom a natural and spontaneous eloquence delights us,
while we turn away with indifference from an artificial and studied
harangue.
In regard to the province of colour, Raffaello must yield the palm to
Titian and Correggio, although he himself excelled Michelangiolo and
many others. His frescos may rank with the first works of other schools
in that line: not so his pictures in oil. In the latter he availed
himself of the sketches of Giulio, which were composed with a degree of
hardness and timidity; and though finished by Raffaello, they have
frequently lost the lustre of his last touch. This defect was not
immediately apparent, and if Raffaello's life had been prolonged, he
would have been aware of the injuries his pictures received from the
lapse of time, and would not have finished them in so light a manner. He
is on this account more admired in his first subject in the Vatican,
painted under Julius II., than in those he executed under Leo X., for
being there pressed by a multiplicity of business, and an idea of the
importance of a grander style, he became less rich and firm in his
colouring. That, however, he excelled in these respects is evinced by
his portraits, when not having an opportunity of displaying his
invention, composition, and beautiful style of design, he appears
ambitious to distinguish himself by his colouring. In this respect his
two portraits of Julius II. are truly admirable, the Medicean and the
Corsinian: that of Leo X. between the two cardinals; and above all, in
the opinion of an eminent judge, Renfesthein, that of Bindo Altoviti, in
the possession of his noble descendants at Florence, by many regarded as
a portrait of Raphael himself.[50] The heads in his Transfiguration are
esteemed the most perfect he ever painted, and Mengs extols the
colouring of them as eminently beautiful. If there be any exception, it
is in the complexion of the principal female, of a greyish tint, as is
often the case in his delicate figures; in which he is therefore
considered to excel less than in the heads of his men. Mengs has made
many exceptions to the chiaroscuro of Raffaello, as compared with that
of Correggio, on which connoisseurs will form their own decision. We are
told that he disposed it with the aid of models of wax; and the relief
of his pictures, and the beautiful effect in his Heliodorus, and in the
Transfiguration, are ascribed to this mode of practice. To his
perspective, too, he was most attentive. De Piles found, in some of his
sketches, the scale of proportion.[51] It is affirmed by Algarotti, that
he did not attempt to paint _di sotto in su_. But to this opinion we may
oppose the example we find in the third arch of the gallery of the
Vatican, where there is a perspective of small columns, says Taja,
imitated _di sotto in su_. It is true, that in his larger works he
avoided it; and in order to preserve the appearance of nature, he
represented his pictures as painted on a tapestry, attached by means of
a running knot to the entablature of the room.
But all the great qualities which we have enumerated, would not have
procured for Raffaello such an extraordinary celebrity, if he had not
possessed a wonderful felicity in the invention and disposition of his
subjects, and this circumstance is, indeed, his highest merit. It may
with truth be said, that in aid of this object he availed himself of
every example, ancient and modern; and that these two requisites have
not since been so united in any other artist. He accomplishes in his
pictures that which every orator ought to aim at in his speech--he
instructs, moves, and delights us. This is an easy task to a narrator,
since he can regularly unfold to us the whole progress of an event. The
painter, on the contrary, has but the space of a moment to make himself
understood, and his talent consists in describing not only what is
passing, and what is likely to ensue, but that which has already
occurred. It is here that the genius of Raffaello triumphs. He embraces
the whole subject. From a thousand circumstances he selects those alone
which can interest us; he arranges the actors in the most expressive
manner; he invents the most novel modes of conveying much meaning by a
few touches; and numberless minute circumstances, all uniting in one
purpose, render the story not only intelligible, but palpable. Various
writers have adduced in example the S. Paul at Lystra, which is to be
seen in one of the tapestries of the Vatican. The artist has there
represented the sacrifice prepared for him and S. Barnabas his
companion, as to two gods, for having restored a lame man to the use of
his limbs. The altar, the attendants, the victims, the musicians, and
the axe, sufficiently indicate the intentions of the Lystrians. S. Paul,
who is in the act of tearing his robe, shews that he rejects and abhors
the sacrilegious honours, and is endeavouring to dissuade the populace
from persisting in them. But all this were vain, if it had not indicated
the miracle which had just happened, and which had given rise to the
event. Raffaello added to the group the lame man restored to the use of
his limbs, now easily recognized again by all the spectators. He stands
before the apostles rejoicing in his restoration; and raises his hands
in transport towards his benefactors, while at his feet lie the crutches
which had recently supported him, now cast away as useless. This had
been sufficient for any other artist; but Raffaello, who wished to carry
reality to the utmost point, has added a throng of people, who, in their
eager curiosity, remove the garment of the man, to behold his limbs
restored to their former state. Raffaello abounds with examples like
these, and he may be compared to some of the classical writers, who
afford the more matter for reflection the more they are studied. It is
sufficient to have noticed in the inventive powers of Raffaello, those
circumstances which have been less frequently remarked; the movement of
the passions, which is entirely the work of expression, the delight
which proceeds from poetical conceptions, or from graceful episodes, may
be said to speak for themselves, nor have any occasion to be pointed out
by us.
Other things might contribute to the beauty of his works, as unity,
sublimity, costume, and erudition; for which it is sufficient to refer
to those delightful poetical pieces, with which he adorned the gallery
of Leo X., and which were engraved by Lanfranco and Badalocchi, and are
called the Bible of Raffaello. In the Return of Jacob, who does not
immediately discover, in the number and variety of domestic animals, the
multitude of servants, and the women carrying with them their children,
a patriarchal family migrating from a long possessed abode into a new
territory? In the Creation of the World, where the Deity stretches out
his arms, and with one hand calls forth the sun and with the other the
moon, do we not see a grandeur, which, with the simplest expression,
awakes in us the most sublime ideas? And in the Adoration of the Golden
Calf, how could he better have represented the idolatrous ceremony, and
its departure from true religion, than by depicting the people as
carried away by an insane joy, and mad with fanaticism? In point of
erudition it is sufficient to notice the Triumph of David, which Taja
describes and compares with the ancient bassirelievi, and is inclined to
believe that there is not any thing in marble that excels the art and
skill of this picture. I am aware that on another occasion he has not
been exempted from blame, as when he repeated the figure of S. Peter out
of prison, which hurts the unity of the subject; and in assigning to
Apollo and to the muses instruments not proper to antiquity. Yet it is
the glory of Raffaello to have introduced into his pictures numberless
circumstances unknown to his predecessors, and to have left little to be
added by his successors.
In composition also he is at the head of his art. In every picture the
principal figure is obvious to the spectator; we have no occasion to
inquire for it; the groups, divided by situation, are united in the
principal action; the contrast is not dictated by affectation, but by
truth and propriety; a figure absorbed in thought, often serves as a
relief to another that acts and speaks; the masses of light and shade
are not arbitrarily poised, but are in the most select imitation of
nature; all is art, but all is consummate skill and concealment of art.
The School of Athens, as it is called, in the Vatican, is in this
respect amongst the most wonderful compositions in the world. They who
succeeded Raffaello, and followed other principles, have afforded more
pleasure to the eye, but have not given such satisfaction to the mind.
The compositions of Paul Veronese contain a greater number of figures,
and more decoration; Lanfranco and the machinists introduced a powerful
effect, and a vigorous contrast of light and shade: but who would
exchange for such a manner the chaste and dignified style of Raffaello?
Poussin alone, in the opinion of Mengs, obtained a superior mode of
composition in the groundwork, or economy of his subject; that is to
say, in the judicious selection of the scene of the event.
We have thus concisely stated the perfection to which Raffaello carried
his art, in the short space allotted him. There is not a work in nature
or art where he has not practically illustrated his own axiom, as handed
down to us by Federigo Zuccaro, that things must be represented, not as
they are, but as they ought to be; the country, the elements, animals,
buildings, every age of man, every condition of life, every affection,
all was embraced and rendered more beautiful by the divine genius of
Raffaello. And if his life had been prolonged to a more advanced period,
without even approaching the term allowed to Titian or Michelangiolo,
who shall say to what height of perfection he might not have carried his
favourite art? Who can divine his success in architecture and sculpture,
if he had applied himself to the study of them; having so wonderfully
succeeded in his few attempts in those branches of art?
Of his pictures a considerable number are to be found in private
collections, particularly on sacred subjects, such as the Madonna and
Child, and other compositions of the Holy Family. They are in the three
styles which we have before described: the Grand Duke has some specimens
of each. The most admired is that which is named the Madonna della
Seggiola.[52] Of this class of pictures it is often doubted whether they
ought to be considered as originals, or copies, as some of them have
been three, five, or ten times repeated. The same may be said of other
cabinet pictures by him, particularly the S. John in the desart, which
is in the Grand Ducal gallery at Florence, and is found repeated in many
collections both in Italy and in other countries. This was likely to
happen in a school where the most common mode was the following:--The
subject was designed by Raffaello, the picture prepared by Giulio, and
finished by the master so exquisitely, that one might almost count the
hairs of the head. When the pictures were thus finished, they were
copied by the scholars of Raffaello, who were very numerous, and of the
second and third order; and these were also sometimes retouched by
Giulio and by Raffaello himself. But whoever is experienced in the
freedom and delicacy of the chief of this school, need not fear
confounding his productions with those of the scholars, or of Giulio
himself; who, besides having a more timid pencil, made use of a darker
tint than his master was accustomed to do. I have met with an
experienced person, who declared that he could recognize the character
of Giulio in the dark parts of the flesh tints, and in the middle dark
tints, not of a leaden colour as Raffaello used, nor so well harmonized;
in the greater quantity of light, and in the eyes designed more roundly,
which Raffaello painted somewhat long, after the manner of Pietro.
On this propitious commencement was founded the school which we call
Roman, rather from the city of Rome itself, than from the people, as I
have before observed. For as the inhabitants of Rome are a mixture of
many tongues, and many different nations, of whom the descendants of
Romulus form the least proportion; so the school of painting has been
increased in its numbers by foreigners whom she has received and united
to her own, and who are considered in her academy of S. Luke, as if they
had been born in Rome, and enjoyed the ancient rights of Romans. Hence
is derived the great variety of names that we find in the course of it.
Some, as Caravaggio, derived no assistance from the study of the ancient
marbles, and other aids peculiar to the capital; and these may be said
to have been in the Roman School, but not to have formed a part of it.
Others adopted the principles of the disciples of Raffaello, and their
usual method was to study diligently both Raffaello and the ancient
marbles; and from the imitation of him, and more particularly of the
antique, resulted, if I err not, the general character, if I may so
express it, of the Roman School: the young artists who were expert in
copying statues and bassirelievi, and who had those objects always
before their eyes, could easily transfer their forms to the panel or the
canvas. Hence their style is formed on the antique, and their beauty is
more ideal than that of other schools. This circumstance, which was an
advantage to those who knew how to use it, became a disadvantage to
others, leading them to give their figures the air of statues,
beautiful, but isolated, and not sufficiently animated. Others have done
themselves greater injury from copying the modern statues of saints; a
practice which facilitated the representation of devout attitudes, the
disposition of the folds in the garments of the monks and priests, and
other peculiarities which are not found in ancient sculpture. But as
sculpture has gradually deteriorated, it could not have any beneficial
influence on the sister art; and it has hence led many into mannerism in
the folds of their drapery, after Bernino and Algardi; excellent
artists, but who ought not to have influenced the art of painting, as
they did, in a city like Rome. The style of invention in this school is,
in general, judicious, the composition chaste, the costume carefully
observed, with a moderate study of ornament. I speak of pictures in oil,
for the frescos of this later period ought to be separately considered.
The colouring, on the whole, is not the most brilliant, nor is it yet
the most feeble; there being always a supply of artists from the
Lombards, or Flemings, who prevented it being entirely neglected.
We may now return to the original subject of our inquiry, examine the
principles of the Roman School, and attend it to its latest epoch.
Raffaello at all times employed a number of scholars, constantly
instructing and teaching them; whence he never went to court, as we are
assured by Vasari, without being accompanied by probably fifty of the
first artists, who attended him out of respect. He employed every one in
the way most agreeable to his talent. Some having received sufficient
instruction, returned to their native country, others remained with him
as long as he lived, and after his death established themselves in Rome,
where they became the germs of this new school. At the head of all was
Giulio Romano, whom, with Gio. Francesco Penni, Raffaello appointed his
heir, whence they both united in finishing the works on which their
master was employed at his death. They associated to themselves as an
assistant Perino del Vaga, and to render the connexion permanent, they
gave him a sister of Penni to his wife. To these three were also joined
some others who had worked under Raffaello. On their first establishment
they did not meet with any great success, for, as Vasari informs us, the
chief place in art being by universal consent assigned to Fra
Sebastiano, through the partiality of Michelangiolo, the followers of
Raffaello were kept in the back ground. We may also add, as another
cause, the death of Leo X., in 1521, and the election of his successor,
Adrian VI., a decided enemy to the fine arts, by whom the public works
contemplated, and already commenced by his predecessor, remained
neglected; and many artists, in consequence of the want of employment,
occasioned by this event, and by the plague, in 1523, were reduced to
the greatest distress. But Adrian dying after a reign of twenty-three
months, and Giulio de' Medici being elected in his place under the name
of Clement VII., the arts again revived. Raffaello, before his death,
had begun to paint the great saloon, and had designed some figures, and
left many sketches for the completion of it. It was intended to
represent four historical events, although the subjects of some of them
are disputed. These were the Apparition of the Cross, or the harangue of
Constantine; the battle wherein Maxentius is drowned, and Constantine
remains victor; the Baptism of Constantine, received from the hands of
S. Silvester; and the Donative of the city of Rome, made to the same
pontiff. Giulio finished the two first subjects, and Giovanni Francesco
the other two, and they added to them bassirelievi, painted in imitation
of bronze under each of the same subjects, with some additional figures.
They afterwards painted, or rather finished the pictures of the villa at
Monte Mario, a work ordered by the Cardinal Giulio de' Medici, and
suspended until the second or third year of his papal reign. This villa
was afterwards called di Madama, and there still remain many traces,
although suffering from time, of the munificence of that prince, and the
taste of the school of Raffaello. Giulio meanwhile, with the permission
of the pope, established himself in Mantua, Il Fattore went to Naples;
and some little time afterwards, in 1527, in consequence of the sacking
of Rome, and the unrestrained licence of the invading army, Vaga,
Polidoro, Giovanni da Udine, Peruzzi, and Vincenzio di S. Gimignano left
Rome, and with them Parmigianino, who was at this time in the capital,
and passionately employed in studying the works of Raffaello. This
illustrious school was thus separated and dispersed over Italy, and
hence it happened that the new style was quickly propagated, and gave
birth to the florid schools, which form the subjects of our other books.
Although some of the scholars of Raffaello might return to Rome, yet the
brilliant epoch was past. The decline became apparent soon after the
sacking of the city, and from the time of that event, the art daily
degenerated in the capital, and ultimately terminated in mannerism. But
of this in its proper place. At present, after this general notice of
the school of Raffaello, we shall treat of each particular scholar and
of his assistants.
Giulio Pippi, or Giulio Romano, the most distinguished pupil of
Raffaello, resembled his master more in energy than in delicacy of
style, and was particularly successful in subjects of war and battles,
which he represented with equal spirit and correctness. In his noble
style of design he emulates Michelangiolo, commands the whole mechanism
of the human body, and with a masterly hand renders it subservient to
all his wishes. His only fault is, that his demonstrations of motion are
sometimes too violent. Vasari preferred his drawings to his pictures, as
he thought that the fire of his original conception was apt to
evaporate, in some degree, in the finishing. Some have objected to the
squareness of his physiognomies, and have complained of his middle tints
being too dark. But Niccolo Poussin admired this asperity of colour in
his battle of Constantine, as suitable to the character of the subject.
In the picture of the church dell'Anima, which is a Madonna, accompanied
by Saints, and in others of that description, it does not produce so
good an effect. His cabinet pictures are rare, and sometimes too free in
their subjects. He generally painted in fresco, and his vast works at
Mantua place him at the head of that school, which indeed venerates him
as its founder.
Gianfrancesco Penni of Florence, called Il Fattore, who when a boy was a
servant in the studio of Raffaello, became one of his principal
scholars, and assisted him more than any other in the cartoons of the
tapestries: he painted in the gallery of the Vatican the Histories of
Abraham and Isaac, noticed by Taja. Among other works left incomplete by
his master, and which he finished, is the Assumption of Monte Luci in
Perugia, the lower part of which, with the apostles, is painted by
Giulio, and the upper part, which abounds with Raffaellesque grace, is
ascribed to Il Fattore, although Vasari assigns it to Perino. Of the
works which he performed alone, his frescos in Rome have perished, and
so few of his oil pictures remain, that they are rarely to be found in
any collection. He is characterised by fertility of conception, grace of
execution, and a singular talent for landscape. He was joint heir of
Raffaello with Giulio, and wished to unite himself with him in his
profession; but being coldly received by Giulio in Mantua, he proceeded
to Naples, where he, as we shall see, contributed greatly to the
improvement of art, although cut off by an early death. Orlandi notices
two Penni in the school of Raffaello, comprehending Luca, a brother of
Gianfrancesco, a circumstance not improbable, and not, as far as I know,
contradicted by history. We are also told by Vasari, that Luca united
himself to Perino del Vaga, and worked with him at Lucca, and in other
places of Italy; that he followed Rosso into France, as we have before
observed; and that he ultimately passed into England, where he painted
for the king and private persons, and made designs for prints.
Perino del Vaga, whose true name was Pierino Buonaccorsi, was a relation
and fellow citizen of Penni. He had a share in the works of the Vatican,
where he at one time worked stuccos and arabesques with Giovanni da
Udine, at another time painted chiaroscuri with Polidoro, or finished
subjects from the sketches and after the style of Raffaello. Vasari
considered him the best designer of the Florentine School, after
Michelangiolo, and at the head of all those who assisted Raffaello. It
is certain, at least, that no one could, like him, compete with Giulio,
in that universality of talent so conspicuous in Raffaello; and the
subjects from the New Testament, which he painted in the papal gallery,
were praised by Taja above all others. In his style there is a great
mixture of the Florentine, as may be seen at Rome, in the Birth of Eve,
in the church of S. Marcello, where there are some children painted to
the life, a most finished performance. A convent at Tivoli possesses a
S. John in the desart, by him, with a landscape in the best style. There
are many works by him in Lucca, and Pisa, but more particularly in
Genoa, where we shall have occasion again to consider him as the origin
of a celebrated school.
Giovanni da Udine, by a writer of Udine called Giovanni di Francesco
Ricamatore, (Boni, p. 25,) likewise assisted Sanzio in arabesques and
stuccos, and painted ornaments in the gallery of the Vatican, in the
apartments of the pope, and in many other places. Indeed, in the art of
working in stucco, he is ranked as the first among the moderns,[53]
having, after long experience, imitated the style of the baths of Titus,
discovered at that time in Rome, and opened afresh in our own days.[54]
His foliage and shells, his aviaries and birds, painted in the above
mentioned places, and in other parts of Rome and Italy, deceive the eye
by their exquisite imitation; and in the animals more particularly, and
the indigenous and foreign birds, he seems to have reached the highest
point of excellence. He was also remarkable for counterfeiting with his
pencil every species of furniture; and a story is told, that having left
some imitations of carpets one day in the gallery of Raffaello, a groom
in the service of the Pope coming in haste in search of a carpet to
place in a room, ran to snatch up one of those of Giovanni, deceived by
the similitude. After the sacking of Rome he visited other parts of
Italy, leaving wherever he went, works in the most perfect and brilliant
style of ornament. This will occasion us to notice him in other schools.
At an advanced age he returned to Rome, where he was provided with a
pension from the Pope, till the time of his death.[55]
Polidoro da Caravaggio, from a manual labourer in the works of the
Vatican, became an artist of the first celebrity, and distinguished
himself in the imitation of antique bassirelievi, painting both sacred
and profane subjects in a most beautiful chiaroscuro. Nothing of this
kind was ever seen more perfect, whether we consider the composition,
the mechanism, or the design; and Raffaello and he, of all artists, are
considered in this respect to have approached nearest to the style of
the ancients. Rome was filled with the richest friezes, facades, and
ornaments over doors, painted by him and Maturino of Florence, an
excellent designer, and his partner; but these, to the great loss of
art, have nearly all perished. The fable of Niobe, in the Maschera
d'Oro, which was one of their most celebrated works, has suffered less
than any other from the ravages of time and the hand of barbarism. This
loss has been in some measure mitigated by the prints of Cherubino
Alberti, and Santi Bartoli, who engraved many of these works before they
perished. Polidoro lost his comrade by death in Rome, as was supposed,
by the plague, and he himself repaired to Naples, and from thence to
Sicily, where he fell a victim to the cupidity of his own servant, who
assassinated him. With him invention, grace, and freedom of hand,
seem to have died. This notice of him as an artist may suffice for the
present, as we shall again recur to him in the fourth book, as one of
the masters of the Neapolitan School.
Pellegrino da Modena, of the family of Munari, of all the scholars of
Raffaello, perhaps resembled him the most in the air of his heads, and a
peculiar grace of attitude. After having painted in an incomparable
manner the history of Jacob, before mentioned, and others of the same
patriarch, and some from the life of Solomon, in the gallery of the
Vatican, under Raffaello, he remained in Rome employed in the decoration
of many of the churches, until his master's death. He then returned to
his native place, where he became the head of a numerous succession of
Raffaellesque painters, as we shall in due time relate.
Bartolommeo Ramenghi, or as he is sometimes named, Bagnacavallo, and by
Vasari Il Bologna, is also included in the catalogue of those who worked
in the gallery. There is not however any known work of his in Rome, and
we may say the same of Biagio Pupini, a Bolognese, with whom he
afterwards united himself to paint in Bologna. Vasari is not prodigal of
praise towards the first, and writes with the most direct censure
against the second. Of their merits we shall speak more fully in the
Bolognese School, to which Bagnacavallo was the first to communicate a
new and better style.
Besides these, Vasari mentions Vincenzio di S. Gimignano, in Tuscany, to
whom, as a highly successful imitator of Raffaello, he gives great
praise, referring to some facades in fresco by him, which have now
perished. After the sacking of Rome he returned home, but so changed and
dispirited, that he appeared quite another person, and we have no
account of any of his subsequent works. Schizzone, a comrade of
Vincenzio, a most promising artist, shared the same fate; and we find
also, in the Bolognese School, Cavedone losing his powers by some great
mental affliction. Among the subjects of the Vatican we do not find any
ascribed to Vincenzio, but we may perhaps assign to him the history of
Moses in Horeb, which Taja, on mere conjecture, ascribes to the bold
pencil of Raffaele del Colle, who was employed by Raffaello in the
Farnesina, and in the Hall of Constantine, under Giulio. Of this artist
and his successors we have spoken in the first book, where we have made
some additions to the account of Vasari.
Timoteo della Vite, of Urbino, after some years spent at Bologna in
studying under Francesco Francia, returned to his native city, and from
thence repaired to the academy which his countryman and relation
Raffaello had opened in the Vatican. He assisted Raffaello at the Pace,
in the fresco of the Sybils, of which he retained the cartoons; and
after some time, from some cause or other, he returned to Urbino, and
there passed the remainder of his days. He brought with him to Rome, a
method of painting which partook much of the manner of the early
masters, as may be seen in some of his Madonnas, at the palace
Bonaventura, and the chapter of Urbino; and in a Discovery of the Cross
in the church of the conventuals of Pesaro. He improved his style under
Raffaello, and acquired much of his grace, attitudes, and colour, though
he always remained a limited inventor, with a certain timidity of touch,
more correct than vigorous. The picture of the Conception at the
Osservanti of Urbino, and the Noli me Tangere, in the church of S.
Angelo, at Cagli, are the best pieces that remain of Timoteo. Pietro
della Vite, who is supposed to have been his brother, painted in the
same style, but in an inferior manner. This Pietro is, perhaps, the
relative and heir of Raffaello, whom Baldinucci mentions in his fifth
volume. The same writer affirms, at the end of his fourth volume, that
the artists of Urbino included amongst the scholars of Raffaello one
Crocchia, and assign to him a picture at the Capuchins in Urbino, of
which I have no further knowledge.
Benvenuto Tisi, of Ferrara, or as he is generally called, Il Garofalo,
also studied only a little time under Sanzio; but it was sufficient to
enable him to become, as we shall notice hereafter, the chief of the
Ferrarese School. He imitated Raffaello in design, in the character of
his faces, and in expression, and considerably also in his colouring,
although he added something of a warmer and stronger cast, derived from
his own school. Rome, Bologna, and other cities of Italy, abound with
his pictures from the lives of the apostles. They are of various merit,
and are not wholly painted by himself. In his large pictures he stands
more alone, and many of these are to be found in the Chigi gallery. The
Visitation in the Palazzo Doria, is one of the first pieces in that rich
collection. This artist was accustomed, in allusion to his name, to mark
his pictures with a violet, which the common people in Italy call
garofalo. It does not appear from Vasari, Titi, and Taja, that Garofalo
had any share in the works which were executed by Raffaello and his
scholars.
Gaudenzio Ferrari is mentioned by Titi, as an assistant of Raffaello in
the story of Psyche, and we shall advert to him again in another book as
chief of the Milanese School. Orlandi, on the credit of some more modern
writers, asserts, that he worked with Raffaello also at Torre Borgia;
and before that time, he considers him to have been a scholar of Scotto
and Perugino. In Florence, and in other places in Lower Italy, some
highly finished pictures are attributed to him, which partake of the
preceding century, though they do not seem allied to the school of
Perugino. Of these pictures we shall resume our notice hereafter; at
present it may be sufficient to remark, that in Lombardy, where he
resided, there is not a picture in that style to be found with his name
attached to it. He is always Raffaellesque, and follows the chiefs of
the Roman School.
Vasari also notices Jacomone da Faenza. This artist assiduously studied
the works of Raffaello, and from long practice in copying them, became
himself an inventor. He flourished in Romagna, and it was from him that
a Raffaellesque taste was diffused throughout that part of Italy. He is
also mentioned by Baldinucci, and we shall endeavour to make him better
known in his proper place.
Besides the above mentioned scholars and assistants of Raffaello,
several others are enumerated by writers, of whom we may give a short
notice. Il Pistoja, a scholar of Il Fattore, and probably employed by
him in the works of Sanzio, as Raffaellino del Colle was with Giulio, is
mentioned as a scholar of Raffaello by Baglione, and, on the credit of
that writer, also by Taja. We mentioned him among the Tuscans, and shall
further notice him in Naples, where we shall also find Andrea da
Salerno, head of that school, whom Dominici proves to be a scholar of
Raffaello.
In the _Memorie di Monte Rubbiano_, edited by Colucci, at page 10,
Vincenzo Pagani, a native of that country, is mentioned as a pupil of
the same master. There remains of him in the collegiate church there, a
most beautiful picture of the Assumption; and the Padre Civalli points
out another in Fallerone and two at Sarnano, in the church of his
religious fraternity, much extolled, and in a Raffaellesque manner, if
we are to credit report. This painter, of whom, in Piceno, I find traces
to the year 1529, again appears in Umbria in 1553, where Lattanzio his
son, being elected a magistrate of Perugia, he transferred himself
thither, and was employed to paint the altarpiece of the Cappella degli
Oddi, in the church of the Conventuals, as we have already mentioned.
According to the conditions of the contract, Paparelli had a share with
him in this work, and he must be considered as an assistant of Vincenzo,
both because he is named as holding the second place, and because he is
reported by Vasari on other occasions, as having been an assistant. But
as history mentions nothing relative to this picture, except the
contract, we shall content ourselves with observing, that this
praiseworthy artist, who was passed over in silence for so many years,
still painted in the year 1553. Whether he was a scholar of Raffaello,
or whether this was a tradition which arose in his own country in
progress of time, supported only on the consideration of his age and his
style, is a point to be decided by proofs of more authority than those
we possess. I agree with the Sig. Arciprete Lazzari, when, writing of F.
Bernardo Catelani of Urbino, who painted in Cagli the picture of the
great altar in the church of the Capucins, he says, that he had there
exhibited the style of the school of Raffaello, but he does not consider
him his scholar.
It has been asserted, that Marcantonio Raimondi painted some pictures
from the sketches of Raffaello, in a style which excited the admiration
of the designer himself; but this appears doubtful, and is so considered
by Malvasia. L'Armenini also assigns to this school, Scipione Sacco, a
painter of Cesena, and Orlandi, Don Pietro da Bagnaja, whom we shall
mention in the Romagna School. Some have added to it Bernardino Lovino,
and others Baldassare Peruzzi, a supposition which we shall shew to be
erroneous. Padre della Valle has more recently revived an opinion, that
Correggio may be ranked in the same school, and that he was probably
employed in the gallery, and might have painted the subject of the Magi,
attributed by Vasari to Perino. This is conjectured from the peculiar
smile of the mother and the infant. But these surmises and conjectures
we may consider as the chaff of that author, who has nevertheless
presented us with much substantial information. We shall now advert to
the foreigners of this school. Bellori has enumerated, among the
imitators of Raffaello, Michele Cockier, or Cocxie, of Malines, of whom
there remain some pictures in fresco in the church dell'Anima. Being
afterwards in Flanders, where several works of Raffaello were engraved
by Cock, he was accused of plagiarism, but still maintained a
considerable reputation; as to a fertile invention he added a graceful
style of execution. Many of his best pictures passed into Spain, and
were there purchased at great prices. Palomino acquaints us with another
excellent scholar of Sanzio, Pier Campanna, of Flanders, who, although
he could not entirely divest himself of the hardness of his native
school, was still highly esteemed in his day. He resided twenty years in
Italy, and was employed in Venice by the Patriarch Grimani, for whom he
painted several portraits, and the celebrated picture of the Magdalen
led by Saint Martha to the Temple, to hear the preaching of Christ. This
picture, which was bequeathed by the Patriarch to a friend, after a
lapse of many years, passed into the hands of Mr. Slade, an English
gentleman. Pier Campanna distinguished himself in Bologna, by painting a
triumphal arch on the arrival of Charles V., by whom he was invited to
Seville, where he resided a considerable time, painting and instructing
pupils, among whom is reckoned Morales, who, from his countrymen, had
the appellation of the divine. He was accustomed to paint small
pictures, which were eagerly sought after by the English, and
transferred to their country, where they are highly prized. Of his
altarpieces, several remain in Seville, and we may mention the
Purification, in the Cathedral, and the Deposition at S. Croce, as the
most esteemed. Murillo, who was himself a truly noble artist, greatly
admired and studied this latter picture, which, even after we have seen
the masterpieces of the Italian School, still excites our astonishment
and admiration. This artist, to some one, who, in his latter years,
inquired why he so often repaired to this picture, replied, that he
waited the moment when the body of Christ should reach the ground.
Mention is also made of one Mosca, whether a native or foreigner I know
not, as a doubtful disciple of this school. Christ on his way to Mount
Calvary, now in the Academy in Mantua, is certainly a Raffaellesque
picture, but we may rather consider Mosca an imitator and copyist, than
a pupil of Raffaello. In the edition of Palomino, published in London,
1742, I find some others noticed as scholars of Raffaello, who being
born a little before or after 1520, could not possibly belong to him; as
Gaspare Bacerra, the assistant of Vasari; Alfonso Sanchez, of Portugal;
Giovanni di Valencia; Fernando Jannes. It is not unusual to find similar
instances in the history of painting, and the reports have for the most
part originated in the last age. Whenever the artists of a country began
to collect notices of the masters who had preceded them, their style had
become the prevailing taste; and as if human genius could attain no
improvement beyond that which it receives subserviently from another,
every imitator was supposed to be a scholar of the artist imitated, and
every school, arrogating to itself the names of the first masters,
endeavoured to load itself with fresh honours.
[Footnote 26: Hist. Rom. vol. i. ad calcem.]
[Footnote 27: Besides his life by Vasari, another was published by Sig.
Abate Comolli, which I consider posterior to that of Vasari. Memoirs of
him were also collected by Piacenza, Bottari, and other authors whom I
shall notice; and I shall also avail myself of the information derived
from the inspection of his pictures, and their character, and the
various dates of his works.]
[Footnote 28: We find his name written _Io. Sanctis_ in the Nunziata of
Sinigaglia; and it appears that he was born of a father called,
according to the expression of that age, _Santi_ or _Sante_; a name in
common use in many parts of Italy. In support of the surname of Sanzio,
Bottari produces a portrait of Antonio Sanzio, which exists in the
Palazzo Albani, representing him holding in his hands a document, with
the title of _Genealogia Raphaelis Sanctii Urbinatis_. Julius Sanctius
is there named as the head of the family, _familiae quae adhuc Urbini
illustris extat, ab agris dividendis cognomen imposuit_, and was the
progenitor of Antonio. From the latter, and through a Sebastiano, and
afterwards through a Gio. Batista, descends Giovanni, _ex quo ortus est
Raphael qui pinxit a. 1519_. It is also recorded that Sebastiano had a
brother, Galeazzo, _egregium pictorem_, and the father of three
painters, Antonio, Vincenzio, and Giulio, called _maximus pictor_. Thus
in this branch of the Sanzii are enumerated four painters, of whom I do
not find any memorial in Urbino. The family also boasts of a Canon in
divinity, and a distinguished captain of infantry. The anonymous writer
of Comolli confirms this illustrious origin of Raffaello; but it is
highly probable, that in that age, when the forgery of genealogies, as
Tiraboschi observes, was a common practice, he may have adopted it
without any examination. The portrait of Antonio is well executed, but
it has been said that it would have been much more so, if Raffaello had
painted it a year before his death, according to the inscription. If
connoisseurs (who alone ought to decide this point) should be of this
opinion, it may be suspected that the person that counterfeited the hand
of the artist, might also substitute the writing; or we may at least
conclude, that the etymology of Sanzio should be sought for in the word
_Sanctis_, the name of the grandfather of Raffaello, not in _sancire_,
(to divide fields or property). In tom. xxxi. of the Ant. Picene, a will
is produced of Ser Simone di Antonio, in 1477, where a _Magister
Baptista, qu. Peri Sanctis de Peris_, who is called _Pittor di grido e
di eccellenza_, leaves his son Tommaso his heir, to whom is substituted
a son of Antonio his brother, of the name of Francesco. I may remark,
that in this _Batista di Pier Sante de' Pieri_, we may find the surname
of a family different from that of Sanzia. But on this subject I hope we
shall shortly be favoured with more certain information by the Sig.
Arciprete Lazzari, who has obliged me with many valuable contributions
to the present edition of this work.]
[Footnote 29: Condivi, in his Life of Bonarruoti, (num. 67.) assures us
that Michaelangelo was not of a jealous temper, but spoke well of all
artists, not excepting Raffaello di Urbino, "between whom and himself
there existed, as I have mentioned, an emulation in painting; and the
utmost that he said was, that Raffaello did not inherit his excellences
from nature, but obtained them through study and application."]
[Footnote 30: See the Preface to the Life of Raffaello, by Vasari,
_ediz. Senese_, p. 228, where the will is quoted.]
[Footnote 31: Vasari states, that that event occurred either whilst
Michaelangelo was employed upon the Statues in S. Pietro in Vincoli, or
whilst he was painting the vault of the Sistine Chapel, that is, some
years afterwards, when Raffaello was in Rome. To this second opinion,
which is the most common one, I formerly assented; but since, on perusal
of a Brief of Julius II. (Lett. Pittoriche, tom. iii. p. 320) in which
that Pope invites Michaelangelo back to Rome, and promises that
_illaesus, inviolatusque erit_, I am inclined to believe that the Cartoon
was finished in 1506, which is the date of the brief; so that Raffaello,
if he could not see it on his first visit to Florence, might at least
have done so on his second or third.]
[Footnote 32: See Vasari, ed. Sen. tom. v. p. 238, where we find the
Letter written from him to one of his uncles, with all the
provincialisms common to the inhabitants of Urbino and its
neighbourhood.]
[Footnote 33: Malvasia, _Felsina Pittrice_, tom. i. p. 45. There are
some facts, however, in opposition to this letter, and which seem to
prove that Raffaello did not go to Rome until 1510. But the Sig. Abate
Francesconi is now employed in rectifying the chronology of the Life and
Works of Sanzio; and from his critical sagacity we may expect the
solution of this difficulty.]
[Footnote 34: See Le Aggiunte al Vasari. Ed. Senese, p. 223.]
[Footnote 35: A sonnet by him is referred to by Sig. Piacenza, in his
notes to Baldinucci, tom. xi. p. 371.]
[Footnote 36: In compliance with the wishes of Leo X. he made drawings
of the buildings of Ancient Rome, and accompanied them with
descriptions, employing the compass to ascertain their admeasurement. We
owe this information to Sig. Abate Francesconi, who has restored to
Sanzio a letter, formerly attributed to Castiglione. It is a sort of
dedication of the work to Leo X.; but the work itself and the drawings
are lost; and many of the edifices measured by Raffaello were destroyed
in the following Pontificates. The Abate Morelli has made public a high
eulogium on this work, by a contemporary pen, in the notes to the
Notizia, page 210. It is written by one Marcantonio Michiel, who
asserts, that Raffaello had drawn the ancient buildings of Rome in such
a manner, and shewn their proportions, forms, and ornaments so
correctly, that whoever had inspected them might be said to have seen
Ancient Rome.]
[Footnote 37: In a brief of Leo X. 1514, mentioned by Sig. Piacenza,
tom. ii. p. 321.]
[Footnote 38:
Caesaris in nomen ducuntur carmina: Caesar
Dum canitur, quaeso, Jupiter ipse vaces.
Prop. lib. iv. Eleg. vi.]
[Footnote 39: Vol. ii. p. 323 et seq.]
[Footnote 40: See the first letter of Crespi, Lettere Pittoriche, tom.
ii. p. 338.]
[Footnote 41: Mengs has observed, that Raffaello diligently studied the
bassirelievi of the arches of Titus and Constantine, which were on the
arch of Trajan, and adopted from them his manner of marking the
articulations of the joints, and a more simple and an easier mode of
expressing the contour of the fleshy parts. Riflessioni sopra i tre gran
Pittori, &c. cap. 1.]
[Footnote 42: Riflessioni su la bellezza e sul gusto della Pittura,
parte iii. cap. 1, and see the _Osservazioni_ of the Cav. Azara on that
tract, Sec.. xii.]
[Footnote 43: A doubt has arisen on the exact time in which he painted
the Prophet and the Sybils, and from the grandeur of their style doubts
have been thrown on Vasari's account, that they were painted anterior to
1511. But a painter who is the master of his art, elevates or lowers his
style according to his subject. The Sybils are in Raffaello's grandest
style; and that they are amongst his earliest works, is proved from his
having had Timoteo della Vite, as his assistant in them.]
[Footnote 44: Lett. Pittor. tom. v. p. 131.]
[Footnote 45: Commencing at p. 139.]
[Footnote 46: I do not find that any mention has been made of his
picture in the possession of the Olivieri family at Pesaro, or of the
one in the Basilica di Loreto in the Treasury, which seems to be the
same which was formerly in the church of the Madonna del Popolo, or a
copy of it. I have seen a similar subject in the Lauretana, belonging to
the Signori Pirri, in Rome. At Sassoferrato also, on the great altar of
the church of the Capucins, there is a Virgin and child, said to be by
him; but it is more probably by Fra Bernardo Catelani. There exist
engravings of the two first, but I have not seen any of the last.]
[Footnote 47: Riflessioni sopra i tre gran Pittori, &c., cap. i. Sec. 2.]
[Footnote 48: Lo dico con questa condizione che V. S. si trovasse meco a
far la scelta del meglio: ma essendo carestia e di buoni giudici e di
belle donne, mi servo di una certa idea che mi viene in mente. Lett.
Pittor. tom. i. p. 84.]
[Footnote 49: Plin. Hist. Natur. lib. xxxv. cap. 10. Quintil. Instit.
Orat. xii. 10.]
[Footnote 50: Portraits of Raffaello are to be found in the Duomo, and
in the Sacristy of Siena, in more than one picture; but it is doubtful
whether by his own hand or that of Pinturicchio. That which is mentioned
in the Guida di Perugia, as being in a picture of the Resurrection at
the Conventuals, is said to be by Pietro Perugino: and in the Borghese
gallery in Rome, there is one, supposed to be by the hand of Timoteo
della Vite. The portrait in the gallery in Florence, by Da Vinci, bears
some resemblance to Raffaello, but it is not he. Another which I have
seen in Bologna, ought, perhaps, to be ascribed to Giulio Romano. One of
the most authentic portraits of Raffaello, by his own hand, next to the
one in the picture of S. Luke, is that in the Medici Collection in the
_Stanza de' Pittori_, though this is not in his best manner.]
[Footnote 51: Idee de Peintre parfait, chap. xix.]
[Footnote 52: Engraved by Morghen. The three figures, the Madonna, the
Infant, and St. John, appear almost alive. It should seem that Raffaello
made several studies for this picture, and he painted one without the
St. John, which remained for some time in Urbino. I saw a copy in the
possession of the Calamini family, at Recanati, which was said to be by
Baroccio, and at all events belonging to his school. I have seen the
same subject in the Casa Olivieri, at Pesaro, and at Cortona, in the
possession of another noble family, to whom it had passed by inheritance
from Urbino, and was considered to be by Raffaello. The faces in these
are not so beautiful, nor the colours so fine; they are round, and in a
larger circle, with some variations: I have also seen a copy in the
Sacristy of S. Luigi de' Franzesi, in Rome, and in the Palazzo
Giustiniani.]
[Footnote 53: Morto da Feltro sotto Alessandro VI., comincio a dipingere
a grottesco, ma senza stucchi. Baglione, Vite, p. 21.]
[Footnote 54: The entrance into these baths was designedly and
maliciously closed. Serlio, in speaking of the various arabesques in
Pozzuolo, Baja, and Rome, says that they were injured or destroyed by
the artists who had copied them, through a jealous feeling lest others
should also avail themselves of the opportunity of studying them, (lib.
iv. c. 11). The names of these destroyers, which Serlio has suppressed,
posterity has been desirous of recovering, and some have accused
Raffaello, others Pinturicchio, and others Vaga, or Giovanni da Udine,
or rather his scholars and assistants, "of whom," says Vasari, "there
were an infinite number in every part of Italy." This subject is ably
discussed by Mariotti, in _Lettera_ ix. p. 224, and in the _Memorie
delle belle Arti_, per l'anno 1788, p. 24.]
[Footnote 55: It was charged on the office of the Piombo, or papal
signet, when Sebastiano da Venezia was invested with it, and was a
pension of three hundred scudi. Padre Federici observes that the one was
designated Fra Sebastiano, but that the other was not called Fra
Giovanni; nor is this remarkable, for a Bishop is called Monsignore, but
the person who enjoys a pension charged upon a Bishoprick has not the
same title. It cannot however be deduced from this, as Federici wishes
to do, that Sebastiano was first Frate di S. Domenico, by the name of F.
Marco Pensaben, and afterwards secularized by the Pope, and appointed to
the signet, and that he retained the _Fra_ in consequence of his former
situation.]
ROMAN SCHOOL.
EPOCH III.
_The art declines in consequence of the public calamities of
Rome, and gradually falls into mannerism._
After the mournful events of the year 1527, Rome for some time remained
in a state of stupor, contemplating her past misfortunes and her future
destiny; and, like a vessel escaped from shipwreck, began slowly to
repair her numerous losses. The soldiers of the besieging army, among
other injuries committed in the Apostolic palace, had defaced some heads
of Raffaello; and F. Sebastiano, an artist by no means competent to such
a task, was employed to repair them. This, at least, was the opinion of
Titian, who was introduced to these works, and ignorant of the
circumstances, asked Sebastiano what presumptuous wretch had had the
audacity to attempt their restoration;[56] an impartial observation,
against which even the patronage of Michelangiolo could not shield the
artist. Paul III. was now in possession of the papal chair, and under
his auspices the arts again began to revive. The decoration of the
palace of Caprarola, and other works of Paul and his nephews, gave
employment to the painters, and happy had these patrons been, could they
have found a second Raffaello. Bonarruoti, as we have observed, was
engaged by the Pope, and gave to the Roman School many noble specimens
of art, though he formed but few scholars. Sebastiano, after the death
of Raffaello, freed from all further competition with that great artist,
and honoured with the lucrative office of the papal signet, seemed
disposed to rest from his labours; and as he had never, at any time,
discovered great application, he now resigned himself to a life of
vacant leisure, and Vasari does not mention with commendation any pupil
of his school except Laureti.[57] Giulio Romano was now invited back to
Rome, and the superintendence of the building of S. Peter's offered to
him, but death prevented his return to his native city. Perino del Vaga,
however, repaired to Rome, and might, himself, have effected the
restoration of art, if his magnanimity had corresponded with the
sublimity of his mind. But he did not inherit the daring genius of his
master. He communicated his instructions with jealousy, and worked with
a spirit of gain, or to speak correctly, he did not paint himself, but
undertaking works of more or less consequence, he allowed his scholars
to execute them, often to the injury of his own reputation. He continued
to secure to himself artists of the first talents, as we shall see; but
this was done with the intention of making them dependant on him, and to
prevent their interfering with his emoluments and commissions. But
together with the good, he engaged also many indifferent and inferior
artists, whence it happens, that in the chambers of the castle of S.
Angelo, and in other places, we meet with so marked a difference in many
of his works. Few of his scholars attained celebrity. Luzio Romano is
the most noted, and possessed a good execution. Of him there exists a
frieze in the Palazzo Spada; and for some time, too, he had for an
assistant Marcello Venusti of Mantua, a young man of great talents, but
diffident, and probably standing in need of more instruction than Perino
afforded him. He afterwards received some instructions from Bonarruoti,
whose ideas he executed in an excellent manner, as I have mentioned
before, and by his aid he became himself also a good designer.[58]
Perino, by these means, always abounded in work and in money. A similar
traffic in the art was carried on by Taddeo Zuccaro, if we are to
believe Vasari; and by Vasari himself, too, if we may be allowed to
judge from his pictures.
The actual state of the art at this period may be ascertained from a
view of the numerous works produced; but none are so distinguished as
the paintings in the Sala Regia, commenced under Paul III., and scarcely
finished, after a lapse of thirty years, in 1573. Of these Vaga had the
direction, as Raffaello had formerly had, of the chambers of the
Vatican. He planned the compartments, ornamented the ceiling, directed
all the stuccos, cornices, devices, and large figures, and all in the
style of a great master. He then applied himself to design the subjects
for his pencil, and was employed on them when he was carried off by
death in 1547. Through the partiality of Michelangiolo, he was succeeded
by Daniel di Volterra, who had already worked in stucco, under his
direction, in the same place. Volterra resolved to represent the
donations of those sovereigns who had extended or consolidated the
temporal dominion of the church, whence the chamber was called Sala dei
Regi, and this idea was, in some degree, though with variations,
continued by succeeding artists. Volterra was naturally slow and
irresolute, and after painting the Deposition from the Cross, which we
have mentioned as being executed with the assistance of Michelangiolo,
he produced no more of these prodigies of art. He had indeed begun some
designs, but on the death of the Pope, in 1549, he was compelled, in
order to accommodate the conclave, to remove the scaffolding, and expose
the work unfinished. It did not meet with public approbation, nor was it
continued under Julius III., and still less under Paul IV., in whose
reign the art was held in so little respect, that the apostles, painted
by Raffaello in one of the chambers of the Vatican, were displaced.
Pius IV., who resumed the work, on the suggestion of Vasari, in 1561,
had intended to charge Salviati with the entire execution of it; but, by
the intercessions of Bonarruoti, was at length prevailed on to assign
one half of the apartment to Salviati, and the other half to
Ricciarelli, though this did not contribute to expedite the work. Pirro
Ligorio, a Neapolitan, was at this time held in high esteem by the Pope.
He was an antiquarian, though not of great celebrity, but a good
architect, and a fresco painter of some merit;[59] an enthusiast too,
and alike jealous of Ricciarelli, for the homage he paid to Bonarruoti,
and of Salviati, for the respect which he did not shew to Ligorio
himself. Remarking that the Pope wished to hasten the completion of the
work, he proposed to select a number of scholars, and to divide the work
amongst them. Vasari adds, that Salviati was disgusted and left Rome;
where, on his return, he died, without finishing his work; and that
Ricciarelli, who was always slow, never touched it again, and died also
after the lapse of some little time. The completion of the work was then
entrusted, as far as possible, to the successors of Raffaello. Livio
Agresti da Forli, Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta, and Marco da Pino,
of Sienna, although they had received their first instructions from
other masters, had been instructed by Perino del Vaga, and had assisted
in his cartoons. Taddeo Zuccaro had accomplished himself under Giacomone
da Faenza, and had made his younger brother Federigo an able artist. To
these the work was assigned, and there were added to them Samacchini and
Fiorini, Bolognese artists; and Giuseppe Porta della Garfagnana, called
Giuseppe Salviati. This latter had been the pupil of Francesco Salviati,
from whom he learnt the principles of design; he was afterwards a
follower of the school of Venice, where he resided. Of these numerous
artists Vasari assigns the palm to Taddeo Zuccaro, but the court was so
much pleased with Porta, that it was in contemplation to destroy the
works of the other artists, in order that the apartment might be
finished by him alone. He represented Alexander III. in the act of
bestowing his benediction on Frederick Barbarossa, in the Piazza of S.
Mark, in Venice; and he here indulged his taste for architectural
ornaments, in the Venetian manner. When however this work is viewed and
compared with that of other artists, we discover a sameness of style,
the character of the time; a deficiency of strength in the colours and
shadows is the common failing. It seems as if the art, through a long
course of years, had become debilitated: it discovers the lineaments of
a better age, but feebly expressed and deprived of their primitive
vigour. That portion of the work which remained unfinished, was, after
the death of Pius IV., completed by Vasari and his school, under his
successor; and some little was supplied under Gregory XIII., who was
elected in 1572.
With that year a reign commenced but little auspicious to art, and still
less so was the Pontificate of Sixtus V., the successor of Gregory.
These Pontiffs erected or ornamented
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/34585