the

HISTORY OF PAINTING
in

ITALY.

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. V.
CONTAINING THE SCHOOLS OF BOLOGNA, FERRARA, GENOA,
AND PIEDMONT.

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 FIFTH VOLUME.

HISTORY OF PAINTING IN UPPER ITALY.

[Pg 1]

HISTORY OF PAINTING
in

UPPER ITALY.

BOOK III.

BOLOGNESE SCHOOL.

During the progress of the present work, it has been observed
that the fame of the art, in common with that of letters and of arms, has
been transferred from place to place; and that wherever it fixed its seat,
its influence tended to the perfection of some branch of painting, which by
preceding artists had been less studied, or less understood. Towards the
close of the sixteenth century, indeed, there seemed not to be left in
nature, any kind of beauty, in its outward forms or aspect, that had not
been admired and represented by some great master; insomuch that the
artist, however ambitious, was compelled, as an imitator of nature, to
become, likewise, an imitator of the best masters; while the discovery of
new styles depended upon a more or less skilful combination of the old.
Thus the sole career that remained open for the display of human genius was
that of imitation; as it appeared impossible to design figures more [Pg 2]masterly
than those of Bonarruoti or Da Vinci, to express them with more grace than
Raffaello, with more animated colours than those of Titian, with more
lively motions than those of Tintoretto, or to give them a richer drapery
and ornaments than Paul Veronese; to present them to the eye at every
degree of distance, and in perspective, with more art, more fulness, and
more enchanting power than fell to the genius of Coreggio. Accordingly the
path of imitation was at that time pursued by every school, though with
very little method. Each of these was almost wholly subservient to its
prototype; nor was it distinguished in any other portion of the art than
that by which its master had surpassed all competitors. Even in this
portion, the distinction of these followers consisted only in copying the
same figures, and executing them in a more hasty and capricious manner, or
at all events, in adapting them out of place. Those devoted to Raffaello
were sure to exaggerate the ideal in every picture: the same in regard to
anatomy in those of Michelangiolo: while misplaced vivacity and
foreshortening were repeated in the most judicious historic pieces of the
Venetians and the Lombards.

A few, indeed, there were, as we have noticed, in every place, who rose
conspicuous above those popular prejudices and that ignorance which
obscured Italy, and whose aim was to select from the masters of different
states the chief merit of each; a method of which the Campi of Cremona [Pg 3]more
especially furnished commendable examples. Yet these artists being unequal
in point of genius and learning, broken into different schools, separated
by private interests, accustomed to direct their pupils only in the exact
path they themselves trod, and always confined within the limits of their
native province, failed to instruct Italy, or at least to propagate the
method of correct and laudable imitation. This honour was reserved for
Bologna, whose destiny was declared to be the art of teaching, as governing
was said to be that of Rome; and it was not the work of an academy, but of
a single house. Gifted with genius, intent upon attaining the secrets more
than the stipends of their art, and unanimous in their resolves, the family
of the Caracci discovered the true style of imitation. First, they
inculcated it through the neighbouring state of Romagna, whence it was
communicated to the rest of Italy; so that in a little while nearly the
whole country was filled with its reputation. The result of their learning
went to shew that the artist ought to divide his studies between nature and
art, and that he should alternately keep each in view, selecting only,
according to his natural talents and disposition, what was most enviable in
both. By such means, that school, which appeared last in the series that
flourished, became the first to instruct the age; and what it had acquired
from each it afterwards taught to all: a school which, until that period,
had assumed no form or character to distinguish [Pg 4]it from others, but
which subsequently produced almost as many new manners, as the individuals
of the family and their pupils. The mind, like the pen, would gladly arrive
at that fortunate epoch; aiming at the most compendious ways to reach it,
and studiously avoiding whatever may impede or divert its course. Let
Malvasia exclaim against Vasari as much as he pleases: let him vent his
indignation upon his prints, in which Bagnacavallo appears with a goat’s
physiognomy, when he was entitled to that of a gentleman: let him farther
vituperate his writings, in which Bolognese professors are either omitted,
dismissed with faint praise, or blamed, until one Mastro Amico and one
Mastro Biagio fall under his lash:—to attempt to reconcile or to
aggravate such feuds will form little part of my task. Concerning this
author I have sufficiently treated in other places; though I shall not
scruple to correct, or to supply his information in case oaf need, on the
authority of several modern writers.[1] Nor shall
I fail to point out in Malvasia [Pg 5]occasional errors in sound criticism, which
seem to have escaped him in the effervescence of that bitter controversy.
The reader will become aware of them even in the first epoch; in treating
which, agreeably to my own method, I shall describe the origin and early
progress of this eminent school. Together with the Bolognese, I shall also
give an account of many professors of Romagna, reserving a few, however,
for a place in the Ferrarese School, in which they shone either as
disciples or as masters.

[1]
No Italian school has been described by abler pens. The Co. Canon. Malvasia
was a real man of letters; and his life has been written by Crespi. His two
volumes, entitled Felsina Pittrice, will continue to supply
an[TN1] abundance of valuable information, collected by
the pupils of the Caracci, to whom he was known, and by whom he was
assisted in this work; charged, however, with a degree of patriotic zeal at
times too fervid.

Crespi and Zanotti were his continuators, whose merits
are considered in the last epoch. To these volumes is added the work
entitled, “Pitture, Sculture, e Architetture di Bologna,” of which the
latest editions have been supplied with some very valuable notices, (drawn
also from MSS.) by the Ab. Bianconi, already commended by us, and by Sig.
Marcello Oretti, a very diligent collector of pictoric anecdotes, as well
as by other persons. I cite this work under the title of the
Guide of Bologna; in addition to which I mention in Romagna
that of Ravenna by Beltrami, that of Rimini by Costa, and of Pesaro by
Becci, which is farther illustrated by observations upon the chief
paintings at Pesaro, and a dissertation upon the art; both very ably
treated by the pen of Sig. Canon. Lazzarini.

[Pg 6]

BOLOGNESE SCHOOL.

EPOCH I.

The Ancients.

The new Guide of Bologna, published in the year 1782, directs
our attention to a number of figures, in particular those of the Virgin,
which, on the strength of ancient documents, are to be assigned to ages
anterior to the twelfth century. Of some of these we find the authors’
names indicated; and it forms, perhaps, the peculiar boast of Bologna to
claim three of them during the twelfth century: one Guido, one Ventura, and
one Ursone, of whom there exist memorials as late back as 1248. Most part,
however, are from unknown hands, and so well executed, that we are
justified in suspecting that they must have been retouched about the times
of Lippo Dalmasio, to whose style a few of them bear considerable
resemblance. Yet not so with others; more especially a specimen in San
Pietro, which I consider to be one of the most ancient preserved in Italy.
But the finest monument of painting possessed by Bologna, at once the most
unique and untouched, is the Catino of San Stefano, on which is
figured the Adoration of the Lamb of [Pg 7]God, described in the Apocalypse; and below
this are several scriptural histories; as the Birth of our Lord, his
Epiphany, the Dispute, and similar subjects. The author was either Greek,
or rather a scholar of those Greeks who ornamented the church of St. Mark in Venice with their mosaics; the manner much
resembling theirs in its rude design, the spareness of the limbs, and in
the distribution of the colours. It is besides, certain, that these Greeks
educated several artists for Italy, and among others the founder of the
Ferrarese School, of whom more in its appropriate place. However this may
be, the painter exhibits traces that differ from those mosaic workers, such
as the flow of the beard, the shape of the garments, and a taste less bent
on thronging his compositions. And in respect to his age, it is apparent it
must have been between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from the form
of the characters, collated with other writings belonging to the same
period.

Entering upon the age of Giotto, the most disputed of all, on account of
the Florentines having declared themselves the tutors of the Bolognese, and
the aversion of the latter to admit that they have been instructed by the
Florentines;—I decline to dwell upon their writings, in which the
heat of controversy has effectually obscured the candour of real history. I
shall rather gather light from the figures of the trecentisti dispersed throughout the city and all parts
of Romagna, and from the ample collections which are to be [Pg 8]seen in various places.
Such is that of the Padri Classensi at Ravenna, that of the Institute at
Bologna, and in the same place one at the Malvezzi palace, where the
pictures of the ancient masters are exhibited in long series, with their
names; not always inscribed, indeed, in ancient character, nor always
equally genuine; but still calculated to reflect honour upon the noble
family that made the collection. In all these I discovered paintings, some
manifestly Greek; some indisputably Giottesque; certain others of Venetian
style; and not a few in a manner which I never saw, except in Bologna. They
possess a body of colouring, a taste in perspective, a method of designing
and draping the figures, not met with in any other cities; as for instance,
in several places I saw scripture histories, where the Redeemer invariably
appears arrayed in a red mantle; while other characters appear in garments
trimmed in a certain novel style with gilt borders; trifles in themselves,
yet not apparent in any other school. From similar observations we seem to
be justified in concluding that the Bolognese of that age likewise had a
school of their own, not indeed so elegant, nor so celebrated, but
nevertheless peculiar, and so to say, municipal, derived from ancient
masters of mosaic, and also from those in miniature.

On this head, notwithstanding our proposed brevity, I must here refer to
the words of Baldinucci in his notices of the miniature painter, Franco:
“After Giotto, that very celebrated Florentine [Pg 9]painter, had discovered
his novel and fine method by which he gained the name of the first restorer
of the art of painting, or rather to have raised it from utter extinction;
and after he had acquired with industrious diligence that fine mode of
painting which is called di minio,[2] which for
the most part consists in colouring very diminutive figures; many others
also applied themselves to the like art, and soon became illustrious. One
of these was Oderigi d’Agubbio, concerning whom we have spoken in his
proper place among the disciples of Cimabue. We discovered that this
Oderigi, as we are assured by Vellutello in his comment upon Dante, in the
eleventh canto of the Purgatorio,[3] was
master in the art to Franco Bolognese, [Pg 10]which assertion
acquires great credit from his having worked much in miniature in the city
of Bologna, according to these words that I find said of him by Benvenuto
da Imola, a contemporary of Petrarch, in his comment upon Dante: ‘Iste
Odorisius fuit magnus miniator in civitate Bononiæ, qui erat valde vanus
jactator artis suæ.’ From this Franco, according to the opinion of
Malvasia, the most noble and ever glorious city of Bologna received the
first seeds of the beautiful art of painting.”

With this narrative does the author proceed, like a careful culturist,
gently sprinkling with refreshing drops his pictoric tree, whose seed he
had shortly before planted, in order to trace the whole derivation of early
artists from the leading stock of Cimabue. It has elsewhere been observed
that this famous tree can boast no root in history; that it sprung out of
idle conjectures, put together as an answer to the Felsina
Pittrice of Malvasia, in which the Bolognese School is made to
appear, as it were, autoctona, derived only from itself. Now Baldinucci,
in order to give its origin to Florence, would persuade us that Oderigi, a
miniaturist, and master of Franco, the first painter at Bologna on the
revival of the arts, had actually been a disciple of Cimabue. His argument
amounts to this: that Dante, Giotto, and Oderigi, being known to have lived
on the most intimate terms together, and all three greatly devoted to the
fine arts, must have contracted their friendship in the school of Cimabue;
[Pg 11]as
if such an intimacy might not have sprung up at any other time or place
amongst three men who travelled. It is besides difficult to believe that
Oderigi, ambitious of the fame of a miniaturist in ornamenting books,
should have applied to Cimabue, who in those times was not the best
designer of figures, though the most eminent painter in fresco, and of
grand figures.

A more probable supposition, therefore, is that Oderigi acquired the
art from the miniaturists, who then greatly abounded in Italy, and carried
it to further perfection by his own design. Neither are the epochs
themselves, fixed upon by Baldinucci, in favour of his system. He would
have it that Giotto, at ten years of age, being about the year 1286, began
to design in the school of Cimabue, when the latter had attained his
forty-sixth year; nor could Oderigi have been any younger, whose death
happened about 1299, one year before that of Cimabue, his equal in
reputation, and in the dignity of the pupil, who already surpassed the
master. How difficult then to persuade ourselves that a genius, described
by Dante as lofty and full of vaunting, should demean himself by deigning
to design at the school of a contemporary, near the seat of a mere child;
and subsequently surviving only thirteen years, should acquire the fame of
the first miniaturist of his age, besides forming the mind of a pupil
superior to himself. It is no less incredible that Oderigi, after having
seen Giotto’s specimens in miniature, [Pg 12]“should in a
short time become famous.” Giotto, in 1298, when twenty-two years of
age, was at Rome in the service of the pope; where, observes Baldinucci, he
also illuminated a book for the Car. Stefaneschi; a circumstance not
mentioned by Vasari, nor supported by any historical document. Yet taking
all this for granted, what length of time is afforded for Oderigi to
display his powers, on the strength of seeing Giotto’s models; for Oderigi,
who having been already some time before deceased, was found by Dante in
purgatory, according to Baldinucci’s computation, in the year 1300?

I therefore refer this miniaturist to the Bolognese School, most
probably as a disciple, assuredly as a master; and, on the authority of
Vellutello, as the master of Franco, both a miniaturist and a painter.
Franco is the first among the Bolognese who instructed many pupils; and he
is almost deserving the name of the Giotto of this school. Nevertheless he
approached only at considerable distance, the Giotto of Florence, as far as
we can judge from the few relics which are now pointed out as his in the
Malvezzi museum. The most undoubted specimen is one of the Virgin, seated
on a throne, bearing the date of 1313; a production that may compare with
the works of Cimabue, or of Guido da Siena. There are also two diminutive
paintings, displaying much grace, and similar miniatures, ascribed to the
same hand.

[Pg
13]The most eminent pupils educated by Franco in his school,
according to Malvasia, are by name, Vitale, Lorenzo, Simone, Jacopo,
Cristoforo; specimens of whose paintings in fresco are still seen at the
Madonna di Mezzaratta. This church, in respect to the Bolognese, exhibits
the same splendor as the Campo Santo of Pisa, in relation to the Florentine
School; a studio in which the most distinguished trecentisti who flourished
in the adjacent parts, competed for celebrity. They cannot, indeed, boast
all the simplicity, the elegance, the happy distribution, which form the
excellence of the Giottesque; but they display a fancy, fire, and method of
colouring, which led Bonarruoti and the Caracci, considering the times in
which they lived, not to undervalue them; insomuch that, on their shewing
signs of decay, these artists took measures for their preservation. In the
forementioned church, then, besides the pupils of Franco already named,
Galasso of Ferrara, and an unknown imitator of the style of Giotto,
asserted by Lamo in his MS. to have been Giotto himself, painted, at
different times, histories from the Old and New Testament. I am inclined
rather to pronounce the unknown artist to be Giotto’s imitator; both
because Vasari, in Mezzaratta, makes no mention of Giotto, and because, if
the latter had painted, he would have ranked with the most eminent, and
would have been selected to pursue his labours, not in that corner
ornamented with paintings in the Florentine style, but in some more
imposing situation.

[Pg 14]I
ought not to omit to mention in this place, that Giotto employed himself at
Bologna. There is one of his altar-pieces still preserved at San Antonio
with the superscription of Magister Ioctus de
Florentia. We, moreover, learn from Vasari that Puccio Capanna, a
Florentine, and Ottaviano da Faenza, with one Pace da Faenza, all pupils of
Giotto, pursued their labours more or less at Bologna. Of these, if I
mistake not, there are occasional specimens still to be met with in
collections and in churches. Nor are there wanting works of the successors
of Taddeo Gaddi, one of the school of Giotto, which, as I have seen great
numbers in Florence, I have been able to distinguish with little difficulty
among specimens of this other school. Besides this style, another was
introduced into Bologna from Florence, that of Orcagna, whose Novissimi of
S. Maria Novella were almost copied in a chapel of San Petronio, painted
after the year 1400; the same edifice which Vasari on the strength of
popular tradition, has asserted, was ornamented by Buffalmacco. From this
information, we are brought to conclude that the Florentines exercised an
influence over the art, even in Bologna; nor can I commend Malvasia, who,
in recounting the progress of his school, gives them no place, nor makes
them any acknowledgment. Their models, which at that period were the most
excellent in the art, there is reason to suppose, may in those times have
afforded assistance to the young Bolognese artists, as those [Pg 15]of the
school of Caracci, in another age, instructed the youth of Florence. It is
time, however, to return to the pictures of Mezzaratta.

The authors of those just recorded, were, some of them, contemporary
with the disciples of Giotto; others flourished subsequent to them; nor is
there any name more ancient than that of Vital da Bologna, called
dalle Madonne, of whom there are accounts from 1320 till the
year 1345. This artist, who painted for that church a picture of the
Nativity, and from whose hand one of S. Benedetto with other saints is seen
in the Malvezzi palace, had more dryness of design than belonged to the
disciples of Giotto at that period; and he employed compositions that
differed from that school, so extremely tenacious of Giotto’s ideas. If
Baldinucci ventured to assert of him that his style, in every particular,
agrees with that of his Florentine contemporaries, he wrote on the faith of
others; a sufficient reason with him for affirming that he was pupil to
Giotto, or to some one of his disciples. I would not venture so far; but
rather, to judge from the hand of Vitale, which Baldi, in his Biblioteca
Bolognese, entitles “manum elimatissimam,” from the dryness of design, and
from his almost exclusive custom of painting Madonnas, I argue that he had
not departed much from the example set by Franco, more of a miniaturist
than a painter, and that his school could not have been that school more
elevated, varied, and rich in ideas, formed by Giotto.

[Pg
16]Lorenzo, an artist, as is elsewhere observed, of Venice more
probably than of Bologna,[4] who produced the history of
Daniel, on which he inscribed his name, painted during the same period, and
attempted copious compositions. He was greatly inferior to the Memmi, to
the Laurati, to the Gaddi, though he is represented as their equal in
reputation by Malvasia. He betrays the infancy of the art, no less in point
of design than in the expressions of his countenances, whose grief
sometimes provokes a smile; and in his forced and extravagant attitudes in
the manner of the Greeks. Hence it is here out of the question to mention
Giotto, in whose school, cautiously avoiding every kind of extravagance,
there predominates a certain gravity and repose, occasionally amounting to
coldness; described by the author of the Bolognese Guide as the statuary
manner; and it is one of those marks by which to distinguish that school
from others of the same age.

At a later period flourished Galasso, who is to be sought for in the
list of artists of Ferrara, along with the three supposed disciples of
Vitale; namely, Cristoforo, Simone, and Jacopo; all of whom, in mature age,
were engaged in pictures to decorate the church at Mezzaratta, which were
completed in 1404. Vasari writes that he is uncertain whether Cristoforo
belonged to Ferrara, or da Modena; and whilst the two cities were disputing
the honour, the Bolognese historians, Baldi, Masini, [Pg 17]and Bumaldo, adjusted
the difference by referring him to their own Felsina. For me his country
may remain matter of doubt, though not so the school in which he
flourished; inasmuch as he certainly resided, and painted a great deal,
both on altar-pieces and on walls, at Bologna. At that period, he must have
attracted the largest share of applause; since to him was committed the
figure of the altar, which is still in existence, with his name. The
Signori Malvezzi, likewise, are in possession of one of his altar-pieces,
abounding with figures of saints, and divided into ten compartments. The
design of these figures is rude, the colouring languid; but the whole
displays a taste assuredly not derived from the Florentines, and this is
the principal difficulty in the question.

Simone, most commonly called in Bologna Da Crocifissi, was eminent in
these sacred subjects. At S. Stefano, and other churches, he has exhibited
several fine specimens, by no means incorrect in the naked figure, with a
most devotional cast of features, extended arms, and a drapery of various
colours. They resemble Giotto’s in point of colouring, and in the posture
of the feet, one of which is placed over the other, but in other respects
they approach nearer the more ancient. I have seen also some Madonnas
painted by him; sometimes in a sitting posture, at others in half-size,
with drapery and with hands in the manner of the Greek paintings. In
features, however, and in the attitudes, [Pg 18]they are both
carefully studied and commendable for those times; a specimen of which is
still to be seen at S. Michele in Bosco.

Among the Bolognese trecentisti Jacopo Avanzi is the most distinguished.
He produced the chief part of the histories at the church of Mezzaratta,
many in conjunction with Simone, and a few of them alone; as the miracle of
the Probation, at the bottom of which he wrote Jacobus pinxit.
He appears to have employed himself with most success in the chapel of S.
Jacopo al Santo, at Padua, where, in some very spirited figures,
representing some exploit of arms, he may be said to have conformed his
style pretty nearly to the Giottesque; and even in some measure to have
surpassed Giotto, who was not skilful in heroic subjects. His masterpiece
seems to have been the triumphs painted in a saloon at Verona, a work
commended by Mantegna himself as an excellent production. He subscribed his
name sometimes Jacobus Pauli; which has led me to doubt
whether he was not originally from Venice, and the same artist who,
together with Paolo his father, and his brother Giovanni, painted the
ancient altar-piece of San Marco at that place. The time exactly favours
such a supposition; the resemblance between the countenances in the
paintings at S. Marco and at the Mezzaratta, farther confirms it; nor can I
easily persuade myself that Avanzi would have entitled himself
Jacobus Pauli, had there flourished another artist at the same
period, likely, from similarity of signatures, to create a [Pg
19]mistake. In the Notizia of Morelli, p. 5, he
is called Jacomo Davanzo, a Paduan, or Veronese, or as some maintain
a Bolognese, words which may create a doubt of the real place of his
birth. Without entering on such a question, I shall only observe, that I
incline to believe that his most fixed domicile, at least towards the close
of his days, was at Bologna; and it has already been remarked, that some
artists were accustomed to assume their place of residence for a surname.
It would seem that two painters of this age derive their parentage from
him: one who on an altar-piece at S. Michele in Bosco signs himself
Petrus Jacobi, and the same Orazio di Jacopo mentioned by
Malvasia. At all events it is observable in each school, that, where an
artist was the son of a painter, he gladly adopted his father’s name as a
sort of support and recommendation of his own. One Giovanni of Bologna,
unknown in his own country, has left at Venice a painting of S. Cristoforo,
in the school of the Merchants at S. Maria dell’Orto, to which he adds his
name, though without date; and, from his ancient manner, we are authorized
to believe that he really belongs to the place which is here assigned
him.

Lippo di Dalmasio, formerly believed to be a Carmelite friar, until the
Turin edition of Baldinucci proved that he had died married, sprung from
the school of Vitale, and was named Lippo dalle Madonne. It is not true, as
reported, that he instructed the Beata Caterina Vigri in the art, [Pg 20]by whom
there remain some miniatures, and an infant Christ painted on panel.
Lippo’s manner scarcely varies from the ancient, except perhaps in better
harmony of tints and flow of drapery; to which last, however, he adds
fringes of gold lace tolerably wide, a practice very generally prevalent in
the early part of the fifteenth century. His heads are beautiful and novel,
more particularly in several Madonnas, which Guido Reni never ceased to
admire, being in the habit of declaring that Lippo must have been indebted
to some supernatural power for his exhibition in one countenance of all the
majesty, the sanctity, and the sweetness of the holy mother, and that in
this view he had not been equalled by any modern. Such is the account given
by Malvasia, who relates it, he adds, as he heard it. He moreover assures
us, on the authority of Guido, that Lippo painted several histories of
Elias in fresco, with great spirit; while, on the experience of Tiarini, he
would persuade us that he painted in oil at S. Procolo in via S. Stefano,
and in private houses; on which point he impugns the commonly received
opinion respecting Antonello, examined by us more than once. Contemporary
with Lippo must have flourished Maso da Bologna, painter of the ancient
cupola of the cathedral.

Subsequent to 1409, the latest epoch of the paintings of Lippo, the
Bolognese School began to decline; nor could it well be otherwise.
Dalmatio, an instructor of youth, was not by profession [Pg 21]a painter of history;
and, as portrait painters never particularly promoted the progress of any
school, so on his part he conferred little benefit on his own. This decline
has been attributed to some specimens of art brought from Constantinople,
overcharged with dark lines in the contours and folds, and in the remaining
parts resembling rather the dryness and inelegance of the Greek
mosaic-workers, than the softness and grace then sought to be introduced by
the most eminent Italians in the art. Copies of these were eagerly inquired
for in Bologna, and in all adjacent cities, which produced that abundance
of them, still to be seen in the sale shops and private houses throughout
those districts, besides several in the city and state of Venice.[5] But, in these instances, they were [Pg 22]only copied; in
Bologna they were imitated likewise by several pupils of Lippo, who, either
in part or altogether, adopted that style in their own compositions. One
Lianori, usually inscribing his name Petrus Joannis, and known
by some works interspersed in different churches and collections, is most
accused of this extravagance; an Orazio di Jacopo, (perhaps dell’Avanzi) of
whom there remains a portrait of S. Bernardino, at the church of the
Osservanza; a Severo da Bologna, to whom is ascribed a rude altar-piece, in
the Malvezzi Museum; with several others, either little known or
unmentioned, whose names I am not surprised should be omitted by Vasari,
who, in the same way, passes over the least distinguished of his own
country. It is true, he makes mention of one Galante da Bologna, who, he
avers, designed better than Lippo, his master; but in this he is still
taken to task by Malvasia, who includes Galante among the inferior pupils
of Dalmasio.

Nevertheless, the germ of good painting was not wanting, as far as the
times permitted it to exist, both in Bologna and throughout Romagna. [Pg
23]Malvasia commends one Jacopo Ripanda, who long flourished at
Rome, where, as is commemorated by Volterrano, he began to design the
bassi-relievi of the Trajan Column; one Ercole, a Bolognese, who somewhat
improved the symmetry of the human figure; one Bombologno, a carver of
crucifixes, like Simone, but of more refined composition. He more
particularly celebrates a Michel di Matteo, or Michel Lambertini; in whose
commendation it may be enough to state, that Albano praised one of his
pictures, supposed to be in oil, completed in 1443, for the fish-market,
and even preferred it for its softness to those of Francia. The few which
we still possess in our own times, both at the churches of S. Pietro and S.
Jacopo, might be put in competition with the contemporary works of almost
any master.

But the artist who produced an epoch in his school is Marco Zoppo, who
having transferred his education under Lippo to the studio of Squarcione,
rose to equal eminence with Pizzolo and Dario da Trevigi; and, like them,
vied with the genius of Mantegna, and gave a farther spur to his exertions.
He also studied some time in the Venetian School, where he painted for the
Osservanti, at Pesaro, a picture of the Virgin on a Throne, crowned, with
S. Giovanni the Baptist, San Francesco, and other saints, and signed it
Marco Zoppo da Bologna Dip. in Vinexia, 1471. This is the most
celebrated production which he left behind him; from which, and a few other
[Pg
24]pieces in the same church, and at Bologna, we may gather some
idea of his style. The composition is that common to the quattrocentisti,
particularly the Venetians, and which he probably introduced into Bologna,
a style which continued to the time of Francia and his school, for the most
part unvaried, except in the addition of some cherub to the steps of the
throne, sometimes with a harp, and sometimes without. It is not a free and
graceful style, like that of Mantegna, but rather coarse, particularly in
the drawing of the feet; yet less rectilinear in the folds, and bolder, and
more harmonious, perhaps, in the selection of the colours. The fleshes are
as much studied as in Signorelli, and in others of the same age; while the
figures and the accessories are conducted with the most finished care.
Marco was, likewise, a fine decorator of façades, in which kind of painting
he was assisted by his companion and imitator, Jacopo Forti, to whose hand
is ascribed a Madonna, painted on the wall, at the church of S. Tommaso, in
Mercato. In the Malvezzi collection there is also attributed to Jacopo a
Deposition of the Saviour from the Cross; a work which does not keep pace
with the progressive improvements of that age. The same remark will apply
to a great number of others, produced about the same period, in the same
city, which, towards the close of the century, displayed a striking
deficiency in good artists. It was owing to this circumstance that Gio.
Bentivoglio, then master of Bologna, wishing [Pg 25]to ornament his
palace, which, had fortune favoured him, would one day have become that of
all Romagna, invited a number of artists from Ferrara and Modena, who
introduced a better taste into Bologna, besides affording an occasion for
the grand genius of Francia to develop itself likewise in the art of
painting, as we shall proceed to shew.

This artist, whose real name was Francesco Raibolini, was,
according to Malvasia, esteemed and celebrated as the first man of
that age; and he might have added, in Bologna, where
many so considered him; being there, as is attested by Vasari, held
in the estimation of a god. The truth is, that he had a consummate
genius for working in gold; on which account the medals and coins taken
with his moulds rivalled those of Caradosso, the Milanese; and he was also
an excellent painter, in that style which is termed modern antique, as may
be gathered from a great number of collections, where his Madonnas rank at
the side of those of Pietro Perugino and Gian Bellini. Raffaello, too,
compares him with them, and even greater artists, in a letter dated 1508,
edited by Malvasia, in which he praises his Madonnas, “never having beheld
any more beautiful, more devotional in their expression, and more finely
composed by any artist.” His manner is nearly between that of these two
heads of their schools, and participates in the excellence of both; it
boasts Perugino’s choiceness and tone of colours; while, [Pg 26]in the fulness of its
outlines, in the skill of the folding, and ample flow of the draperies, it
bears greater resemblance to Bellini. His heads, however, do not equal the
grace and sweetness of the former; though he is more dignified and varied
than the latter. In the accessories of his landscapes he rivals both; but
in landscape itself, and in the splendor of his architecture, he is
inferior to them. In the composition of his pictures he is less fond of
placing the divine infant in the bosom of the Virgin than upon a distinct
ground, in the ancient manner of his school; and he sometimes adds to them
some half figures of saints, as was customary with the Venetians of that
period. On the whole, however, he approaches nearer to the Roman School;
and, not unfrequently, as is noticed by Malvasia, his Madonnas have been
ascribed by less expert judges to Pietro Perugino. He likewise produced
works in fresco at Bologna, commended by Vasari; and both there and
elsewhere are many of his altar-pieces yet remaining, displaying figures of
larger dimensions than those usually painted by Bellini and Perugino; the
peculiar merit of the Bolognese School, and by degrees extended to others,
augmenting at once the grandeur of painting and of the temples it
adorned.

But the chief praise due to him yet remains to be recorded, and this is,
that he did not begin to exercise his pencil until he had arrived at
manhood, and, in the course of a few years, displayed the rare example of
becoming a scholar and a master, [Pg 27]able to compete with the best artists of
Ferrara and Modena. These, as we have mentioned, were invited by Gio.
Bentivoglio, in order to decorate his palace. There, too, Francia was
employed; and he was afterwards commissioned to paint the altar-piece of
the Bentivogli chapel, in 1490, where he signed himself Franciscus
Francia Aurifex, as much as to imply that he belonged to the
goldsmith’s art, not to that of painting. Nevertheless, that work is a
beautiful specimen, displaying the most finished delicacy of art in every
individual figure and ornament, especially in the arabesque pilasters, in
the Mantegna manner. In process of time he enlarged his style; a
circumstance that induced historians to make a distinction between his
first and second manner. Cavazzoni, who wrote respecting the Madonnas of
Bologna, wishes to persuade us that Raffaello himself had availed himself
of Francia’s models, in order to dilate that dry manner which he imbibed
from Perugino. We shall award this glory to the genius of Raffaello, whose
youthful performances at San Severo of Perugia, display a greater degree of
softness than those of his master and of Francia; and after his genius, to
the examples of F. Bartolommeo della Porta, and of Michelangiolo; leaving,
we fear, no room to include the name of Francia. When Raffaello, at Rome,
was regarded rather in the light of an angel than a man, and had already
executed some works at Bologna, he began a correspondence with Francia,
urged to it by his letters; [Pg 28]Raffaello became his friend; and, on sending
to Bologna his picture of S. Cecilia, he intreated him, on discovering any
error in it, to correct it; an instance of modesty in our Apelles, more to
be admired even than his paintings. This occurred in 1518, in which year
Vasari closes his life of Francia, who he declares died with excess of
passion, on first beholding that grand performance. Malvasia, however,
refutes him, by proving Francia to “have lived many years afterwards, and
when aged and declining, even to have changed his manner;” and in what way,
except upon the models of Raffaello? In his new manner he painted and
exhibited, in a chamber of the Mint, his celebrated piece of S. Sebastian,
which, according to a tradition handed from the Caracci to Albano, and from
the latter to Malvasia, served as a studio for the Bolognese pupils, who
copied its proportions with as much zeal as the ancients would have done
those of a statue of Polycletes, or the moderns of the Apollo, or of the
supposed Antinous of Belvidere. Albani has added that Francia, on
perceiving the concourse of people increase round his picture, and diminish
round the St. Cecilia of Raffaello, then dead,
apprehensive lest they should suspect him of having executed and exhibited
his own in competition with such an artist, instantly removed and placed it
in the church of the Misericordia, where, at this time, there remains a
copy of it. The precise year of his decease, hitherto unknown, has been
communicated to me by the Sig. Cav. Ratti, who found [Pg 29]on an ancient drawing
of a female saint, now in possession of Sig. Tommaso Bernardi, a noble of
Lucca, a memorandum of this event having occurred on the seventh day of
April, 1533.

Francia, in addition to his cousin Giulio, who devoted himself but
little to painting, gave instructions in the art to his own son of the name
of Giacomo. It is often doubtful, as we find in the Gallery of the princes
Giustiniani, whether such a Madonna is by the hand of Francesco Francia, or
by that of his son, who, in similar pictures imitated closely his father’s
style, although, in Malvasia’s judgment, he never equalled it. In works on
a larger scale too, he is sometimes to be pronounced inferior, in
comparison with his father, as in S. Vitale, at Bologna, where Francesco
painted the cherubs round a Madonna, in his first manner, somewhat meagre,
perhaps, but still beautiful and full of animated movements, while Giacomo
drew the figures, representing a Nativity of our Lord, more soft in point
of design, but with features less beautiful, and in attitudes and
expressions bordering on extravagance. At other times, the son seems to
have surpassed the father, as at S. Giovanni, of Parma, where there is no
artist who would not wish to have produced that fine picture by Giacomo,
marked with the year 1519, rather than the Deposition from the Cross, by
Francesco. Elsewhere too, as in the picture of S. Giorgio, at the church of
San Francesco in Bologna, he rivals, perhaps, the finest works by his
father; insomuch [Pg 30]that this specimen was ascribed to the
latter, until there was recently noticed the signature I., (meaning
Jacobus) Francia, 1526. He appears, from the
first, to have practised a design approaching that of the moderns; neither
have I observed in his paintings such splendid gildings, nor such meagre
arms, as for some time distinguished the elder Francia. He rather, in
progress of time, continued to acquire a more free and easy manner,
insomuch that a few of his Madonnas were more than once copied and engraved
by Agostino Caracci. His heads were extremely animated, though generally
less select, less studied, and less beautiful, than his father’s. He had a
son, named Giambatista, by whom there remains, at S. Rocco, an altar-piece,
and a few other specimens, displaying mere mediocrity.

Among the foreign pupils of Francia, the Bolognese enumerated Lorenzo
Costa, and, indeed, he thus ranks himself, by inscribing under the portrait
of Gio. Bentivoglio, L. Costa Franciae discipulus. True it is,
that such inscriptions, as I have frequently found, might come from another
hand; or that, granting he wrote it, he may have done so more out of regard
to such a man, than for the sake of acquainting the world, as Malvasia
contends, that he had been his sole master. Vasari is of a different
opinion, introducing him to us at Bologna as an established artist, already
employed in several considerable cities, and bestowing the highest eulogium
on his earliest production, the [Pg 31]S. Sebastiano at the church of S. Petronio,
declaring it the best specimen in water-colours that had, till then, been
seen in the city. Add to this, that Francia exhibited his first altar-piece
in the Bentivogli chapel in 1490, a few years after he had devoted himself
to the art; and there Costa placed the two lateral pictures, tolerably
excellent in point of composition, and filled with those very spirited
portraits of his in 1488. Now had he boasted only Francia for his master,
of what rapid improvement must we suppose him to have been capable!
Besides, would not his style almost invariably resemble that of Francia, at
least in the works he produced at Bologna? Yet the contrary is the case;
and from his less free, and sometimes ill drawn figures; from the coarser
expression of his countenances, his more hard and dull colouring, and his
abundance of architecture, with the taste shewn in his perspective, it is
evident he must have studied elsewhere. Still I believe that he received
the rudiments of his education in his own country; that then passing into
Tuscany, he formed himself, not by the voice, but, as Vasari
avers, upon the pictures of Lippi and Gozzoli; and that finally seeking
Bologna, he painted for the Bentivogli, and resided also with Francia
rather in quality of an assistant than a pupil. A farther proof I gather
from Malvasia himself; that in the journals of Francesco, in which he read
the names of two hundred and twenty pupils, he found no mention of Costa.
In the rest, however, I concur; [Pg 32]as to his having availed himself of the works
of Francia, in imitation of whom a number of Madonnas are seen in the
collections at Bologna, much inferior to the paintings of the supposed
master; but occasionally not unworthy of being compared with them. Such is
an altar-piece, divided into several compartments, removed from Faenza into
the Casa Ercolani; a production characterized by Crespi, in his annotations
to Baruffaldi, as being executed “with a fervour, a refinement, softness,
and a warmth which may be pronounced altogether Raffaellesque.” He
particularly shone in his countenances of men, as may be seen from those of
the apostles at S. Petronio, and from his San Girolamo, which there offers
the finest specimen of his art. He was less employed in his own country
than in Bologna, though he gave several pupils to the former; among others
the celebrated Dosso and Ercole of Ferrara. He mostly resided at Mantua, at
which court he was highly appreciated, although Mantegna had been his
immediate predecessor, and Giulio Romano succeeded him. I may refer to what
I there wrote respecting this artist.

A less doubtful pupil of Francia’s was Girolamo Marchesi da Cotignola.
His portraits are much praised by Vasari, but his compositions much less
so. He was by no means happy in all; and in particular one which he
produced at Rimini, is severely criticised by the historian. There are
various altar-pieces by him at Bologna and elsewhere, [Pg 33]all of the usual
composition of the quattrocentisti, which goes to redeem his fault. One of
these, exhibiting very beautiful perspective, is in possession of the
Serviti at Pesaro, where the Virgin is seen on a throne, before which, in a
kneeling posture, is the Marchesa Ginevra Sforza, with her son Constantius
II.; nor is this the only specimen of his works conducted in the service of
royal houses. The design is rather dry, but the colour very pleasing; the
heads grand, the draperies well disposed; and in short, were it the only
production of his hand, he would well deserve to rank among the most
illustrious painters in the old style. That he obtained no reputation at
Rome, or Naples, as Vasari observes, was owing to his arriving in those
cities too late, namely, in the pontificate of Paul III.; so that his style
being then regarded merely in the light of an article out of fashion, he
was unable to make his way. He died during the same pontificate, between
the interval of 1534 and 1549. Orlandi, who brings in the decease of
Cotignola as early as 1518, is not only refuted by the above dates marked
by Vasari, and, with slight difference, by Baruffaldi, but moreover by a
picture of S. Girolamo at the church of the conventual friars of S. Marino,
executed in 1520.

Amico Aspertini is enrolled by Malvasia (pp. 58, 59) in the school of
Francia, a fact that Vasari did not choose to notice, being wholly bent on
amusing posterity with a portrait of the person and manners of “Mastro
Amico,” who was indeed a compound [Pg 34]of pleasantry, eccentricity, and madness. He
had adopted a maxim in painting, which in regard to literature, was
commonly received in that age; to wit, that every individual ought to
impress upon his works the image of his own genius; and, like Erasmus, who
exposed to ridicule Cicero’s imitators in writing, this artist was fond of
deriding those of Raffaello in painting. It was his leading principle to
take the tour of Italy, to copy here and there, without discrimination,
whatever most pleased him, and afterwards to form a style of his own, “like
an experienced inventor,” to preserve an expression of Vasari. Conducted on
this plan is a Pietà by him, in the church of S. Petronio, which may be
compared with the trecentisti in point of forms, the attitudes, and the
grouping of the figures. We may add, however, with Guercino, that this
artist seemed to handle two pencils; with one of which he painted for low
prices, or out of despite, or for revenge; and this he made use of in S.
Petronio and several other pieces; the other he practised only on behalf of
those who remunerated him honourably for his labours, and were cautious how
they provoked him; and with this he displayed his art in various façades of
palaces, commended by Vasari himself; in the church of S. Martino; and in
many other works cited by Malvasia, who describes him as a good imitator of
Giorgione.

He had an elder brother of the name of Guido, a youth who employed
uncommon diligence and [Pg 35]care, carried perhaps to excess, in his art.
He died at the age of thirty-five, and was lamented by his more poetical
fellow citizens in elegiac strains. Malvasia is of opinion, that, had he
survived, he would have equalled the fame of Bagnacavallo; such was the
promise held forth by a painting of the Crucifixion under the portico of S.
Pietro, and by his other works. According to the same biographer, it was
Vasari’s malice which led him to assign Ercole of Ferrara for Guido’s
master, being jealous of affording M. Amico the fame of forming such a
pupil. I feel persuaded, with Vasari, no less from the age of Guido than
from his taste, and from the date of 1491, which he inscribed on this
highly commended picture, that assuredly it cannot belong to the pupil of a
pupil formed by Francia. Similar critical errors we have already noticed in
Baldinucci; and they are not very easily to be avoided where a party spirit
is apt to prevail.

Gio. Maria Chiodarolo, a rival of the preceding, and subsequently of
Innocenzo da Imola, in the palace of Viola, left behind him a name above
the generality of this school. Malvasia mentions twenty-four other scholars
of Francesco Francia, in which he was followed by Orlandi, when treating of
Lorenzo Gandolfi. By some mistake these pupils are referred by him to
Costa; while Bottari, misled by Orlandi, fell into the same error, although
he laments “that men, in order to spare trouble, are apt to follow one
another like sheep [Pg 36]or cranes.” Yet in very extensive and
laborious works it is difficult sometimes not to nod; nor should I
occasionally note down others’ inequalities, except in the hope of finding
readers considerate enough to extend the same liberality towards mine. The
forementioned names will prove of much utility to those who, in Milan, in
Pavia, in Parma, and other places in Italy, may turn their attention to
works in the ancient Bolognese style, and may hear them attributed, as it
often happens, to Francia, instead of the pupils formed by him to practice
in those districts, and invariably tenacious of his manner. He had also
others, who from their intercourse with more modern artists, claim place in
a better epoch; and for such we shall reserve them.

We must previously however take a survey of some cities of Romagna, and
select what seems to belong to our present argument. We shall commence with
Ravenna, a city that preserved design during periods of barbarism better
than any other in Italy. Nor do we elsewhere meet with works in mosaic so
well composed, and in ivory, or in marble, cut in so able a manner; all
vestiges of a power and grandeur worthy of exciting the jealousy of Rome,
when the seat of her princes and exarchs was removed to Ravenna. This city
too having fallen from its splendour, and after many vicissitudes being
governed by the Polentani, was no less indebted to them for an illustrious
poet in the person of Dante, than a great painter in Giotto.[6] [Pg 37]This artist painted in the church called
Porto di Fuori, several histories from the evangelists, which still remain
there; and at S. Francesco and other places in the city, we may trace
reliques of his pencil, or at least of his style. The Polentani being
expelled, and the state brought under the subjection of Venice, from this
last capital the city of Ravenna derived the founder of a new school.

This was Niccolo Rondinello, mentioned by Vasari as one “who, above all
others, imitated Gian Bellini, his master, to whom he did credit, and
assisted him in all his works.” In the life of Bellini, and in that of
Palma, Vasari gives a list of his best paintings, exhibited in Ravenna. In
these his progress is very perceptible. He displays most of the antique in
his picture of S. Giovanni, placed in that church, for which he also
executed one of the Virgin, upon a gold ground. His taste is more modern in
the larger altar-piece of San Domenico; whose composition rises above the
monotony of the age, giving a representation [Pg 38]of saints in great
variety of attitudes and situations. The design is exact, though always
inclining to dryness, the countenances less select, and the colouring less
vivid than those of his master; with equal care in his draperies, richly
ornamented with embroidery in the taste of those times. It is, however,
uncertain whether he had obtained any idea of the last and most perfect
style of Bellini.

He had a pupil and successor in his labours at Ravenna in Francesco da
Cotignola, whom Bonoli, in his history of Lugo, and that of Cotignola, as
well as the describer of the Parmese paintings, agree in surnaming
Marchesi, while in the Guide to Ravenna, he is denominated Zaganelli.
Vasari commends him, as a very pleasing colourist; although inferior to
Rondinello in point of design, and still more of composition. In this he
was not happy, if we except his celebrated Resurrection of Lazarus, which
is to be seen at Classe; his extremely beautiful baptism of Jesus Christ,
at Faenza, and a few other histories, where he checks his ardour, and more
carefully disposes his figures, for the most part fine and well draped;
occasionally whimsical, and in proportions less than life. One of his most
extraordinary productions is a large altar-piece at the church of the
Osservanti, in Parma, where he represented the Virgin between several
Saints, enlivened by several portraits in the background. He never, in my
opinion, produced any work more solid in conception, nor more harmoniously
disposed, nor more ingenious in the colonnade, and [Pg 39]the other accessary
parts. Here he preserved the most moderate tints, contrary to his usual
practice, which was glowing and highly animated, and distributed more in
the manner of Mantegna, than of any other master. He had a brother named
Bernardino, with whom, in 1504, he painted a very celebrated altar-piece,
representing the Virgin between S. Francesco and the Baptist, placed in the
interior chapel of the Padri Osservanti, in Ravenna; and another to be seen
at Imola, in the church of the Riformati, with the date 1509. Bernardino,
likewise, displayed tolerable ability alone, and among the paintings at
Pavia, there is one at the Carmine, inscribed with his name; a fact that
may correct an error of Crespi, who names the elder brother Francesco
Bernardino, making the two into one artist.

Contemporary with him, Baldassare Carrari was employed at Ravenna along
with his son Matteo, both natives of that state. They painted for San
Domenico the celebrated altar-piece of S. Bartolommeo, with the grado,
containing very elegant histories of the Holy Apostle. Such is its merit,
as hardly to yield to the gracefulness of Luca Longhi, who placed one of
his own pictures near it. It was one of the earliest which was painted in
oil in Ravenna; and it deserved the eulogium bestowed by Pope Julius II.,
who on beholding it, in 1511, declared, that the altars of Rome could boast
no pieces which surpassed it in point of beauty. The painter there left his
portrait in [Pg
40]the figure of S. Pietro, and that of Rondinello in the S.
Bartolommeo, somewhat older; an observance shewn in those times by the
pupils towards their masters. Yet I should not here pronounce it such, as
Vasari is not only wholly silent as to his school, but omits even his
name.

At Rimini, where the Malatesti spared no expense to attract the best
masters, the art of painting flourished. It was at this time that the
church of San Francesco, one of the wonders of the age, was nobly erected,
and as richly decorated. A number of artists at Rimini had succeeded Giotto
in his school; and it is to them the author of the Guide ascribes the
histories of the B. Michelina, which Vasari conceived were from Giotto’s
own hand.[7] At a later period one Bitino, whose name I am
happy to rescue from oblivion, was employed at the same place; an artist
not perhaps excelled in Italy, about the year 1407, when he painted an
altar-piece of the titular saint, for the church of S. Giuliano. Around it
he represented the discovery of his body, and other facts relating to the
subject; extremely pleasing in point of invention, architecture,
countenances, draperies, and colouring.[8] Another
noble production is a S. Sigismondo, [Pg 41]at whose feet appears
Sigismondo Malatesta, with the inscription, Franciscus de Burgo,
f. 1446; and by the same hand there is the Scourging of our Saviour.
Both these paintings are seen on the wall of S. Francesco; abounding in
perspectives and capricci,
with character approaching so nearly to the taste of Pietro della
Francesca, then living, as to induce me to believe, that they are either by
him, and that he has thus Latinized the name of his house, or by some one
of his pupils, whose name has perished. Not such has been the fate of
Benedetto Coda, of Ferrara, who flourished at Rimini, as well as his son
Bartolommeo, where they left a number of their works. Vasari, in his life
of Gio. Bellini, makes brief mention of them, describing Benedetto as
Bellini’s pupil, “though he derived small advantage from it.” Yet the
altar-piece representing the Marriage of the Virgin, which he placed in the
cathedral, with the inscription of Opus Benedicti, is a very
respectable production; while that of the Rosary, in possession of the
Dominicans, is even in better taste, though not yet modern. This, however,
cannot be said of the son, one of whose pictures I saw at S. Rocco da
Pesaro, painted in 1528, with such excellent method, as almost to remind us
of the golden age. It represents the titular saint of the church along with
S. Sebastiano, standing round the throne of the Virgin, with the addition
of playful and beautiful cherubs. Another pupil of Gio. Bellini is noticed
by Ridolfi. Lattanzio da Rimino, [Pg 42]or Lattanzio della Marca, referred by others
to the school of Pietro Perugino, which, perhaps too, produced Gio. da
Rimino, one of whose pictures, bearing his signature, belongs to the grand
Ercolani collection at Bologna.[9]

Forli, as far as I can learn, boasts no artist earlier than Guglielmo da
Forli, a pupil of Giotto. His paintings in fresco, conducted at the
Francescani, no longer survive, nor in the church of that order could I
meet with any specimen of the thirteenth century, besides a Crucifix by
some unknown hand. From that period, perhaps, a succession of artists
appeared, there being no scarcity of anonymous paintings from which to
conjecture such a fact; but history is silent until the time of Ansovino di
Forli, who has already been included among the pupils of Squarcione. I have
my doubts whether this artist could be the master of Melozzo, a name
venerated by artists, inasmuch as he was the first who applied the art of
foreshortening, the most difficult and the most severe, to the painting of
vaulted ceilings. Considerable progress was made in perspective after the
time of Paolo Uccello, with the aid of Piero della Francesca, a celebrated
geometrician, and of a few Lombards. But the ornamenting of ceilings with
[Pg 43]that
pleasing art and illusion, which afterwards appeared, was reserved for
Melozzo. It is observed by Scannelli, and followed by Orlandi, that in
order to acquire the art he studied the works of the best ancient artists,
and though born to fortune, he did not refuse to lodge with the masters of
his times, in quality of attendant and compounder of their colours. Some
writers give him as a pupil to Pietro della Francesca. It is at least
probable, that Melozzo was acquainted with him and with Agostino
Bramantino, when they were employed at Rome by Nicholas V., towards the
year 1455. However this may be, Melozzo painted on the ceiling of the great
chapel, at Santi Apostoli, the Ascension of our Lord, where, says Vasari,
“the figure of Christ is so admirably foreshortened as to appear to pierce
the vault; and in the same manner the angels are seen sweeping through the
field of air in two opposite directions.” This painting was executed for
Card. Riario, nephew to Pope Sixtus IV. about
the year 1472; and when that edifice required to undergo repairs, it was
removed and placed in the Quirinal palace in 1711; where it is still seen,
bearing this inscription: “Opus Melotii Foroliviensis, qui summos fornices
pingendi artem vel primus invenit vel illustravit.” Several heads of the
apostles which surrounded it, and were likewise cut away, were deposited in
the Vatican palace. Taken as a whole, he approaches Mantegna and the Paduan
School nearer than any other in point of taste; finely formed heads, fine
[Pg
44]colouring, fine attitudes, and almost all as finely
foreshortened. The light is well disposed and graduated, the shadows are
judicious, so that the figures seem to stand out and act in that apparent
space; dignity and grandeur in the principal figure, and white drapery that
encircles it; with delicacy of hand, diligence and grace in every part.
What pity that so rare a genius, pronounced by his contemporaries “an
incomparable painter, and the splendour of all Italy,”[10] should not have had a correct historian to have
described his travels and his pursuits, which must have been both arduous
and interesting, before they raised him to the eminence he attained, in
being commissioned by Card. Riario to execute so great a work. At Forli,
there is still pointed out the façade of an apothecary’s shop, displaying
Arabesques in the first style; and over the entrance appears a half-length
figure, well depicted, in the act of mixing drugs, said to have been the
work of Melozzo. Vasari states, that in the villa of the Dukes of Urbino,
named the Imperial, Francesco di Mirozzo, from Forli, had been employed a
long while previous to Dosso; and it would appear that we are here to
substitute the name of Melozzo, to correct one of those errors which we
have so frequently before remarked in Vasari. In the lives of the Ferrarese
painters there is named a Marco Ambrogio, detto Melozzo di Ferrara, who
seems to be confounded with the inventor of foreshortening; [Pg 45]but it
is my opinion that this was quite a different artist, of which his name
itself gives us reasons to judge. Melozzo di Forli was still alive in 1494:
since F. Luca Paccioli, publishing the same year his “Summa d’Aritmetica e
Geometria,” ranks him among painters in perspective, “men famous and
supreme,” who flourished in those days.

Towards the beginning of the sixteenth century, or shortly afterwards,
Bartolommeo di Forli flourished in the same city, a pupil of Francia,
noticed by Malvasia, whose style was more dry than that of the generality
of his fellow pupils. Next to him I place Palmegiani, transformed by Vasari
into Parmegiano; a good, yet almost unknown artist, of whom, in books upon
the art, I have found mention only of two works, although I have myself
seen a great number. He was cautious too that posterity should not forget
him, for the most part inscribing his name and country upon his
altar-pieces, and upon pictures for private ornament, as follows:
Marcus Pictor Foroliviensis: or Marcus Palmasanus P.
Foroliviensis pinsebat. He seldom adds the year, as in two in
possession of prince Ercolani, on the first of which we find the date of
1513, and on the second that of 1537. In the forementioned pictures, and
more particularly in those of Forli, we may perceive that he practised more
than one style. His earliest was in common with that of the
quattrocentisti, in the extremely simple position of the figures, in the
gilt ornaments [Pg
46]in study of each minute part, as well as in the anatomy, which in
those times consisted almost wholly in drawing with some skill a S.
Sebastian, or some holy anchorite. In his second manner he was more
artificial in his grouping, fuller in his outlines, and greater in his
proportions; though at times more free and less varied in his heads. He was
accustomed to add to his principal subject some other unconnected with it,
as in his picture of the Crucifixion, at S. Agostino di Forli, where he
inserted two or three groups on different grounds; in one of which is seen
S. Paul visited by S. Antony; in another, S. Augustine convinced by the
angel on the subject of the incomprehensibility of the Supreme Triad; and
in these diminutive figures, which he inserted either in the altar-pieces
or on the steps, he displays an art extremely refined and pleasing. His
landscape is likewise animated, and his architecture beautiful, while his
Madonnas and other portraits are superior in point of beauty to those of
Costa, but not equal to Francia, whose style of colouring he less resembles
than that of Rondinello; a circumstance which led Vasari to attribute to
the artist of Ravenna an altar-piece in the cathedral, undoubtedly from the
hand of Palmegiani. The works of the latter are very numerous in Romagna;
and exist in the state of Venice. One of his Madonnas was in possession of
the Ab. Facciolati, in Padua, and mentioned by Bottari; and another belongs
to the Sig. Dottore Antonio Larber, at Bassano. The [Pg 47]select gallery of
Count Luigi Tadini, at Crema, possesses a third; the going up of Jesus to
Mount Calvary; and I saw a Dead Christ, between Nicodemus and Joseph, in
the Vicentini palace at Vicenza; a very beautiful picture, in which the
dead has truly the appearance of death, and those living of real life. I
had long entertained a curiosity to learn whose pupil so considerable an
artist could have been; until I was gratified by finding that Paccioli, in
his dedication of the above cited volume, addressed to Guidubaldo, Duke of
Urbino, calls him the “attached disciple of Melozzo.”

I was made acquainted with an artist of Forli, who flourished at the
period of Palmegiani, by his Eminence Card. Borgia, who in the church of S.
Maria dell’Orto, at Velletri, transcribed the following inscription: “Jo.
Baptista de Rositis de Forlivio pinxit, I. S. O. O. de Mense Martii.” The
picture is on panel, and displays both good design and good colouring. It
represents the Virgin, with the holy child in her arms, seated in a round
temple supported by four columns, and each of these columns is clasped by
an angel, as if bearing the temple in procession through the air. The
angels are wholly arrayed in heroic dress. For this description I am
indebted to the very worthy cardinal.

In respect to the other cities of Romagna, I can easily suppose that I
am rather in want of materials, than that these have had no artists to
boast. I have recorded, not long since, one Ottaviano, [Pg 48]and also one Pace da
Faenza, pupils of Giotto; and there was pointed out to me as the production
of the latter, an ancient figure of our Lady, in a church of the same city,
an edifice formerly belonging to the Templars. Giacomo Filippo Carradori is
included, from his style, among the ancients; in other points it is hardly
possible that he could have reached the fifteenth century. There are more
especially two pictures, in which he exhibits a change of style, although
he never displayed the powers of a superior artist. One of them bears the
date of 1580; the other that of 1582.

Another artist of Faenza better deserved mention in the first edition,
but I had then no account of him. This was Giambatista da Faenza, one of
whose pictures is preserved in the Communal [TN2]
Collection of the Lyceum, with the author’s name, and dated 1506. It
exhibits the Holy Virgin; on whose right two angels support the mantle, and
on the steps of the throne appear St. John the
Baptist, a youth, and another cherub, in the act of playing on the harp. It
is correct in point of design, the tints are very pleasing, and the folds
something similar to those of Albert Durer; in other respects, equal to
Costa, and perhaps, also, not inferior to Francia. He was the father of
Jacopone da Faenza, and of his brother, Raffaello, from whom descended Gio.
Batista Bertuzzi, likewise an artist.

There is a Francesco Bandinelli da Imola, a pupil of Francia, pointed
out by Malvasia; and one [Pg 49]Gaspero, also of Imola, was employed in
painting at Ravenna. In his native state, there is to be seen, at the
Conventual friars, a picture of our Lady, between Saints Rocco and Francis,
in a style inclining to the modern, accompanied with two portraits, very
animated in point of expression.

[2]
Di minio, a peculiar red colour, used also in oil painting, and
well known to the ancients, who on festal days were accustomed to ornament
with it the face of Jove’s statue, as also that of the victors on days of
triumph. Pliny and others explain the ancient method of employing it. The
term, in its simple acceptation, means here the art of designing and
colouring in miniature, (from di minio) early applied to the
ornamenting and illuminating of ancient works and MSS. R.

[4]

Vol. iii. p. 16.

[5]
The Greeks, during the earliest periods, having uniformly represented the
Virgin in so rude a style, were always pleased with similar paintings. I
state this to remove a very prevalent error, that every Madonna of Greek
style, with distended eyes, long fingers, and dark complexion, in the style
of that of Pisa, called Degli Organi, or those of Cimabue, is
to be referred to the remotest dates. Indeed I have seen specimens of the
sixteenth, seventeenth, and even eighteenth centuries, particularly in the
Classe Museum, in that of Cattaio, and in the palaces of Venetian nobles.
One in the possession of the E. E. Signori Giustiniani Recanati, has,
notwithstanding its very antique air, red letters inscribed on a gold
ground, expressing, ΧΕΙΡ
Ε᾿ΜΜΑΝΟΥΗΛ
ΙΕΡΕΩϹ ….. α … λξ,
Manus Emanuelis Sacerdotis. an. 1660. From the hand of the
same Greek priest, well known to Venetian artists, there are other
altar-pieces with a similar inscription; and it is still customary in that
city to reproduce specimens of a similar kind, to satisfy the continual
inquiries of the Greek merchants. To judge correctly, then, of the age of
such images, we must look for other indications besides their design, such
as the letters, (see
vol.i. p. 49), the fashion of the cornice, the method of
colouring, or those cherubs, holding a gold crown over the head of the
Virgin, in the edges and the folds of whose drapery are imprinted marks of
ages nearer to our own.

[6]
It is remarkable that, a century previous to the arrival of Giotto, we find
in Ravenna one Johannes Pictor; a fact supplied by the learned
Count Fantuzzi, to whom both Ravenna and the public owe so much valuable
information. See his “Monumenti Ravennati, during the middle
ages, for the most part inedited,” vol.i. p. 347. In vol. ii. p. 210, there is mention of a parchment of 1246, in
which one Graziadeo, a notary, orders that in the Portuense church there be
made “imagines magnæ et spatiosæ ad aurum,” which means mosaic, or painting
upon a gold ground, a custom so much practised in those times.

[7]
To this period belonged that Joannes Rimerici Pictor Arimini, who is pointed out to
us in 1386 by Count Marco Fantuzzi, in his Monumenti
Ravennati, vol. vi. edited in the year 1804.

[8]
In the above named volume (vi) we find mention of the son of this
distinguished man: “Magister Antonius Pictor quondam Mag. Bictini
Pictoris de Arimino, 1456.”

[9]
I made a mistake in my former edition in supposing him to have been a pupil
of Bellino, who died in 1516. Concerning this Gio. who subscribed himself
likewise Gio. Francesco, we observe that Oretti, in his Memorie,
MSS., points out two pictures with the dates of 1459 and 1461. He
adds, that there are accounts of his having been living in 1470.

[10]
Morelli Notizie, p. 109.

[Pg 50]

SCHOOL OF BOLOGNA.

EPOCH II.

Various styles from the time of Francia to that of the Caracci.

Subsequent to the discovery of the new style, when every
school of Italy was devoted to its cultivation in the track of one of its
masters, the Bolognese artists having none at home from whom to acquire it,
either removed elsewhere to study it under the eye of living masters, or,
if remaining in their native place, they contrived to attain it from such
foreigners as had there conducted, or at least sent thither their works. Of
these they possessed, besides the St. Cecilia,
and a few small paintings by Raffaello, other productions by his pupils,
such as the St. John, coloured by Giulio, and
the St. Zacchary, a work by Garofolo. Nor was it
long before the Lombard style was introduced into Bologna, Parmigianino
having there produced his St. Rocco and his
St. Margaret, pictures which are enumerated
among his happiest efforts, and Girolamo da Carpi, and Niccolo dell’Abate
having long resided, and left there many fine specimens of their mixed
style, between the Lombard and the Roman. Another artist sojourning there
was Girolamo da Trevigi, an imitator of Raffaello, [Pg 51]not without some
mixture of Venetian taste, some of whose productions are still seen at
Bologna. A still more constant resident there was Tommaso Laureti, a
Sicilian, a pupil, according to Vasari, of Sebastian del Piombo, and
assuredly a more powerful colourist than most of his age. He there
conducted a number of works, and among others the painting of a recess
di sotto in su, for the
house of Vizzani, which Father Danti, commending Vignola’s perspective,
pronounces perfectly unique in its kind. At the same place he left
compositions abounding in figures, displaying much fancy, not however to be
placed in competition with the history of Brutus, which he afterwards
completed, along with several more in the Campidoglio at Rome, where he
long resided and taught. At Bologna is also the altar-piece of Boldraffio,
pupil to Vinci, and various other pieces by a Florentine, who signs himself
Iul. Flor. read by some for Julius, and by others
Julianus. Possibly he might be that Giulian Bugiardini, poor
both as inventor and composer, but excellent in point of copying and
colouring. Whoever he may have been, the whole of his productions,
particularly his St. John, which adorns the
Sacristy of St. Stephen’s, shew him to have been
an imitator of Vinci, almost on a par with the Luini, and the best known
Milanese artists. Michelangiolo shone there in the character of a statuary
in the time of Julius II., but neither produced any paintings, nor left
behind him, among artists, any wish for his return, having [Pg 52]for
some little indiscreet word treated Francia and Costa with the most
sovereign contempt, in the same manner as at another period he criticised
Pietro Perugino. His style, nevertheless, took root in Bologna within a
very few years, no less from the studies pursued by Tibaldi at Rome, as
will be seen, than from the examples left by Giorgio Vasari at San Michele
in Bosco, in Bologna, in Michelangiolo’s style. Nor did these examples
prove more useful to the Bolognese than they had done to the Florentine
artists; and here also they opened the path to a less correct style. It is
known that Vasari’s works were much commended there, and copied by young
artists; that he had, moreover, assistants among the Bolognese, such as
Bagnacavallo, the younger, and Fontana, who instructed not a few of his
fellow citizens in the art. To these causes we may attribute the
circumstance, that those Bolognese artists, nearest to the Caracci, were
accustomed to colour, for the most part, like the Florentines of the third
epoch, that several were extremely careless of the chiaroscuro, and
frequently pursued the ideal and the practical, more than nature and truth.
Yet these complaints do not apply either to so great a number of Bolognese,
or to so long a period, as to give a different aspect to the whole epoch.
The one which we are now about to describe, abounds with excellent artists;
and to this shortly succeeded the epoch of the Caracci, which improved the
good, and brought many extravagant artists into a correct method.

[Pg
53]The earliest founders of the new school were Bartolommeo
Ramenghi, called Bagnacavallo, being sprung from thence, and Innocenzio
Francucci da Imola. Both educated by Francia, the former subsequently went
to Rome, where we have given an account of him among Raffaello’s
assistants; the latter to Florence, where he attached himself to the school
of Albertinelli, besides studying very accurately, if I mistake not, the
works of Frate and Andrea del Sarto. Both, on returning to Bologna, met
with rivals, though less with the pencil than the tongue, in Aspertini and
Cotignuola, artists whose works present no instance of a style wholly
modern. One master, Domenico, a Bolognese, then flourished, equal to
compete with the first names, but who resided out of his native place. His
name, lost during two or more centuries, was brought to light, a few years
ago, from the archives of S. Sigismondo of Cremona, in whose church he
executed, upon the ceiling, a picture of Jonah ejected from the whale,
which, in respect of the di sotto
in su, is most admirable. It was completed in 1537, when this art
was yet new in Italy; and I am at a loss to say whether Domenico acquired
it from Coreggio, or, as is more likely, from Melozzo, whose style he most
resembles of the two. I have seen no other work, nor met with any other
notice of this artist, unknown even to the Bolognese historians, perhaps on
account of his constant residence out of the place.

The first artist, therefore, who introduced a new [Pg 54]style into Bologna,
and established it there, was Bagnacavallo, who had practised at Rome under
Raffaello, and not without advantage. He had not the depth of design
possessed by Giulio Romano, or Perino; but he nearly approached to the
latter, and was perhaps equal to him in taste of colouring, while, in the
gracefulness of his countenances, at least of the infantine and boyish, he
surpassed him. In his composition he most affected Raffaello, as may be
gathered from the celebrated Dispute of St.
Augustine at the Scopetini, where the maxims of the School of Athens, and
of other copious and noble conceptions of Sanzio, are apparent. Indeed in
those subjects, treated by the latter, Bagnacavallo contented himself with
being a mere copyist, declaring that it was madness to attempt to do
better; in which it would seem he followed Vida’s opinion, and that of
other poets of his age, who inserted in their pages fragments of Virgil,
because they despaired of excelling him. Such a maxim, which, whatever
truth it may contain, opens a wide field for indolence and plagiarism, very
probably injured him in the eyes of Vasari, who confers on him the praise
due to a good practitioner rather than to a master grounded in the theory
of his art. Still he conducted some paintings, on the strength of his own
invention, at S. Michele in Bosco, at S. Martino, and at S. Maria Maggiore,
which absolve him from such an accusation; nor can I believe that the
Caracci, Albano, and Guido, would have copied from [Pg 55]him and imitated his
works, had they not recognized in them the hand of a master.

There was a son of Bagnacavallo, named Gio. Batista, who was employed as
an assistant to Vasari in the palace of the chancery at Rome, and to
Primaticcio in the court of France. He likewise left various original works
in Bologna, more nearly inclining, if I judge rightly, to the decline of
the art in his own time, than to the examples of his father. In addition to
his son, mention ought here to be made of Bagnacavallo’s companion, called
Biagio Pupini, and sometimes Maestro Biagio dalle Lamme, who, having been
at Rome with Ramenghi, contracted with him at Bologna a community of
labours and of interests, and assisted him in the Dispute just before
mentioned, as well as in other works. He formed the same connexion with
Girolamo da Trevigi and others, uniformly acquiring, if we are to credit
Vasari, more money than reputation, and at times injuring that of his
companion by his eagerness to finish. Whatever opinion we may entertain
regarding such facts, this artist by no means merits contempt; and perhaps
Vasari might have treated him with more lenity, had there not existed
between them mutual rivalship and disgust. In Pupini’s style, where he
exerted his powers, we trace the manner of Francesco Francia, his master,
though a good deal enlarged, with the relief, and the various other
characteristics of the good age. Of this taste is a Nativity of our Lord
which he painted at Bologna, and which now adorns the institution of that
place.

[Pg
56]Innocenzio, born at Imola, but residing always in Bologna, was
admitted into the school of Francia in 1506; from which we are not to
infer, with Malvasia, that he did not spend some years at Florence in
company with Albertinelli. This is attested by Vasari, and confirmed by the
resemblance of his style to that of the most distinguished Florentines of
the age. He produced several altar-pieces, composed in the taste of the
fourteenth century; but following the example of Frate and of Andrea, he
placed the Virgin above, without the ancient gildings, and with great art
he grouped and disposed the saints who attend her; while, with equal
novelty, he distributed the train of cherubs over the steps and through the
surrounding space. Sometimes, as in the extraordinary picture displayed in
the cathedral of Faenza, and another in possession of prince Ercolani, he
added some noble architecture, bold and drawn from the antique. In other
instances, as in the church of the Osservanti, at Pesaro, we observe the
most attractive landscape, combined with an aërial perspective, sufficient
to remind us of Vinci. He was accustomed too to insert little histories, as
in S. Giacomo at Bologna, where, at the foot of the picture, he painted a
Christ in the manger, of which it is enough to add, that it is perfectly
Raffaellesque. This, indeed, was the style to which he invariably aspired,
and so nearly attained, that very few of Raffaello’s own pupils could equal
him. Those who may be desirous of convincing themselves, may examine the
altar-piece at Faenza in all its parts, and that [Pg 57]of S. Michele in
Bosco; to say nothing of his Madonnas and his Holy Families, interspersed
throughout the Bolognese collections, and in the adjacent cities. He is
preferred to Francia and to Bagnacavallo, in all that relates to erudition,
majesty, and correctness. I am not aware that he executed compositions very
new, or subjects requiring fire and vigour, nor would they have been
consistent with his genius, which is described as of a gentle and tranquil
cast.

The fame of the two masters, just celebrated, did not then extend far
beyond their native districts, being eclipsed by the celebrity of many
contemporaries, who swayed the regions of the art; in the list of whom was
Giulio Romano. His reputation drew to Mantua Francesco Primaticcio,
instructed in design by Innocenzio, and by Bagnacavallo in colouring. Under
Giulio he afterwards became a painter on a great scale, and a very copious
composer of large histories, as well as a decorator in wood and stucco in a
magnificent style suitable only for a palace. In this way, having studied
six years in Mantua, he was sent by Giulio to the court of the French king
Francis, and there, though Rosso the Florentine had arrived a year before,
and executed a variety of works, yet we learn that “the first stuccos and
the first works in fresco of any consideration in France, took their rise
from Primaticcio,” in the words of Vasari. Nor has he omitted to mention,
that the king bestowed upon this artist the abbey of St. Martin, though he did not add that it brought him
an annual income of eight [Pg 58]thousand crowns, while Rosso possessed only a
canonship worth one thousand. In regard to this last omission he is
severely taxed with malice by Malvasia, with what reason the reader will
best judge for himself. We farther learn from Vasari that this artist
employed himself, as well as his young assistants, in decorating a number
of the halls and chambers at Fontainebleau, that he supplied the court with
many ancient marbles, and many moulds of excellent sculpture, from which he
had casts afterwards taken in bronze; in a word, that he was like another
Giulio, if not in architecture, at least in every other kind of knowledge
appertaining to the arts. The works conducted by him in France have been
described by Felibien, and from the same pen is that appropriate
eulogy—”that the geniuses of France are indebted to Primaticcio and
to M. Niccolo, (dell’Abate) for many exquisite productions, and that they
are entitled to the fame of having been the first who introduced Roman
taste into France, with all the beau ideal of ancient painting and
sculpture.” At the Te of Mantua there remains the frieze of stuccos, so
highly commended by Vasari, from Primaticcio’s own hand, as well as a few
pictures, which last, however, are not so assuredly his. His pictures
indeed are objects of the utmost rarity in Italy, and in Bologna itself. In
the grand Zambeccari gallery there is a concert by him, with three female
figures, altogether enchanting; the forms, the motions, the colouring, the
taste of the lines and folding so easy and chaste, all combined with a
certain [Pg
59]originality pervading the whole, are well calculated to attract
and rivet the eye at the first moment. When dying, he assigned Niccolo
Abati, called too dell’Abate, to continue his grand works, because he had
brought him from Bologna, and laid the ground-work of his fortunes. An
account of this delightful painter may be found in the Modenese School. He
was not Primaticcio’s pupil, but one Ruggiero Ruggieri was, and conducted
by him into France, he left few paintings in his own country; to whom we
may perhaps add one Francesco Caccianemici, called by Vasari his disciple,
from whose hand, at Bologna, there only remain a few doubtful
specimens.

Much under the same circumstances as Primaticcio and Abati appeared
Pellegrino Pellegrini, whose patronymic was Tibaldi, a native of Valdelsa
in the Milanese; though residing from his childhood, educated, and
established at Bologna. He next filled the same situation at the court of
Spain, as the two preceding had done at that of France; he decorated it
with his paintings, improved its taste in architecture, formed pupils, and
rose in fortune until he at length became Marquess of that Valdelsa, where
his father and uncle had resided as poor masons before they went to
Bologna. It is not known who first imbued his liberal spirit with the
elements of learning; but Vasari traces his progress from some pictures of
his in the refectory of S. Michele in Bosco, copied by Tibaldi when young,
along with other select pieces at Bologna. From this place [Pg 60]he
follows him to Rome in 1547, eager to study the finest works in that
capital, where, after three years’ residence, he re-conducts[TN3] him to Bologna, still very young, but advanced in the
knowledge of his art. His style was in great part formed upon the models of
Michelangiolo—vast, correct in drawing, bold, and happy in his
foreshortenings; yet, at the same time, tempered with so much mellowness
and softness, as to induce the Caracci to denominate him the reformed
Michelangiolo. The first work which he conducted, subsequent to the year
1550, is in the Bolognese Institution, and it is the most perfect, in
Vasari’s opinion, ever executed by him. It contains in particular various
stories from the Odyssey, and this work, with that by Niccolino, mentioned
elsewhere,[11] both executed for the
Institution, were afterwards finely engraved by Sig. Antonio Buratti of
Venice, accompanied with the lives of the two painters, written by Zanotti.
Both there, and in the great merchants’ hall at Ancona, where he
subsequently represented Hercules, the monster-slayer, Tibaldi exhibited
the true method of imitating the terrible in the style of Michelangiolo,
which consisted in a fear of too nearly approaching him. Although Vasari
greatly commends these works, the Caracci, to whose judgment we would
rather defer, have bestowed higher praises on those executed by Pellegrino
for the church of S. Jacopo; and it was on these pictures that both the
Caracci and their pupils bestowed most study. In one is represented [Pg 61]the
preaching of St. John in the desert; in another
the separation of the elect from the wicked, where, in the features of the
celestial messenger announcing the tidings, Pellegrino displayed those of
his favourite Michelangiolo. What a school for design and for expression is
here! What art in the distribution of such a throng of figures, in varying
and in grouping them! In Loreto too, and in different adjacent cities, he
produced other histories, less celebrated perhaps, but all nearly as
deserving of the burin as those executed at Bologna. Such is the Entrance
of Trajan into Ancona, in possession of the Marchese Mancinforte; and
various exploits of Scipio, belonging to the accomplished nobleman,
Marchese Ciccolini, which decorate one of his halls, where he himself
pointed them out to me. It is a work conceived in a more refined and
graceful taste than we meet with in other compositions of Tibaldi; and of
the same composition I have seen some of his pictures on a very small
scale; but rare, like all his pieces in oil; wrought with the exquisite
finish of a miniaturist; mostly rich in figures, full of fine spirit, vivid
colouring, and decorated with all the pleasing perspectives that
architecture could afford. This indeed was his favourite art; which, after
he had afforded some beautiful specimens of it in Piceno, and next at
Milan, procured him an appointment from Philip II. to superintend the engineers at the Spanish
Court. There again, after the lapse of twenty years, during [Pg 62]which
he never touched the easel, he resumed the art of painting; and we meet
with a list of his works in the Escurial of Mazzolari.

Domenico Tibaldi de’ Pellegrini, once conjectured to be the son, was the
pupil and brother of Pellegrino; and his name is in great repute among the
architects and engravers of Bologna. His epitaph at San Mammolo states him
also to have been a distinguished painter; but we must receive the
authority of epitaphs with some caution; and not even a portrait from his
hand is to be met with. Faberio speaks less highly of his powers, and in
the funeral oration upon Agostino Caracci, whose master he had been, he
mentions him as an able designer, engraver, and architect. Pellegrino’s
pupils in painting, and no obscure artists, were Girolamo Miruoli,
commended by Vasari among the artists of Romagna, who left one of his
frescos at the Servi, in Bologna, and several other pieces at Parma, where
he filled the office of court-painter, and there died; and secondly, Gio.
Francesco Bezzi, called Nosadella, who painted a great deal at Bologna and
in other cities, in the style of his master, exaggerating it in point of
power, but not equalling it in care, and in short, reducing it to mere
mechanic labour and despatch.

Vasari, in his life of Parmigianino, has mentioned with praise Vincenzio
Caccianemici, of a good family in Bologna, respecting whom there have been
some discussions, to avoid confounding him with Francesco, who bore the
same surname. The [Pg 63]correctors of the old Guide
suppose him to be the author of a Decollation of St. John, placed at S. Petronio, in the family chapel;
a picture well designed and better coloured, and executed, as they observe,
in the style of Parmigianino.

Whilst the three great geniuses of the Bolognese School were residing
abroad, the two first mentioned in France, and the third in Milan, and
afterwards in Spain, the art continued stationary, or, more correctly,
declined in Bologna. In the year 1569 three masters are pointed out by
Vasari, namely, Fontana, Sabbatini, and Sammachini, whom he calls
Fumaccini. For what reason he excluded Ercole Procaccini, an artist, if not
of great genius, at least of finished execution, I am unable to say.
Certain it is that Lomazzo, whilst he resided with him in Milan, mentioned
him in the highest terms, and enumerated in the list of his pupils
Sabbatini, and Sammachini too. I shall not here repeat what I have detailed
in the Milanese School respecting Ercole and his sons; but, passing on to
the others, I shall begin with Fontana, the principal cause of the decline
above alluded to.

The long protracted life of this artist comprehended the whole of the
period now under our view, and even extended beyond it. Born in the time of
Francia, educated by Imola, who at his death selected him to finish one of
his pictures, and subsequently employed for a long period as the assistant
of Vaga, and of Vasari, he continued to labour [Pg 64]and to teach without
intermission, until the Caracci, once his disciples, drew all his
commissions and followers to themselves. For this result he was indebted to
his own conduct. Devoted to pleasure (the most fatal enemy to an artist’s
reputation) he could only provide the means of gratification by burthening
himself with works, and executing them with little care. He possessed a
fertility of ideas, a vehemence, and a cultivation of mind, well adapted
for works of magnitude. Abandoning, therefore, the careful finish of
Francucci, he adopted the method of Vasari, and like him covered with his
works a vast number of walls in a short space of time, and nearly in the
same taste. In design he is more negligent than Vasari, in his motions more
energetic; his colours have the same yellow cast, but rather more delicacy.
In Città di Castello a hall of the noble family of Vitelli is filled with
family histories, painted by him in a few weeks, as Malvasia informs us,
and the work confirms the assertion. Similar specimens, or but little
superior, are met with in Rome, at the Villa Giulia, and at the Palazzo di
Toscana, in the Campo Marzio, and in various houses in Bologna. Yet in
other places he appears an artist of merit for a declining age; as in his
Epiphany, at the Grazie, where he displays a facility, a pomp of drapery,
and a magnificence nearly approaching the style of Paul Veronese. This work
bears the name of the painter written in letters of gold. But his best
claim to distinction is founded on his portraits, [Pg 63A]which are more
highly prized in cabinets than are his compositions in the churches. It was
this talent which induced Michelangiolo to present him to Julius III. by whom he was pensioned as one of the Palatine
painters of his time.

He had a daughter and a pupil in Lavinia Fontana, named also Zappi, from
the family of Imola, into which she was married. This lady executed several
altar-pieces at Rome and at Bologna in the paternal style, as far as
regards colouring; but less successful in point of design and composition.
She felt the inferiority, as is observed by Baglione, and sought reputation
from portrait-painting, a branch in which she is preferred by some to
Prospero. It is certain that she wrought with a sort of feminine
perseverance, in order that her portraits should more faithfully express
every line and feature of nature in the countenances, every refinement of
art in the drapery. She became painter to Pope Gregory XIII., and was more
particularly applied to by the Roman ladies, whose ornaments she displayed
more perfectly than any male artist in the world. She attained to so high a
degree of sweetness and softness in the art, especially after knowing the
works of the Caracci, that one or two of her portraits have been attributed
to Guido. With equal ability she produced a number of cabinet pictures,
such as that Holy Family for the Escurial, so much commended by Mazzolari,
and her Sheba at the throne of Solomon, which I saw in the collection [Pg 64A]of
the late Marchese Giacomo Zambeccari. She has there expressed, in the form
of allegory, the Duke and Duchess of Mantua, surrounded by many lords and
ladies of their court, arrayed in splendid style; a painting that would
reflect credit on the Venetian School. Gifted with such genius, she was by
no means chary of her own likenesses executed by herself, which ornament
the royal gallery of Florence and other collections. But there remains no
specimen more truly speaking and delightful than the one belonging to the
Conti Zappi, at Imola, where it is accompanied by the portrait of Prospero
in his declining days, also painted by her.

Lorenzo Sabbatini, called likewise Lorenzin di Bologna, was one of the
most graceful and delicate painters of his age. I have heard him enumerated
among the pupils of Raffaello by keepers of the galleries, deceived
doubtless by his Holy Families, designed and composed in the best Roman
taste, although invariably more feebly coloured. I have also seen some of
his Holy Virgins and Angels painted for private ornament, which resemble
Parmigianino. Nor were his altar-pieces inferior; the most celebrated of
which is that of St. Michael, engraved by
Agostino Caracci, from an altar of S. Giacomo Maggiore; and this he held up
as an example of gracefulness and beauty, to his whole school. He was,
moreover, a fine fresco painter, correct in design, of copious invention,
universal master in the [Pg 65]subjects of the piece, and what is still more
remarkable, most rapid in point of execution. Endowed with such qualities,
he was engaged by many noble houses in his native place; but on proceeding
to Rome in the pontificate of Gregory XIII., according to Baglione, he
there met with success; insomuch, that even his fleshes and naked figures
were highly commended, though this was by no means a branch of his pursuits
at Bologna. In the Capella Paolina, he represented the histories of St. Paul; in the royal hall, the picture of Faith,
shewn in triumph over Infidelity; in the gallery and the lodges a variety
of other pieces, always in competition with the best masters, and always
with equal applause. Hence, in the immense list of artificers at that
period congregated at Rome, he was selected to preside over the labours of
the Vatican, in the enjoyment of which honourable post he died at an early
age in 1577.

It is difficult to believe, as asserted by some writers, that Giulio
Bonasone was his pupil, an artist who practised engraving in copper as
early as 1544. On reaching a more mature age, he seems to have devoted
himself to painting, leaving several paintings on canvass, but feeble and
varying in their style. At S. Stefano there is one of Purgatory, in the
style of Sabbatini, extremely fine, and composed, as it is conjectured,
with the assistance of Lorenzino. The productions, also, of Cesare Aretusi,
of Felice Pasqualini, and of Giulio Morina, are in existence, though the
name of Sabbatini [Pg 66]might perhaps be justly substituted for
theirs; such was the part he took in their labours. The latter, with
Girolamo Mattioli, after the celebrity gained by the Caracci, became their
eager followers. The labours of Mattioli, who died young, were distributed
among different private houses, particularly in that of the noble family of
Zani: those of Morina are seen in various churches at Bologna, and for the
most part betray a degree of affectation of the style of Parma, at which
city he some time painted in the service of the duke.

Orazio Samacchini, the intimate friend of Sabbatini, his contemporary,
and who followed him at a short interval to the tomb, began his career by
imitating Pellegrino and the Lombards. Proceeding next to Rome, and
employed in painting for the royal hall, under Pius IV.; he succeeded in
catching the taste of the Roman School, for which he was praised by Vasari,
(who calls him Fumaccini) and afterwards by Borghini and Lomazzo. In the
display of this his new style, however, he contrived to please others more
than himself; and returning to Bologna, he was accustomed to lament that he
had ever removed from upper Italy, where he might have carried his early
manner to greater perfection, without deviating in search of a new. Still
he had no reason to feel dissatisfied with that which he had thus formed of
various others, and so moulded by his own genius, as to exhibit something
singular in its every [Pg 67]character. In his altar-piece of the
Purification, at S. Jacopo, it is all exquisite delicacy, in which the
leading figures enchant us with at once a majestic and tender expression of
piety; while those infant figures seen conversing near the altar, and that
of the young girl holding a little basket with two doves, gazing on them in
so peculiar a manner, delight us with their mingled simplicity and grace.
Skilful judges even can take no exceptions but to the display of too great
diligence, with which, during several years, he had studied and polished
this single painting. This, however, as one of the most celebrated of its
school, was engraved by Agostino, and it would seem that even Guido availed
himself of it in his Presentation, painted for the cathedral of Modena, yet
he was an equally powerful artist where his subjects required it of him.
His chapel, of which we gave an account in the Parmese School, is highly
commended, though his most vigorous effort is shewn in the ceiling of S.
Abbondio, at Cremona. The grand and the terrible seem to strive for mastery
in the figures of the prophets, in all their actions and positions; the
most difficult from confinement of space, yet the best arranged and
imagined. There is, moreover, a truth in the shortenings, and a skilful use
of the sotto in su,[12] which appears in this instance to have selected the
most difficult portion of the art, in order to triumph over it. His forte
is believed to have [Pg 68]consisted in grand undertakings in fresco, on
which he impressed, as it were, the seal of a vast spirit, at once resolute
and earnest, without altering it by corrections and retouches, with which
he laboured his paintings in oil, as we have stated.

Bartolommeo Passerotti has been commended by Borghini and Lomazzo; and
he is casually named also by Vasari among the assistants of Taddeo Zuccaro;
indeed, it may rather be said, this is the artist with whom Vasari ceases
to write, and Malvasia to inveigh.[13] He
possessed excellent skill in designing with his pen; a gift which drew to
his school Agostino Caracci, and which assisted the latter as a guide in
the art of engraving. He likewise wrote a book, from which he taught the
symmetry and anatomy of the human body, essential to the artist; and was
the first who, to make a grander display, began to vary scriptural
histories at Bologna by drawing the naked torsi. The finest of these
specimens are, the Beheading of St. Paul, at
Rome, in the Tre Fontane; and at S. Giacomo, of Bologna, a picture of the
Virgin among various saints; a work meant to compete [Pg 69]with the Caracci, and
embellished by their praise. One of his pictures too of “Tizio” was much
celebrated, which, being exhibited to the public, was supposed by the
professors of Bologna to have been the work of Michelangiolo. This
exquisite degree of diligence and refinement he rarely used; most generally
he was bold and free, somewhat resembling Cesare, only more correct. In his
portraits, however, he is by no means a common painter. After Titian, Guido
included him among the very first, not preferring before him the Caracci
themselves, whose name, indeed, in several galleries, is attached to the
portraits of Passerotti. The most commendable of all however, are those he
executed for the noble family Legnani—entire figures extremely varied
in costume, in action, and attitudes; it being his usual custom to compose
portraits, such as Ridolfi described of Paris, which should appear ideal
pictures. By means of such a talent, which made him agreeable to the great,
by his polite and refined manners and malicious strictures, he became a
match for the Caracci; for whom he also prepared rivals in a number of his
sons, whom he carefully instructed in the art. Among these, Tiburzio
possessed real merit, of which his fine picture of the Martyrdom of St. Catherine, conducted in the taste of his father,
displays sufficient proof. Passerotto and Ventura, however, were below
mediocrity. Aurelio was a good miniaturist, and in the same branch Gaspero,
a son [Pg
70]of Tiburzio, also met with success. In the works of Bartolommeo
we often meet with a sparrow, the symbol of his own name; a custom derived
from the ancients, and followed by many of our own artists. It is a
well-known fact relating to two sculptors, Batraco and Sauro, that for
their proper names they substituted, the former a frog, and the latter a
lizard.

Dionisio Calvart, born at Antwerp, and hence also called Dionisio the
Fleming, came, when young, into Bologna, and displayed some ability in
landscape painting. In order to become a figure painter, he entered first
the school of Fontana, and next that of Sabbatini, whom he greatly assisted
in his labours for the Vatican. But after quitting also this master, and
occupying himself, some little time, in designing from Raffaello’s
pictures, he returned to Bologna, opened a studio, and there educated as
many as a hundred and thirty-seven masters in the art, some of whom were
excellent. He was a fine artist for his age; understood perspective well,
which he acquired from Fontana, and designed both correctly and gracefully
in the taste of Sabbatini. He moreover possessed the art of colouring, in
the taste of his own countrymen, a quality which induced the Bolognese to
regard him as a restorer of their school, which in this branch of painting
had declined. If there were some degree of mannerism in his style, some
action in his figures too little dignified, or too extravagant; the former
was the fault of his age, and the latter of his temperament, [Pg 71]which
is described as extremely restless and violent. Notwithstanding, he
instructed his pupils with assiduous care, and from the cartoons of the
most celebrated inventors he gave them lectures in the art. Different
collections abound with his small pictures, painted chiefly on copper,
representing incidents from the Gospel, which attract by the abundance of
the figures, by their spirit, and by the lusciousness of their tints.
Similar commissions in this line were then very frequently given in
Bologna; most times proceeding from the noviciate nuns, who were in the
habit of carrying with them into the cloister similar little paintings to
decorate their lonely cells; and Calvart provided abundance of them, with
the assistance of his young men, whose pieces he retouched; and they
obtained immense circulation both in Italy and Flanders. In particular
those conducted by Albano and Guido, his two pupils, boast the most
attractive graces, and may be known by a certain superior decision,
knowledge, and facility. In the list of his altar-pieces, the S. Michele,
at S. Petronio, and the Purgatory, at the Grazie, bear the palm; and from
these, as well as others, the best disciples of the Caracci confessed the
assistance which they received.

On the rise of the new Bolognese School, the pupils of Calvart for the
most part changed their manner, attaching themselves some to one master,
and some to another. Those who preserved most evident traces of their
former education, in other [Pg 72]words, who continued more feeble and less
natural than the Caracceschi, were but few. Malvasia enumerates Gio.
Batista Bertusio in this list, who vainly aspired at resembling Guido,
leaving a variety of paintings both at Bologna and its villages, displaying
beauties more apparent than real. Two other artists, Pier Maria da
Crevalcore, a painter in oil, and Gabriel Ferrantini, known by his frescos,
called also Gabriel degli Occhiali, seem both to have seen, and attempted
to imitate the Caracci. Emilio Savonanzi, a Bolognese noble, attached
himself to the art when nearly arrived at manhood, but he attended
Cremonini more than Calvart; and strongly addicted to changing masters,
entered the school of Lodovico Caracci, next that of Guido at Bologna, of
Guercino at Cento, and finally the studio of Algardi, an excellent sculptor
at Rome. By such means he became a good theorist and an able lecturer,
applauded in every particular of his art; nor was he wanting in good
practice, uniting many styles in one, in which however that of Guido most
prevails. Still he was not equally correct in all his pieces, even
betraying feebleness of touch, and not scrupling to denominate himself an
artist of many hands. He resided at Ancona, next at Camerino, at which
places, as well as in the adjacent districts, he left a variety of works.
Of another Bolognese, who flourished at the same period, there remains at
Ancona a picture of the offering of the Infant Jesus at the Temple,
ornamenting the larger altar [Pg 73]of S. Jacopo. The inscription shews him to
have resided at Brescia, F. Tiburtius Baldinus Bononiensis F.
Brixiæ, 1611. This date proves him to have belonged to the present
epoch. His taste, from what I am informed by Sig. Cav. Boni, extremely well
informed on subjects of the fine arts, reminds us of the excellent school
that flourished in 1500: magnificence in the architecture, great
copiousness of composition, and clearness of effect, except that in the
general tone of his tints, and in his fleshes, he is somewhat cold. One
artist there was, who declared that he had laid down for himself a maxim,
never to alter with other styles that of Calvart; and this was Vincenzo
Spisano, called likewise Spisanelli. He however is inferior in solidity and
truth of design, and displays quite as much caprice and mannerism as any of
the practitioners of his time. Nor does he always preserve the colours
peculiar to his school; but deadens them with a leaden hue, which is still
not unpleasing. His altar-pieces, executed at Bologna, and in the
neighbouring cities, are less celebrated than his small pictures for
private ornament, which abound in Bologna, and which he was in the habit of
enlivening with very attractive landscape. It has already been observed
that those who were mannerists in their style, like Zuccaro and Cesari,
always when working on a small scale, improved upon themselves.

Bartolommeo Cesi fills the rank also of head of a school, among those
who cleared the path to the [Pg 74]good method pursued by the disciples of the
Caracci. From him Tiarini acquired the art of painting fresco, and his
works gave the first impulse to Guido in attaining to his sweet and
graceful manner. On examining a work by Cesi, it sometimes seems doubtful
whether it may not have been that of Guido when young. He dares little,
copies every thing from nature, selects fine forms of each period of life,
and makes sparing use of the ideal; his lines and folds are few, his
attitudes measured, and his tints more beautiful than strong. He has some
paintings at San Jacopo, and at San Martino, which are extremely pleasing;
and it is said that Guido, during his early youth, was in the habit of
sitting to contemplate them sometimes for hours. His frescos, perhaps,
display more power, where he has introduced many copious histories with
great judgment, variety, and mastery; and such are those of Æneas, in the
Favi palace. His Arch of Forli, painted for Clement VIII., with different
exploits, surprises us even more. Though exposed to the action of the open
air, during so many years, this piece retains the vividness of its tints to
a surprising degree. Malvasia’s opinion, in commendation of this artist, is
very remarkable, that he had a manner which at once satisfies, pleases, and
enamours the beholder, as truly exquisite and sweet as any style of the
best Tuscan masters in fresco. In the larger chapel of the Bolognese
monastery of Carthusians, there are distinguished examples in both [Pg 75]kinds
of painting; and the describer of the Carthusian monastery, in his account
of them, likewise enumerates Cesi’s works for other monasteries of the same
order, those of Ferrara, of Florence, and Siena. He was held in esteem by
the Caracci, and very generally so by the different professors, no less for
the candour of his character, than for his love of the art. To his efforts
it was chiefly owing that the company of painters, in 1595, obtained a
separation from the artificers of swords, of saddles, and of scabbards,
with all of whom they had for centuries been united in the same
corporation, and that a new one being formed of painters and of cotton
manufacturers,[14] it not being possible wholly to
exclude the latter, they were to rank inferior to the artists, or, to use
the words of Malvasia, “that they should condescend to furnish to the
amount of two hundred, or more, crowns, rich purple cloaks to decorate the
wearer of the laurel crown, preceding their vice steward.”[15]

Cesare Aretusi, a son, perhaps, of Pellegrino Munari,[16] was distinguished as a colourist in the Venetian taste,
but in point of invention weak and dull; while Gio. Batista Fiorini, on the
other hand, was full of fine conceptions but worthless in his colouring.
Friendship, that introduces community in the possessions of friends, here
achieved what is narrated in the Greek anthology of two [Pg 76]poor rogues, one of
whom was blind and stout, and carried on his shoulders a sharp-eyed
cripple, who thus provided himself with a friend’s pair of feet, while he
afforded him the advantage of as many eyes. So it fared with our two
artists, who separately could accomplish very little; though in uniting
their powers they produced paintings of considerable merit. In the
Guida di Bologna they are very properly rarely divided from
each other; and I believe, that in every painting we find attributed to
Aretusi, we ought farther to seek for some companion of his labours. Of
such kind is a Nativity of the Virgin at S. Afra in Brescia, passing under
his name, and painted in a very powerful style. Respecting this picture,
however, Averoldi is of opinion that it was in part the workmanship of
Bagnatore, in part of other painters, or, perhaps, only painter; in other
words that of his useful friend Aretusi. Nevertheless in the branch of
portrait, Cesare possessed merit above sharing it with others, and in this
capacity he was employed by different princes, and he also succeeded in
copying the works of excellent masters better than any other of his age. He
could assume the style of almost every painter, and even pass off his
imitations for the originals. In his imitation of Coreggio, he was more
particularly successful, and received a commission to execute a painting
from the celebrated Night, by that master, for the church of S. Gio. di
Parma, where it still remains. Mengs, who saw it, declared that were the
original at Dresden [Pg 77]by any accident lost, it might be well
supplied by so fine a duplicate. It was this performance that obtained him
the honour of restoring the painting, formerly executed by Coreggio for the
same church, of which mention was made in the school of Parma, and to which
we here refer the reader. Here too we should add, that such was the success
of that picture, “from its accurate imitation of the taste displayed in the
original, of its conception, and of its harmony, as to lead those
unacquainted with the fact to suppose it to be the work of Allegri.” Such
are the words of Ruta in his Guida.

Little attention seems to have been given to inferior branches of the
art during this epoch, if, indeed, we except that of portrait, whose
leading artists must not again be introduced here, having treated of their
merits in the proper place. Nor probably were there then wanting painters
in oil, who severally produced ornamental pieces of landscape and animals,
besides Cremonini and Baglione, whose ability in this line we shall shortly
notice, in the class of ornamental fresco painters; though none, as far as
I can learn, acquired celebrity. In one instance only I meet with handsome
eulogiums on a miniature painter, occasionally mentioned throughout this
work. He was called Gio. Neri, also Gio. degli Ucelli, from his peculiar
talent in delineating all kinds of birds from the life. With these, and
with fish of various species, with quadrupeds and other animals, he filled
seven folio volumes, [Pg 78]which are cited by Masini in the studio of
Ulisse Aldovrandi.

Throughout the whole of this epoch we find no mention in Malvasia of any
ornamental or perspective painters, except, perhaps, some figurist, who
paid little attention to decorations. There is reason, however, to suppose
that the celebrated Sebastiano Serlio, while yet a youth, painted
perspectives. The Cav. Tiraboschi, in the seventh volume of his history,
remarks that “there is no account of Serlio’s occupation during the early
part of his life.” But the Guida of Pesaro, p. 83, alludes to him at the close of 1511, and
subsequently in 1514, as residing in that city in quality of an artist; and
in what branch can we more probably suppose him to have been engaged than
in perspective? For this, indeed, was the tirocinium of other able
architects, where, previous to being entrusted with the anxious duties of
their profession, they were enabled, with more facility, to sustain
themselves, until their reputation permitted them to assume the character
of architects, and abandon the pursuit of painting. Indisputably he could
not have been an architect at Pesaro, otherwise there would never have been
written on a parchment of 1514, remaining in the archives of the
Servi:—Sebastiano qu. Bartholomæi de Serlis de Bononia pictore
habitatore Pisauri. And it is about 1534 that we have an account of
his being at Venice, no longer handling the pencil, but the square. Masini,
who had written his [Pg 79]Bologna Perlustrata only a short
period before the Felsina Pittrice, commends an Agostino dalle
Prospettive, who had reached such a degree of perfection in that art, as
even to deceive animals and men with his illusive staircases and similar
works, executed at Bologna. It is doubtful whether he did not belong to
another school, and may have been omitted by Malvasia as a foreigner. I
suspected him to be a Milanese in my fourth volume p. 231), and pupil to the great Soardi, not inferior to
his master. Next to him, and to Laureti, Gio. Batista Cremonini of Cento
was employed in such commissions more than any other artist. He had
received rather superior instructions in the rules of perspective, and
respectable practice in the line of statues, figures, and histories, with
whatever went to give splendour and effect to a façade, a theatre, or a
hall; more particularly he succeeded in delineating animals, however
ferocious and wild. There was scarcely a house of any account in all
Bologna, which, if nothing more, could not boast some specimen of his
chiaroscuro, some frieze for ornament, chimney-piece, or vestibule,
decorated by Cremonini; to say nothing of his numerous works in fresco
which filled the churches. He was also employed for the adjacent cities,
and in different courts of Lombardy kept open school and instructed
Guercino, Savonanzi, Fialetti, who flourished in Venice as before stated.
He had for his companion Bartolommeo Ramenghi, cousin of Gio. Batista, with
whom also lived Scipione Ramenghi, [Pg 80]son of Gio. Batista himself, and both
eminent[TN4] ornamental painters during that
period.

Cremonini had a rival in one Cesare Baglione, an artist in the same
sphere, and of the same eager and expeditious character in the art. He was,
moreover, a better painter of landscape, and even surpassed all others,
including the most ancient, in the method of drawing his foliage. In his
inventions too, both of a serious and comic kind, he displayed greater
novelty and variety than Cremonini. He thus became a favorite at Parma,
where in the ducal palace he left some of his best works, all in harmony
with the places which he painted; in the larder illusive eatables of every
kind, and cooks employed in dressing them; in the bakehouse utensils for
the bakers, and incidents relating thereto; in the washhouses women were
seen busied in their different duties, and all in dismay at some untoward
or comic accidents; works abounding in spirit and reality sufficient to
procure him reputation in his line, had he shewn less eagerness in the
execution. This praise will not apply, however, to his decorative taste,
which excited the ridicule of the Caracci, who were in the habit of
laughing at the fantastic ornaments of his capitals, and those arabesques,
most resembling, they declared, the staves of barrels; as well as that
custom of filling his compositions with useless ornaments, without rule or
discretion, which his own pupils afterwards proceeded to introduce,
especially Spada and Dentone. Several [Pg 81]others were instructed
by him in the art, as Storali and Pisanelli, and some of less note, who
painted well in perspective, without aspiring to the reputation of
figurists.

Thus we have taken a brief survey of the state of painting in Bologna
from the time of Bagnacavallo to the Caracci, who already rising into
repute about 1585, in some measure competed with the elder artists, and in
some measure by their example, and the spirit of emulation, tended to
improve them, of which more in the following epoch. Meanwhile, let us turn
our attention to what was passing during this period in Romagna.

Ravenna prides herself on the name of Jacopone, a pupil of Raffaello,
who, by his paintings at S. Vitale, introduced into that city the
principles of the modern style, and of whom we shall shortly state our
opinion, not without some degree of novelty. Another of Raffaello’s
disciples, if what is averred of him be correct, nourished at Ravenna about
1550, called Don Pietro da Bagnaia, a canon of the Lateran. In the church
of his order he painted the altar-piece of S. Sebastian; in the Refectory,
the scriptural history of the Loaves and Fishes, besides leaving in another
place a history-piece of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, abounding in
figures equal to the preceding. To these, enumerated by Orlandi, may be
added the picture of Padua, with the Virgin between St. John the Baptist and St. Augustine, executed for the church of S. Giovanni
di Verdara; in the sacristy [Pg 82]of which is a Holy Family by him, imbued with
all the graces of Raffaello in every feature and action, but sadly wanting
in strength and harmony of colouring. There is another Holy Family at the
Lateran Friars in Asti, on a larger scale, designed and composed with equal
grace, but with similar feebleness of tints, even more lifeless; and to
both pieces is appended an inscription, entreating the beholder to pray for
the soul of the painter. I am not aware whether this worthy ecclesiastic
was in Ravenna in 1547, at the period of Vasari’s visit thither, but the
latter makes no mention of his name.

Yet he mentioned, among the excellent artists who still flourished
there, Luca Longhi, whose ability in the essentials of the art is highly
praised. He regrets, however, that he should always have resided in his
native place, which had he left for objects of improvement, he might have
become a very distinguished artist. He was a good portrait-painter, and
produced a great number of pictures for Ravenna. Some, too, he sent
elsewhere, and they are met with at San Benedetto in Ferrara, in the Abbey
at Mantua, in that of Praglia near Padua, at S. Francesco in Rimini, with
the date of 1580, in Pesaro, and other places. They are chiefly composed in
the ancient manner, but on comparing some of the earlier with those that
follow, a more modern air is perceptible, a circumstance attributed by
Vasari to his own conversations with the artist. Longhi’s style, however,
[Pg 83]was
opposed to that of Vasari, being very correct and highly finished; his
conceptions sweet, varied, and graceful; with a powerful union of colours;
more nearly resembling Innocenzo da Imola, if I mistake not, than any other
artist of the times, though inferior to him in point of grandeur and
beauty. Luca’s most perfect pictures that I have met with in Ravenna are
those of S. Vitale, of S. Agata, of S. Domenico, all with a representation
of the Virgin between two or more saints, and with some graceful cherubs
playing above. There are others more laboured, which please us less, and
demonstrate that to succeed in grand compositions, it is previously
necessary to have studied the great schools. Luca had a daughter, named
Barbara, yet a child at the period when Vasari published his work, but who
had begun to paint “with a tolerable degree of grace and manner.” From the
hand of this lady there is only a single specimen remaining in public.
Respecting a son of Luca, named Francesco, the historian is wholly silent,
being, doubtless, at the time he wrote, still younger than his sister, but
who became an artist in maturer years. In 1576 he produced a picture for
the church of the Carmine, and there are accounts of him, even down to
1610. He chiefly pursued the steps of his father, though he is more common
in his countenances, and more feeble in point of colouring, which he copied
rather from Vasari.

Francesco Scannelli mentions a pupil of Raffaello [Pg 84]at Cesena[TN5], omitted by all other historians, named Scipione
Sacco. He painted a picture of S. Gregory for the cathedral of Cesena, in a
grand style,[17] and the Death of St. Peter the Martyr for the church of S. Domenico.
Doubtless he was of Raffaello’s school, and not remembered out of
Romagna.

While the family of the Longhi was employed at Ravenna, that of the
Minzocchi, which was surnamed San Bernardo, was distinguishing itself at
Forli. Francesco, called also the elder di S. Bernardo, studied the works
of Palmigiani in his native place; and there remain pictures conducted in
his youth, but feeble in point of design, such as his Crucifixion at the
Padri Osservanti. But under Genga, according to Vasari, and, as some
writers add, under Pordenone, he changed his manner, assuming a more
correct style, graceful, animated, and of an expression which looks like
nature herself in these his subsequent productions. Among the works he
executed with most care are two lateral pictures at the cathedral of
Loreto, in a chapel of S. Francesco di Paola. These consist of a Sacrifice
of Melchisedec, and the miracle of the Manna, in which the prophets and the
principal characters boast all the dignity and nobleness of drapery
becoming the school of Pordenone. The crowd, however, is represented in the
most popular features and attitudes, sufficient almost to excite [Pg 85]the
envy of Teniers, and the most natural artists of the Flemish school. His
delineations in these pictures, of numerous and various animals, are
expressed to the life, with baskets and different utensils like reality,
though the attempt to excite our mirth in treating serious subjects has a
bad effect. Scannelli extols a specimen of his works in fresco at S. Maria
della Grata in Forli, representing the Deity on the ceiling, surrounded by
a number of angels; figures full of spirit, majestic, varied, and painted
with a power and skill of foreshortening, which entitles him to greater
celebrity than he enjoys. He left a variety of productions, likewise, at S.
Domenico, at the cathedral, and at private houses in his native place,
where such is his reputation, that on the chapels being taken down, his
least celebrated frescos were carefully cut out, and replaced elsewhere.
Among his sons and pupils were Pietro Paolo, mentioned also by Vasari, and
Sebastiano, both artists of the same natural style, not very select, with
little relief, and mediocrity of invention. To Pietro Paolo belong several
figures at the Padri Francescani at Forli, of feeble execution; and to
Sebastiano a picture at S. Agostino, composed in 1593 in the ancient taste,
and of a style like his other works, inferior to the character of his
age.

Subsequent to the elder Minzocchi, Forli produced two other artists
deserving commemoration; namely, Livio Agresti, conspicuous in the
histories [Pg
86]of Vasari and Baglione, as a daring designer, a copious composer,
and universal in point of manner; the other, Francesco di Modigliana, an
artist of more limited genius, but still deserving to be known. Of Livio, I
spoke in the third epoch of the Roman School, to which, as pupil to Perino,
and resident in Rome, where he was employed at the Castello, in the
Vatican, at S. Spirito and elsewhere, he doubtless belongs. His native
place, however, seems to have culled the fairest fruit of his labours, Rome
possessing nothing nearly so Raffaellesque, as are his Scriptural Histories
in the public palace at Forli. Nor ought we to pass over that finely
decorated chapel in the cathedral, where he represented the Last Supper,
with some majestic figures of the prophets upon the ceiling; a work that
for depth and intricacy of perspective yields in nothing to Minzocchi. I
shall not stop to inquire, with Malvasia, whether having gone to Rome in a
moment of disgust and in haste, instead of there advancing himself, he
wholly failed; but of this I am convinced, that his history in the Cappella
Paolina, is by no means his masterpiece.

Francesco di Modigliana is said to have been pupil to Pontormo, in whose
school he almost fills the same rank as Bronzino in that of Florence; not
remarkably powerful, nor always consistent with himself, but very graceful
and beautiful, and deserving a place in our pictoric Lexicons, where his
name is wanting. His works at Urbino consist of those which are pointed out
under the name of [Pg 87]Francesco da Forli; a picture of Christ taken
down from the cross, in oil, at S. Croce; and some angels in fresco at S.
Lucia; productions much commended, and resembling in style his best at the
Osservanti in Forli, and at the Rosario in Rimini. Here, perhaps, he most
distinguished himself; in his picture of Adam driven from Eden, his Deluge,
the Tower of Babel, with similar histories already treated by Raffaello at
Rome, and by Agresti in Forli, from imitating whom, if I mistake not, he
greatly improved and advanced himself. Dying suddenly he left his work
imperfect, afterwards continued by Gio. Laurentini, called Arrigoni, who
painted the Death of Abel at the same place.

After Bartolommeo da Rimini, who inclined more towards the modern than
the ancient style, I find no other artist of celebrity in that city besides
Arrigoni. Even his name has not been recorded by Orlandi, nor by his
continuator. He diligently employed himself in his native place, and two of
his pictures representing martyrdoms, met with surprising success; one of
St. John the Baptist, at the Augustine friars, and another of the Saints
John and Paul, at the church bearing their name. Yet they do not display
that beau ideal, so
attractive at that period in the productions even of the inferior disciples
of the Roman School; but they convey the impression of grand compositions,
a vivacity of action, a boldness of hand, a splendor in the retinue of
horse and arms, and military ensigns, [Pg 88]calculated to compete
with the chief part of the painters employed at Rome in the service of
Gregory and of Sixtus.

Faenza, too, at the opening of this epoch, boasted her Jacopone, or
Jacomone, of whom we treated among the assistants of Raffaello, and among
the masters of Taddeo Zuccaro. Vasari makes brief mention and smaller
account of this artist; recording only one of his productions, the tribune
of S. Vitale at Ravenna, and which has ceased to exist. In the cupola of
the church, however, subsequently repainted by another hand, there were
visible, in the time of Fabri, author of “Ravenna Ricercata,” (researches
in that city) several figures of saints richly apparelled, bearing this
inscription: “Opus Jacobi Bertucci et Julii Tondutii Faventinorum. Pari
voto f. 1513.”[18] At present I [Pg 89]no longer doubt but
that under this Jacopo was concealed the name of Jacopone di Faenza, though
according to Orlandi they were two several painters, and though it has
never occurred to Baldinucci and Bottari, and other writers of pictoric
history, to unite them into one. My conjecture is founded upon a picture
which I saw in the church of the Dominican nuns in Faenza, representing the
Birth of the Virgin, with the name of Jacopo Bertucci of Faenza, and dated
1532. It is a work which arrests the eye by its resemblance to the style of
Raffaello, though his harmonious gradations have not been well observed,
and the colouring inclines more to the strong than to the beautiful. The
women busied about the couch of St. Anne are
beautiful, graceful, and animated figures, and there are some animals, and
in particular a fowl, which a Bassano himself would not have been sorry to
have painted. Now what [Pg 90]other Jacopo of Faenza could in the year
1532, have painted in this style, with more shew of reason and probability
than Jacopone da Faenza, whose family would here appear to be
discovered?

The same city possesses a variety of other pieces by this Bertucci, and
in the soffitto of S. Giovanni, various histories, both of the Old and New
Testament, were pointed out to me as his. There too are several of inferior
character attributed to another Bertucci, his son, an artist who in his
heads repeats the same idea, even to satiety. Still his merit ought not, I
think, to be estimated from a single work, but rather from some pictures
cited by Crespi.[19] One of these is the Beheading of
St. John the Baptist, animated and high toned in its colours, beautiful in
point of design and character, and worthy of decorating the Ercolani
collection at Bologna. Upon it is inscribed “Bertucius pinxit, 1580.” The
other is at the Celestini of Faenza, a singular work, as Crespi denominates
it, from which he appears to have learnt the proper name of this younger
Bertucci, whom he calls Giambatista. Baldinucci treats of Jacopone at the
commencement of his fifth volume, and on the credit of Count Laderchi, he
enumerates his different paintings, which then remained at Faenza. Of his
surname he mentions nothing; nothing of his altar-piece of the Nativity;
nothing of S. Vitale; nothing of the son, or the other artist of Faenza
lately alluded to. He adds, that [Pg 91]works of Jacopone were to be seen up to the
year 1570, but I believe these last to have belonged to the son, inasmuch
as the father, at the period when Vasari wrote, was already deceased. Other
pictures by this artist are mentioned, painted in glowing and attractive
colours, and in particular the Baptizing of Christ, preserved in the public
collection, valuable from its giving the epoch of 1610, which must have
been towards the close of his days.

By Giulio Tonduzzi there is pointed out at Ravenna the Stoning of St.
Stephen, on the large altar of a church consecrated to that saint, a
beautiful picture, but not indisputably proved to be his. I conjecture it
to be a copy of the St. Stephen that decorates
the church of Faenza, in which the whole style of Giulio Romano is
apparent; so much so, that it has been attributed to him, a mistake arising
from resemblance of names; but Tonduzzi is known to have been Giulio’s
pupil. I omit other productions of this excellent artist, though I ought to
notice, that in the soffitto of S. Giovanni, he also painted several sacred
histories, in competition with all the first artists, who then flourished
at Faenza, on which account that very cultivated city has preserved the
whole of these paintings, although much defaced by age, in the Lyceum
collection, belonging to the commune, mentioned in other places. I also
find one M. Antonio da Faenza, commended by Civalli for a very excellent
picture, possessing fine relief, at the church of the [Pg 92]Conventuali of Monte
Lupone, in the Marca, dated 1525. Contemporary with these must have been
Figurino da Faenza, enumerated by Vasari among the best disciples of Giulio
Romano, though I meet with no mention of him elsewhere. It is conjectured,
however, with good reason, that Figurino was only a surname given to Marc
Antonio Rocchetti, a painter of great reputation at Faenza, who in youth
took great delight in minute drawing, producing, among other pieces, little
histories of St. Sebastian, for the ornament of
that church, now destroyed, when they came into possession of various
individuals who treasure them up in the present day. In maturer years he
enlarged his manner, attaching himself to the imitation of Baroccio, which
he did with a simplicity of composition and sweetness of tints, that made
him conspicuous in different churches which he adorned, as we may gather
from the picture of the titular Saint at S. Rocco, with the year 1604, the
latest period which we find mentioned on his productions. In the Communal
collection, also, there is seen a picture of the Virgin, known in Faenza
under the name of the Madonna of the Angels, with a St. Francis, a holy bishop, and two portraits below.
It bears the inscription, M. Antonius Rochettus Faventinus pingebat,
1594. It was requisite to mention this picture, which I find
extolled above all other specimens that have remained. The name of Niccolo
Paganelli, before unknown to us, is also met with in the Oretti
correspondence, contained [Pg 93]in a letter of Zanoni, which we cite in
treating of Benedetto Marini. He is supposed to have been a good pupil of
the Roman School, and some attribute to him the fine picture of S. Martino,
in the cathedral of Faenza, the supposed work of Luca Longhi. His genuine
pictures are recognized by the initials N.+P.

Subsequent to the period of Jacopone, who never acquired fortune, Marco
Marchetti greatly distinguished himself. So at least he is named by
Baglione, or Marco da Faenza, according to Vasari, who observes that he was
“particularly experienced in regard to frescos; bold, decided, terrible;
and especially in the practice and manner of drawing grotesques, not having
any rival then equal to him.” Nor perhaps has any artist since appeared who
equals him in this respect, and in happily adapting to grotesques little
histories, full of spirit and elegance, and with figures which form a
school for design. Such is the Slaughter of the Innocents, in the Vatican.
He succeeded Sabbatini in the works of Gregory XIII. and entered the
service of Cosmo I. for whom he decorated the
Palazzo Vecchio at Florence. He painted little in his own country, though a
few pieces in oil are still pointed out, and an arch in a public way, with
festoons of flowers, monsters, and capricci, resembling the work of an
ancient artist. The whole reminds us of mythology and erudition, while at
subsequent periods it became customary in this [Pg 94]kind of painting to
dare every extravagance and excess. Perhaps his most finished piece adorns
the Communal collection, representing the Feast of Christ in the house of
the Pharisee. His death occurred in 1588. Contemporary with him flourished
Gio. Batista Armenini, also of Faenza, an able artist, and author of the
“True Precepts of Painting,”[20] published at Ravenna in
1587, a work that re-appeared in the ensuing century at Venice. In fact
Armenini was a better theorist than a practitioner; nor has he any
production in his native place, except a large picture of the Assumption,
on which he inscribed Jo. Bapt. Armenini primiliæ, meaning,
that it was among the first, or perhaps the very first altar-piece which he
ever painted. Perotti, the author of certain Farragini,[21] which are still preserved in the library of the
Seminary at Faenza, there observes, that Armenini was a pupil of Perin del
Vaga. Nor is there a great interval between him and Cristoforo Lanconello,
an artist of Faenza, first discovered to us in the letter of Crespi, just
before cited. He is celebrated for his picture in the Casa Ercolani, in
which the Virgin appears crowned with a glory, attended by Saints Francis
and Chiara, and two more; a work displaying great freedom of hand, beauty
of colouring, fine airs of the heads, and altogether in the composition of
Barocci.

[Pg
95]We must not take our leave of the Cinquecentisti[22] without first noticing a cavalier of Faenza, who
flourished till the year 1620, in which he died at the age of 83. His name
was Niccolo Pappanelli, and such was his enthusiasm for the art, that he
attended all the most distinguished masters then in vogue at Rome. On his
return to his native place, he produced, along with some pieces of
mediocrity, a few of an exquisite character, such as his picture of S.
Martino at the cathedral, so well executed in point of design, force of
colouring, and expression, as to be truly admirable. He, too, attempted to
follow in the track of Barocci.

Other artists of Romagna, belonging to this period, are treated of in
the schools where they chiefly flourished, such as Ingoli of Ravenna, at
Venice, Zaccolini of Cesena at Rome, and Ardente, a native of Faenza, in
Piedmont.

[11]
In vol
. iv. p. 47.

[12]
Foreshortening figures; here meant on a ceiling.

[13]
This worthy writer would appear to have been aware that he sometimes
exceeded due bounds. In the course of that work we meet with other
expressions highly creditable to Vasari; and it is well known, that having
spoken contemptuously of Raffaello, by designating him boccalaio
Urbinate, the potter of Urbino, because some vases there had been
painted from his designs, “he repented of the expression so much as to lead
him to erase it from as many copies of the work as he could meet with.”
Lett. Pitt. vol. vii. p. 130.

[14]
In the original the term used for these cotton merchants is bambagiai.

[15]
In the Italian called promassaro.

[16]
See vol
. iv. p. 43.

[17]
On this picture is inscribed, Cæsenas, 1545. Oretti, Memorie,
MSS.

[18]
Sig. Abbate Zannoni, a librarian in Faenza, assisted by Sig. Zauli, a
distinguished professor of design in that Lyceum, has made some clever
remarks upon that school. They observe that this date of Fabri must be
erroneous, it not being possible for Jacopone to have commenced painting in
1513, and much less Tonduzzi, pupil to Giulio Romano, probably, in Mantua:
I suspect that the order of the last two figures should be inverted, so as
to read 1531.

They inform me that I was misled in supposing the
picture of the Dominican Nuns to be from the hand of Jacopone, its great
height preventing me from distinguishing the name. It belongs to his nephew
and pupil, Gian Batista, and thus resembles his style, though coloured with
stronger tints in the taste of Titian, whom he is known to have greatly
consulted in after years. Other pictures of Jacopone might be cited, that
still exist, but injured by time and by retouches of other destroyers. Yet,
they continue, all are surpassed by a figure that was placed at the
Celestini, and is now in the general collection. It represents St. John pointing out to the ecclesiastic who ordered
the picture, the Virgin crowned, between Saints Celestino and Benedetto; a
grand piece wonderfully preserved, formed upon the composition of
Raffaello, and coloured after Titian. On the right side is written, “F. Jo.
Bapt. Para Brasius hoc opus ob devotionem fieri jussit anno domini 1565:”
(the most assured epoch of his life;) and on the left hand, “Et semper
Jacobius Bertusius F. (for Faventinus) invicto tandem Momo faciebat.” Who
this Momo was, against whose desire (since we must read
invito) he completed the picture, I know not; whether a
painter, or perhaps a friar, whom Jacopone’s dilatoriness had offended, and
who wished to substitute another artist, in which good office he did not
succeed.

[19]
Lettere Pittoriche, vol. vii. p. 66.

[20]
Veri Precetti della Pittura.

[21]
A mixture of all styles and subjects

[22]
Artists of the fifteenth century.

[Pg 96]

BOLOGNESE SCHOOL.

EPOCH III.

The Caracci, their Scholars, and their Successors,
until the time of Cignani.

To write the history of the Caracci and their followers would
in fact be almost the same as to write the pictoric history of all Italy
during the last two centuries. In our preceding books we have taken a
survey of almost every school; and everywhere, early or late, we have met
with either the Caracci or their pupils, or at least with their successors,
employed in overthrowing the ancient maxims, and introducing new, until we
reach the period when there was no artist who, in some respect or other,
might not be said to belong to their school. Now, as it is grateful to the
traveller, after long following the course of some royal river, to ascend
still higher to its source, so I trust it will, in like manner, prove
delightful to my readers, to be here made acquainted with those principles
that conferred this new style upon the world of art, and in a short time
filled with its specimens, and took the lead of every individual school.
What, in my opinion, too, is still more surprising is, that it should owe
its origin to Lodovico Caracci, a young artist, [Pg 97]who appeared of a
slow, inactive intellect in early years, and better adapted to grind
colours than to harmonize and apply them. He was advised, both by Fontana,
his master at Bologna, and by Tintoretto[TN6],
who directed his studies in Venice, to adopt a new profession, as quite
unqualified for the art of painting; his fellow pupils likewise bantering
him with the epithet of the ox, in allusion to his extreme dulness and
tardiness. Indeed, every thing seemed to conspire to discourage him; he
alone did not despair; from the obstacles he had to encounter he only
gathered courage, and inducements to rouse, not to alarm himself. For this,
his dilatory character, did not spring from confined genius, but from deep
penetration; he shunned the ideal of the art as a rock on which so many of
his contemporaries had suffered shipwreck; he pursued nature every where;
he exacted of himself a reason for every line he drew; and considered it
the duty of a young artist to aim only at doing well, until at length it
grows into a habit, and such habit assists him in expediting his work.

Resolute, then, in his purpose, after having studied the best native
artists in Bologna, he proceeded to do the same under Titian and Tintoretto
at Venice. Thence he passed to Florence, and improved his taste from the
pictures of Andrea, and the instructions of Passignano. At that period, the
school of the Florentines had attained to that crisis, described in
treating of its fourth epoch. [Pg 98]Nothing could be more advantageous to young
Lodovico than to observe there the competition between the partizans of the
old and the new style; nor could there be better means of ascertaining the
causes of the decline, and of the revival of the art. Such a scene was
assuredly of the greatest use to him, though hitherto not much noticed, in
attempting the reform of painting, and carrying it to a higher degree of
perfection. The most eminent Florentines, with the view of improving the
languid colouring of their masters, turned to the models of Coreggio and
his followers; and their example, I am of opinion, induced Lodovico to
leave Florence for Parma, where, observes his historian, he wholly devoted
himself to that master and to Parmigianino. On his return to Bologna,
although well received and esteemed as a good artist, he soon became aware
that a single individual, so reserved and cautious as he was, could ill
compete with an entire school; unless, following the example of Cigoli at
Florence, he were to form a party among the rising pupils at Bologna.

In the first instance, he sought support in his own relatives. His
brother Paolo cultivated the art, but was deficient both in judgment and in
ability, and calculated only to execute with mediocrity the designs of
others. On him he placed no reliance, but a good deal on two of his
cousins. He had a paternal uncle named Antonio, by profession a tailor, who
educated his two sons, Agostino [Pg 99]and Annibale, at home. Such was their genius
for design, that Lodovico was accustomed to say in his old age, that he had
never had, during his whole professional career, a single pupil to equal
them. The first devoted his attention to the goldsmith’s art—always
the school of the best engravers; the second was at once the pupil and
assistant of his father in his calling. Though brothers, their dispositions
were so opposite, as to render their society insufferable to each other,
and they were little less than enemies. Accomplished in letters, Agostino
always sought the company of learned men; there was no science on which he
could not speak; at once a philosopher, a geometrician, and a poet; of
refined manners, ready wit, and averse to the pursuits of the crowd.
Annibale, on the contrary, neglected letters, beyond the mere power of
reading and writing, while a natural bluntness of manner inclined him to
taciturnity, and when compelled to speak, it was mostly in a satirical,
contemptuous, or disputing tone.

On devoting themselves, at the suggestion of Lodovico, to the pictoric
art, they still found themselves opposed to each other in genius, as they
were in manners. Agostino was timid, and extremely select, backward in
resolve, difficult to please himself, and was never aware of a difficulty
that he did not encounter, and attempt to vanquish it. Annibal, in common
with numbers of artificers, was an expeditious workman, intolerant of
doubts [Pg
100]and delays, eagerly seeking every remedy for the intricacies of
the art, trying the most easy methods, and to perform much in little time.
Had they indeed fallen into other hands, Agostino would have become a new
Samacchini, Annibal a new Passerotti; and painting would have owed no
improvement to their efforts. But their cousin’s fine judgment led him, in
their education, to imitate Isocrates, who, instructing Ephorus and
Theopompus, was accustomed to say, that he was compelled to apply spurs to
the one, and a rein to the other. With similar views he consigned Agostino
to Fontana, as an easy and rapid master, and retained Annibal in his own
studio, where works were carried to higher perfection. By such means too he
kept them apart, until riper age should by degrees remove the enmity
subsisting between them, and convert it into a bond of amity, when devoted
to the same profession, they might unite their capital, and mutually assist
each other. In a few years he succeeded in reconciling them, and in 1580 he
placed them at Parma and at Venice, of which an account has been given
under those schools. During this period Agostino collected materials for
his varied learning, and enlarged his design; and as before leaving Bologna
he had made great progress in engraving under Domenico Tibaldi, he
continued in Venice to practise it under Cort with such success, as to
excite his master’s jealousy, who drove him, but in vain, from his studio;
for Agostino was already esteemed the [Pg 101]Marc Antonio of his
time. Annibal, devoted to a single aim, both at Parma and Venice continued
to paint, availing himself of the works and conversation of illustrious
men, with whom at that period the Venetian School abounded. It was then, or
shortly subsequent, that he executed his beautiful copies of Coreggio,
Titian, and Paul Veronese; in whose taste he also conducted some small
pictures. Several specimens of these I saw in possession of the Marchese
Durazzo at Genoa, displaying opposite, but very graceful styles.

Returning accomplished artists into their native place, they struggled
long and nobly with their fortunes. Their first undertakings consisted of
the exploits of Jason, in a frieze of the Casa Favi; these, though
conducted with the assistance of Lodovico, were vituperated with excessive
scorn by the old painters, as deficient both in elegance and correctness.
To this censure, the credit of these masters who had flourished at Rome,
who were extolled by the poets, adorned with diplomas, and regarded by the
declining age as pillars of the art, seemed to give weight. Their disciples
echoed their words, and the crowd repeated them; and such murmurs
proceeding from a public, gifted with as much volubility in conversation as
would suffice for purposes of declamation or controversy elsewhere, wounded
the feelings of the Caracci, overwhelmed and depressed them. I was informed
by the accomplished Cav. Niccolò Fava, that Lodovico’s change of fortune,
[Pg
102]along with that of his cousins, occurred on an occasion, and at
a period little differing from the above; which is supported by a tradition
to the same effect. The two cousins had executed the frieze in the same
hall where Cesi adorned another, in opposition to it, with histories of
Æneas, which we have already mentioned, (p. 74).
The work, conducted in the old style, was certainly beautiful, but
Lodovico, in the new, painted another chamber with other histories, twelve
in number, of Æneas, of which mention is made in the Guide of Bologna, (p.
14); histories in no way inferior to those in the Casa Magnani. Here was
the beginning of the Caracci’s fortune, and of the fall of the old masters,
Bologna at length preparing to do justice to the worth of that divine
artist, and to verify in respect to Cesi that sentence of Hesiod, of which,
to the best of my ability, I here offer a version from the Greek, as
follows:

It was now that the Caracci, more than ever confident in their style,
answered the voice of censure only by works full of vigour and nature,
opposed to the works of older masters, feeble and void of truth. By such
means that revolution of style [Pg 103]which had so long been meditated, at length
took place; but it became necessary, in order to accelerate it, to bring
over the students of the art to their party, the better to insure the hopes
of a new and improved era. This too the Caracci achieved, by opening an
academy of painting at their house, which they entitled Degli
Incamminati, supplying it with casts, designs, and prints, in the
same manner as those of their rivals; besides introducing a school for the
drawing of the naked figure, and for the study of anatomy and perspective:
in short, every thing requisite to the art; directing the whole with a
skill added to a kindness that could not fail to procure it abundance of
pupils. In particular, the fiery temper of Dionisio Calvart contributed to
fill it, who, being in the habit of striking, and even wounding his
disciples, drove Guido, Albano, and Domenichino, to transfer their talents
to the studio of the Caracci. Panico too entered it from the school of
Fontana, and from all sides the best young artists assembled, drawing after
them fresh ranks of students. Finally, the other academies were closed;
every school was left to solitude; every name gave way before that of the
Caracci; to them the best commissions, to them the meed of praise were
accorded. Their humbled rivals soon assumed another language, especially
when the grand hall of Magnani was thrown open, presenting the wonders of
the new Carraccesque art. It was then Cesi declared that he would become a
disciple of the new school; and Fontana [Pg 104]only lamented that
he was too grey-headed to keep pace with it, while Calvart alone, with his
usual bravado, ventured to blame the work, being the last of all to recant,
or at least to become silent.

It is now time to record the pursuits and the maxims of an academy,
which, besides educating many illustrious pupils, perfected the art of
their masters; and confirmed the axiom, that the shortest method of
learning much is that of teaching. The three brothers were on the most
perfect understanding as to the art of teaching, as free from venality as
from envy; but the most laborious branches of the professorship were
sustained by Agostino. He had drawn up a short treatise of perspective and
architecture, from which he expounded to the school. He explained the
nature of the bones and muscles, designating them by their names, in which
he was assisted by Lanzoni the anatomist, who also secretly provided the
school with bodies for such dissections as were required. His lectures were
sometimes founded upon history, at others upon fictions; and these he
illustrated, and offered for designs, which being exhibited at stated
intervals, were examined by skilful judges, who decided upon their
respective merits; as we gather from a ticket written to Cesi, one of the
arbiters. The meed of fame was sufficient for the crowned candidates, round
whom the poets collected to celebrate their name; with whom Agostino
enthusiastically joined both with harp and voice, applauding the progress
of his scholars. These last were likewise [Pg 105]instructed in true
criticism, and to give due praise or blame to the works of others; they
were also taught to criticise their own works, and whoever could not give
good reasons for what he had done, and defend his own work, must cancel it
upon the spot. Each, however, was at liberty to pursue what path he
pleased, or rather each entered upon that to which nature had best adapted
him, which gave rise to so many original manners from the same studio; yet
each style was to be founded upon reason, nature, and imitation. In all
more doubtful points, recourse was had to the opinion of Lodovico; the
cousins presided over the daily exercises of design, full of assiduity,
industry, and perseverance. Even the recreations of the academicians had a
view to art; to draw landscapes from nature, or to sketch caricatures, were
the customary amusements of Annibale and the disciples of the school, when
they wished to relax from study.[23]

[Pg
106]The maxim of uniting together the study of nature, and the
imitation of the best masters, already touched upon in the outset of this
book, formed the real foundation of the school of Caracci; although they
took care to modify it according to particular talents, as we have seen.
Their object was to collect into one whatever they found most valuable in
other schools, and in this process they observed two methods. The first
resembles that of the poets, who, in several Canzoni, propose different
models for imitation; in one, for instance, borrowing from Petrarch, in
another from Chiabrera, in a third from Frugoni. The second method is like
that of those, who, being masters of these three styles, form and harmonize
them into one, like Corinthian metal, composed of various other kinds. Thus
the Caracci, in some of their compositions, were accustomed to present
different styles in a variety of different figures. So Lodovico, in his
Preaching of St. John the Baptist, at the church
of the Certosini (where Crespi is especially opposed to Paul Veronese), has
exhibited the audience of the saint in such a manner that a judge described
them by these names:—the Raffaellesque, the Tizianesque, and the
imitator of Tintoretto. Annibal too, who had long admired only Coreggio,
having finally adopted Lodovico’s maxim, painted his celebrated picture for
the church of St. George, where, in his figure of the Virgin, he imitated
Paolo; in that of the Divine Infant and St.
John, Coreggio; in St. [Pg 107]John the Evangelist
he exhibited Titian; and in the very graceful form of St. Catherine, the sweetness of Parmigianino. Most
generally, however, they pursued the second path, and still more examples
might be adduced of less apparent and more free and mixed imitations, so
modified as to produce a whole of a perfectly original character. And the
ingenious Agostino, emulating the ancient legislators, who embodied all
their laws in a few verses, composed that very picturesque, rather than
poetical sonnet, in praise of Niccolino Abati, but which also well explains
the maxim of their school, in selecting the peculiar merits of each
different style. It has been handed down to us by Malvasia, in his life of
Primaticcio, and runs as follows:—

Chi farsi un buon pittor brama e desia
Il disegno di Roma abbia alla mano,
La mossa coll’ombrar Veneziano,
E il degno colorir di Lombardia;
Di Michelangiol la terribil via,
Il vero natural di Tiziano,
Di Coreggio lo stil puro e sovrano,
Di un Raffael la vera simmetria;
Del Tibaldi il decoro e il fondamento,
Del dotto Primaticcio l’inventare,
E un po’ di grazia del Parmigianino:
Ma senza tanti studii e tanto stento
Si ponga solo l’opre ad imitare
Che qui lasciocci il nostro Niccolino.

To paint for fame, who nurtures high desire,
Will Rome’s design keep ever in his view;
To the Venetian shade and action true,
Of Lombardy’s whole colouring never tire;
[Pg
108]Kindle at Michael’s terrors, and his
fire,
Seize Titian’s living truth, who nature drew;
Allegri’s pure and sovereign graces too;
To heavenly Raphael’s symmetry aspire:
Tibaldi’s solid sense, appropriate air,
And Primaticcio’s learn’d inventive thought,
With Parmigiano’s graceful sweetness fraught.
And should all these ask too much studious care,
Turn to our Niccolino’s bright display
Of wondrous works, the envy of his day.

It is not easy to ascertain how far the Caracci may have carried this
project, though it must always reflect the highest degree of credit upon
them to have executed it in a superior manner to all other artists. In the
outset they most felt their deficiency in their imitation of the antique,
called by Agostino the design of Rome. He and Annibal, however, while
residing there as strangers, in some measure reproduced and restored it to
Roman artists themselves; and Lodovico, though remaining at Bologna, shewed
that he was by no means unacquainted with it. At first, observes Mengs,
they devoted much study to Coreggio, both in their ample outline and in
their general design, although they did not observe the same exact
equilibrium in their concave and convex lines, but rather affected the
latter. There were other points which they did not attempt to include in
such imitation, as in the shortening of the heads, and exhibiting them so
very frequently with that smile so much repeated by the Parmigiani, by
Barocci, and Vanni. They took their heads from [Pg 109]life, and improved
upon them by general ideas of the beautiful. Hence Annibal’s Madonnas, many
of them of a small size on copper, exhibit a peculiar and original beauty
derived from his studies; and the same may be said of Lodovico, who, in his
softer heads, often gives the portrait of a lady named Giacomazzi,
celebrated for her beauty at that time. The Caracci were extremely
well-grounded in a knowledge of anatomy, and of the naked figure; and it
would be manifest injustice not to give them credit for due estimation of
Michelangiolo, whom they also imitated. One of them indeed is known to have
said, with some acrimony towards the rival school, that Bonarruoti ought to
have covered his bones with a little flesh, in the manner of their own
Tibaldi. It is true they availed themselves less of the naked form in
composition than the Florentines, though more largely than the other
schools. In their costume, they were not so anxious to observe the
exactness and richness of Paul Veronese, as the grandeur of his folds and
form; nor did any other school give more ample flow of drapery, or arrange
it with dignity more suitable to the figures.

Yet Mengs denies that they were consummate colourists, though they
studied the Lombard and Venetian schools, an opinion confirmed by
Lodovico’s paintings in oil, which are faded and almost gone. This arose,
either from the nature of his grounds, from too abundant use of oil, or
from not allowing due time between preparing his canvass [Pg 110]and colouring it.
The same remark will not apply to his frescos, which, on a near view,
exhibit a boldness of hand equal almost to Paolo’s; nor, in the opinion of
Bellori, was there any work which, in point of colouring, reflected higher
credit on the Caracci, and on the age, than their pictures in the Casa
Magnani. They boast a truth, force, mixture, and harmony of colours, such
as to entitle them also in this portion of the art to the praise of being
reformers of the age. They effectually banished those wretched yellows, and
other weak, washy tints, introduced from parsimony, in place of the azures
and different colours of higher price. In this Bellori accords most merit
to Annibal; declaring it was owing to him that Lodovico himself renounced
his first method of colouring, which was formed on that of Procaccini.

In action and expression they aimed at vivacity, but without ever losing
sight of propriety, of which they were extremely observant; and to which
they were ready to sacrifice any of the graces of the art. In taste of
invention and composition, they come near that of Raffaello. The Caracci
were not lavish of their figures, conceiving twelve sufficient for any
historical piece, except in crowds, or in battle-pieces, where they were
still moderate, in order to give greater relief to particular groups. That
they were competent to compose with judgment, learning, and variety, is
fully apparent from their sacred histories represented [Pg 111]on altars, where
they avoided, as much as possible, the very trite representation of a
Madonna between various saints. This truth is still more remarkably shewn
in their profane histories, and in none better than those of Romulus, in
the family just before mentioned. The three relations there appear
universal in the art, as perspective, landscape, and ornamental painters,
masters of every style, and concentering in one point of view whatever is
most desirable in any single work. The three artists seem to disappear in
one; and the same is observed also in several galleries and churches of
Bologna. They followed the same maxims, and in the same studio designed in
union with one another, conferring and taking measures how best to complete
every work in hand. In several instances it still remains matter of doubt
whether pictures are to be attributed to Annibal or to Lodovico; and the
three scriptural histories of the Sampieri, in which the three relations
wished to display their respective powers, do not exhibit a diversity which
might essentially characterize their respective authors. Some indeed there
are who may detect in Lodovico a more general imitation of Titian, than is
observable in the cousins, Agostino inclining more to the taste of
Tintoretto, Annibal to that of Coreggio. It has sometimes been remarked
that the figures of the first of the three are light in form, those of the
third, robust; while those of Agostino hold a middle rank. At Bologna I
found Lodovico enjoying [Pg 112]most repute for a certain elevation and
grandeur; Agostino for his inventive powers; Annibal for grace. Every one
must judge, however, according to his own views. It is now my duty to
consider these separately.

Lodovico, doubtless, rises into the sublime in many of his works at
Bologna. His picture of the “Probatica” so excellent both in point
of architecture and the design of the figures; that of S. Girolamo, who,
suspending his pen, turns towards heaven with a look and gesture so truly
impressive and dignified; his Limbo of holy fathers, which, as if to renew
his delight in it, he repeated in the cathedral of Piacenza, and sketched
also under a Crucifixion at Ferrara: these have ever been regarded in that
school as models of the sublime. Nevertheless, if we examine the
“Assumption,” at the Teresiani, the “Paradise,” at the Barnabiti, or the
“S. George,” in which is represented that admirable virgin, who is seen
seized with terror in the act of flight, it will be allowed that Annibal
himself could not have exhibited more grace in his drawing of young maidens
or of boys. More excelling, therefore, than great, Lodovico may be said to
be transcendant in every character; and it would even seem that he had
aimed at this boast in the two frescos that have perished, with which he
decorated, at S. Domenico, the chapel of the Lambertini. In one he
exhibited the holy founder, with S. Francis, in a manner very easy and
pleasing to the eye, [Pg 113]with few lights and as few shades, but both
powerful, and with few folds in the drapery; the countenances full of
piety; insomuch that the whole performance, in the words of Malvasia, “rose
to a pitch of grandeur not to be excelled.” In the other piece he
represented “Charity,” in a style equally soft, graceful, and polished, and
which was subsequently, says the historian, esteemed “the model and the
rule of modern painting.” He proceeds to relate, that Albani, Guido, and
Domenichino all derived their sweetness from this source, in the same way,
most probably, that Cavedoni took his first style from the S. Domenico; and
from his Paul at the Conventuali Guercino acquired his grand power of
chiaroscuro. In short, if we may give credit to history, Lodovico in his
own school ranks like Homer among the Greeks, fons ingeniorum. Individual artists in him have
recognized what constituted the character of their own knowledge, because
in every branch of painting he was truly profound.[24]

The masterly dignity of his character appears to most advantage in the
cloister of S. Michele in Bosco, where, assisted by his pupils, he
represented the actions of St. Benedict and
St. Cecilia [Pg 114]in thirty-seven
separate histories. By his hand is the Conflagration of Mount Cassino, and
some other portions; the remaining parts are by Guido, by Tiarini, by
Massari, by Cavedoni, by Spada, by Garbieri, by Brizio, and other young
artists. These paintings have been engraved, and are worthy of the
reformers of that age. On beholding what we may term this gallery by
different hands, we should be almost inclined to bestow upon the school of
Lodovico this trite eulogy; that from it, as from the Trojan horse, there
issued only princes. What does him still more honour is, that his relatives
themselves, down to the least and last, uniformly venerated him as a
preceptor, insomuch that Annibal, on the completion of the Farnese gallery,
invited him to Rome, as the adviser, arbiter, and umpire of that work. He
remained there less than two weeks, and then returning to his beloved
Bologna, he survived Agostino seventeen years, and Annibal ten. Being
separated from the two cousins, he employed himself at an advanced age in a
manner less studied, but still exemplary and masterly. Nor ought a few
slight inaccuracies of design to detract from the praise due to him,
inaccuracies which he fell into about this period, as in the drawing of the
hand of the Redeemer, in the act of calling St.
Matthew to follow him, or in the foot of the Madonna of the Annunciation
painted at S. Pietro, a fault which he saw too late, and it may be added,
for which he died of affliction. Other less well founded criticisms [Pg
115]advanced against him by a traveller have been fully rebutted and
confuted by the Can. Crespi.[25]

Agostino, occupied for the most part in engraving, painted but little,
this employment supplying him at once with the means of subsistence, and of
shining in the class of artists. Doubtless painting here sustained a loss,
deprived of a genius equally calculated as his relations to promote the
art. His powers of invention surpassed those of the other Caracci, and many
rank him foremost in point of design. It is certain that in his engraving
he corrected and improved upon the outlines of his originals. On his return
from Venice he applied himself more effectually to colouring, and succeeded
in that of a horse, so far as to deceive the living animal, a triumph so
much celebrated in Apelles. He once competed with his brother Annibal for
an altar-piece intended for the church of the Carthusians. His design was
preferred; and it was then that in his Communion of S. Girolamo he produced
one of the most celebrated pictures of which Bologna can boast. Nothing can
be imagined finer than the expression of devotion in the aged saint, the
piety of the priest at the communion, the looks of the spectators, who
support the dying, who catch his last accents, committing them instantly to
writing, lest they escape; countenances finely varied and animated, each
breathing and speaking, as it were, peculiar mind. On its first exhibition,
the pupils thronged around the [Pg 116]picture to make their studies, insomuch that
Annibal, urged by jealousy, assumed more of his brother’s taste, becoming
more select and slow, contriving further to addict his brother to
engraving; a plan in which he succeeded. He returned, as a painter, to
Rome; and the fine representation of Poetry, so much admired in the Farnese
gallery, was, in great part, owing to his talent; and the same may be said
of the fables of Cephalus and Galatea, exquisitely graceful productions,
which seem dictated by a poet, and executed by a Greek artist. Hence it was
rumoured that in the Farnesian paintings the engraver had surpassed the
painter; at which Annibal, no longer able to subdue his envy, removed his
brother from the undertaking under a variety of false pretences; nor was
any humility on the part of Agostino, any advice of his elders, or any
mediation of the great, sufficient to appease him. Quitting Rome, Agostino
entered into the service of the Duke of Parma, for whom he painted
Celestial Love, Terrestrial Love, and Venal Love, to adorn one of the
halls, a very beautiful work, which he terminated only just before his
death. A single figure remained wanting, and this the duke would never
consent to have supplied by any other hand. At the point of death he was
seized with lively remorse, on account of his many licentious engravings
and prints, and even wept bitterly. At that period he designed a picture of
the Last Judgment, which, however, he was unable to complete. In the
account [Pg
117]of his funeral, and in the oration recited on that occasion by
Lucio Faberio, mention is made of a head of Jesus Christ, in the character
of the universal judge, painted at that time, though unfinished, upon a
black ground. Such a head is pointed out in the Albani palace at Rome, and
duplicates exist elsewhere. In the features we see exhibited all that is at
once most majestic and most terrible within the limits of the human
imagination.

Annibal was greatly celebrated in Lombardy in every peculiar taste which
he chose to pursue. In his earliest works Mengs declares that he traces the
appearance, but not the depth and reality of Coreggio’s style; but it is an
appearance so extremely plausible, that it compels us to pronounce him one
of the most perfect imitators of that consummate master. His Taking down
from the Cross, at the church of the Capuccini in Parma, may challenge the
most distinguished followers of the Parmese School. His picture of S. Rocco
is still more celebrated, comprising the perfections of different artists,
a piece engraved in aqua forte by Guido Reni. It was executed for Reggio,
thence transferred to Modena, and from the last place to Dresden. He
represented the saint, standing near a portico on a basement, and
dispensing his wealth to poor mendicants; a composition not so very rich in
figures as in knowledge of the art. A throng of paupers, as different in
point of infirmity as in age and sex, is admirably varied, both in the
grouping and the gestures. [Pg 118]One is seen receiving with gratitude,
another impatiently expecting, a third counting his alms with delight;
every object is misery and humiliation, and yet every thing seems to
display the abundance and dignity of the artist. But proceeding to Rome in
the year 1600, he entered on another career; “he checked his fire,”
observes Mengs, “he improved the extravagance of his forms, imitated
Raffaello and the ancients, retaining at the same time a portion of the
style of Coreggio to support dignity.” (Tom.ii. p.
19.) Albano makes use of nearly the same words in a letter given by
Bellori, (p. 44,) adding, that Annibal, in the
opinion of competent judges, “far surpassed his cousin, from a knowledge of
the works of Raffaello, in addition to that of the most beautiful ancient
statues.” He was there employed in various churches, though his crowning
effort, and nearly the whole foundation of the art, as restored by his
means, are to be sought for in the Farnese palace. The subjects were
selected by Monsig. Agucchi; and together with the allegories may be read
in Bellori. In a small chamber he gave representations of the Virtues, such
as his Choice of Hercules, Hercules sustaining the
World, Ulysses the Liberator; in the gallery various
fables of Virtuous Love, such as those of Arion and Prometheus; with others
of Venal Love, among which a wonderful figure of a Bacchanal is one of the
most conspicuous. The work is admirably distributed and varied with ovals,
cornices, and with a variety of [Pg 119]ornamental figures, sometimes in stucco, at
others in chiaroscuro, where the effect of his assiduous studies of the
Farnesian Hercules is very apparent, as well as of the torso of the Belvidere, which he accurately
designed, without even having the model before him. The whole of the other
parts breathe Attic elegance combined with Raffaellesque grace, and
imitations not only of his own Tibaldi but of Bonarruoti himself, no less
than all the sprightly and the powerful added to the art by the Venetians
and Lombards. This was the earliest production, where, as in Pandora’s box,
all the geniuses of the Italian schools united their several gifts; and in
its fit place I described the astonishment created by it at Rome, with the
revolution it occasioned in the whole art.

On account of this work he is ranked by Mengs next after the three
leading masters in the fourth degree, and even esteemed supereminent in
regard to the form of his virile figures. Poussin asserts, that after
Raffaello there were no better compositions than these, and he prefers the
decorative heads and figures already mentioned, with the other naked forms,
in which the artist was said to have surpassed himself, even to his fables
so beautifully painted. To him Baglione refers the method of colouring from
nature, which was nearly lost, as well as the true art of
landscape-painting, afterwards imitated by the Flemish. To these might
likewise be added the use of caricatures, which no one better than he knew
how to copy [Pg
120]from nature, and to increase with ideal power. In the Roman
galleries many of Annibal’s pictures are to be met with, conducted in this
new style; and there is one in the Lancellotti palace, small, and painted
a colla,[26] rivalling, I had almost said, the best pieces of
Ercolani. It is a Pan teaching Apollo to play upon the pipe; figures at
once designed, coloured, and disposed with the hand of a great master. They
are so finely expressive, that we see in the countenance of the youth,
humility, and apprehension of committing an error; and in that of the old
man, turning another way, peculiar attention to the sound, his pleasure in
possessing such a pupil, and his anxiety to conceal from him his real
opinion, lest he might happen to grow vain.[27]

No other pieces so exquisitely finished are found by his hand at
Bologna, where there prevails the same strong party, commenced in the time
of the Caracci, and which prefers Lodovico to Annibal. When we reflect that
Annibal, in addition to the patrimony left by his school, conferred upon it
the riches which the genius of the Greeks, throughout many ages and many
places had collected to adorn their style; when we reflect on the progress,
which, on observing his new style at Rome, was made by Domenichino, Guido,
Albano, Lanfranco, with the new light which it afforded [Pg 121]to Algardi,
according to the supposition of Passeri, in respect to sculpture, and the
improvement which by his means took place in the very pleasing and
attractive painting of Flanders and of Holland, we feel inclined to
coincide with the general sentiment entertained beyond the limits of
Bologna, that Annibal was the most eminent artist of his family. At the
same time we may allow, that Agostino was the greater genius, and Lodovico,
to whom we are indebted for both, the greater teacher of these three. As
such, too, the learned Ab. Magnani, librarian and lecturer upon eloquence
to the institution, assigns to him the office of teacher, in an able
oration upon the fine arts, printed at Parma by Bodoni, along with others
by the same author.

The three Caracci may be almost said to define the boundaries of the
golden age of painting in Italy. They are her last sovereign masters,
unless we are willing to admit a few of their select pupils, who extended
that period during the space of some years. Excellent masters, doubtless,
flourished subsequently; but after their decease, the powers of such
artists appearing less elevated and less solid, we begin to hear complaints
respecting the decline of the art. Nor were there wanting those who
contended for a secondary age of silver, dating from Guido down to the time
of Giordano, as well on account of the minor merit of the artists, as for
the prices, so much greater than formerly, which Guido introduced into the
art. The [Pg
122]Caracci themselves had been only scantily remunerated. Count
Malvasia admits this fact, not omitting to point out the small dwelling,
and to describe the narrow circumstances in which Lodovico died, while his
two relatives left the world still more impoverished than himself. The
Caracci, moreover, did not, like other painters, leave legitimate sons to
perpetuate their school; they never married, and were accustomed to observe
that the art was sole partner of their thoughts. And this beloved mistress
they adored and served with a love so passionate, as to abandon almost all
worldly care for themselves. Even while sitting at their meals they had the
implements of their art before them; and wherever they observed an action
or gesture adapted to adorn it, they took instant note of it. And to this
their free estate, more than to any other cause, were they indebted for
their noble progress and improvement. Had they “taken to themselves a
wife,” how easily would their agreeable friendship and attachment, from
which each of the three derived light and knowledge from the rest, have
been broken in upon by tattling and trifles beneath their care. Most
probably, too, it might have occasioned too great rapidity of hand, at the
expense of study; such at least having been the result with regard to many,
who, to indulge a woman’s taste, or to provide for the wants of a family,
have addicted themselves to carelessness and despatch. At the period, then,
of the decease of the two cousins, and the advanced [Pg 123]age of Lodovico,
there remained of the family only two youths, one, named Francesco, at
Bologna, the other, Antonio, in Rome.

Francesco was a younger brother of Agostino and Annibal. Confiding in
his connexions and in his own talent, excellent in point of design, and
reasonably good in colouring, he ventured to oppose a school of his own to
that of Lodovico, his master, inscribing upon the door: “This is the true
school of the Caracci.” He enjoyed no reputation at Bologna, but was rather
held in dislike, on account of his opposition to and detraction of
Lodovico, to whom he owed what little he executed at that place, namely, an
altar-piece, with various saints, at S. Maria Maggiore, the whole of which
had been retouched by his kind and able cousin. Having gone to Rome, he was
first received with applause, but becoming better known he was soon
despised; and, without leaving a single specimen of his pencil, he died
there in his twenty-seventh year, in the hospital. Antonio Caracci, a
natural son of Agostino, and pupil to Annibal, was of a totally different
disposition. Prudent, affectionate, and grateful to his relatives, he
received Annibal’s last sighs at Rome, bestowed upon him a splendid funeral
in the same church of the Rotonda, where Raffaello’s remains had been
exhibited, and deposited his ashes at the side of that great artist. He
survived, a valetudinarian, during some years, and died at the age of
thirty-five, in Rome, where he left some works in the pontifical palace,
and at S. [Pg
124]Bartolommeo. They are rarely met with in cabinets, though I saw
one in Genoa, a Veronica, in possession of the Brignole family. Bellori Had
written his life, which, although now lost, leads to the supposition that
he possessed great merit, inasmuch as that writer confined himself to the
commemoration of only first rate artists. Baldassare Aloisi, called
Galanino, a kinsman and scholar of the Caracci, yielded to few of his
fellow-pupils in his compositions. His picture of the Visitation, at the
church of the Carità in Bologna, so much extolled by Malvasia, to say
nothing of various other pictures, executed at Rome, and favourably
recorded by Baglione, affords ample proofs of it. His fortune, however, was
not equal to his merit; so that he wholly devoted himself to portraiture,
and as we have stated, in the Roman School, he there for some period
boasted the chief sway in the branch of portraits, which were uniformly
characterized by great power and strong relief.

Other Bolognese artists, educated in the same academy, took up their
residence also at Rome, or in its state; nor were they few in number,
since, as was observed in the fourth epoch of that school, they were
received there with distinguished favour. We shall commence with the least
celebrated. Lattanzio Mainardi, called by Baglione Lattanzio Bolognese, had
visited Rome previous to Annibal, and in the pontificate of Sixtus V.,
conducted several works for the Vatican, which augured well [Pg 125]of
his genius, had he not died there very young; as well as one Gianpaolo
Bonconti, at an age still more immature, having vainly followed his master
to Rome, where he had only time to make a few designs, but conceived in the
best taste. Innocenzio Tacconi was kinsman, according to some, and
assuredly enjoyed the confidence of Annibale. From him he received designs
and retouches, tending to make him appear a more considerable artist than
he really was. To judge from some of his histories of St. Andrew, painted for S. Maria del Popolo, and S.
Angiolo, in the fish-market, he may be said to have rivalled his best
fellow-pupils. But abusing his master’s goodness, and alienating his regard
from Agostino, from Albano, and from Guido, by misrepresentations, he
received the usual recompence of slanderers. Annibal withdrew his support,
deprived of which he gradually became more and more insignificant. Anton
Maria Panico early left Rome, and, entering the service of Mario Farnese,
resided upon his estates, being employed in painting at Castro, at Latera,
and at Farnese, in whose cathedral he placed his picture of the mass, to
which Annibal also put his hand, even conducting some of the figures.
Baldassare Croce is an artist enumerated by Orlandi among the pupils of
Annibal; by Malvasia, among the imitators of Guido. Baglione describes him
as superior in age to all three of the Caracci, introducing him into Rome
as early as the times of Gregory. Towards [Pg 126]reconciling the
accounts of these writers, it might be observed, that continuing to reside
at Rome, he may have taken advantage, as he advanced in age, of the
examples afforded by his noble fellow-citizens. His style, from what we
gather of it in the public palace of Viterbo, and a cupola of the Gesù, as
well as from his large histories of S. Susanna, and other places in Rome,
is easy, natural, and entitling him to the name of a good mechanist and
painter of frescos, but not so easily to that of a follower of the Caracci.
Gio. Luigi Valesio entered, though late, into the same school, and chiefly
attached himself to engraving and to miniature. Proceeding to Rome, he was
there employed by the Lodovisi under the pontificate of Gregory XV., and
obtained great honours. We find him commended in the works of Marini and
other poets, though less for the art, in which he only moderately excelled,
than for his assiduity and his fortune. He was one of those wits, who in
the want of sound merit know how to substitute easier methods to advance
themselves; seasonably to regale such as can assist them, to affect joy
amidst utter humiliation, to accommodate themselves to men’s tempers, to
flatter, to insinuate, and to canvass interest, until they attain their
object. By means like these he maintained his equipage in Rome, where
Annibal, during many years, obtained no other stipend for his honourable
toils, than a bare roof for his head, daily pittance for himself and his
servant, [Pg
127]with annual payment of a hundred and twenty crowns.[28] In the few pieces executed by Valesio at Bologna, such
as his Nunziata of the Mendicants, we perceive a dry composition of small
relief, yet exact according to the method of the miniaturists. He appears
to have somewhat improved at Rome, where he left a few works in fresco and
in oil, exhibiting his whole power, perhaps, in a figure of Religion, in
the cloister of the Minerva. To these artists of the Caracci school it will
be sufficient only to have alluded. They were indeed no more than
gregarious followers of those elevated standards of their age.

The five, however, who next follow, deserve a nearer view, and more
accurate acquaintance with their merits. These, remaining indeed at Rome,
became leaders of new ranks, which from them assumed their name and device;
and hence we have alternately been compelled to record the disciples of
Albano, of Guido, and so of the rest. This repetition, however, in other
places, will now permit us to treat of them in a more cursory view.

Domenico Zampieri, otherwise Domenichino, is at this day universally
esteemed the most distinguished pupil of the Caracci; and has even been
preferred by Count Algarotti to the Caracci themselves. What is still more,
Poussin ranked him directly next to Raffaello; and in the introduction to
the life of Camassei, almost the same [Pg 128]opinion is given by
Passeri. During the early part of his career his genius appeared slow,
because it was profound and accurate; and Passeri attributes his grand
progress more to his amazing study than to his genius. From his acting as a
continual censor of his own productions, he became among his fellow pupils
the most exact and expressive designer, his colours most true to nature,
and of the best impasto,
the most universal master in the theory of his art, the sole painter
amongst them all in whom Mengs found nothing to desire, except a somewhat
larger proportion of elegance. That he might devote his whole being to the
art, he shunned all society, or if he occasionally sought it in the public
theatres and markets, it was in order better to observe the play of
nature’s passions in the features of the people;—those of joy, anger,
grief, terror, and every affection of the mind, and to commit it living to
his tablets; and thus, exclaims Bellori, it was, he succeeded in
delineating the soul, in colouring life, and rousing those emotions in our
breasts at which his works all aim; as if he waved the same wand which
belonged to the poetical enchanters, Tasso and Ariosto. After several
years’ severe study at Bologna, he went to Parma to examine the beautiful
works of the Lombards; and thence to Rome, where he completed his erudite
taste under Annibal, who selected him as one of his assistants.

His style of painting is almost theatrical, and he in general lays the
scene amidst some splendid [Pg 129]exhibition of architecture,[29] which serves to confer upon his compositions a new and
elevated character in the manner of Paul Veronese. There he introduces his
actors, selected from nature’s finest models, and animated by the noblest
impulses of the art. The virtuous have an expression so sweet, so sincere,
and so affectionate, as to inspire the love of what is good. And in the
like manner do the vicious, with their guilty features, create in us as
deep aversion to their vice. We must despair to find paintings exhibiting
richer or more varied ornaments, accessaries more beautifully adapted, or
more majestic draperies. The figures are finely disposed both in place and
action, conducing to the general effect; while a light pervades the whole
which seems to rejoice the spirit; growing brighter and brighter in the
aspect of the best countenances, whence they first attract the eye and
heart of the beholder. The most delightful mode of view is to take in the
whole scene, and observe how well each personage represents his intended
part. In general there is no want of an interpreter to declare what the
actors think and speak; they bear it stamped upon their features and
attitudes; and though gifted with audible words, they could not tell their
tale to the ear, more plainly than they speak it to the eye. Surely, of
this, we have proof in the Scourging of St.
Andrew, at S. Gregorio, at Rome, executed in competition with [Pg
130]Guido, and placed opposite to his St.
Andrew, in the act of being led to the gibbet. It is commonly reported that
an aged woman, accompanied by a little boy, was seen long wistfully engaged
with viewing Domenichino’s picture, shewing it part by part to the boy, and
next turning to the history by Guido, she gave it a cursory glance, and
passed on. Some assert, that Annibal, being acquainted with the fact, took
occasion from the circumstance to give his preference to the former piece.
It is moreover added, that in painting one of the executioners, he actually
threw himself into a passion, using threatening words and actions, and that
Annibal surprising him at that moment, embraced him, exclaiming with joy,
“To-day, my Domenichino, thou art teaching me!” So novel, and at the same
time so natural it appeared to him, that the artist, like the orator,
should feel within himself all that he is representing to others.

Yet this picture of the Scourging is in no way to be compared with the
Communion of S. Jerome, or to the Martyrdom of S. Agnes, and other works,
conducted in his riper years. The first of these is generally allowed to be
the finest picture Rome can boast next to the Transfiguration of Raffaello;
while the second was estimated by his rival Guido at ten times the merit of
Raffaello’s own pieces.[30] In these church paintings
one great attraction consists in the glory of the angels, exquisitely [Pg
131]beautiful in feature, full of lively action, and so introduced
as to perform the most gracious offices in the piece; the crowning of
martyrs, the bearing palms, the scattering of roses, weaving the mazy
dance, and waking sweet melodies. In the attitudes we often trace the
imitation of Coreggio; yet the forms are different, and for the most part
have a flatness of the nose, which distinguishes them, and gives them an
air of comeliness. Much, however, as Domenichino delighted in oil-painting,
he is more soft and harmonious in his frescos; some of which are to be
seen, besides those in Naples, at Fano, but the greatest part of them were
destroyed by fire. They consist of scriptural histories in a chapel of the
cathedral; of mythological incidents in villa Bracciano, at Frascati; the
acts of S. Nilo, at Grotta Ferrata; and various sacred subjects
interspersed through different churches at Rome. In the corbels of the
cupolas at S. Carlo a’ Catinari, and at S. Andrea della Valle, he painted,
at the former, the four Virtues, at the latter, the four Evangelists, still
regarded as models after innumerable similar productions. At S. Andrea also
are seen various histories of that saint in the tribune, besides those of
St. Cecilia, at S. Luigi; others at S. Silvestro, in the Quirinal of David,
and other scriptural subjects, which in point of composition and taste of
costume are by some esteemed superior to the rest.

It seems almost incredible, that works like [Pg 132]these, which now
engage the admiration of professors themselves, should once, as I have
narrated, have been decried to such a degree, that the author was long
destitute of all commissions, and even on the point of transferring his
genius to the art of sculpture. This was in part owing to the arts of his
rivals, who represented his very excellences as defects, and in part to
some little faults of his own. Domenichino was less distinguished for
invention than for any other branch of his profession. Of this, his picture
of the Rosary at Bologna affords an instance, which neither at that period
nor since has been fully understood by the public; and it is known not to
have pleased even his own friends, which led the author to regret its
production. Diffident thenceforward of his powers in this department, he
often borrowed the ideas of others; imitated Agostino in his St. Jerome, the S. Rocco, of Annibal, in his
almsgiving of St. Cecilia; and even other less
eminent artists; observing, that in every picture he found something good,
as Pliny said, that from every book we may cull some useful information.
These imitations afforded occasion for his rivals to charge him with
poverty of invention, procuring an engraving of Agostino’s St. Jerome, of
which they circulated copies, denouncing Domenico Zampieri as a plagiarist.
Lanfranco, the chief agent in these intrigues, exhibited on the contrary
only his own designs, invariably novel, and made a display of his own
celerity and promptness of hand, as contrasted with [Pg 133]his rival’s want of
resolution and despatch. Had Domenichino enjoyed the same advantages of
party as the Caracci in Bologna, which he well deserved, he would soon have
triumphed over his adversaries, by proving the distinction between
imitation and servility,[31] and that if his works were
longer in being brought to perfection than his rival’s, their reputation
would be proportionally durable. The public is an equitable judge; but a
good cause is not sufficient without the advantage of many voices to
sanction it. Domenichino, timid, retired, and master of few pupils, was
destitute of a party equal to his cause. He was constrained to yield to the
crowd that trampled him, thus verifying the observation of Monsig. Agucchi,
that his worth would never be rightly appreciated during his lifetime. The
spirit of party passing away, impartial posterity has rendered him justice;
[Pg
134]nor is there a royal gallery but confesses an ambition for his
specimens. His figure pieces are in the highest esteem, and fetch enormous
prices. He is rarely to be met with except in capital cities; his David is
a first rate object of inquiry to all strangers visiting the college of
Fano, who have the least pretensions to taste; the figure of the king, as
large as life, being of itself sufficient to render an artist’s name
immortal.

There is a small, but inestimable picture of St. Francis, that belonged to the late Count Jacopo
Zambeccari, at Bologna. The saint is seen in the act of prayer, and by the
animated and flushed expression of the eyes, it appears as if his heart had
just been dissolved in tears. Two pictures, likewise beautifully composed,
I have seen at Genoa; the Death of Adonis bewailed by Venus, in the Durazzo
Gallery just before mentioned, and the S. Rocco in the Brignole Sale,
offering up prayers for the cessation of the plague. The attitude of the
holy man; the eagerness of those who seek him; the tragic exhibition of the
dying and the dead around him; a funeral procession going by; an infant
seen on the bosom of its dead mother, vainly seeking its wonted nutriment;
all shake the soul of the spectator as if he were beholding the real scene.
Among his pictures from profane history the most celebrated is his Chase of
Diana, in the Borghesi Palace, filled with spirited forms of nymphs, and
lively incidents. In the same collection are some of his landscapes, as
well as in that of [Pg 135]Florence; and some of his portraits in
others. Here too he is excellent, but they are the least difficult branches
to acquire. Respecting his other works, and the most eminent of his pupils,
enough has been stated in the Roman and Neapolitan schools. He educated for
his native place Gio. Batista Ruggieri; and to his numerous other
misfortunes was added the pain of finding him ungrateful, after having
rendered him eminent in his art. This pupil united with Gessi in quality of
assistant; and as we shall shew, also took his denomination from him.
Passeri dwells on this disappointment of Domenichino incidentally in his
life of Algardi, (p. 198).

Next to Zampieri comes his intimate friend Francesco Albani, “who,
aiming at the same object,” observes Malvasia, “and adopting the same
means, pursued the like glorious career.” They agree in a general taste for
select design, solidity, pathetic power, and likewise in their tints,
except in Albani’s fleshes being ruddier, and not unfrequently faded, from
his method of laying on the grounds. In point of original invention he is
superior to Domenichino, and perhaps to any other of the school; and in his
representation of female forms, according to Mengs, he has no equal. By
some he is denominated the Anacreon of painting. Like that poet, with his
short odes, so Albani, from his small paintings, acquired great reputation;
and as the one sings Venus and the Loves, and maids and boys, so does the
artist hold up to the eye the [Pg 136]same delicate and graceful subjects. Nature,
indeed formed, the perusal of the poets inclined, and fortune encouraged
his genius for this kind of painting; and possessing a consort and twelve
children, all of surprising beauty, he was at the same time blest with the
finest models for the pursuit of his studies. He had a villa most
delightfully situated, which farther presented him with a variety of
objects, enabling him to represent the beautiful rural views so familiar to
his eye. Passeri greatly extols his talent in this branch, remarking, that
where others, being desirous of suiting figures to the landscape, or its
various objects to one another, most frequently alter their natural colour,
he invariably preserves the green of his trees, the clearness of his
waters, and the serenity of the air, under the most lovely aspect; and
contrived to unite them with the most enchanting power of harmony.

Upon such grounds, for the most part, he places and disposes his
compositions, although he may occasionally introduce specimens of his
architecture, in which he is equally expert. His pictures are often met
with in collections, or to speak more correctly, they re-appear, inasmuch
as both he himself made repetitions, and practised his pupils in them,
giving them his own touches. He exhibits few bacchanals, avoiding figures
that had already been so admirably treated by Annibal in many of his little
pictures, from which, if I mistake not, Albano drew the first ideas of his
style; adapting it to his own talent, which was not so elevated [Pg 137]as
that of Annibal. His most favourite themes are the sleeping Venus, Diana in
her bath, Danae on her couch, Galatea in the sea, Europa on the bull, a
piece which is also seen on a large scale in the Colonna and Bolognetti
collections at Rome, and in that of the Conti Mosca at Pesaro. How
beautifully do those figures of the Loves throw their veil over the virgin,
in order to protect her from the sun’s rays, while others are seen drawing
forward the bull with bands of flowers, or goading him in the side with
their darts. At times he introduces them in the dance, weaving garlands,
and practising with their bows at a heart suspended in the air for a
target. Occasionally he conceals some doctrine, or ingenious allegory,
under the veil of painting; as in those four oval pictures of the Elements
in the Borghesi palace, which he repeated for the royal gallery at Turin.
There too are Cupids seen employed in tempering Vulcan’s darts; spreading
their snares for birds upon the wing; fishing and swimming in the sea;
culling and wreathing flowers, as if intended to represent the system of
the ancients, who referred every work of nature to Genii, and with Genii
accordingly peopled the world. To sacred subjects Albano devoted less
attention, but did not vary his taste. The entire action of such pieces was
made to depend on the ministry of graceful cherubs, in a manner similar to
that which was subsequently adopted by P. Tornielli in his marine
canzonettes, where, in every history of the Virgin and Holy Child, he
introduces a throng of them as a sacred train. [Pg 138]Another very
favourite repetition of idea is that of representing the Infant Christ,
with his eye turned towards Heaven upon the angels, some in the act of
bringing thorns, some the scourge, some the cross, or other symbols of his
future passion. There is a picture of this kind in Florence, to which I
alluded in the Description of the ducal gallery, and it is
also found somewhat varied in two fine pieces; one at the Domenicani in
Forli, the other in Bologna, at the Filippini. These, and other works of
Albani, interspersed throughout different cities, as in Matelica, in Osimo,
in Rimini, besides his fresco paintings in Bologna, at S. Michele in Bosco,
at S. Jacopo, of the Spaniards at Rome, with the design of Annibal; these
sufficiently exhibit his superior talent for large paintings, although he
applied himself with greater zest and vigour to those on a smaller
scale.

Albani opened an academy for several years at Rome, and at Bologna,
invariably a competitor of Guido, both in his magisterial and his
professional capacity.[32] Hence arose those strictures upon
his style which Guido’s disciples affected to despise as loose and
effeminate, wanting elegance in the virile forms, while those of the boys
were all of the same proportion, and his heads of the Holy Family, and of
saints had always one idea. Similar [Pg 139]accusations,
advanced likewise against Pietro Perugino, are not calculated to depress so
great an artist’s merit, so much as the esteem of Annibal, his own
writings, and his pupils, serve to raise him in our regard. It is matter of
historical fact that Annibal, seized with admiration of some of his small
pictures, and among others a bacchante, seen at a fountain pouring out
wine, purchased it, and declared that he had not even paid for the drops of
water so exquisitely coloured by the wine. Of his writings there remain
only a few fragments, preserved by Malvasia, not indeed reduced to method,
a task that ought to devolve on some other pen, but highly valuable from
the information and maxims which they contain. Among his pupils Sacchi and
Cignani are in themselves sufficient to reflect credit upon their master,
the first of whom sustained the art at Rome, the other at Bologna, and to
whose efforts it was owing that its reputation so long continued in both
those schools. There, moreover, we recounted the names of Speranza, and
Mola, of Lugano, his noble disciples; and to these, besides Cignani, to
whom we refer elsewhere, we can add a considerable number. Gio. Batista
Mola, a Frenchman, long continued with Albano, and, according to Boschini,
resided with the other Mola at Venice, where they copied a vast work of
Paul Veronese for Cardinal Bichi. He displayed surprising skill in drawing
rural scenes and trees, and being preferred by many in this branch to his
master, he often added landscape to his master’s figures, and occasionally
adapted figures to his own [Pg 140]landscape, very beautiful, in Albani’s
style, but without his softness. In the excellent collection of the
Marchesi Rinuccini, at Florence, is a picture of the Repose in Egypt, by
the same hand. Two other foreign pupils also did him credit; Antonio
Catalani, called Il Romano, and Girolamo Bonini, also from his native
place, entitled l’Anconitano, who, in imitating Albani, was equalled by
few, and who enjoyed his perfect confidence and friendship. Settling at
Bologna, they there employed themselves with reputation in some elegant
works, and left several histories in fresco in the public palace. In this
last branch, Pierantonio Torri also distinguished himself, called, in
Guarienti’s lexicon, Antonio, dropping Pietro on the authority of the
Passagiere disingannato; and Torrigli, in the Guide of Venice, where he
painted the architectural parts in the church of S. Giuseppe for the
figures of Ricchi. Filippo Menzani is known only as the attached disciple
and faithful copyist of his master. Gio. Batista Galli, and Bartolommeo
Morelli, the former called from his birth-place, Bibiena, the latter
Pianoro, were similarly employed in taking copies from him; though the
second applied to it with extreme reluctance, on account of Albani being
“too highly finished, diligent, and laborious, for the task of copying.”
Both these artists are commended by the continuator of Malvasia. Bibiena,
though he died early, conducted works that might be ascribed to Albani, in
particular the Ascension at the Certosa, and his St. Andrew at the Servi in Bologna. Pianoro succeeded
admirably well in his [Pg 141]frescos, more especially in the chapel of
Casa Pepoli at S. Bartolommeo di Porta, decorated by him throughout in such
exquisite taste, that, were history silent, it would be said to have been
designed and coloured by Albani’s own hand.

By some, Guido Reni is esteemed the great genius of the school; nor did
any other single artist excite so much jealousy in the Caracci. Lodovico
was unable to disguise it; and from a pupil he made him his rival, and in
order to humble him, bestowed his favour on Guercino, an artist in quite
another taste. Annibal too, after some years, on seeing him at Rome, blamed
Albani for inviting him thither; and, in order to depress him, he put
Domenichino in opposition to him. Even from the age of twenty, when he left
the school of Calvart, the Caracci discovered in him a rare genius for the
art, so elevated and ambitious of distinction, that he aspired to something
great and novel from the outset of his career. Some of his early efforts
are to be seen in the Bonfigliuoli palace, and in other choice collections,
displaying a variety of manner. He devoted much study to Albert Durer, he
imitated the Caracci, studied the forms of Cesi, and, like Passerotti,
aimed at giving strong relief and accuracy to the drawing of the muscles.
In some instances he followed Caravaggio, and in the aforesaid palace is a
figure of a sibyl, very beautiful in point of features, but greatly
overlaid with depth of shade. The style he adopted arose particularly from
an observation on [Pg 142]that of Caravaggio one day incidentally made
by Annibal Caracci, that to this manner there might be opposed one wholly
contrary; in place of a confined and declining light, to exhibit one more
full and vivid; to substitute the tender for the bold, to oppose clear
outlines to his indistinct ones, and to introduce for his low and common
figures those of a more select and beautiful kind.

These words made a much deeper impression on the mind of Guido than
Annibal was aware of; nor was it long before he wholly applied himself to
the style thus indicated to him. Sweetness was his great object; he sought
it equally in design, in the touch of his pencil, and in colouring; from
that time he began to make use of white lead, a colour avoided by Lodovico,
and at the same time predicted the durability of his tints, such as they
have proved. His fellow pupils were indignant at his presuming to depart
from the Caracci’s method, and returning to the feeble undecided manner of
the past century. Nor did he pretend to be indifferent to their remarks and
advice. He still preserved that strength of style, so much aimed at by his
school, while he softened it with more than its usual delicacy; and by
degrees proceeding in the same direction, he, in a few years, attained to
the degree of delicacy he had proposed. For this reason I have observed
that in Bologna, more than elsewhere, his first is distinguished from his
second manner, and it is made a question which of the two is preferable.
Nor do all agree with [Pg 143]Malvasia, who pronounced his former the most
pleasing, his latter manner the most studied.

In these variations, however, he never lost sight of that exquisite ease
which so much attracts us in his works. He was more particularly attentive
to the correct form of beauty, especially in his youthful heads. Here, in
the opinion of Mengs, he surpassed all others, and, according to Passeri’s
expression, he drew faces of Paradise. In these Rome abounds more richly
than Bologna itself. The Fortune in the capitol; the Aurora, belonging to
the Rospigliosi; the Helen to the Spada; the Herodias to the Corsini; the
Magdalen to the Barberini, with other subjects in possession of several
princes, are regarded as the wonders of Guido’s art. This power of beauty
was, in the words of Albano, his most bitter and constant rival, the gift
of nature; though the whole was the result of his own intense study of
natural beauty, and of Raffaello, and of the ancient statues, medals, and
cameos. He declared that the Medicean Venus and the Niobe were his most
favourite models; and it is seldom we do not recognize in his paintings
either Niobe herself, or one of her children, though diversified in a
variety of manner with such exquisite skill, as in no way to appear
borrowed. In the same way did Guido derive advantage from Raffaello,
Coreggio, Parmigianino, and from his beloved Paul Veronese; from all of
whom he selected innumerable beauties, but with such happy freedom of hand
as to excite the envy [Pg 144]of the Caracci. And, in truth, this artist
aimed less at copying beautiful countenances, than at forming for himself a
certain general and abstract idea of beauty, as we know was done by the
Greeks, and this he modulated and animated in his own style. I find
mention, that being interrogated by one of his pupils, in what part
of heaven, in what mould existed those wondrous features which he
only drew, he pointed to the casts of the antique heads just alluded to,
adding, “You too may gather from such examples beauties similar to those in
my pictures, if your skill be equal to the task.” I find, moreover, that he
took for model of one of his Magdalens, the extremely vulgar head of a
colour-grinder; but under Guido’s hand every defect disappeared, each part
became graceful, the whole a miracle. Thus too in his naked figures he
reduced them, whatever they were, to a perfect form, more especially in the
hands and feet, in which he is singular, and the same in his draperies,
which he often drew from the prints of Albert Durer, enriching them, freed
from their dryness, with those flowing folds or that grandeur of
disposition best adapted to the subject. To portraits themselves, while he
preserved the forms and age of the originals, he gave a certain air of
novelty and grace, such as we see in that of Sixtus V., placed in the Galli
palace at Osimo, or in that wonderful one of Cardinal Spada, in possession
of some of his descendants at Rome. There is no one action, position, or
expression at all injurious [Pg 145]to his figures; the passions of grief,
terror, sorrow, are all combined with the expression of beauty; he turns
them every way as he lists, he changes them into every attitude, always
equally pleasing, and every one equally entitled to the eulogy of
displaying in every action, and in every step, the beauty which secretly
animates and accompanies it.[33]

What most surprises us is the variety which he infuses into this beauty,
resulting no less from his richness of imagination than from his studies.
Still continuing to design in the academy up to the close of his career, he
practised his invention how best to vary his idea of the beautiful, so as
to free it from all monotony and satiety. He was fond of depicting his
countenances with upraised looks, and used to say that he had a hundred
different modes of thus representing them. He displayed equal variety in
his draperies, though invariably preferring to draw the folds ample, easy,
natural, and with clear meaning, as to their origin, progress, and
disposition. Nor did he throw less diversity into the ornaments of his
youthful heads, disposing the tresses, whether loose, bound, or left in
artful confusion, always different, and sometimes casting over them a veil,
fillet, or turban, so as to produce some fresh display of grace. Nor were
his heads of old men inferior in this respect, displaying even the
inequality of the skin, the flow of [Pg 146]the beard, with the
hair turned as we see on every side, and animating the features with a few
bold, decided touches, and few lights, so as to give great effect at a
distance, altogether with a surprising degree of nature; specimens of which
are seen at the Pitti palace, the Barberina and Albana galleries; and yet
among the least rare of this artist’s productions. He bestowed similar
attention to varying his fleshes; in delicate subjects he made them of the
purest white, adding, moreover, certain livid and azure, mixed among middle
tints, open to a charge, at least by some, of mannerism.[34]

The preceding commendations, however, will not extend to the whole of
Guido’s works. His inequality is well known, but not owing to any maxim of
his art. It arose from his love of play, a failing which obscured his many
moral qualities. His profits were great; but he was kept continually in a
state of indigence by his losses, which he endeavoured to repair by the too
negligent practice of his art. Hence we trace occasional errors in
perspective, and deficiency of invention, a defect so much insisted upon by
the implacable Albani. Hence too his incorrectness of design, the
disproportion of his figures, and his works put to sale before their
completion. Yet these are not excluded from royal cabinets, and that of
Turin possesses one of Marsyas, a finely finished figure, before which is
seen standing little more than the sketch of an [Pg 147]Apollo. To form then
a fair estimate of Guido, we must turn to other efforts which raised him to
high reputation. Among his most excellent pieces I am of opinion that his
Crucifixion of St. Peter, at Rome, is a specimen
of his boldest manner; the Miracle of the Manna at Ravenna, the Conception
at Forli, the Slaughter of the Innocents at Bologna; and there too his
celebrated picture of Saints Peter and Paul in the Casa Sampieri. Specimens
of his more tender manner may be found in the St. Michael at Rome, the Purification at Modena, the
Job at Bologna, St. Thomas the Apostle at
Pesaro, the Assumption at Genoa, one of Guido’s most studied pieces, and
placed directly opposite the St. Ignatius of Rubens.

Guido taught at Rome, and gave his pupils, as we have stated, to that
city. He educated still more for his native place, where he opened a
school, frequented by more than two hundred pupils, as we are informed by
Crespi. Nor are we by this number to measure the dignity of his character
as a master. He was an accomplished head of his school, who, in every
place, introduced into the art a more sweet and engaging manner, entitled
in the times of Malvasia the modern manner. Even his rivals took advantage
of it, the fact being indisputable that Domenichino, Albano, and Lanfranco,
along with their best disciples, derived that degree of delicacy, in which
they sometimes surpass the Caracci, from none but Guido. He would not
permit the scholars in his studio to copy in the first [Pg 148]instance from his
own works, but exercised them in those of Lodovico, and the most eminent
deceased masters. It is conjectured also by Crespi, that he grounded his
scholars in the principles of the art of imitation, and all the first
requisites, without reference to the minutiæ, which are easily acquired in
the course of practice. Guido particularly prided himself on Giacomo
Semenza, and Francesco Gessi, whom he thought equal to any masters at that
time in Bologna. He employed them in that chapel of the cathedral at
Ravenna, a perfect miracle of beauty, and gave them commissions from the
court of Mantua and Savoy, assisting them also, both at Rome and his native
place; in return for all which he was repaid by Semenza with gratitude, but
by Gessi with bitter persecutions. He was followed by both in point of
style, and specimens are to be seen in some choice collections.

Semenza emulated Guido in both his manners, and displayed more
correctness, erudition, and strength. His pictures at Araceli and other
places sufficiently distinguish him from the immense crowd of
fresco-painters at Rome. There too are many of his altar-pieces, none more
beautiful, perhaps, than the S. Sebastian, at S. Michele in Bologna. Gessi
surpassed him in spirit, invention, and rapidity, for which last quality
even Guido envied him. This enabled him too, from the first, to vary his
works in point of manner until he hit upon the right one, as in his very
beautiful St. Francis at the Nunziata, [Pg
149]little inferior to Guido, as well as in several others conducted
in his earlier and best days. To these he was indebted for his name of a
second Guido; but subsequently he abused his talents, as is the case with
those who are held in slight esteem for performing much and rapidly. Thus
Bologna abounds with his pictures, in which, with the exception of their
fine character and much delicacy, there is nothing to commend; his pictures
are cold, his colouring is slight; the shape and features are often too
large, and not seldom incorrect. He is known to have invariably affected
the second manner of Guido, and hence he is always more feeble, dry, and
less harmonious than his master. By these distinctions are the differences
between salesmen and purchasers usually decided, as to whether such a piece
be a poor Guido or a Gessi.

Yet Gessi had a numerous school at Bologna, on Guido’s retiring, and
formed scholars of some reputation, such as Giacomo Castellini, Francesco
Coreggio, and Giulio Trogli, who, devoting himself to perspective, under
Mitelli, and publishing a work entitled Paradossi della Prospettiva, went
ever afterwards by the name of the Paradox. Ercole Ruggieri
was a faithful follower of Gessi’s style, insomuch as at first sight to be
mistaken for his master. He was called Ercolino del Gessi, and his brother
Batistino del Gessi, an artist of rare talent, commended by Baglione, and
much esteemed by Cortona, in whose arms he breathed his last. Batistino was
first a pupil of Domenichino, as before [Pg 150]mentioned; and might
more properly be named dello Zampieri than del Gessi, from his education
and his style. He accompanied Gessi to Naples, and subsequently became his
rival, and surpassed him at S. Barbaziano in Bologna. Finally he fixed his
residence at Rome, where remain some of his paintings in fresco, in the
cloister of the Minerva, in the Cenci palace, and elsewhere, which shew in
him the promise of a very distinguished artist; but he did not survive his
thirty-second year.

To Guido Reni belongs Ercole de Maria, or da S. Giovanni, called
Ercolino di Guido. So pliant was his genius to that of his master, that
when the latter had half completed a picture, his pupil made a copy and
substituted it for the original, and Guido continued the work, unsuspicious
of the cheat, as if it had been his own. He willingly employed him,
therefore, in multiplying his own designs, two of which copies are yet seen
in public, extremely beautiful, though not displaying the same freedom as
others which he conducted on private commission, at a more advanced age. In
these there appears a decision and flow of pencil which imposed upon the
best judges, a talent that procured him admiration at Rome, with an honour
received by no other copyist, being created a Cavalier by Urban VIII.; but
this artist also died in the flower of his age.

Another good copyist and master of Guido’s style appeared in Gio. Andrea
Sirani. On his master’s death he completed the great picture of [Pg 151]St.
Bruno, left unfinished at the Certosini, with others throughout the city in
the same state. Whether owing to Guido’s retouches, or want of freedom,
Sirani’s earliest works bear much resemblance to that master’s second
manner, more particularly his Crucifixion in the church of S. Marino, which
seems like a repetition of the S. Lorenzo in Lucina, or that in the
Modenese gallery, in whose features death itself appears beautiful. In
progress of time Sirani is supposed to have aimed at the stronger style of
Guido in his early career, and conducted in such taste are his pictures of
the Supper of the Pharisee, at the Certosa, the Nuptials of the Virgin, at
St. Giorgio, in Bologna, and the Twelve Crucifixions, in the cathedral of
Piacenza, an extremely beautiful painting, ascribed by some to Elisabetta
Sirani, a daughter and pupil of Gio. Andrea.

This lady adhered faithfully to Guido’s second manner, to which she
added powerful relief and effect. She is nearly the sole individual of the
family, whose name occurs in collections out of Bologna. Anna and Barbara,
her two sisters, also artists, as well as their father himself, yield
precedence to her single name. How surprising that a young woman, who
survived not her twenty-sixth year, should have produced the number of
paintings enumerated by Malvasia, still more that she should execute them
with so much care and elegance; but most of all, that she could conduct
them on a grand scale and in histories, with none of that [Pg
152]timidity so apparent in Fontana, and in other artists of her
sex. Such is her picture of Christ at the River Jordan, painted for the
Certosa; her St. Antony, at S. Leonardo, and
many other altar-pieces in different cities. In the subjects which she most
frequently painted by commission, she still improved on herself, as we
perceive in her Magdalens and figures of the Virgin and infant Christ, of
which some of the most finished specimens are in the Zampieri, Zambeccari,
and Caprara palaces, as well as in the Corsini and Bolognetti collections
at Rome. There are also some small paintings of histories on copper,
extremely valuable, from her hand, as that of Lot, in possession of Count
Malvezzi, or the St. Bastian, attended by S.
Irene, in the Altieri palace; the former at Bologna, the latter at Rome. I
have also discovered some portraits, no unfrequent commissions which she
received from a number of sovereigns and innumerable distinguished
personages throughout Europe. Of this class I saw a singularly beautiful
specimen at Milan, being her own likeness crowned by a young cherub. It is
in the possession of Counsellor Pagave. Elisabetta died by poison,
administered by one of her own maids, and was bewailed in her native place
with marks of public sorrow. She was interred in the same vault which
contained the ashes of Guido Reni. Besides her two sisters, who imitated
her in the art, were many other ladies; Veronica Franchi, Vincenzia Fabri,
Lucrezia Scarfaglia, Ginevra Cantofoli; of which last, as well as [Pg 153]of
Barbara Sirani, there remain some fine pictures, even in some churches of
Bologna.[35]

Among the Bolognese pupils of Guido, Domenico Maria Canuti obtained
great celebrity. He was employed by the Padri Olivetani, (an order the most
distinguished for its patronage of first rate artists,) in several
monasteries, more particularly at Rome, Padua, and Bologna, whose library
and church he decorated with numerous paintings. One of these, the Taking
down from the Cross by torch-light, is greatly admired, several copies of
which are met with, in general called the Night of Canuti; also a St.
Michael, painted in part within the arch, and in part on the exterior, is
considered a rare triumph of the power of perspective. His entire work in
that library was afterwards described and printed by the Manolessi. He left
immense works also in two halls of the Pepoli palace, in the Colonna
gallery at Rome, in the ducal palace at Mantua, and elsewhere, being
esteemed one of the best fresco painters of his time. His fertility and
vivacity please more than his colouring, while his individual figures are,
perhaps, more attractive than the general effect of the picture. He was
excellent too in oil, and succeeded admirably in copying Guido, whose
Magdalen of the Barberini was taken so exactly, that it appears the best
among all the copies seen at S. Michele in Bosco. Canuti opened school at
Bologna; but his pupils, during his tour to Rome, attached themselves [Pg
154]chiefly to Pasinelli, in whose school, or in that of Cignani,
they will be found included during the last epoch.

Other of Guido’s scholars are indicated by Malvasia, among whom he
highly extols Michele Sobleo, or Desubleo, from Flanders, though resident
at Bologna. But he left little in public there, and that is a mixture of
Guercino and of Guido. Several churches at Venice were decorated by his
hand, and the altar-piece at the Carmelite friars, representing also
various saints of that order, is among his most celebrated works. From the
same country was Enrico Fiammingo, whom we must not confound with Arrigo
Fiammingo, an artist made known to us by Baglione. Both fixed their abode
in Italy, and the follower of Guido, formerly pupil to Ribera, painted some
pictures at S. Barbaziano in Bologna, that may compete with those of Gessi,
were it not for the fleshes being of a darker tinge. A few pictures by
another foreigner are preserved at the Capuccini and elsewhere; his name,
Pietro Lauri, or rather De Laurier, a Frenchman, whose crayons were
frequently retouched by Guido, and whose oil pictures also shew traces of
the same hand. Respecting another, whose name only remains, it will be
sufficient to mention an altar-piece of the Magdalen, placed in the oratory
of S. Carlo, at Volterra, relating to which is a letter of Guido to the
Cav. Francesco Incontri, stating that he had retouched it, particularly in
the head; but that, with the aid of Guido’s design, it was painted by [Pg 155]the
Signor Camillo. He is said to have been a member of that noble family, of
whom memorials have been preserved by his house.

Returning to the Bolognese artists, Gio. Maria Tamburini will be found
to hold a high rank, the author of many fresco histories in the portico of
the Conventuals, and of the Nunziata at the Vita, a very graceful painting
drawn from his master’s sketch. Yet he was surpassed by Gio. Batista
Bolognini, by whose hand there is a S. Ubaldo at S. Gio. in Monte,
altogether in the style of Guido. This artist had a nephew and pupil in
Giacomo Bolognini, who painted large pictures and capricci, and is
mentioned by Zanotti and Crespi. Bartolommeo Marescotti is hardly deserving
notice; at S. Martino he appears only as a hasty imitator, or rather a
corrupter of the Guido manner. Mentioned, too, by various writers, is a
Sebastiano Brunetti, a Giuliano Dinarelli, a Lorenzo Loli, and in
particular a Pietro Gallinari, on whom his master’s predilection conferred
also the name of Pietro del Sig. Guido. His earliest pieces, retouched by
Reni, are held in high esteem, and others which he produced for the court,
and in various churches at Guastalla, are valuable. He was an artist of the
noblest promise, but cut off prematurely, not without suspicion of
poison.

Many foreigners who acquired the art from Guido, particularly at
Bologna, were dispersed throughout various schools, according to the places
where they resided; such were Boulanger, Cervi, [Pg 156]Danedi, Ferrari,
Ricchi, and several more. Two artists who chiefly dwelt in Bologna and
Romagna in high esteem, I have reserved for this place, named Cagnacci and
Cantarini. Guido Cagnacci, referred by Orlandi to Castel Durante, though
the Arcangelesi more properly claim him for their fellow-citizen, was a
rare exception to Italian artists, in having sought his fortunes in
Germany, where he was highly deserving of the success he met with at the
court of Leopold I. What he has left in Italy,
such as his St. Matthew and St. Teresa, in two
churches of Rimini, or the Beheading of St.
John, in the Ercolani palace at Bologna, shew him to have been a diligent
and correct, as well as a refined artist, in his master’s latest style.
Malvasia was of opinion that he carried the colour of his fleshes, now
rather faded, somewhat too high; to others it appeared that he drew the
extremities too small in proportion to his figures; while some have
remarked a capricious degree of freedom, shewn in sometimes representing
his angels at a more advanced age than was customary. All, however, must
acknowledge Guidesque beauties apparent in every picture, added to a
certain original air of nobility in his heads, and fine effect of his
chiaroscuro. His pictures for the most part were painted for the ornament
of cabinets, such as are seen in the ducal gallery at Modena, and in
private houses. There is his Lucretia in the Casa Isolani, and his
magnificent David, which is esteemed one of the noblest pieces, in
possession of the princes [Pg 157]Colonna; two pictures abundantly repeated
both in the Bolognese and Roman Schools, and of which, indeed, I have seen
more copies than even of the celebrated David by Guido Reni.

Simone Cantarini da Pesaro became an exact designer under Pandolfi,
greatly improved in the school of Claudio Ridolfi, and by incessant study
of the Caracci engravings. For colouring he studied the most eminent
Venetian artists, and, more than all, the works of Barocci. In one of his
Holy Families he shews great resemblance to this last artist, a picture
preserved in Casa Olivieri, along with several others, and some portraits,
of different taste, but by the same hand. This was caused by the arrival of
the grand pictures by Guido, of St. Thomas at
Pesaro, and the Nunziata, and the St. Peter, in
the adjacent city of Fano, after which he so wholly devoted himself to the
new style, as to induce him to emulate, and, if possible, to attempt to
surpass that artist. In the same chapel where Guido placed his picture of
St. Peter receiving the Keys, Simone displayed
his miracle of the Saint at the Porta Speciosa, where he so nearly
resembled, as to appear Guido himself; and even in Malvasia’s time,
foreigners were unable to detect any difference of hand. It is certain he
possessed much of that artist’s more powerful manner, which is shewn in his
principal picture; the heads very beautiful and varied, the composition
natural; fine play of light and shade, except that the chief figure of his
history is too much involved in the latter. [Pg 158]The better to
approach his prototype, Simone proceeded to Bologna, and became Guido’s
disciple, affecting at first much humility and deference, while he artfully
concealed the extent of his own skill. Then gradually developing it, he
soon rose in high esteem, no less with his master than the whole city,
aided as he was by his singular talent for engraving. Shortly he grew so
vain of his own ability, as to presume to censure not only artists of
mediocrity, but Domenichino, Albano, and even Guido. To the copies made by
the pupils from their master’s pieces, he gave bold retouches, and
occasionally corrected some inaccuracy in their model, until at length he
began to criticise Guido openly, and to provoke his resentment. Owing to
such arrogance, and to negligence in executing his commissions, he fell in
public esteem, left Bologna for some time, and remained like a refugee at
Rome. Here he studied from Raffaello, and from the antique, then returned
and taught at Bologna, whence he passed into the Duke of Mantua’s service.
Still to whatever country he transferred his talents, he was accompanied by
the same malignant disposition; a great boaster, and a despiser of all
other artists, not even sparing Giulio and Raffaello, insomuch that the
works could not be so greatly esteemed as the man was detested. Incurring
also the duke’s displeasure, and not succeeding in his portrait, his pride
was so far mortified as to throw him ill, and passing to Verona, he there
died, aged 36, in 1648, not without [Pg 159]suspicion of having
been poisoned, no very rare occurrence with defamers like him.

Baldinucci, supported by most of the dilettanti, extols him as another
Guido; and assuredly he approaches nearer to him than to any other, and
with a decision which belonged to few imitators. His ideas are not so
noble, but in the opinion of many they were even more graceful. He is less
learned, but more accurate; and may be pronounced the only artist who in
the hands and feet very assiduously studied the manner of Lodovico. He was
extremely diligent in modelling for his own use, and one of his heads in
particular is commended, from which he drew those of his old men, which are
extremely beautiful. From the models, too, he derived his folds, though he
never attained to the same majestic and broad sweep as Guido and Tiarini, a
truth which he as candidly admitted. In point of colouring he is varied and
natural. His greatest study was bestowed upon his fleshes, in which, though
friendly to the use of white lead, he was content with moderate white,
avoiding what he called the cosmetics of Domenichino and the shades of the
Caracci. In his outlines and shadows, dismissing the use of the lacca and
terra d’ombra,[36] he introduced ultramarine and
terra verde, so much commended by Guido. He animated his fleshes with
certain lights from place to place, never contrasting them with vivid
colours, except in as far as he frequently studied to give [Pg 160]them
from depth of shadow, that relief which serves to redouble their beauty. If
there was nothing decidedly bold in his painting, yet he covered the whole
with an ashy tone, such as Guido applied in his St. Thomas, and which became so perfectly familiar to
Cantarini as to acquire for him from Albani the surname of pittor
cenerino. Spite of this opinion, however, he is considered by
Malvasia as the most graceful colourist, and he adds, the
most correct designer of his age. His most beautiful pictures
that I have seen, in which his heads of saints are always conspicuous for
beauty and expression, are the St. Antony, at the Franciscans di Cagli; the
St. James, in the church of that name in Rimini;
the Magdalen, at the Filippini of Pesaro; and, in the same city, his St. Dominick, at the Predicatori; in whose convent are
also two Evangelists, half-size figures, animated to the life. There is
also a S. Romualdo, in possession of the noble Paolucci, a figure that
seems to start from the canvass, and at the Casa Mosca, besides various
other works, is a portrait of a young nun that rivets every beholder. Many
of his Holy Families also are to be seen in Bologna, in Pesaro, and at
Rome; nor are his heads of St. John very rare,
any more than his half-figures, or heads of apostles, a specimen of which
is to be seen in the Pitti palace.

Simon Cantarini educated a few of his fellow-citizens to the art. One of
these was Gio. Maria Luffoli, many of whose paintings, which display the [Pg
161]school, are to be met with in his native place, particularly at
S. Giuseppe and at S. Antonio Abate. Gio. Venanzi (or Francesco) had been
already instructed by Guido, when he entered the school of Cantarini,
though he resembles neither of these masters so nearly as he does the
Gennari. When we inspect the two beautiful histories of St. Antony, in the church of that name, we might
pronounce him their disciple. An ancient MS. of Pesaro, edited along with
the pictures of the city,[37] places him at the court of
Parma, most probably for the purpose of decorating the palace, there being
nothing from his hand in the churches. In the same MS. mention is made of
Domenico Peruzzini, as born at Pesaro, and the pupil of Pandolfi. In
Orlando’s Lexicon and other books there is frequent mention made of one
Cav. Giovanni, and he is given out as belonging to Ancona, and a disciple
of Simone. The Pesarese Guide, in which the very diligent Can. [Pg
162]Lazzarini indisputably took part, informs us that these artists
were brothers, both born at Pesaro, and that they transferred their
services to Ancona, their adopted country, (p.
65). From the dilettanti of Ancona I could gather tidings of only one
Peruzzini; and I doubt whether his being named Domenico by the author of
the MS. may not have arisen from mistake, as he proceeds to relate matters
chiefly appertaining to Giovanni. However this be, there is a picture of S.
Teresa by Peruzzini at the Carmelite Friars in Ancona, bearing some traces
of Baroccio’s manner. That of the Beheading of St. John, at the hospital, is extremely beautiful; and
here he appears rather a disciple of the Bolognese. He seems to have
displayed a similar character elsewhere; it being known that this artist,
after forming a style participating of those of the Caracci, of Guido, and
of Pesarese, took to a wandering life, and painted in various theatres and
churches, if not with much study, with tolerable correctness, a knowledge
of perspective, in which he was excellent, and with a certain facility,
grace, and spirit, which delight the eye. His paintings are dispersed
through various places in the Picenum, even as far as Ascoli on the
confines, where are a number of works by his hand. There are some at Rome
and at Bologna, where he painted in the cloister of the Servi a lunette,[38] [Pg 163]very fairly executed within twenty-four
hours; at Turin, where he was made a cavalier; and in Milan, where he died.
At Rome are some specimens too from the hand of his son and pupil, Paolo,
entitled in the aforesaid MS. a good and decided painter.

An undoubted scholar of Simone was Flamminio Torre, called dagli
Ancinelli, who came from the studio of Cavedone and Guido. His
chief talent consisted in an easy perfect imitation of every style, which
brought him as high a price for his copies as was given for the originals
of eminent artists, sometimes even more. Though not learned in the theory
of the art, by his practical ability he acquired the manner of Cantarini,
dismissing, however, his ashy colour, and often turning to the imitation of
Guido. He was court-painter at Modena; and at Bologna in particular are
preserved both scriptural and profane histories, displaying very pleasing
figures as large as Poussin, or on the same scale. Some I saw in possession
of Monsig. Bonfigliuoli, others in the collection of the librarian Magnani;
and some still more firm, and in the best style of colouring, in the Ratta
palace. Yet we rarely meet with them uninjured by the use of rock oil,
which he carried to excess; and his church paintings, such as a Depositing
from the Cross at S. Giorgio, as they have been least attended to, have
suffered the most. On the death of Simone, as his first pupil, he succeeded
to his magisterial office, and promoted the progress of the scholars whom
[Pg
164]he left. Girolamo Rossi succeeded better in engraving than in
painting. Lorenzo Pasinelli became an excellent master, but of a different
style, as we shall see in another epoch. The most eminent among Torre’s
disciples was Giulio Cesare Milani, rather admired in the churches of
Bologna, and extolled in many adjacent states. But it is now time to turn
our attention from Guido and his disciples to Guercino, which will afford
the same pleasure, I trust, to my readers, as the dilettanti enjoy, in
beholding two styles, so strikingly opposed, immediately contrasted. In a
similar manner, to adduce an instance taken from the Spada Gallery, it
yields delight to turn our eye from Guido’s Rape of Helen to the funeral
pyre of Dido, painted by Guercino, and placed directly opposite.

Gio. Francesco Barbieri, surnamed Guercino da Cento, would, to speak
with precision, be better ranked among the artists of Ferrara, to which
city Cento is subject; but we must observe the almost universal custom of
including him among the Caracci’s disciples. This has arisen either from a
tradition that his genius at an early age received some bias towards design
from the Caracci, which but ill accords with the epoch of his age, or from
the circumstance of his having taken one of Lodovico’s pictures for a
model, which is slight ground enough for attaching him to the school.
Moreover, he never frequented the Caracci’s academy; but, after staying a
short time with Cremonini, his fellow-countryman, at Bologna, he returned
to [Pg
165]Cento, and there resided with Benedetto Gennari the elder, first
as his pupil, next his colleague, and lastly his kinsman. Some too would
contend that one among the masters of Gio. Francesco was Gio. Batista
Gennari, who in 1606 painted for S. Biagio, in Bologna, a Madonna among
various saints, in a style resembling Procaccini. And indeed the Paradise,
at S. Spirito in Cento, and an altar-piece at the Capuccini, with other
early works by Guercino, partake of the old style. Subsequently he studied,
along with Benedetto, to find by experiment what constituted grand effect
in the art, in which taste I cannot distinguish, with the generality of
dilettanti and writers, two manners only; he having openly professed three,
as we learn from Sig. Righetti, in his Description of the paintings of
Cento.

Of these the first is the least known, consisting of abundance of strong
shades, with sufficiently animated lights, less studied in the features and
in the extremities, with fleshes inclining to the yellow; in the rest less
attractive in point of colouring; a manner distantly resembling that of
Caravaggio, in which kind are to be found several specimens both at Cento
and in S. Guglielmo a’ ministri degl’Infermi at Bologna. From this he
passed to his second manner, which is by far the most pleasing and
valuable. He continued to improve it during several years, with the aid of
other schools; in this interval often visiting Bologna, residing for some
time at Venice, and remaining many [Pg 166]years at Rome along
with the most eminent followers of Caracci, and entering into terms of
friendship with Caravaggio. His taste is mainly founded on the style of
this last master; displaying strong contrast of light and shadow; both
exceedingly bold, yet mingled with much sweetness and harmony, and with
powerful art of relief, a branch so greatly admired by professors.[39] Hence some foreigners have bestowed on him the title of
the magician of Italian painting; for in him were renewed those celebrated
illusions of antiquity, such as that of the boy who stretched forth his
hand to snatch the painted fruit. From Caravaggio too he borrowed the
custom of obscuring his outlines, and availed himself of it for despatch.
He also imitated his half-sized figures upon one ground, and for the most
part composed his historical pictures in this method. Yet he studied to
become more correct in point of design, and more select than Caravaggio;
not that he ever attained peculiar elegance or peculiar dignity of
features, though most frequently he drew his heads, like a sound observer
of nature, with graceful turns, easy natural attitudes, and a colouring,
which if not the most delicate, is at least the most sound and most juicy.
Often in comparing the figures of Guido with Guercino’s, one would say that
the former had been fed with roses, as observed by one of the ancients, and
the [Pg
167]latter with flesh. How far he excelled as a colourist in his
draperies, formed in the taste of the best Venetians, in his landscape, and
in his accessories, will sufficiently appear on beholding his S. Petronilla
in the Quirinal, or his picture of Christ risen from the Dead, at Cento,[40] or his St. Helen, at the
Mendicants in Venice; excellent specimens of his second manner. To the same
belong in general all that he left at Rome, even his greater works, such as
the S. Gio. Grisogono in the soffitto of that church, or the Aurora,
adorning the villa Lodovisi. Yet he surpassed even these, to the surprise
of all, in the cupola of the Piacenza cathedral; and in the same city he
appears to have competed with Pordenone, and in point of vigour of style to
have gone beyond him.

Some years having elapsed, after his return from Rome to Cento, he began
to emulate Guido, perceiving [Pg 168]that his sweetness of manner obtained such
distinguished applause. By degrees he softened down that power of hand just
noticed, and painted more open and vividly. He added somewhat more
attraction and variety to his heads, and a certain study of expression,
almost indescribable, which is surprising in some of his pictures of this
period. Some have assigned such a change of manner to the time of Guido’s
decease, when Guercino, perceiving that he could take the lead at Bologna,
left Cento, in order to fix his residence in that great city. But several
pictures which he had conducted in his third manner, previous to Reni’s
death, fully confute such an opinion. On the contrary, it was rumoured that
Guido remarked this change, which he construed into commendation of
himself, declaring that he had avoided Guercino’s style as much as
possible, whilst the latter approached as nearly as he could to Guido’s. In
this taste, though partaking of the preceding, is the Circumcision of
Jesus, placed in the church of Gesù e Maria, in which the study of
architecture and drapery vies with that of the figures; and it is difficult
to decide whether these most please by their form, or by their expression.
We might add the Nuptials of the Virgin, at S. Paterniano in Fano, the S.
Palazia in Ancona, the Nunziata at Forli, the Prodigal Son in the royal
palace at Turin, a history piece of entire figures, which is met with in
half figures in many galleries. However attractive this last manner may be
found, [Pg
169]skilled judges would have wished Guercino not to have swerved
from the vigour of the second, to which his genius was moulded, and in
which he shone unrivalled and unique.

The frequency of his commissions contributed, perhaps, to put him upon a
more easy method, no less than his own incredible genius for execution and
despatch. He produced a hundred and six altar-pieces, and a hundred and
forty-four large pictures for princes and other persons of distinction,
without including numbers of others painted for private persons, Madonnas,
portraits, half-length figures, and landscapes, in which the rapidity of
execution is highly original. Hence he is by no means rare in collections.
The noble Zolli family at Rimino possesses about twenty of his pieces,
Count Lecchi at Brescia also a great number; all perfect and polished
according to his manner. Among these is a portrait of a friar of the
Osservanti, his father confessor, quite a miracle of art.

Guercino’s school greatly flourished at Cento, in Bologna not so much,
owing to his own choice of having his two nephews the Gennari, and a few
other intimate friends with him, which led him to exclude strangers in some
degree from his studio. Few Bolognese artists, therefore, belong to this
master; such as Giulio Coralli, whom Orlandi, a contemporary writer, gives
as pupil to Guercino at Bologna, and of Cairo at Milan, and who, Crespi
adds, was much employed at Parma, at Piacenza, [Pg 170]and at Mantua. He
was a better portrait-painter, if I mistake not, than a composer. Fulgenzio
Mondini was an artist of more merit; he painted two fresco histories in the
church of S. Petronio at Bologna, relating to the Paduan saint. He died
young at Florence, where, after having painted some time for the court, he
was employed by the Marchesi Capponi to decorate their villa of Colonnata,
and his memory has been honoured with a long eulogy by Malvasia. The latter
declares that he knew none gifted with qualities that promised so much in
that age, and conjectures that had he survived he would have become the
first fresco painter of his age.

The two young Gennari were sons of Gio. Francesco’s sister, and of
Ercole, son of Benedetto Gennari. Respecting Ercole, it is stated that no
more exact copyist of the works of Guercino was to be met with. His sons,
Benedetto and Cesare, likewise distinguished themselves in copying the
original compositions of their uncle, and the numerous repetitions of
Guercino’s sibyls, of his pictures of St. John,
of his Herodiads, and similar pieces, are ascribed more particularly to
them. They may all be recognized, however, by a more feeble tone in their
tints; and I once saw in the Ercolani palace a Bathsheba of Guercino, along
with a copy by one of the Gennari. The former appeared as if newly painted
at the time, the latter as if many years previously, such was its
inferiority in strength of hand. The two brothers were employed in [Pg
171]Cento, in Bologna, and in other cities of Italy; while
Benedetto, the ablest of them, was engaged also in England, as
court-painter under two reigns. Both would seem to have inherited the style
along with the fortune of Gio. Francesco, and, I may also add, his studies;
because in the manner of sectaries, they made repeated copies of the heads
of his old men, women, and boys, which he himself was in the habit of
repeating on his canvass too frequently. There is a S. Leopardo by
Benedetto in the cathedral at Osimo, and a S. Zaccaria at the Filippini in
Forli, which might have been mistaken for the uncle’s, had the nephew
displayed somewhat more strength and power of relief. In the same way
Cesare, in a Mary Magdalen of the Pazzi, at S. Martino in Bologna, and in
other pieces, has succeeded in giving the features better than the spirit
of Barbieri. It ought to be observed that Cesare preserved his first manner
to the close of his life, and that he was assiduous in teaching at Bologna,
where his school was frequented also by foreigners, among whom Simon
Gionima distinguished himself as a follower of Guercino, and was well
received at Vienna. Benedetto subsequently formed for himself a style in
England, both more polished and careful, and exemplified it more
particularly in his portraits, which he conducted there for Charles II. and the royal family. On the expulsion of that
family he returned to Italy, almost transformed into a Dutch or Flemish
painter, such was the truth with which he imitated velvets, lawns, [Pg
172]lace, gems, and other ornaments in gold, indeed all that can
enrich a portrait, besides drawing it extremely like, and artfully freed
from any blemishes in the original. By means of this taste, new in Italy,
Benedetto obtained much applause and much employment in portrait, both from
princes and individuals. We may here add a Bartolommeo Gennari, brother to
Ercole, who resembles Guercino less than any of the three preceding, though
extremely natural and spirited. He has a picture of St. Thomas at the Rosario di Cento, in the act of
putting his hand to our Saviour’s side, and the admiration both of him and
the other apostles is very finely expressed. The pupil, and probably the
relation of Guercino, was one Lorenzo Gennari di Rimini, at which place is
one of his pictures at the Capuccini, very fairly executed.

Francesco Nagli, surnamed, from his country, Centino, was much employed
at the Angeli and in other churches at Rimini. He was an excellent imitator
of Barbieri, in point of colouring and chiaroscuro; in the rest somewhat
dry in design, cold in his attitudes, and no way novel in his ideas. To the
same district belonged Stefano Ficatelli, a painter of good invention, who
decorated several churches of Ferrara; but more especially an excellent
copyist of Guercino, not inferior in this respect to Francesco Bassi, of
Bologna, so highly commended by Crespi. Among Guercino’s copyists, Gio.
Francesco Mutii, or Mucci, of Cento, son of a sister of Guercino,
distinguished also as an [Pg 173]engraver, held a high rank. Stefano
Provenzali, likewise from Cento, and a pupil of Barbieri, applied his
talents to battle-pieces, much extolled by Crespi, from whose MSS. I have
borrowed several of my notices of the Centese artists.

Two of these, followers of Guercino, are mentioned by Malvasia. They are
Cristoforo Serra, a faithful and excellent imitator of Gio. Francesco, and
preceptor of Cristoforo Savolini, who has a fine picture of the saint at S.
Colomba in Rimini; and Cesare Pronti, an Augustine, born at Rimini, if we
give credit to the author of its city guide, and called da
Ravenna, on account of his long residence at that place. Both the
above cities exhibit his altar-pieces, much extolled, and some
chiaroscuri[TN7] happily enough disposed; in
particular those histories of St. Jerome painted
in the Confraternity of his name at Rimini, with abundant grace and spirit.
In Pesaro, also, he exhibited in the church of his order a St. Thomas da Villanova, with beautiful specimens of
architecture, and in a more original taste than the two Gennari. The life
of this able ecclesiastic has been written by Pascoli, who knew him,
insomuch that we may give him credit when he declares that he was born at
the Cattolica, of the family of the Baciocchi, afterwards assuming the name
of Pronti, the maiden name of his mother. He gives other anecdotes of him;
and what is more interesting is the account of his first passion for the
art, on contemplating, when a boy, a collection of [Pg 174]fine pictures in a
shop at the fair of Sinigaglia. He gazed upon them during several hours,
unmindful of his meals, and of his parents, who were in search of him
through the city, and who on finding him could with difficulty tear him
from the spot. They were unable, however, to destroy the fixed
determination of his soul to become a painter; the impression was
indelible, and he set out for Bologna. There he first entered the school of
Barbieri; and afterwards, as we have already remarked, the cloister.
Respecting different scholars of Guercino, such as were Preti, Ghezzi, and
Triva, it is unnecessary here to repeat what has already been stated in
several other schools.

Gio. Lanfranco, one of those distinguished disciples of the Caracci who
followed Annibal to Rome, was born at Parma. He was early employed by the
Conti Scotti in Piacenza, where, for mere pastime, drawing some figures in
charcoal upon a wall, his rare genius shone forth, and was assigned to the
cultivation of Agostino Caracci. Frequent mention of him is made in the
course of this work. At Parma the reader finds him a pupil to Agostino, and
on his death under the care of Lodovico, after which he pursued his studies
under Annibal at Rome. Both there and in Naples we have seen him celebrated
as a professor and preceptor in both schools. The character of his genius
was sought, conceitedly perhaps, but still with truth, by Bellori, in his
name; and doubtless it would be difficult to find an artist more bold and
striking, alike in conception [Pg 175]and in execution. He had formed a peculiar
manner, which both in design and expression partakes of the Caracci’s,
while the composition is drawn from Coreggio. It is a manner at once easy,
and elevated by the dignity of the countenances and actions, by the ample
and well disposed masses of light and shade, by the nobleness of the
drapery and its imposing folds, broad and wholly novel in the art. For this
precise reason its grandeur is without that last finish which adds to the
worth of other artists, but would in him diminish it. In such a style he
was enabled to be less exact without displeasing us, possessing so many
admirable qualities, rare conceptions, colours wonderfully harmonized, if
not animated; very beautiful foreshortening; contrasts of parts and
figures, which have served as models, as is observed by Mengs, for the
tasteful style of the moderns.

He adopted this style in a number of pictures for private ornament, both
for the Dukes Farnesi, in whose palace at Rome he first began to paint, and
for other noblemen. His Polyphemus, conducted for the Casa Borghese in that
city, is highly extolled, as well as his scriptural histories at S.
Callisto. There are many pictures also from his hand; his St. Andrea Avellino at Rome, enriched with splendid
architecture, boasts singular merit; his Dead Christ at Foligno, with the
“Padre Eterno,” a figure, which though in human form, nevertheless
impresses us with grand ideas of the Divine Being; the Transit of our Lady,
in Macerata; the S. Rocco, [Pg 176]and the S. Corrado, in Piacenza; perhaps the
most finished among Lanfranco’s productions, and deservedly the most
celebrated. But he exhibited this style still more fully in cupolas and
other scenes on a grand scale, according to Coreggio’s example. When young,
he executed a small coloured model of the cupola of the cathedral at Parma,
emulating his whole style, in particular that grace of motion, of all by
far the most difficult. He imitated it too at S. Andrea della Valle at
Rome, and in his picture availed himself of the example afforded by
Michelangiolo in architecture, when unable to execute a more beautiful
cupola than Brunelleschi’s, and desirous of differing from it, he worked
from a new design, and succeeded to admiration. This production forms an
epoch in the art, inasmuch “as he was the first,” says Passeri, “to
irradiate the opening of a celestial glory with a splendour of light, of
which there was formerly seen no example.” … “Lanfranco’s cupola remains
a solitary specimen in the way of glories; because, in respect to its
celestial idea, in the opinion of the most dispassionate judges, he has
attained the highest degree, as well in the harmony of the whole, its chief
object, as in the distribution of the colours, in the parts, and in force
of chiaroscuro,” &c. Nor was this, on which he spent four years, the
sole example he left of a fecundity of idea and rare elevation of mind, of
which we meet with no account in any other artist, even among the ancient
painters. Add to [Pg 177]this, the cupolas at the Gesù, and at the
Tesoro of S. Gennaro at Naples, where he succeeded Domenichino, with
various tribunes and chapels in Rome and Naples, adorned with equal
majesty, and which have given to Lower Italy the most genuine examples in
this kind, of which the art can boast. From him it was that the Machinists
acquired the power of gratifying the eye at larger distances, painting only
in part, and in part leaving the work, as he was accustomed to express it,
for the air to paint. In the two schools above-mentioned we have embraced
his best disciples: to the Bolognese he gave no pupils, as far as I learn,
any more than to Romagna and its dependencies; if we except Gio. Francesco
Mengucci, of Pesaro, who assisted him in the cupola of St. Andrea; a
painter, I believe, for collections, who has been much extolled by
Malvasia.

Next to the five heads of schools hitherto recorded, ought to be
mentioned Sisto Badalocchi; and the more as he was Annibal’s disciple, and
long resided with him at Rome. He was fellow citizen, and a faithful
companion too of Lanfranco, whose style he approached very nearly. Sisto
designed admirably, being preferred by Annibal in this branch to any of his
fellow pupils, and even, with singular modesty, to himself. Ample testimony
of his ability is proclaimed in the engravings of Raffaello’s loggie, executed in conjunction
with Lanfranco, and dedicated to Annibal; besides the six prints of
Coreggio’s grand [Pg 178]cupola, a work which, to the public regret,
was left incomplete. He was also selected by his master to decorate the
chapel of S. Diego, where he directed him to paint from one of his cartoons
a history of that saint. In point of invention he was not equal to the
leaders of his school; so that, employed in filling up the secondary parts,
he assisted Guido and Domenichino at S. Gregorio; and attended Albani at
the Verospi palace; although his picture of Galatea left there is worthy of
the hand of a great master. He appears to advantage in competition, and
mostly excels, as we may gather from the church of St. Sebastian at Rome, where he painted along with
Tacconi; and at Reggio, where he rivalled some of the less distinguished
artists of Bologna. Besides his other works, that city has to boast the
rich cupola of S. Giovanni, on which Sisto conducted a small, but very
beautiful copy of that in the cathedral at Parma. Other of his specimens
are to be met with in the Modenese state, particularly in the ducal palace
at Gualtieri, where he represented in one chamber the Trials of Hercules.
Of his pictures at Parma the most celebrated is that of St. Francis, at the
Cappuccini; a painting, both in point of figures and landscape, composed in
the best taste of the Caracci. For the rest, we may add what has been said
of Lanfranco, that he most frequently executed much less than he knew.

So far we have treated of the followers of the Caracci employed at Rome;
and these in general, [Pg 179]judging from their style, shewed more
deference to Annibal than any other of the family. Many others remained at
Bologna, who either never visited Rome, or produced nothing there worthy of
consideration. These were chiefly attached to Lodovico, in whose studio
they had been educated, with the exception of Alessandro Tiarini, who
sprung from another school, though he benefited by his advice and example,
as much as if Lodovico had really been his master. But he was pupil to
Fontana, subsequently of Cesi, and finally also of Passignano at Florence.
He had fled thither from his native place on account of a quarrel; and
after a lapse of seven years, through the intervention of Lodovico, he was
enabled to return to Bologna, leaving at Florence and some places in the
state a few paintings in his first easy style, resembling Passignano’s. In
such style he conducted his S. Barbara, at S. Petronio, a work which failed
to please the Bolognese public. To give it greater attractions, he next
proceeded to copy from, and to consult Lodovico, not in order to attain his
manner, but with the view of improving his own. This task was short to a
man of genius, well grounded in the theory of his art, and perhaps more
philosophical than any other artist of Bologna. He soon became a different
painter, and in his novel taste of composing, of distributing his lights
and expressing the passions, he shone like a disciple of the Caracci.
Nevertheless he preserved a character distinct from the rest, grounded [Pg 180]upon
his naturally severe and melancholy disposition. All in him is serious and
moderate; the air of his figures, his attitudes, his drapery, varied with
few, but noble folds, such as to excite the admiration of Guido himself. He
avoids, moreover, very gay and animated colours, chiefly contenting himself
with light violets or yellows, and tawny colours, tempered with a little
red; but so admirably laid on and harmonized, as to produce the finest
feeling of repose to enchant the eye. His subjects, too, are well adapted
to his taste, as he generally selected, when he could, such as were of a
pathetic and sorrowful cast. For this reason his Magdalens, his S. Peters,
and his Madonnas in grief—one of which, presented to the Duke of
Mantua, drew tears from his eyes—are held in high esteem.

Subsequently he became expert in foreshortening, and all the intricacies
of the art, more particularly in point of invention. There is scarcely one
of his works to be met with, that does not exhibit a certain air of novelty
and originality of idea. On occasion of representing the Virgin in grief,
in the church of S. Benedict, he drew her seated together with St. John and the Magdalen; the one upright, the other
kneeling, in the act of contemplating the Redeemer’s crown of thorns. Other
incidents of his passion also are alluded to; all are silent indeed, but
every eye and attitude is eloquent in its silence. Obtaining a commission
for an altar-piece in S. Maria Maggiore, [Pg 181]to represent St.
John and St. Jerome, he shunned the trite
expression of drawing them in a glory; but he feigned an apparition,
through which the holy doctor, while intent at his studies, appears to
receive from the beatified evangelist lectures in theology. His most
distinguished production, however, is at S. Domenico, the saint seen
raising a man from the dead; a picture abounding with figures varied in
point of feature, attitude, and dress; every thing highly select. Lodovico
expressed his astonishment at it, and declared that he knew of no master
then to compare with Tiarini. It is true that, in this instance, having to
compete with Spada, he raised his tone of colouring, and shunned every
common form; two precautions which, had he introduced into every work,
would have left him perhaps second to none of the Bolognese. He survived
until his ninetieth year, and during a long period dwelt at Reggio, whence
he had often occasion to proceed to other cities of Lombardy, which
preserve many of his altar-pieces, and cabinet pictures. The Modenese
gallery abounds with them, his St. Peter being
more particularly extolled, seen struck with remorse as he stands outside
the prætorium. The architecture, the depth of night lighted up with
torches, Christ’s judgment beheld in the distance, all conspire to raise
the tragic interest of the scene. He was employed also by the Duke of
Parma, for whose garden he painted some incidents from the Jerusalem
Delivered, conducted [Pg 182]in fresco; but which, though much extolled,
are no longer met with. In short Tiarini was one of the most eminent
artists next to the Caracci, at least in point of composition, expression
of features and of the passions, perspective, power and durability of
colouring, if not of the most exact elegance.

Lionello Spada was one of the leading geniuses of the school. Sprung
from the lowest origin, and employed by the Caracci as a grinder of
colours, by dint of hearing their conferences, and observing the process of
their labours, he began to design; first under them, and next with
Baglione, he acquired a knowledge of the art; during several years studying
no other models besides the Caracci. He lived on familiar terms with
Dentone, and thus became skilful in the use of perspective. Incensed by a
jest of Guido’s, he determined to seek revenge by opposing his delicacy of
manner with another more full and strong; for which purpose going to Rome,
he studied both there and in Malta under Caravaggio, and returned home
master of a new style. It does not indeed lower itself to every form, like
his, but still is not so elevated as that of the Caracci: it is studied in
the naked parts, but not select; natural in point of colouring, with good
relief in the chiaroscuro, but too frequently displaying a ruddy tone in
the shadows, giving an expression of mannerism. One of Lionello’s most
characteristic marks is a novelty and audacity, the result of his natural
disposition, [Pg
183]which was equally agreeable for its pleasantry, and hateful for
its insolence. He often competed with Tiarini, always superior in point of
spirit and force of colouring; but inferior in all the rest. Thus at S.
Domenico, where he represented the saint in the act of burning proscribed
books; and this is the best picture on canvass which he exhibited at
Bologna. At S. Michele in Bosco also is seen his Miracle of St. Benedict, which the young artists call the
Scarpellino of Lionello; a picture so wholly novel as to induce Andrea
Sacchi, who was greatly struck with it, to copy the design. In a similar
way at the Madonna di Reggio, where both artists painted as usual in
competition, as well in oils as in fresco, they appeared, as it were, to go
beyond themselves. We often meet with specimens of Spada in private
galleries; holy families and scripture histories in half-length figures,
like those of Caravaggio and Guercino; his heads full of expression, but
not very select. He seems most frequently to have repeated the decollation
of St. John the Baptist, often met with in the
Bolognese galleries, and the best perhaps is in that of the Malvezzi.

He became painter to Duke Ranuccio at Parma, where he decorated that
admirable theatre, which then stood unrivalled. In that city, and at
Modena, as well as other places, I have seen some of his pictures in a
taste wholly opposed to those of Bologna, displaying a mixture of the
Caracci and of Parmigianino. His histories in the ducal [Pg 184]gallery at Modena
are highly beautiful; such as the Susanna and the Elders, and the Prodigal
Son. One of his most remarkable is the Martyrdom of a Saint, at S. Sepolcro
in Parma, and the St. Jerome, in the
Carmelitani, in the same city. Specimens such as these must have been among
his last, at a period when he was residing in affluence at court, and
enabled to conduct his works at leisure. His good fortune terminated with
the life of Ranuccio; for with the loss of such a patron his talent, too,
seemed to have deserted him, and he shortly followed to the tomb. The names
of some of his scholars occur in the schools of Lombardy. Here too we ought
to add that of Pietro Desani of Bologna, who following him into Reggio,
there established himself; a young artist of rapid hand and quick genius,
whose works are to be met with very frequently in Reggio and its
vicinity.

Lorenzo Garbieri was an artist of more learning and caution than
Lionello, though resembling him in point of style. His austere, and almost
fiery disposition, with an imagination abounding in wild and mournful
ideas, impelled him to a style of painting less open than that of the
Caracci. To this cause must be added his emulation of Guido, whom, like
Lionello, he wished to humble, by adopting a very powerful manner; and,
though he did not put himself under Caravaggio, he eagerly copied his
pictures, including all the best at Bologna. Garbieri was one of the most
successful imitators of Lodovico; less select in the heads, but grand [Pg 185]in
the forms, expressive in the attitudes, and studied in his large
compositions; insomuch that his paintings at S. Antonio in Milan, which are
less loaded with shade, were attributed by Santagostini in his Guide to the
Caracci. To this style of the Caracci he added the daring character of
Caravaggio, and he was skilful in selecting always funereal subjects most
suitable to his genius; so that we meet with little else than scenes of
sorrow, slaughter, death, and terror, from his hand. At the Barnabiti, in
Bologna, he painted for the chapel of S. Carlo an altar-piece with two
lateral pictures; it presents us with the horrors of the Milanese plague,
amidst which is seen the saint visiting the sick, and conducting a
penitential procession. He painted also at the Filippini in Fano a picture
of St. Paul, near the St. Peter of Guido, in the act of raising the young
man from the dead; a work of such power of hand and expression as to excite
at once terror and pity in the beholders. At S. Maurizio, in Mantua, he
exhibited in a chapel the Martyrdom of S. Felicita and her seven children;
a piece inferior indeed to the Miracle of St.
Paul in point of vigour, but containing such variety of images, and such
deathly terror, as not to be surpassed in tragic interest by any thing from
the same school. He had the choice of establishing himself as court-painter
at Mantua, an office he rejected, preferring to take a wife with a handsome
dowry at Bologna. This step was a loss, however, to the art, as mentioned
by Malvasia; [Pg
186]since from that period finding himself rich, and occupied with
family cares, he painted little, and with as little study, leaving his
final labours by no means equal to the preceding. His son Carlo applied
still less than his father to the profession, though he gave proofs in
several works exhibited in public, that in time he would have equalled his
father. Lorenzo educated few other pupils, but he was highly esteemed for
his profound knowledge, and for his method of communicating it, at once
easy and precise, resting upon few but comprehensive maxims.

Giacomo Cavedone was from Sassuolo, and hence included among the artists
of the Modenese state by Tiraboschi, in whose work we may read the origin
of his career. His genius was more limited, his spirit less animated, than
those of the preceding; but being assisted by the Caracci in the right
path, he attained to equal, and even greater celebrity. Leaving the
intricacies of the art to the more enterprising, he fixed upon attitudes
comparatively easy and devoid of foreshortening, gentle expressions
distinct from the stronger passions, correct design in his figures, and
more particularly in the hands and feet. Nature had endued him with
promptness and facility; so that on occasion of designing models, or
copying pictures, he with rare exactness took the substance of the subject,
and afterwards reduced the whole by a more easy method in his own
peculiarly resolute and graceful touch, in which he [Pg 187]has always remained
original. He was equally novel in his frescos; employing few tints, but so
attractive, that Guido was induced to make him his pupil, and retained him
at Rome as his assistant. Another striking characteristic was his strength
of colouring, which he acquired from those Venetians themselves, who shone
the masters of his masters. Here he attained to such excellence, that
Albani, when asked whether there were any pictures of Titian’s at Bologna,
replied, there were not; but we may substitute the two at S. Paolo by
Cavedone (a Nativity and an Epiphany) which look like Titian’s, and are
executed with a bolder hand. One of his most distinguished productions at
Bologna is the S. Alò at the Mendicanti, in which Girupeno discovers,
besides its fine design, a Titianesque taste that excites astonishment; and
a French tourist entitles it a most admirable work, such as might be fairly
attributed to the Caracci. The mistake indeed has occurred to persons of
first rate tact, most frequently at Imola, on contemplating the beautiful
picture of St. Stephen at that church; and yet
more out of Italy, in regard to his pictures of private ornament, in which
he is more than usually attractive and perfect. Judges know how to
recognize Cavedone’s hand by his very compendious manner of treating the
hair and beards, as well as by that graceful and rapid touch, loaded with
much lightish yellow, or burnt terra gialla. Length of proportions is
likewise considered another peculiarity, [Pg 188]with a flow of the
folds more rectilinear than in other artists of the same school. Such
ascendancy in the art was maintained by Cavedone during some years, till
the death of a favourite son, who had early distinguished himself in the
same career, united to other heavy sorrows, deprived him of his powers, and
he subsequently executed nothing of importance. A specimen of that period
is in possession of the fathers of S. Martino; an Ascension that excites
only our compassion, with similar pieces met with throughout Bologna, that
can boast no glimpse of grace. Still deteriorating, he was at length
deprived of commissions and reduced to penury, which, in his old age,
attended him to the tomb.

Lucio Massari possessed a more joyous spirit, ever glad and festal;
devoted to the theatre and to the chase, rather than to his academy and his
pallet; being usually impatient and averse to commence his subjects, until
his genius and good humour were propitious. For this reason his works are
few, but conducted in a happy vein, graceful and finished, both in colour
and in taste appearing to breathe of cheerfulness. His style most resembles
Annibal’s, whose works he copied to admiration, and after whose example,
while a few months at Rome, he designed the most finished and noble
remnants of Grecian sculpture. There shines also in his countenances the
spirit of Passerotti, his earliest master, and more frequently the
gracefulness of his near friend, Albani, whose society he enjoyed [Pg 189]both
in his studio and his villa, and in works undertaken in conjunction. His S.
Gaetano, at the Teatini, is crowned with a glory of exquisitely graceful
cherubs, that seem from the hand of Albani; and in his other pictures we
often recognise those full countenances, those delicate fleshes, that
sweetness, and those sportful expressions, in which revelled the genius of
Albani. In point of beauty, the Noli me tangere, at the
Celestini, and the Nuptials of St. Catherine, at
S. Benedetto, are among his most esteemed pieces; to say nothing of his
histories at the Cortile of S. Michele in Bosco, where he left many very
elegant specimens.

On occasion of treating strong or tragic subjects, he did not shrink
from the task; and although he had a real knowledge of the art, he
conducted them without that extreme study of foreshortenings and naked
parts, of which others make so lavish a display. He shewed noble clearness
and decision, fine colouring, a grand spirit, enlivening them with light
and graceful figures, more particularly of women. Such is the Slaughter of
the Innocents, at the Bonfigliuoli palace, and the Fall of Christ, at the
Certosini, a most imposing production, from the number, variety, and
expression of the figures, whose pictoric fire surpasses all we could
mention from the hand of Albani. He has left some cabinet pictures, always
in good design, and mostly possessing soft and savoury tints; so that all
we would farther look for is, occasionally, a more gradual distribution of
tints in the background [Pg 190]of his pieces. Among other pupils, he
instructed Sebastiano Brunetti, polished by Guido, a sweet and delicate
artist, but of brief career; and Antonio Randa of Bologna. Malvasia has
observed, that there is little good to be said respecting him, apparently
alluding to a deed of homicide committed by him at Bologna. In other
respects, he includes him among the best pupils, first of Guido, next of
Massari, to whose style he became attached. On account of his reputation
the Duke of Modena granted him an asylum in his state, declaring him,
according to Orlandi, his court-painter, in 1614. Here he was much
employed, and subsequently at Ferrara, for the most part at S. Filippo;
also in many places of the Polesine, where I find his Martyrdom of S.
Cecilia, in possession of the Sign. Redetti, at Rovigo, the most celebrated
of his productions. Finally, he betook himself to the cloister, a fact
unnoticed by Malvasia, which might have induced him to speak of him in
milder terms.

Pietro Facini entered late into the profession, at the suggestion of
Annibal Caracci, who from one of his playful sketches in charcoal, declared
how excellent a painter he would become, if he were to enter his school.
Annibal subsequently regretted the discovery, not only because Facini’s
progress excited his jealousy, but, because, on leaving the academy, he
became his rival in educating young artists, and even plotted against his
life. He has two striking characteristics, vivacity [Pg 191]in his gestures, and
in the expression of his heads, such as to place him on a footing with
Tintoretto, and a truth of carnations, which induced Annibal himself to
observe, that he seemed to have ground human flesh in his colours. With
this exception, he has nothing superior; feeble in point of design, too
large in his naked figures of adults, incorrect in the placing of his hands
and heads. Neither had he time to perfect himself, dying young, and before
the Caracci, in 1602. There is a picture of the Patron Saints, at S.
Francesco, in Bologna, with a throng of cherubs, which is indeed among his
best works. In the Malvezzi collection, and in others of the city, are much
esteemed some of his Country Dances, and Sports of Boys, in the manner of
Albani, but on a larger scale. He had a pupil in Gio. Mario Tamburini, who
afterwards attached himself to Guido, forming himself on his manner, as we
have already stated.

Francesco Brizio, gifted with rare genius, was, up to his twentieth
year, employed as a shoe-maker’s boy. Impelled, at length, by his bias for
the art, he acquired a knowledge of design from Passerotti, and of
engraving from Agostino Caracci. Lastly, he commenced painting under
Lodovico, and very soon arrived at such celebrity, that by some he has been
pronounced the most eminent disciple of the Caracci. Doubtless, if we
except the previous five, he was equal to any others, and, excepting
Domenichino, gifted with the most universal genius. He was not deficient,
like Guido, in perspective; [Pg 192]nor in the branch of landscape, like
Tiarini; nor in splendour of architecture, like so many others. In these
accessaries he surpassed all his rivals, as we gather from his histories,
painted for S. Michele in Bosco; at least such was the opinion of Andrea
Sacchi. He is extremely correct in his figures, and perhaps approached
Lodovico more closely than any other artist. The graceful beauty of his
cherubs excites admiration, an excellence at that period so greatly studied
by all the school; and here, in the opinion of Guido, he outshone even
Bagnacavallo. His chief talent lay in imitation; owing to which, and his
character for indecision, in addition to the number of great artists,
superior to him in manners, he was deprived of assistants and commissions,
and reduced to execute such as he had solicited at very insignificant
prices. One of the most extensive altar-pieces in the city is from his
hand, representing the Coronation of the Virgin, at S. Petronio, with a few
figures in the foreground truly joyous and well arranged; besides others in
the distance grouped and diminished with art; a picture of great merit even
in strength of colouring. He produced also for the noble family Angelelli
the Table of Cebes, in one grand painting; the work of an entire year,
which displayed all the depth, imagination, and genius of a great artist.
There are also a number of small engravings from his hand, in which he
often approaches Guido.

His son Filippo and Domenico degli Ambrogi, [Pg 193]called Menichino del
Brizio, were his most distinguished disciples. These artists painted more
for private ornament than for that of the churches. The latter became
celebrated for his design; was employed chiefly in friezes for chambers, in
architecture, and landscape in fresco, sometimes in conjunction with
Dentone and Colonna, sometimes alone. He was also a finished artist of
pictures for private rooms, occasionally exhibiting there copious
histories, as in that we read of in the full and well drawn up catalogue of
the Sig. Canon Vianelli’s pictures at Chioggia. It presents us with the
entrance of a pontiff into the city of Bologna. It is not surprising that
he should be acknowledged and esteemed even in the Venetian territories,
having been the preceptor of Fumiani, and master of Pierantonio Cerva, who
painted a good deal for the Paduan state.

Gio. Andrea Donducci, called from his father’s profession Mastelletta,[41] inherited a genius for the art. Impatient, however, of
the precepts of the Caracci, his masters, he neglected to ground himself in
the art, was unequal to designing naked figures, and far from producing any
masterpiece. His method was short, and wholly intent upon attracting the
eye by effect; loading his pictures with shadow in such a way as to conceal
the outlines, and opposing to his shadows masses of light sufficiently
strong, thus succeeding in disguising from judges the inaccuracies of his
design, and gratifying [Pg 194]the multitude with a display of apparent
novelty. I have often imagined that this artist had great influence with
the sect of the Tenebrosi, which afterwards spread itself through the
Venetian state, and almost every district in Lombardy. He was enabled to
support his credit by a noble spirit of design, by a tolerable imitation of
Parmigianino, the sole artist adapted to his disposition, and by a natural
facility that enabled him to colour a very large extent of canvass in a
short time. Among such specimens are the Death, and the Assumption of the
Virgin, at the Grazie, and some similar histories, not unfrequent in
Bologna. Perhaps his picture of S. Irene, at the Celestini, is superior to
any other. When advanced in life, hearing the applause bestowed on the
clear, open style, he began to practise it, but with no kind of success,
not possessing ability to appear to advantage out of his own obscure
manner. In his former one he had painted at S. Domenico two miracles of the
saint, which were esteemed his masterpieces; but these he altered according
to his new method, and they were thenceforth regarded among his most feeble
performances. In his half-figures the same diversity of manner is
observable; and those executed in the first, such as his Miracle of the
Manna, in the Spada palace, with others at Rome, are justly held in esteem.
The same may be said of his landscapes, which, in many galleries, are
attributed to the Caracci; but the taste in the rapidity of touch, very
original [Pg
195]and remarkable in Mastelletta, is sufficient to distinguish
them. Annibal was so well pleased with these pictures for galleries, that,
having his company at Rome, he advised him to settle there and confine
himself to similar labours; advice by no means pleasing to Donducci. But he
a good deal frequented the studio of Tassi, and these artists mutually
assisted each other, freely communicating between themselves what they
knew. Soon after he returned to Bologna, and resumed his more extensive
works; but met with serious disappointments, such as to induce him to enter
as a friar, first among the Conventuals, next with the canons of S.
Salvatore. He educated no pupils of merit, except that one Domenico
Mengucci, of Pesaro, resembled Mastelletta a good deal in his landscape; an
artist better known at Bologna than in his native place.

Besides the forementioned disciples of the Caracci academy, several
others are entitled to consideration; such as Schedone and more names
recorded in the schools already described, with a few yet left to mention
in those of which we have to treat. Many names will also find a place among
the Bolognese painters of landscape, or those of perspective. A few others,
who devoted themselves to figures, have been scarcely alluded to by
Malvasia, either because then living, or not so distinguished as some of
the preceding; nevertheless they are not despicable, for to hold a second
or third rank, where Domenichino and Guido [Pg 196]are the foremost, is
a degree of honour not to be regretted. One of these is Francesco
Cavazzone, a writer too on the art, of whom the Canon Crespi subsequently
collected very ample notices, in particular extolling a Magdalen kneeling
at the feet of the Redeemer, a truly imposing picture, that ornamented the
church of that saint in via S. Donato. Of much the same degree of merit was
Vincenzio Ansaloni, who gave only two altar-pieces to the public, but
sufficient to establish his title to the character of a great artist.
Giacomo Lippi, called also Giacomone da Budrio, was another distinguished
artist, of universal genius, in whose fresco histories at the portico of
the Nunziata we trace the pupil of Lodovico, not very select, but of prompt
and practised hand. Some pictures in fresco too by Piero Pancotto, at S.
Colombano, gave rise to feelings of disgust from the ridicule attempted to
be cast on his own parish priest, caricatured by him in the features of a
holy evangelist, though as an artist he could not be despised.

Among the histories at S. Michele in Bosco, already described, is seen
the Sepulture of the SS. Valeriano and Tiburzio by Alessandro Albini, a
painter of spirit; the Giving Alms of S. Cecilia, by Tommaso Campana, who
afterwards followed Guido; the St. Benedict
among the Thorns, by Sebastiano Razali; the Conference between Cecilia and
Valeriano, by Aurelio Bonelli; all respectable artists, except that
Malvasia blames the [Pg 197]last mentioned as unworthy of a school
productive of so many noble disciples; but it is rare that in such rich
abundance some abortive specimen does not appear. Florio and Gio. Batista
Macchi, Enea Rossi, Giacinto Gilioli, Ippolito Ferrantini, Pier-Maria
Porettano, Antonio Castellani, Antonia Pinelli;[42] all
these gave to the Bolognese public some superior specimens of their skill,
and more in the adjacent places; and we may add Gio. Batista Vernici, who
was subsequently employed by the Duke of Urbino. Nothing remains there from
the hand of Andrea Costa, or of Vincenzio Gotti; of whom the former,
according to Malvasia, painted for the S. Casa of Loreto some admirable
pieces, now known, if I mistake not, under another name. The latter resided
in the kingdom of Naples, mostly at Reggio, an artist of singular rapidity,
whose altar-pieces in that city alone amount to the number of two hundred
and eighteen. Other followers of the Caracci are known to have renounced
painting in favour of engraving and sculpture. The academy was closed on
Lodovico’s death; and the casts, with other requisites for the art,
remained for a long period at Bologna. Domenico Mirandola, on the opening
of Facini’s academy, quitted that of Lodovico, became a celebrated [Pg
198]sculptor, enriched himself with the spoils of both, and kept an
open studio, regulated according to the method of his first masters; called
for this reason by some the studio of the Caracci. Names, however, are not
realities; and correctness of design was not maintained in this soi-disant academy, but gradually
deteriorated; the honour of its revival being reserved for the genius of
Cignani, of whom we shall say more in our fourth epoch.

The review of the Bolognese artists is here complete. In the year 1617
the state of Ravenna had to boast a Guarini, an artist of a sound style,
not far removed from that of the Caracci, if we may judge from a Pietà, at
S. Francesco, in Rimini, to which place he belonged. There too was one
Matteo Ingoli, who is mentioned in the Venetian School, to which he wholly
devoted his talents. To the same state belonged the family of Barbiani, who
have continued down to this period their services to their country.
Giambatista, the most ancient, is mentioned by Orlandi; his school is not
known, though he possesses an attractive manner, much resembling Cesi’s,
but differing from him in the study of each figure, and on this account
unequal with himself. His St. Andrew, and his
St. Joseph, on two altars at the Francescani;
his S. Agatha, in the church of that name, with other pieces in different
places, are well executed in oil. In the chapel of N. Signora del Sudore,
in the cathedral, is the vaulted ceiling painted by him with an Assumption
of the [Pg
199]Virgin, which, even compared with Guido’s cupola at Ravenna,
does not displease. A son of Gio. Batista succeeded him in his profession,
not in his reputation; from whom, or some other member of the family,
sprung Andrea Barbiani, who, on the corbels of the said ceiling, coloured
the four evangelists, and painted several altar-pieces both at Ravenna and
at Rimini. After examining his manner, and in particular his tints, I
believe him to have been a pupil, or at least a disciple of P. Pronti of
Rimini, shortly before commended among Guercino’s disciples along with
Gennari, also from that place. Here likewise we shall mention a third,
sprung from the school of Padovanino, but residing in his native place; a
painter more of pictures for private ornament than for churches. His name
was Carlo Leoni, and he competed with Centino in his picture of the
Penitence of David, at the Oratorio, and with other excellent figurists who
then flourished in Romagna. Among Guercino’s disciples will be found also
natives of Cesena; and I am convinced that many other artists of Romagna
were retained by him at Cento; a fact which is alluded to in his life,
without any mention of the names.

At Faenza, in the time of the Caracci, flourished one Ferraù da Faenza,
with the additional family appellation of Fanzoni, or Faenzoni, derived
probably from his country. According to Titi he was pupil to Vanni, but
left nothing at Rome besides his fresco paintings at the Scala [Pg
200]Santa, at S. Gio. Laterano, and in great number at S. Maria
Maggiore. They consist of scripture histories, of exact design, very
pleasing tints, and good mixture of colours; mostly executed in competition
with Gentileschi, Salimbeni, Novara, and Croce. From his hand is the S.
Onofrio, in the cathedral at Foligno, with several pieces at Ravenna and
Faenza, where however his manner seems to have changed. There I heard him
included among the pupils of the Caracci, from whom perhaps he some time
studied. Nor is this at all difficult to believe on contemplating the
chapel of S. Carlo, in the cathedral, or his Deposition from the Cross, at
the nunnery of S. Domenico; or his Probatica, at the confraternity of S.
Giovanni, which is the best preserved of all his pictures in the district,
and nearest resembling Lodovico’s style. I am assured that his real family
was the Fenzoni, of noble origin, now extinct at Faenza; and that he died
in his native place in 1645, aged 83. It is related that he perpetrated an
atrocious deed, having assassinated, out of mere professional jealousy, one
Manzoni of Faenza, a young artist of rising reputation, as is apparent from
several of his pictures, of which two are in the possession of the Ab.
Strocchi, Giudice di Pace, in Faenza. Nor is he less esteemed for his
altar-pieces, particularly that of the Martyrdom of S. Eutropio Vescovo,
exhibited in that church. He would have shone a distinguished ornament of
the art, had not his career been thus untimely cut short [Pg 201]by envy. The
assassin artist failed to restore to Painting that of which he had deprived
her, even by educating his two young daughters, Teresa, who painted much
for her native place, and Claudia Felice, perhaps her superior, at Bologna,
where she died in 1703.

One Tommaso Misciroli left several specimens of his hand at Faenza,
known generally by the name of Pittor Villano. He flourished after
Ferraù,[TN8] and owed his reputation to his
genius rather than to any precepts of the art. Neither in his design, his
expression, nor his costume, has he any thing to recommend him, and in
these he often errs. But in the vivacity of his attitudes, in his
colouring, acquired from Guido, his draperies from the Venetians, he is
equal to many of this school; yet this remark applies only to a few works
executed with much care. The best of these is at the church of S. Cecilia,
where he has exhibited the martyrdom of that saint; and in the scene is
introduced an executioner stirring up the flames, a figure almost copied
from the grand picture by Lionello, at the church of S. Domenico in
Bologna.

Gaspero Sacchi da Imola is known to me only from some pictures he
conducted at Ravenna, and recorded first by Fabbri, next by Orlandi. It is
uncertain to what country the Cav. Giuseppe Diamantini belonged, called by
some in mistake Giovanni; but generally acknowledged to have been a native
of Romagna. In the twenty-eighth volume of the Antichità
Picene it is asserted [Pg 202]that he came from Fossombrone. He resided at
Venice, and left at S. Moisè an Epiphany, in which he displays great
freedom of hand, and a bold effect in the execution. He is more celebrated
in collections belonging to the Venetian state than in churches, being met
with at Rovigo and at Verona, where, in Casa Bevilacqua, are some heads of
philosophers in a very novel manner. His character indeed consisted in this
kind of painting, and he would seem to have derived his idea of them from
Salvator Rosa.

We shall now proceed to treat of the landscape, flower, and perspective
painters; all artists in short connected with minor branches of the art. On
this subject the historians who preceded me have attributed no improvement
to the Caracci, except in landscape; though I believe that their prevailing
maxim of shunning all caprice and fallacy, and confining themselves to
representations of truth and nature in the art, spread its influence from
the human figure down to the insect, from the tree to the fruit, from the
palace to the cottage. In a similar way too was introduced the maxim of
avoiding in literature that affectation, prevalent in the sixteenth
century, in favour of the purity of better ages; owing to which the style
of writing, from that of history even to familiar correspondence, from the
poetry of the epic to the sonnet, shone with real lustre.

Gio. Batista Viola and Gio. Francesco Grimaldi were the two leading
painters of landscape at that [Pg 203]period, in the manner of the Caracci. Viola
was among the first to exclude from painting that hard, dry style so much
practised by the Flemish. He has been mentioned as being at Rome, where he
established himself, and decorated with landscape-frescos different villas
belonging to those nobles; in particular the Villa Pia. But portable
pictures of this artist are rarely to be met with, except, that being in
company with Albani at Rome, his landscapes were frequently introduced into
the pictures of the latter, and may be recognized in that city by judges as
those of Viola, like Mola’s in other pieces of Albani at Bologna. Grimaldi
continued many years in the service of different pontiffs at Rome; and some
years in that of the Car. Mazarini at Paris, and of Louis XIV. He surpassed
Viola in good fortune as well as science; a noble architect, excellent in
perspective, in figures, and as an engraver of Titian’s landscapes and of
his own. His prints display singular judgment in the individual parts, and
great beauty in their edifices; he is also much more ample in drawing the
foliage than the Caracci, and also very different; as is observed in the
Lettere Pittoriche.[43] His
design always answers to the workmanship; his touch is light, his colouring
very strong, only partaking too much of the green. He was employed by
Innocent X., in competition with other artists, in the Quirinal and in the
Vatican palace; and was also selected to decorate some [Pg 204]churches, in
particular at S. Martino a’ Monti. The Colonna gallery is enriched with his
views, and he is often met with in others, though not so much sought after
in foreign parts as Claude and Poussin. Such is their number, that I doubt
not some of his works were executed by his son Alessandro, who, according
to Orlandi, was a disciple and follower of Gio. Francesco. His specimens
are not equally abundant at Bologna, where, about the same period, other
landscape painters are known to have flourished.

We have extolled Mastelletta, and now for a similar taste we must praise
Benedetto Possenti, a pupil of Lodovico, and also a spirited painter of
figures. His landscapes present us with seaports, embarkations, fairs,
festivals, and the like objects. Bartolommeo Loto, or Lotti, was also held
in high esteem, first a disciple and next competitor of Viola, one who
invariably adhered to the taste of the Caracci. Paolo Antonio Paderna, a
pupil of Guercino, afterwards of Cignani, displayed in his landscape
admirable imitation of Guercino’s manner. There was likewise Antonio dal
Sole, from the circumstance of painting with his left hand, denominated il
Monchino de’ Paesi,[44] Francesco Ghelli, and Filippo
Veralli, all sprung from the school of Albani, and all much prized for
their rural views in different collections.

Annibal formed, as stated in the second volume, a Gio. da Udine of his
own, in a distinguished painter [Pg 205]of fruits, called il Gobbo di Cortona, or il
Gobbo de’ Caracci. Similar reputation was acquired by two Bolognese
artists, Antonio Mezzadri, whose flowers and fruits are in abundance at
Bologna; and Anton Maria Zagnani, who received commissions even from
princely foreigners. Both were excelled by Paolo Antonio Barbieri, as
famous for his representation of animals, flowers, and fruits, as his
brother Gio. Francesco for the human figure. He bestowed, however, little
study on the art, being too much occupied with his family affairs.[45] There was a pupil of Guido, by birth a Milanese, but
settled at Bologna, named Pierfrancesco Cittadini, commonly called il
Milanese, who surpassed all his fellow scholars. Some of his altar-pieces
shew him to have been capable of greater performances; but following the
genius and example of several artists whom he saw at Rome, he restricted
himself to painting small pictures on canvass, and small branches of
histories and landscapes. Yet these were excelled by his specimens of
fruits and flowers, with birds of every kind, to which he occasionally
added portraits and very graceful figures, in the same piece. Bologna
abounds with [Pg
206]his paintings, as such a line of study proved useful to the
quadraturists,[46] who were often desirous to secure
Cittadini’s assistance and that of his pupils in their ornamental
labours.

For portraits drawn from life, without any other accessaries, Gio.
Francesco Negri, pupil of Fialetti, in Venice, was then in credit at
Bologna; where he had for his fellow pupil Boschini, who finally became a
designer and engraver in copper. Commendations of Negri are met with in the
volumes of Malvasia and of Crespi.

Bologna had to boast little that was great in regard to ornamental
architecture up to the time of Dentone (Girolamo Curti), who became its
restorer also in other parts of Italy. I say restorer, inasmuch as Gio. and
Cherubino Alberti at Rome, and the Sandrini at Brescia, with the Bruni in
Venice, had produced some fine specimens. Nor, if we consider the times,
were Agostino dalle Prospettive and Tommaso Lauretti, in Bologna itself,
destitute of merit, as we have already stated. But their models being
either neglected or corrupted by their successors, produced no solid
advantage to the art; so that there were either no quadraturists in any
cities of Italy, or they were extremely rare, and esteemed only as the
refuse of the figurists. Dentone, with his companions, not only revived,
but elevated and enlarged this art. Sprung from a spinning manufactory of
the Signori Rizzardi, he commenced under Lionello Spada to attempt the
design of figures; and finding [Pg 207]this too difficult, he turned to ornamental
painting, and acquired from Baglione the use of the rule, and to draw the
lines. He proceeded no farther with this master; but, having purchased the
works of Vignola and Serlio, he in these studied the different orders of
architecture, grounded himself in perspective, formed a solid and well
regulated taste, which he farther improved with what he saw at Rome, among
the remains of ancient architecture. He attempted much in the form of
relief, which is indeed the soul of this profession. His fine illusions of
cornices, colonnades, lodges, balustrades, arches, and modiglioni, seen
with the effect of foreshortening, have led to the supposition of his being
assisted by stuccos, or some materials of strong relief; while the whole is
produced by the effect of chiaroscuro, brought to a facility, truth, and
grace never before seen. In his colours he preserved those of the stones
and marbles; avoiding those tints of gems and precious stones, afterwards
introduced at the expense of all verisimilitude. It was an invention of his
to lay gold-leaf over his works in fresco. He made use of burnt oil, with
turpentine and yellow wax, melted together, and placed, in a dissolved
state, with a fine pencil, on the parts where the lights occur, and where
the gold leaf is applied. Still he but sparingly availed himself of such
discovery, consigning its abuse to his followers. Anxious for durability,
he was accustomed to rough sketch, and afterwards to fill up with other [Pg
208]layers, then making of the whole one solid impasto, or mingled
layers of colours; while in the most exposed spots, not trusting wholly to
the plaster, he united very fine portions of white marble, as subtly
inserted as we see in the façade of the Grimaldi palace. He thus conferred
fresh lustre on both palaces and churches; and next proceeding to the
theatres, he exhibited novel spectacles in them. The nearmost scenes he
painted with the most commanding power of shade, and diminishing its depth
by degrees, conducted the eye to the most remote with sensations of harmony
and delight. This contrast of depth and sweetness gave the illusion of an
immense prospect in small space; and such was the degree of relief in the
edifices there represented, that numbers, on the first appearance, went
upon the stage in order to explore the reality more nearly. His excellence
in this respect soon obtained him commissions out of Bologna; from the
Card. Legate, at Ravenna, from the sovereigns of Parma and Modena, and at
Rome from Prince Lodovisi, for whom he painted a hall, which outshone the
Sala Clementina, decorated by Gio. Alberti, until then esteemed the most
admirable of its kind.

It was Dentone’s custom to retain the services of a figurist, in order
to model his statues, prepare his chiaroscuri, figures of boys, and
sometimes even animals and flowers, with all which he ornamented, not
always with discreetness, his architectural views. The most erudite among
the [Pg
209]young artists here vied in offers of their services, desirous of
profiting by the same art, and acquiring reputation. In the hall of the
Conti Malvasia, at Trebbio, he was assisted by Brizio, Francesco and
Antonio Caracci, and Valesio; also by Massari, in the grand chapel of S.
Domenico, who attended him as well in the library of the fathers of S.
Martino, where he painted the celebrated Dispute of S. Cirillo. In the
Tanara palace he even engaged Guercino, who there exhibited his grand
Hercules; while elsewhere he was assisted by Campana, Galanino, and Spada,
and a few cartoons were afforded him by Guido himself. But his most useful
colleague was Angiol Michele Colonna, who arriving at an early age from
Como, and having studied some time under Ferrantini, finally united himself
with Dentone, and became celebrated throughout Europe. This artist,
according to Crespi, enjoyed the reputation of the greatest fresco painter
of whom Bologna could boast; such was his spirited drawing both of men and
animals, such his eminence in perspective, and every species of ornamental
work, that he was himself alone equal to any grand undertaking, and painted
alone an entire chamber at the Florentine court, and a chapel at S.
Alessandro, in Parma. The perspectives in the tribune of that church were
by his hand; the figures by Tiarini; and in several other places the
perspectives were by Dentone, the figures by Colonna. It formed his
peculiar talent, with whatever painter he might engage, so to adapt [Pg
210]himself to the style and spirit of his colleague, that the
entire work seemed the idea of the same mind, the product of a single hand.
Nor did he require any delay; for whilst his companion proceeded with his
own portion, he, with wonderful velocity, consistency, and admirable
harmony, despatched the work; a gift for which he was very generally sought
after, and more particularly by Dentone, who retained him after his return
from Rome, until the period of his decease.

Whilst these two celebrated men thus promoted their profession, there
was rising into notice one Agostino Mitelli, a youth of very prolific
genius, not unacquainted with the figure, which Passeri supposes he
acquired from the Caracci, and well-grounded in perspective and
architecture, under Falcetta. When the two friends were engaged in
decorating the archiepiscopal palace at Ravenna, and at the courts of Parma
and Modena, Mitelli alternately assisted the figurist and the quadraturist.
This last, however, was the art he most affected, and to which, on
separating from his masters, he finally devoted himself. His first labours
proved very attractive to the public; not that they equalled the force,
solidity, and reality of Dentone, but on account of their peculiar grace
and beauty, such as almost to obtain for him the fame of the Guido of the
quadraturists. Employing his own taste, he softened down the harder
features of the art, made the elevations more delicate, the tints more
mild, and added a style of [Pg 211]foliage, scrolls, and arabesques, decorated
with gold, such as seemed to breathe of grace. The play of the ornaments
varied with the nature of the edifices; some ideas were adapted to halls,
some to churches, and others to theatres. Each ornament filled its
appropriate place, at just intervals; the entire work finally according
with a delightful symmetry and harmony, so as to take by surprise people
not yet familiar with similar illusions, and to remind them, as it were, of
the enchanted palaces of the romancers. Mitelli’s first assistants were two
of his fellow pupils in this art, Andrea Sighizzi and Gio. Paderna, with
occasionally the figurist Ambrogi; names not unworthy of[TN9] a place in the history of the arts, though unequal to
compete with such a colleague.

Colonna alone seemed born to associate with him, as he did after the
death of his favourite Curti. An intimacy ensued, which was like the second
act of Angiol Michele’s life; an intimacy which, strengthened by mutual
esteem and interest, and cherished by habit and kind offices, continued
during twenty-four years, until terminated by the death of Mitelli. These
two friends added greatly to the excellent models of the art at Bologna;
and among their most celebrated labours are the chapel of Rosario, and the
hall of the Conti Caprara. Elsewhere, as in the Bentivogli and Pepoli
palaces, Agostino produced only specimens of architecture; and in others we
see his pictures of perspective conducted a guazzo, with figures [Pg 212]by Gioseffo, his
son, a disciple of Torre, who engraved even better than he painted. In
their commissions beyond Bologna, Mitelli and Colonna were always invited
together; as to Parma, to Modena, to Florence, by their respective rulers;
by the Marchesi Balbi to Genoa, and by Cardinal Spada to Rome, whose ample
hall they enlarged, as it were, and dignified by means of feigned
colonnades, artful recesses, and magnificent steps, where numbers of
figures, arrayed in varied and novel drapery, were seen ascending and
descending. Called subsequently to the court of Philip IV., they decorated
three chambers and a magnificent hall in Madrid, where Colonna, too,
produced his so highly extolled Fable of Pandora. They here sojourned for
the space of two years, the last of Mitelli’s life, who died much regretted
by the whole court, and by the Spanish artists, at whose head stood Diego
Velasquez.

Colonna returned into Italy, and as a third act of his life, we may
record the twenty-seven years which he afterwards lived; during the earlier
portion, availing himself, for his architectures, of the services of
Giacomo Alboresi, Mitelli’s great pupil; and in the latter, of Giovacchino
Pizzoli, his own scholar, known also among painters of landscape. Crespi
adds the name of Gio. Gherardini, and Antonio Roli, or Rolli according to
the Cav. Titi, whose specimens in this branch, at the Certosa of Pisa, he
extols as perfect miracles of the art (p. 301). In
this trio are included all belonging [Pg 213]to Colonna’s school.
It is observed by Malvasia, that from Mitelli’s society, Angiol Michele
himself derived utility, as regarded architecture; not that he ever
equalled his deceased friend, but from adopting thenceforward a more
elegant manner. This progress is apparent in the cupola of S. Biagio; as
well as in the ceiling and in a chapel of S. Bartolommeo, decorated by him
after his return from Spain. Other specimens he produced at this period, at
Ponzacco, a villa of the Marchese Nicolini, of Florence; in the Morisini
palace, at Padua, and at Paris, for M. Lionne, state secretary to the
French king. Colonna attained the age of eighty-six, and left, at his
death, numerous professors of an art, which he and his two colleagues may
almost be said to have invented, and given to the public.

I have enumerated different young artists of these schools; and they,
too, united together, traversing Italy in the service of princes and
nobles, and forming pupils in every place; so that no art ever spread more
rapidly. Gio. Paderna, pupil to Dentone, and next an accomplished imitator
of Mitelli, became the colleague of Baldassare Bianchi; and the latter, at
the death of Paderna, having become Mitelli’s son-in-law, was placed
companion, by the father-in-law, with Gio. Giacomo Monti. This partnership
also met with success in Italy, in particular at Mantua, where they both
received regular salaries. Their figure-painter was Gio. Batista Caccioli,
of Budrio, pupil to Canuti, [Pg 214]and a good disciple of Cignani, who left
frescos, altar-pieces, and private pictures; in particular, his heads of
old men, in high request. Another son-in-law of Mitelli, Giacomo Alboresi,
was much employed at the court of Parma, in that of Florence, and in the
villa Capponi, of Colonnata. He was assisted in his figures by Fulgenzio
Mondini, and on his death, by Giulio Cesare Milani, who was esteemed the
best pupil of Torre. Domenico Santi, named Mengazzino, was also one of the
ablest among Mitelli’s pupils, and left, at the Servi, in S. Colombano, and
in the Ratta palace, some fine works in perspective, with figures by
Giuseppe Mitelli, by Burrini, and most of all by Canuti, never having left
his native place. His perspectives, on canvass, are highly esteemed in
cabinets, and are sometimes hardly to be distinguished from those of
Agostino. Andrea Sighizzi, the father and master of three artists, was
employed also at Turin, Mantua, and Parma, where he received a salary from
the court, and had Pasinelli for his best companion. It would carry us too
far, to recount all the quadraturists sprung from these schools; nor would
all, perhaps, deserve commemoration. Though no art was more rapidly
extended, none sooner degenerated; caprice usurped the place of sound rules
of architecture, and was carried to a pitch of extravagance and
impertinence, when the Borrominesque taste began to extend through Italy.
Architecture itself, which forms the basis of this profession, began, in
course of time, to be [Pg 215]regarded as an accessary; a greater share of
study was employed in the vases of flowers, in festoons, in fruits, and
foliages, and certain novelties of grotesque, against which both Algarotti
and Crespi have so justly and successfully inveighed.

We cannot close this account without the name of Giovannino da
Capugnano, an artist very fully treated of by Malvasia and Orlandi, and
highly extolled in the studies of the painters, even in our own days.
Misled by a pleasing self-delusion, he believed himself born to become a
painter; like that ancient personage, mentioned by Horace, who imagined
himself the owner of all the vessels that arrived in the Athenian port. His
chief talent lay in making crucifixes, to fill up the angles, and in giving
a varnish to the balustrades. Next, he attempted landscape in
water-colours, in which were exhibited the most strange proportions, of
houses less than the men; these last smaller than his sheep; and the sheep
again than his birds. Extolled, however, in his own district, he determined
to leave his native mountains, and figure on a wider theatre at Bologna;
there he opened his house, and requested the Caracci, the only artists he
believed to be more learned than himself, to furnish him with a pupil, whom
he intended to polish in his studio. Lionello Spada, an admirable wit,
accepted this invitation; he went and copied designs, affecting the utmost
obsequiousness towards his master. At length, conceiving it time to put an
end to the jest, he left behind him a most exquisite [Pg 216]painting of
Lucretia, and over the entrance of the chamber some fine satirical octaves,
in apparent praise, and real ridicule of Capugnano. His worthy master only
accused Lionello of ingratitude, for having acquired from him in so short a
space the art of painting so beautifully from his designs; but the Caracci
at last acquainted him with the joke, which acted as a complete antidote to
his folly. In some Bolognese galleries his pictures are preserved as
specimens, in some degree connected with pictorial history;[47] and which, though composed with all becoming gravity,
are as diverting as any caricature of Miel or of Cerquozzi. Were we to
desire a second example of such imbecility in the art, it would be found in
Crespi,[48] who gives some account of one Pietro Galletti.
Equally persuaded of having been born a painter, Pietro became a
laughing-stock to the students, who solemnly invested him with a doctorial
degree in the art, assembling for that purpose in the cellar of a
monastery.

[23]
It must be observed that the two younger Caracci visited Rome, where they
continued to instruct their pupils on the same plan. Passeri, in his life
of Guido, says, that they were joined by literary men, who proposed
history-pieces to them, with premiums for such as should be best executed;
and that on one occasion Domenichino, one of the youngest, being preferred
above all, Guido was seized with the most lively emulation to eclipse him.
The historian adds, that the same method was soon adopted in the Roman
academy, and that Car. Barberini, nephew to Urban VIII., presided at the
election of the first, and rewarded him with money, and those that next
followed, to the fourth member. Moreover he gave the first a commission for
a picture from the same subject as the design. What a secret is here shewn
for promoting the fine arts.

[24]
See Crespi’s analysis of the two pictures at the church of the Certosa, (p.
32,) one representing the Scourging of Christ, the other his Crown of
Thorns, where the most beautiful art of disposing the light to produce the
desired effect is remarkable; with an exquisite effect of perspective, and
a degree of invention not to be surpassed in representing the suffering of
our Redeemer.

[25]
Lettere Pittoriche, tom. vii. lettera 4.

[26]
In colours, of which yolk of egg, or a kind of glue, is the vehicle.

[27]
See the Dissertazione su la Pittura, by the Canon Lazzarini,
in the Catalogue of Pictures at Pesaro, p. 118.

[28]
See Malvasia, vol.i. p. 574.

[29]
He was likewise very eminent in this branch, being named by Gregory XV. as
architect for the Apostolic Palace.

[30]
The Cav. Puccini very justly condemns this opinion in his Esame
Critico del Webb, p. 49.

[31]
See the defence set up by Crespi, both for Domenichino and Massari, another
imitator of Agostino’s picture. It is inserted in the Certosa di
Bologna, described at p. 26. He has also
been commended by Bellori for his slowness of hand, who brings forward some
of his maxims, such as that, “no single line is worthy of a real painter
which is not dictated by the genius before it is traced by the hand; that
excellence consists in the full and proper completion of works;” and he
used to reproach those pupils who designed in sketch, and coloured by
dashes of the pencil (p. 213). We meet with a
third apology in Passeri, (p. 4,) for some figures
borrowed from the Farnese Gallery, and imitated by Domenichino in the
histories of St. Jerome in the portico of S.
Onofrio. At p. 9 too he defends him in regard to
the style of his folds, in which by some he was thought too scanty, and too
hard in their disposition.

[32]
This rivalship is questioned in many places by Malvasia, and denied by
Orlandi, who in the article Francesco Albano, designates him as the sworn
friend of Guido Reni, in close union with whom he prosecuted their
delightful art; but this can only apply to their early years.

[34]
The harmony and union of colour of this artist would seem to excuse some
trifling licenses, respecting which see Lazzarini upon the Paintings of
Pesaro, p. 29.

[35]
See Crespi, p. 74.

[36]
Lacca, a dark red; terra d’ombra, umber.

[37]
See p. 75. This MS. is said to have been drawn up
previous to 1680. I believe it must be somewhere about 1670, Venanzi being
therein described as still young. Notices of the artists of Pesaro and
Urbino, collected by Giuseppe Montani, a good landscape-painter, who
flourished some time at Venice, are now lost. (Of him, see Malvasia, vol. ii. p. 447.) I have recently read a letter from Sig.
Annibale Olivieri to the Prince Ercolani, in which, computing the age of
Venanzi, he is unable to make him out a pupil of Cantarini; from which it
would appear that he was ignorant of the date of Venanzi’s birth, which was
about 1628. I admit that he could not have been long instructed by him, nor
by Guido, and am more than ever confirmed in my conjecture that he was
pupil to Gennari.

[38]
Lunetta, an architectural term; meaning that semicircular space, or any
other portion of a circle, placed in the walls between the different
supports of ceilings.

[39]
“To me it seems that painting ought to be considered excellent, the more it
inclines towards relief.” Bonarruoti, Letter to Varchi, inserted among the
Lettere Pittoriche, vol.i. p. 7.

[40]
There is a description of this painting contained in a letter of Algarotti,
addressed to the learned Zanotti, dated Sept. 1760, in which, though in
other works he observes Guercino to have excelled more in colouring than in
design, yet respecting this specimen he declares, “that Pesarese himself
would here have detected little or nothing to which to object. The folds,
especially those of a cloth wrapped round the body of Christ, are
admirable. The force and sweetness of his tints are equal to the bold
relief of the picture, and the passion with which it is conducted…. I
never beheld two figures better set off in one picture, nor did ever
Guercino’s close light and shade so well unite perhaps in effect as here;
whilst the figures are pourtrayed within an apartment, in which that kind
of light which affords such strong relief to objects, is represented with
an admirable degree of truth.”

[41]
A pail or bucket maker.

[42]
The wife of Bertusio, and admired by Lodovico Caracci for her singular
modesty and attachment to the art. Her finest production adorns the
Nunziata, composed from Lodovico’s design, in which she drew her own
portrait with a bonnet, and that of her husband.

[43]
Vol. ii. p. 289.

[44]
The handless landscape painter.

[45]
As the head of the domestic establishment, he inserted in a book the
pictures on which he and his brother were employed, with the prices which
they obtained. On his death this was continued by Benedetto and Cesare
Gennari, who recorded the works conducted by their surviving uncle. Such a
registry was very useful to ascertain the dates and prices of the
Guercinesque pictures; from the family of Gennari it came into possession
of the Prince Ercolani, who made a valuable collection of MSS. and very
rare books on the fine arts.

[46]
Ornamental and architectural painters.

[47]
See Lettere Pittoriche, vol. ii. p. 53.

[48]
Crespi, p. 141.

[Pg 217]

BOLOGNESE SCHOOL.

EPOCH IV.

Pasinelli, and in particular Cignani, cause a
Change in the Style of Bolognese Painting. The Clementine Academy and its
Members.

The commencement of the final epoch of the Bolognese School
may be dated some years previous to 1700; when Lorenzo Pasinelli and Carlo
Cignani had already produced a striking alteration in painting. The
disciples of the Caracci, who had imitated Lodovico, and those who had
produced new manners, had all disappeared; while the pupils who still
continued attached to their taste were very few; consisting of Guercino’s
Gennari, of Gio. Viani, formerly pupil to Torre, and some other less
distinguished names. Pasinelli himself ceased to exist, on the opening of
the new century, leaving the entire credit of the preceptorship in the
hands of Cignani. This, too, was shortly increased by the formation of a
public academy of the fine arts in the city, to which he was appointed
president during life. These details are to be met with in the excellent
“History of the Clementine Academy” composed by Giampietro Zanotti. Here we
are made acquainted with the principles and progress of that celebrated
society, which, in the [Pg 218]year 1708, received from Pope Clement XI.
its sanction and its name, from the Senate its rooms, and its organization
from Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsili; besides effectual support both from
him and other nobles; and here also we are presented with the lives of the
academicians up to the year 1739. To Zanotti’s History, as well as to
others of an older date, much useful supplement was added by the Canon
Crespi; and upon these two recent works, with a due degree of caution, I
propose to rest the authority of my succeeding narrative.

In tracing the origin of the new taste, it will be requisite to go back
to 1670, or near that period; when Pasinelli and Cignani, after their
return from Rome, commenced teaching and operating, each in their
respective method. Lorenzo pursued the design of Raffaello, combined with
the fascination of Paul Veronese; while Carlo delighted in the grace of
Coreggio, united to Annibal’s learning; and both had executed at Rome
studies agreeable to their genius. It is reported, that one day they
happened to enter upon a long discussion of the relative merits of
Raffaello and Coreggio. Would that they had been joined by some new
Borghini, as a third party, who might have put the discourse into the form
of a dialogue, and have preserved it for posterity! In course of time,
Cignani came into higher repute than Pasinelli, though this excited no kind
of jealousy; they had both of them wisdom enough to be satisfied each with
his own share of genius, and to commend his competitor; [Pg 219]thus abstaining from
that indulgence of rivalry which gives, even to the most celebrated artists
and writers, an air of meanness. Thus, when the Clementine academy was
instituted, the pupils of both masters readily united in serving that new
assembly; voluntarily submitting to the direction of Cignani, placed by the
pontifical diploma at their head. Thenceforward the style of Cignani came
into vogue; though others sprung from it, composed of two or more manners,
which may yet be called national. Each has in it something of the
Caraccesque, owing to the young artists having commenced their career by
designing from the works of the three brothers. A few of these painters
exhibit even too much of their manner, and that of the best among other
artists; we find figures taken partially from different ancient masters,
and worked up into one composition; as we see sometimes done in poetry,
with the lines of one or more writers. About this period the study of the
beau-ideal received some accession, by means of the casts with which the
academy was supplied. The style of coloring is far from careless; though in
the principles then adopted, there was a certain method pursued by
different artists, from which their shadows have grown deeper, and assumed
a rusty colour; and towards the middle of the same epoch, false and
capricious colours came into use, and long continued to find patrons. Nor
was this error confined solely to the Bolognese School. Balestra, in one of
his [Pg
220]letters, dated 1733, inserted in the Pictoric Collection, (vol. ii.) laments the
decline of “all the Italian schools,” from their having fallen into
mistaken methods. Possessing himself in Verona three scholars, capable of
great performances, namely, Pecchio, who became a fine landscape painter,
Rotari, and Cignaroli, he seems to have had his fears even for them. In
particular, speaking of the last, he says, “I fear lest he, too, should
suffer himself to be borne away by the prevailing stream, and become
enamoured of certain ideal manners, and of a rapid touch; consequently
careless of good practice and of rules.” Respecting these alterations,
however, it is not yet time to treat.

To come down, at present, to the two heads of the school; Pasinelli, who
first ceased to live, will first come under our consideration. He received
his education in the art from Cantarini; subsequently from Torre, whose
school he too early left, owing to which, most probably, he never attained
to perfect correctness of design. In this, nevertheless, he surpassed Paul
Veronese, who formed his great prototype. He did not imitate him, according
to the sectarists; he borrowed from him that effective and majestic
composition; but the ideas of the faces, and the distribution of the
colours he acquired elsewhere. He was naturally too inclined to create
surprise by the display of copious, rich, and spirited compositions; such
as his two pictures at the Certosa, of Christ’s Entrance into Jerusalem,
and his Return into Limbo; and [Pg 221]such too is his History of Coriolanus, in
the Casa Ranuzzi, a piece found repeated in many collections. No one can
behold these paintings without granting to Pasinelli a true painter’s fire,
great novelty of idea, and a certain elevated character, never the boast of
middling artists. With these gifts, however, he is sometimes too
extravagant in his attitudes, and in his Paolesque imitation of spectacles,
and strange novel draperies, which he is thought to have carried to an
extreme, as in his Preaching of John the Baptist, in which his rival,
Taruffi, found, instead of the desert[TN10]
of Judea, the piazza of St. Mark, in Venice. He
knew, withal, to restrain his fire according to the genius of his themes,
as we may see in that Holy Family in possession of the Scalzi; a work
partaking of Albani. He painted more for private persons than for the
public; uniform in the spirit, varied in the colours of his pictures. Some
of these private pictures boast, at once, a softness of hand, and a
peculiarly vivid and gay light, that might be taken for those of the
Venetians or Lombards; in particular, a few of his Venuses, which are
supposed to be portraits of one of his three wives. In a few of his other
specimens he displays very little relief, whole colours, a tint almost like
that of the Bolognese artists preceding the Caracci; and these I should
either attribute to his early youth, or his closing days.

One of the four leading artists of his age was the Cav. Carlo Cignani,
as elsewhere stated, a genius [Pg 222]more profound than prompt; a hand eager to
engage in labours, but most difficult, and ever dissatisfied in their
completion. His picture of Joseph’s Flight into Egypt, belonging to the
Counts Bighini, of Imola, cost him six months’ labour; and many similar
instances are recorded. Nevertheless, he always appears complete, never
hard or laborious; and his facility is esteemed one of his rarest gifts.
Cignani’s inventions are often referable to Albani, who was his master. He
produced, for a monastery of Piacenza, a picture of the Conception of the
Virgin, who, robed in a white garment, is seen bruising the serpent’s head;
and arrayed in a garment of rich purple, her infant son at her feet, who,
with an air at once of dignity and grace, places his foot upon that of his
mother;—what a language does this speak, how truly sublime! There is
much, too, of a novel and poetic cast, in his Birth of the Virgin, at the
cathedral of Urbino; a picture that at Rome was censured even for its
novelty. Cignani was likewise a good composer, and so disposed his figures,
by the example of the Caracci, as to give his pictures an air of larger
dimensions than they really have. His four Scriptural Histories, in four
ovals, each sustained by two cherubs, among the most perfectly beautiful in
Bologna, are truly attractive ornaments of S. Michele in Bosco; nor are two
others less so, of the public hall, where he represented Francis I., in the act of healing the lepers; and Paul III. seen entering into Bologna. Less majestic, [Pg
223]perhaps, but more beautiful, is one of his paintings, in the
palace of the ducal garden at Parma. Agostino Caracci had there decorated
the ceiling of a chamber; there Cignani exhibited, on the walls, various
fables, illustrative of the power of Love; in which, if he surpassed not
that great master, he, in the opinion of many, at least equalled him. In
design he invariably emulated Coreggio; but, in his outlines, in his
beauteous and noble countenances, and in his grand, ample folds, he
preserved something original, and distinct from the Lombards; while he is
less studious than they respecting the use of foreshortening. He aimed at a
strong layer of colours, which were clear and animated like Coreggio’s, to
which he added, also, a sweetness derived from Guido. He was especially
careful in his chiaroscuro, and gave a great degree of roundness to all his
objects; which, though in certain subjects it may appear overwrought, and
more ample than in nature, is nevertheless pleasing.

His historical pieces are rare; but not so a number of others,
containing one or two half-length figures, and still less his Madonnas. One
of the most beautiful is in the Albani palace, painted for Clement XI.,
with the Holy Child; and another, representing her grief, belongs to the
Princes Corsini, extremely graceful, as is also the Angel seen consoling
her. It would be difficult to decide whether he excelled most in oils or in
fresco, which last is the kind of painting in which great artists have ever
distinguished themselves. He spent [Pg 224]the closing years of
a long life at Forli, where he established his family, and left the
proudest monument of his genius in that grand cupola, perhaps the most
remarkable of all the pictoric productions belonging to the eighteenth
century. The subject is the Assumption of our Lady, the same as in the
cathedral at Parma; and here, too, as there, it exhibits such a real
paradise, that the more we contemplate it, the more it delights us. Near
twenty years were devoted to its production, from time to time; the artist,
occasionally, during that period, visiting Ravenna, to consult the cupola
by Guido, from whom he took his fine figure of St. Michael, and some other ideas. It is reported that
the scaffolds were, against his wish, removed, as he appeared to be never
satisfied with retouching and bringing the work to his usual degree of
finish.

From these two masters I now proceed to their disciples, and shall
annex, also, a few others, who sprung from other schools. Pasinelli had the
good fortune to inherit, from Canuti, an excellent master, a number of fine
scholars, on the latter quitting Bologna. One of these was Gio. Antonio
Burrini, who, while he retained his first master’s manner, became attached,
also, to the composition of Paolo, so much to the taste of Pasinelli.
Indeed, he himself appeared naturally inclined to it, by the richness of
his imagination, and his surprising eagerness and industry in his works. He
devoted much time to Paolo Veronese, at Venice, often [Pg 225]imitating him in
those pictures which are referred to his first style. Distinguished among
these is an Epiphany, painted for the noble Ratta family, which yields to
very few pieces in their collection. He subsequently executed a martyrdom
of S. Vittoria for the cathedral of Mirandola, in competition with Gio.
Gioseffo dal Sole; who on beholding it so greatly superior to his own
picture, was bitterly mortified. He was reassured, however, by Pasinelli,
their common master, who predicted he would become a better artist than
Burrini, whose own facility of genius would at length betray him into a
mere practical line. And this prediction was very exactly fulfilled, though
he continued upwards of fifteen years to paint with tolerable care, both
for the Prince of Carignano at Turin, and at Novellara. He in particular
appeared to advantage as a fresco painter at Bologna, being by some termed
the Pier da Cortona, or the Giordano of his school. His fresco histories in
the Casa Albergati are well deserving notice, as are those in the
Alamandini and the Bigami families, with others produced in early youth.
Impelled at length by the cares of an increasing family to look for greater
profits, he gave way by degrees to his facility of hand, and formed a
second style, which, owing to the indolence of human nature, obtained more
disciples than his first.

Gio. Gioseffo dal Sole, on the contrary, burned to become each day more
perfect, and raised himself to one of the first posts among the artists of
[Pg
226]his age. He had constant commissions from noblemen, both native
and foreign, and received invitations also from the courts of Poland and of
England. For some time he preserved a style conforming to Pasinelli’s; and
in order to improve it from the same sources he frequently returned to
Venice, though he never attained to that degree of beauty, in his more
elegant subjects, that formed the boast of his master. In many particulars,
however, he displays exquisite grace; as in the hair and plumes of the
angels, and equally in the accessaries, such as the veils, bracelets,
crowns, and armour. He seems to have been inclined also more than Pasinelli
to treat powerful themes; more observant of costume, more methodical in
composition, and more informed in point of architecture and landscape. In
these indeed he is almost unique; and the most beautiful specimens,
perhaps, are to be seen at the Casa Zappi in Imola, representing Evening,
Night, and Morning, all very pleasingly distributed, and with sober tints,
such as the subject required. His other works display, in most instances,
the most lovely play of vivid fluctuating light, more especially in his
holy pieces and celestial visions, as we see in the St. Peter of Alcantara, at S. Angiolo in Milan.
Moreover, he was more exact and polished than Pasinelli; not that he was by
any means deficient in celerity in conducting his works, but esteemed it
unworthy of an upright character to confer upon them less perfection than
he was capable [Pg 227]of bestowing. Being employed at Verona for
the noble family of Giusti, where he left several mythological pieces and
scriptural histories, truly beautiful, he completed one of Bacchus and
Ariadne, which artists pronounced excellent, within a week. Yet he
cancelled almost the whole, to remodel it according to his own wish,
declaring that it was enough to have shewn his rapidity of hand to satisfy
others, but that it became his duty, by additional accuracy, to satisfy
also himself. Hence his fresco at S. Biagio in Bologna, which is his
greatest work, cost him an infinite deal of labour in its completion; and
in conducting his altar-pieces, few and valuable, as well as in his private
pictures, which are very numerous, he called for high remuneration,
persevering in his determination to paint only with care. In this artist,
as many others, two manners are observable, of which the second partakes of
Guido Reni’s. It is on record, that he became attached to it late in life,
and was less successful in it. It appears to me that a large portion of his
pictures nearly approach the taste of Guido, and that the surname of the
modern Guido, conferred upon him by so many, has not been granted as matter
of favour, nor at the expense of little time.

No artist of these times could boast more disciples than Giangioseffo
dal Sole, if we except Solimene, who was held by him in high esteem. In
order to study his paintings, executed for the Counts Bonaccorsi, Dal Sole
went to Macerata, [Pg 228]where he conducted a few works for the
church of the Vergini, and for the house of the said nobles. I am uncertain
if he derived from this visit that style of colouring, more attractive than
natural, such as we find it in some of his smaller pictures, and in some
Bolognese artists who succeeded him. From his school sprung Felice Torelli
of Verona, and Lucia Casalini, his wife, of a Bolognese family. Torelli
came to it already instructed in the art, acquired in his native place from
Sante Prunato, whose taste he, in a great measure, preserved. He became a
painter of strong character, fine chiaroscuro, and of no common merit in
canvass paintings for altars. These are found at Rome, Turin, Milan, and
other cities of Italy. That of S. Vincenzio is most conspicuous, in the act
of freeing a female possessed, at the Domenicans of Faenza; a picture
finely varied in the heads, in the draperies, and the attitudes. Lucia
likewise painted for some churches, as nearly as she could in her consort’s
style; but her chief merit lay in portrait, such as to obtain for her
admission of her own in the royal gallery at Florence. Another artist of
her sex, initiated in the art of design by Sirani, and in colouring by
Taruffi and Pasinelli, received her last instructions from Gioseffo dal
Sole. Her name was Teresa Muratori Scannabecchi, who was in the habit of
painting a good deal by herself, and with great credit. Assisted by her
master, she executed a picture of St. Benedict
in the act of preserving [Pg 229]the life of a child; a very graceful
production and of good effect, exhibited in a chapel of S. Stefano.

Francesco Monti, another pupil of the same school, was endowed by nature
with an enthusiasm for ample and copious subjects, to which he applied
himself without much previous culture, either from imitation or from art.
He executed for the Counts Ranuzzi, who patronised him, a picture of the
Rape of the Sabines; and for the court of Turin the Triumph of Mardocheo;
works abounding with figures, and highly extolled; besides many other oil
paintings for different collections and churches. But his surpassing merit
is to be sought for in his frescos, and more particularly at Brescia, in
which city he fixed his residence. He also conducted many pieces for the
adjacent places, applauded for his fertile genius and his masterly style of
colouring. A number of churches and noble houses, such as the Martinengo,
the Avogadro, the Barussi, were also decorated by him on a very extended
scale of painting. Some portraits, too, executed by his daughter Eleonora,
who received constant commissions from the same nobility, are held in high
esteem.

Gio. Batista Grati and Cesare Mazzoni remained at Bologna, and as
belonging to the Clementine Academicians who then flourished, we meet with
their lives in Zanotti. Subsequent to their decease, Crespi was enabled to
treat their memory with more fairness. He praises the accuracy of the
former, and regrets his want of talent; the second he pronounces a
commendable artist, [Pg 230]observing that he was long employed at
Faenza, Turin, and Rome, as well as at Bologna itself; though not with good
fortune. Antonio Lunghi also flourished for the most part in foreign
states; at Venice, in Rome, and the kingdom of Naples. He returned, at an
advanced age, to his native place, where there is his picture of S. Rita at
S. Bartolommeo, and others in different churches, which merited for their
author some favourable consideration of Crespi. Yet he has omitted him, for
the purpose, as I suppose, of reserving him for the fourth volume of the
“Felsina Pittrice.” It would be too much to attempt a complete sketch of
Gio. Gioseffo’s disciples who flourished in other schools, such as
Francesco Pavona of Udine, a good painter in oil, and better in crayons;
superior in his large altar-pieces, and still more in his portraits. He
afterwards studied at Milan, and thence proceeded to Genoa; next into
Spain, Portugal, and Germany, being well received in all these courts;
after which he married and had a family at Dresden. Subsequently he
returned to Bologna, which he left in the course of a few years for Venice,
where he shortly afterwards died. Francesco Comi also left Bologna, called
il Fornaretto,[49] and the Mute of Verona, being
deprived both of speech and hearing. Nevertheless he was distinguished in
the art, and is commemorated by Pozzo among the artists of his country, and
also by Orlandi. There are others, of whom we make mention in almost every
school.

[Pg
231]Donato Creti, a cavalier of the gold spurs, ranks as one of the
most eminent of Pasinelli’s pupils, and as the most attached to his manner;
though he was inclined to modify it with that of Cantarini, and of both
composed a third, sufficiently noble and graceful. He would have made it
still more free and original, had he applied himself diligently in early
youth; which he omitted to do, and carried his regrets for such omission
down with him to the tomb. His merit is impaired by his colouring, which
has in it something hard and crude; entertaining a maxim, that tints, such
as they are in nature, ought to be employed, and left to time for sobering
and harmonizing—a maxim by some attributed to Paul Veronese. If there
were ever a painter who knew not when to remove his hand from the canvass,
it was Creti. In painting his S. Vincenzio, intended to be placed opposite
the S. Raimond of Lodovico, he completed it with every attention to the
art; yet was dissatisfied with the work, insomuch that the person who gave
the commission was compelled to take it by force out of his studio, in
order to place it in the grand church of the Padri Predicatori. This is,
perhaps, his best altar-piece. His Alexander’s Feast also boasts some
merit, executed for the noble Fava family; by some even it is supposed to
be his masterpiece. Creti had a pupil, named Ercole Graziani, who added
greater power of execution to his master’s style, a more enlarged
character, greater freedom of hand, with [Pg 232]other qualities
which display his superiority. He approached Franceschini and others who
succeeded to the school of Cignani. He has been accused by one of his
rivals of too much effeminacy in his painting, and study of minutiæ in his
ornaments. Others seek for a more just equality in his colours; others more
spirit; though all must give him credit for genius and industry equal to
compete with the eminent artists of his day, and to surpass many, had he
enjoyed the good fortune to have met with an experienced master. He painted
for S. Pietro, that Apostle in the act of ordaining S. Apollinare; a
history both copious and full of dignity; commissioned by the Cardinal
Lambertini, who, on becoming pope, caused him to make a duplicate for the
church of S. Apollinare at Rome. Also his pictures of S. Pellegrino, in
Sinigaglia, the princes of the Apostles, who take leave, with the most
beautiful expression, to meet their martyrdom, placed at S. Pietro in
Piacenza, with others belonging to his happier hours, are equally
excellent. To Creti and Graziani we have to add Count Pietro Fava, in whose
house both were, during some time, brought up, at once assistants and
companions in the studies of this noble artist. He is ranked among
Pasinelli’s pupils and the Clementine academicians; and we have an account
of his studying the works of the Caracci, to whose manner, equally with any
other artist, he became attached. Although the cavalier is described as a
dilettante in the art, yet on [Pg 233]beholding his altar-pieces of the Epiphany
and of the Resurrection of Christ, which he presented to the cathedral of
Ancona, with a few other productions at Bologna, he appears more worthy of
enrolment among its noble professors.

Aureliano Milani acquired the principles of painting from Cesare Gennari
and Pasinelli; but, struck with the Caracci’s style, he devoted his whole
time to copying their compositions entire, as well as separate, repeating
his designs of the heads, the feet, the hands, and the outlines. He caught
their spirit, without borrowing their forms. It is remarked by Crespi, that
no Bolognese shewed more of the Caraccesque in the naked figure, and in the
whole symmetry and character of his painting. After Cignani, too, I have
heard it noticed, that no one better maintained the design and the credit
of the school. In colouring he was not so excellent; sometimes a follower
of Gennari, as in his St. Jerome, at the church
of the Vita in Bologna, and in some degree in his St. John beheaded, at the church of the Bergamaschi in
Rome. Here he took up his residence, being ill able to support a family of
ten children at Bologna. Here, too, he abounded with commissions, and
promoted with Muratori, another pupil of Pasinelli, established there from
early youth, the honour of his native place. Of the last one, however, we
have treated under that school.

Aureliano taught during many years at Bologna, and among other pupils of
his was the celebrated [Pg 234]Giuseppe Marchesi, called il Sansone. He
first studied under Franceschini, whose taste he nearly approaches in the
vaulted ceiling of the Madonna di Galiera. It is even the opinion of some,
that, in his skill of foreshortening, and in the tone of his colours, no
artist succeeded in imitating him so well. He took his design from Milani;
though at times his naked portion is rather too much loaded, which I would
not venture to say of his master. Among his best pictures is the Martyrdom
of S. Prisca, in the Rimini cathedral; an altar-piece of many and fine
figures, and good tints, for which the S. Agnese of Domenichino supplied
him with some ideas. He painted much for galleries, and among other pieces,
one of his pictures representing the four seasons, (where it now is I
cannot say,) is reputed, by a first rate judge, among the first works of
the modern Bolognese school.

Antonio Gionima was some time also a pupil of Milani. He was a Paduan of
obscure birth, whose father and grandfather had been artists; educated
first by Simone his father (p. 171), afterwards by
Milani, and for a longer period by Crespi. He died young, leaving works
highly prized at Bologna for their inventive spirit and for the high tone
and clearness of their colouring. His picture of St. Florian and accompanying martyrs was engraved by
Mattioli; and a grand canvass history of Haman is shewn in the Ranuzzi
apartment, conspicuous among numbers in the same place, where no common
artists gained admittance.

[Pg
235]Leaving aside certain other pupils of Pasinelli, of less
account, as Odoardo Orlandi, or Girolamo Negri, who had a place, however,
in the Dictionary of Painters, we shall close this catalogue with two
others, who, becoming friends in the school of Lorenzo, continued their
intimacy to extreme old age; Giuseppe Gambarini and Gian Pietro Cavazzoni
Zanotti. Gambarini attended the studio of Cesare Gennari, whose rapidity of
touch and power of natural effect, he afterwards retained. He added no
dignity of forms; owing to which his few altar-pieces and other serious
subjects obtained him no reputation. Applying himself subsequently to
Flemish composition, he represented women intent on domestic affairs, boys’
schools, mendicants begging alms, with similar popular objects, copied
faithfully from life; in all which he abounded with commissions. At Bologna
such familiar pieces by him and his able pupil Gherardini are very common,
and please by their spirit and their exactness. Sometimes he represented
also serious subjects, as in that picture in Casa Ranuzzi, exhibiting the
coronation of Charles V. during the government of a Gonfalonier of the
family.

Zanotti is well known among the writers on pictoric subjects; and few
have been more successful in wielding with equal excellence both pencil and
pen. His “Directions for the Progress of young Artists” contain some
learned maxims, which were meant to stem the corruption of the [Pg 236]art,
by rescuing it from a low mechanical manner, and replacing it upon its true
principles. Upon the same maxims he composed his “History of the Clementine
Academy,” although he was not enabled to adopt corresponding freedom of
style; having there written the lives of the academicians, then lately
deceased, or still alive. This work, printed by Lelio dalla Volpe, in 1739,
with a splendor nearly unknown, up to that period, in Italy, excited some
degree of indignation in good artists, who found, next their own, many
names of mere mediocrity distinguished by portraits and lives, on a footing
with themselves. The complaints raised by Spagnuolo, are recorded by the
Canon Crespi in his Felsina, (p. 227, &c.).
Other accusations were doubtless advanced against him by inferior parties,
who, though commended beyond their merits, secretly, perhaps, believed
themselves deserving of still higher praise. Zanotti, too, inserted notices
relating to himself, who held in that assembly the offices of president and
of secretary, for a much longer period. But domestic and literary matters
combined, withdrew his attention from painting in his maturer years; whence
we may date his more feeble performances, which convey no great idea of
him. Before, however, he had conducted works which exempted him from the
pictoric crowd; in which list we may include his grand picture of an
Embassy from the People of Romagna to the Bolognese, which ornaments the
public palace. In private houses, too, are other [Pg 237]compositions, either
historical or mythological, composed in excellent taste, one of which is in
possession of the Signore Biancani Tazzi, a piece greatly admired by
Algarotti, as a perfect model of refined taste. A similar graceful little
picture of a Cupid and nymphs, which I saw at Signor Volpi’s, displays much
poetical imagination, this artist delighting in poetical composition, very
different from Lomazzo’s and Boschini’s, to an extreme old age.[50]

From Zanotti, who was an excellent master, Ercole Lelli acquired his
knowledge of design. His extraordinary genius, his anatomical preparations
in wax, made by himself and Manzolini for the institution, and his great
influence in the instruction of young artists, in the three branches of the
fine arts, acquired him great reputation in Italy. At the same time, it is
known that he lectured much better than he painted; the art requiring, like
a knowledge of languages, close and persevering application, such as Lelli
could not command. One of his altar-pieces is reported in the Bolognese
Guide; and standing in need of defence, it was truly stated, that it was
among his earliest pieces. In the Guide to Piacenza, another, his S.
Fedele, at the Cappuccini, is also noticed; though it is added, with more
candour, that his highest merit did not consist in painting.

Gio. Viani was fellow-pupil to Pasinelli in the school of Torre; but it
is only a conjecture that he was also his assistant. He was a learned
painter, [Pg
238]not inferior in design to any contemporary of the same school;
and added to his powers by assiduous drawing from the living model in the
academy, and the study of anatomy, until the close of his career. To such
knowledge he united elegance in his forms, softness of colouring, engaging
attitudes, lightness of drapery, studying much from life, and giving it an
air of grace, in the manner of Torre, or of Guido. That exquisite picture
of St. John di Dio, at the hospital of the
Buonfratelli, is such a specimen of his art. In the portico of the Servi he
represented, in a lunette, S. Filippo Benizi, borne up to heaven by two
angels; a figure which, both in countenance and action, breathes an
expression of beatitude, conspicuous, even at the side of another history,
by Cignani. In other lunettes of the same portico he does not excite equal
admiration, and gives us an idea of an artist able to compete with the best
masters, but obliged to work with a much larger share of study than they
were accustomed to bestow.

Viani opened school opposite that of Cignani, and taught to some extent;
in which he was succeeded by his son Domenico, whose life was written by
Guidalotti, who, in point of merit, prefers him to his father. Few will
subscribe to this opinion, he not having attained to that exactness, much
less to that dignity of design, exhibited by his father; and inferior to
him in the nature, truth, and clearness of his colouring. Still he
possessed a grander character in his outline, a stronger execution, [Pg 239]like
Guercino’s, more splendid ornaments, like the Venetians, whom he
assiduously studied in their own capital. There is his St. Antony, at S. Spirito, in Bergamo, in the act of
convincing a sceptic by a miracle; a surprising picture, extolled by Rotari
and Tiepolo, and perhaps the best work which he left at Bologna. At the
same place is his Jove, painted on copper, for the Casa Ratta, besides
other works in private houses, to which he chiefly devoted himself.

His fellow-pupils in the paternal school were four Clementine
academicians, whose altar-pieces we find mentioned among the “Paintings of
Bologna.” These were Gian Girolamo Bonesi, who renounced both the name and
style of Viani, in order to follow Cignani, and complained of being
included in Viani’s school. However this might be, his pictures pleased, by
adding to the beautiful a peculiar delicacy and sweetness that characterize
him. Carlo Rambaldi, imitating both the Viani, was not the less employed by
Bonesi; and pictures of both are met with, especially half-length figures,
in select galleries at Bologna, and a few historical pieces in the royal
collection at Turin. Antonio Dardani possessed more universal talent than
either of the preceding, but was not equally refined. Pietro Cavazzi was a
fine connoisseur in prints, and only on this account was celebrated in
Italy and abroad. Tronchi, Pancaldi, Montanari, with others, not admitted
into the Clementine academy, may be found mentioned in Crespi. No one, [Pg 240]I
imagine, would desire an account of the under graduates, when the
academicians who enjoyed the first rank, were many of them, according to
Zanotti, only artists of mediocrity.

From the school of Cignani, to which I now proceed, scarcely any
disciple issued who ultimately adhered to his style. A master, whose maxim
it was to labour every picture, as if his entire reputation depended on it;
who preferred to cancel, rather than retouch his less successful pieces,
might, perhaps, have scholars, but not many emulators. Two of his family,
however, imitated him; Count Felice his son, who long assisted him,
particularly in the Cupola at Forli; and the Count Paolo his grandson, whom
he, perhaps, instructed in the outset; while his father indisputably
employed him at Forli, and Mancini at Rome. Both were gifted with facility
of genius; but being sufficiently wealthy, they only devoted themselves to
the art for the sake of the pleasure it afforded. Felice is seldom
mentioned in the Guide to Bologna; in which, however, his St. Antony, at the Carità, meets with praise. At Forli
is the altar-piece of St. Philip, by some
ascribed to him, and by others to Count Carlo, in his declining years; so
inferior is it to the best style of that artist. In collections his
paintings are not rare; though appearing, like a young boy in the presence
of his father. Of Count Paolo’s I only recollect a single altar-piece at
Savignano, representing St. Francis in the act
of appearing to St. Joseph da Copertino, and
putting [Pg
241]a demon to flight. The scene appears illuminated by torch-light,
and has a fine effect; and the figures, in regard to their studied and
finished manner, display the taste of his grandfather.

After the relatives of Carlo comes Emilio Taruffi, his fellow-pupil with
Albani, as well as his assistant, first at Bologna, in decorating the
public hall, and next at Rome, where he resided three years, sometimes
employed at S. Andrea della Valle, at others for private houses. No artist
then better conformed to Cignani’s style; and Taruffi could at least second
him in painting histories. But his genius lay more in minor compositions.
He was an excellent copyist of any ancient manner; a portrait painter of
great spirit, and, in landscape, one of the best pupils formed by Albani.
In these three branches he obtained his usual commissions, which he ever
discharged with credit. He also conducted some altar-pieces, and that of S.
Pier Celestino, at the church of that name, yields to few of the same
period.

Cignani’s most distinguished pupils and heads of new schools were
Franceschini and Crespi. The Cav. Marcantonio Franceschini left the school
of Gio. Batista Galli for that of Cignani, and became his most effective
assistant and intimate friend. This friendship was cemented by his union
with Cignani’s cousin, sister of Quaini, whom I shall shortly again
mention. Some productions of Franceschini might be taken for Cignani’s
himself; but these were among his earliest, before he had [Pg
242]formed his characteristic manner. He remained with his friend
many years, and possessing peculiar gracefulness of design, Cignani availed
himself of it to draw from life the individual portions of his
compositions, engaging him to consult various models, in order to select
the best forms from each. By this study of nature, in which he persevered,
and by copying from the designs and under the eye of his master, he
attained much of the taste, the nice selectness, and the grandeur of
Cignani. To these he added a certain grace of colouring, and a facility
which gave a novel character to his productions; besides an originality,
equal to any other artist, in the form of his heads, in his attitudes, and
in the costume of his figures. His freshness, his harmony, his just
equilibrium of full and retreating parts; in short, his whole style
presents a glowing spectacle never before seen. If we trace in his works,
especially on an extended scale, a degree of mannerism, it may almost be
excused: would that his disciples had restrained themselves within the same
limits! But easy roads to painting are like walking on a declivity, where
it is difficult to count one’s steps, or restrain one’s motions.
Franceschini seemed born to execute works on a large scale, fertile in
ideas, and with facility to dispose them in every point of view, and to
colour them at any distance. He was accustomed to compose his cartoons in
chiaroscuro, and, having fixed them in the intended spot, to judge of the
success of his proposed work; [Pg 243]a method it would be desirable to inculcate
and adopt more generally.

His large fresco paintings are numerous; the recess in the Ranuzzi
palace, the cupola and ceiling in the church of Corpus Domini, the tribune
of S. Bartolommeo at Bologna. Among those in other states we shall mention
only the corbels of the cupola, with three histories, in the cathedral of
Piacenza, and the grand ceiling of the Hall of Public Counsel at Genoa.
This painting, of which it is enough to state that Mengs devoted many hours
in examining it in detail, the noblest of Franceschini’s performances,
perished by fire, without a single engraving having been taken to
commemorate its grandeur of conception. The same fertility of ideas and
attraction of style are conspicuous in his grand histories, dispersed among
the first galleries of Europe, and in his no less copious altar-pieces.
Such is the S. Tommaso da Villanova, in the act of dispensing alms, placed
at the Agostiniani di Rimini; a picture truly imposing by its magnificent
workmanship, and which surprises by the beauty of its figures. What is
equally surprising, the Cavalier Franceschini, when nearly an octogenarian,
displayed pictorial powers equal to his best days; as we gather from his
Pietà, at the Agostiniani of Imola, and his BB. Fondatori, at the Serviti
in Bologna, which betray no traces of decline. This artist rejected the
most advantageous offers from courts, which all vied in soliciting his
services. Giordano even was not invited [Pg 244]to that of Madrid,
until the situation had been refused by Franceschini. He chose to reside in
Upper Italy, there assuming the same rank, as head of his school, with
almost the same success as Cortona in Lower Italy. Both schools adhered
much to the Caracci’s style, and in some measure rendered it more popular;
and hence, those who at Rome are not familiar with the features and
contrasts characteristic of Cortona’s sect, would easily confound them with
the more modern artists of Bologna.

Luigi Quaini, cousin to Carlo Cignani, and brother-in-law to
Franceschini, was one of the most animated characters of his time; equally
well versed in history, in architecture, and in poetry. The pupil, first of
Guercino, next of Cignani, he was employed by the last as an assistant, and
with such success, that, in painting, his hand could not be distinguished
from that of his master. In distributing their labours to Franceschini and
to Quaini, he ordered the former to paint the fleshes for the roundness and
softness he gave to them; while to the latter he committed certain gay and
spirited countenances, and a certain finishing of parts, in which, from his
peculiar talent, he admirably succeeded. Later in life, he united with
Franceschini, and leaving to him the inventive parts, he followed him in
the style of the figures; inferior, doubtless, to that of Cignani, in force
of chiaroscuro and colouring, but more attractive from its peculiar beauty
and felicity. He [Pg 245]would, afterwards, wholly ornament the
composition by himself, with flowers, armour, beautiful landscape, and
noble perspective; an art acquired from Francesco, his own father, a fine
pupil of Mitelli. In this way did these two artists continue to paint,
conjointly, at Bologna, at Modena, Piacenza, Genoa, and Rome; at which last
place they composed some cartoons for the cupola of St. Peter’s, which were afterwards executed in mosaic.
Quaini also painted many historical pictures of his own invention. They
decorate private houses; his only composition in public being his St. Nicholas visited in prison by our Lady, a
beautiful altar-piece, occupying the best place in the church of that
name.

Marcantonio’s school, from which he also derived those assistants who
followed Quaini, dates its commencement from his son, the Canon Jacopo
Franceschini. The Bolognese historians only represent him in the character
of an honorary academician; so that, by their account, I ought here to omit
him. The Cav. Ratti, however, informs us that Marcantonio, coming to Genoa
to adorn the church of S. Filippo, brought with him his son as his
assistant, together with Giacomo Boni. In the same city, too, I saw a large
history, in the hall of the Marchese Durazzo, as well as other pieces by
him, well worthy commendation. At Bologna, also, are several paintings in
public, all conducted in the style, and with the assistance of his
father.

[Pg
246]Boni was employed by Franceschini in many of his works, more
particularly in that at Rome. He had been pupil also to Cignani, along with
a few more, to be mentioned in the same school; under whose care he chiefly
had in view works of a more difficult cast. Such was the ceiling of S.
Maria della Costa, at S. Remo, and of S. Pier Celestino, at Bologna;
besides several paintings at Genoa, where he became established. Two of his
pictures, at the church of the Magdalen, met with great applause; namely, a
Preaching at Gethsemane, and a Pietà. He more particularly distinguished
himself in fresco; and in a chamber of his Excel. Pallavicini is an infant
Jove, in the act of receiving nutriment from a goat, executed in the most
elegant style. He was much employed in that capital, where, says Crespi,
“there is neither palace, nor church, nor monastery, nor house, in which
his works are not met with; all striking and commendable.” Nor did he
produce little at Brescia, at Parma, and at Remo; besides being honoured
with commissions from Prince Eugene of Savoy, and the King of Spain, for
whose chapel he forwarded an altar-piece. This artist sometimes betrays the
haste of a mere mechanist, not completing fully, or polishing his work;
besides colouring with a degree of lightness of hand which easily yields to
age. Yet he always retains a delicacy and a precision in his contours, with
a certain open spirit and joyousness which delight the eye.

Antonio Rossi never conducted works on so [Pg 247]large a scale as
Boni, but he surpassed him in diligence; which induced his master, when
entrusting commissions to his pupils, to prefer him to any other. He
exercised himself in painting pictures for churches, and greatly added to
his reputation by his Martyrdom of S. Andrea, placed at S. Domenico. He was
much occupied, also, with architectural pictures and landscape, to which he
added small figures, so well adapted as to appear by the same hand. On this
account he was an artist much liked by the artificers of similar
representations, particularly by Orlandi and Brizzi. Girolamo Gatti was
less employed for churches than Rossi, but is distinguished for small
figure pieces, with one of which he decorated the hall of the Anziani. It
exhibited the coronation of Charles V. in S. Petronio, and shewed the
artist to be as good a figurist as a painter of perspective. Although
educated by Franceschini, as we learn from the new Guide, he
did not imitate his colouring: this he sought to attain from Cignani.
Giuseppe Pedretti long resided in Poland; and on his return to Bologna
executed a number of works in a good style. Giacinto Garofolini, a pupil
and kinsman of Marcantonio, displayed very middling ability when employed
alone; but in conjunction with his relative, and with Boni, he conducted
various works in fresco, from which he is entitled to what reputation he
obtained. To these Bolognese artists and academicians various foreigners
might be added, as one Gaetano Frattini, known at Ravenna [Pg 248]by
some altar-pieces at the Corpus
Domini, and a few others whom we have referred to different schools.
We shall now return to that of Cignani.

Giuseppe Maria Crespi, whom for his neatness of attire his fellow pupils
surnamed Lo Spagnuolo, was instructed first by Canuti, next by Cignani;
being early grounded in the best principles of taste. With unwearied
assiduity he copied the Caracci paintings at Bologna; and at his leisure
studied those of the first Venetians in that capital. He examined, too,
Coreggio’s at Modena and Parma, and long sojourned in Urbino and Pesaro to
consult the works of Baroccio. Some of these he copied, and sold at Bologna
for the originals. His object invariably was, to form a new manner out of
many others, which he accomplished; at some times Baroccio would be his
most admired model; at another, when he wished to employ more shade, he
chose Guercino; nor did he dislike Cortona in respect to taste of
composition. To the examples, too, of the dead, he added the observation of
the living; and was averse, if we may credit his son, to the labours of a
mere mechanist. He drew every thing from nature, and even had a camera
optica in his house, from which he copied the objects that offered
themselves to view, and remarked the various play and picturesque
reflections of the vivid light. His compositions, indeed, teem with these
novelties, and his shortenings also are as singular; so that he often
places a number of figures in a small space, while the conceptions [Pg
249]which he interweaves in his pictures, are more peculiarly
fanciful.

This turn for novelty at length led his fine genius astray; insomuch
that Mengs is brought to lament that the Bolognese School should approach
its close in the capricious Crespi, (vol. ii. p. 124). In his heroic
pieces, and even in scriptural subjects, he left room occasionally for
caricature. Wishing to exhibit novelty in his shadows and in his draperies
he fell into mannerism; and varying his first method of colouring similar
to the old painters, he adopted another more lucrative but less excellent.
It consists of few colours, selected chiefly for effect, and very common
and oily; gums applied by him to colouring, as other artists use them for a
veil, or varnish; few strokes, employed indeed with judgment, but too
superficial and without strength or body. Such was the method which we see
pursued in so many of his pictures; or to speak more correctly, which are
no longer to be seen, the tints having decayed or disappeared, so as to
require them to be newly copied by another hand. His son did not attempt to
conceal this fault, though he wished to excuse it. The reader may peruse
the defence in his Felsina Pittrice, p. 225; and should he feel convinced by it, with
similar benignity he may apologize for Piazzetta, who acquired his method
of colouring from Crespi; with others who more or less pursued the same
practice, at this period extinct.

As a specimen of his more solid style, the picture [Pg 250]of the BB.
Fondatori, at the church of the Servi, appears to much advantage; our
Lord’s Supper, also, in Casa Sampieri; a few pieces in the royal Pitti
palace, where he was long employed by the great Prince Ferdinando; besides
a few other of his first productions. In his other style are various
pictures conducted for the galleries of the Roman nobility; the SS. Paolo
and Antonio as eremites, for the Princes Albani; the Magdalen for the Chigi
palace; the Seven Sacraments for the Card. Ottoboni, of which I have seen
copies in the Albani palace at Urbino. The whole of these seven pictures
display certain bold coruscations and contrasts which dazzle the eye; all
shew novelty of idea; in particular that of the Spousals between a young
girl and an octogenarian, to the visible mirth of the spectators. Spagnuolo
lived to advanced age, honoured by the pope with the insignia of cavaliere,
esteemed among the first of his age, while his paintings everywhere
abounded. Different houses, both in and beyond Bologna, possess them in
great number; histories, fables, and familiar pieces. He received most part
of his commissions from the Signori Belloni, who decorated various chambers
with his historical pieces, remunerating him with one hundred crowns each,
though they contained but few figures, and all of an ell’s length.

Spagnuolo’s manner was not one that could be pursued by every pupil with
applause. Those artists who were unable to direct it with equal
imagination, [Pg
251]power of design, spirit and facility, produced very trifling
results. Even his own sons, D. Luigi the canon, and Antonio, who painted
for various churches, did not wholly follow their father’s style, but
appear invariably more studied. The canon wrote much upon the art, as the
lives of the Bolognese artists, or the third volume of the Felsina
Pittrice, edited in 1769; notices of the painters of Ferrara and
Romagna, still unpublished; various treatises; with numerous letters
inserted by Bottari in the pictoric collection. To few of his age is the
history of painting so much indebted, although in certain national subjects
he failed to satisfy the whole of his fellow citizens. The authors of the
new Guide of Bologna require from him more diligence in examining
documents; greater fidelity as a public instructor; more justice to the
real merit of Ercole Lelli. The four dialogues in defence of his
Felsina Pittrice, written by a friend, were published by
Bottari in the seventh volume of the work just cited, and are worth
perusal. In the same volume ((p. 143) we also meet
with a letter of Crespi, in which he confesses his different errors,
declaring that he would correct them in the fourth volume of his
Felsina, which he was then composing, and which I am uncertain
whether he ever completed. From these notices we gather, that,
notwithstanding his violent temper, he was not wanting in fidelity as an
historian, and in that readiness to retract his own errors, without which
none can pretend [Pg 252]to maintain the true literary or historical
character.

For the rest, he must have afforded occasion for those clamours against
his Felsina and other writings by some satirical strokes,
which are assuredly severe, accompanied by many personal reflections on his
contemporaries. Concerning that very respectable academy he relates some
observations of his deceased father, which had better have been consigned
to oblivion. He disapproves the methods introduced into his school, and
laments, that owing to the failure of good masters, Bologna was no longer
frequented as formerly by students. He detects, too, certain little
impositions introduced into the art; such for instance as displaying in the
studio a number of pictures prepared for colouring, to convey an idea of
possessing abundance of commissions; pronouncing in a breath a number of
anatomical terms on the bones and muscles, to inspire a high opinion of the
artist’s learning; publishing eulogiums on some particular painting in an
article of the day, which only the artist himself could have conceived, and
written, paid for, and believed to be true. Such, or similar details, which
must have sufficed to recognize particular individuals, doubtless provoked
many replies from persons not publicly known, as the author gave no
contemporary names, but deeply offended and provoked to retaliate upon
him.

Among the pupils of Crespi was Gionima, who [Pg 253]survived only, as I
have stated, to his thirty-fifth year. Nor did Cristoforo Terzi reach a
much more advanced age, the pupil also of different masters. From his
outset he boasted a decision of hand, able to sketch at few strokes very
spirited heads, which, however, by dint of excessive retouching, he
deprived of much of their expression. This defect he remedied under Crespi,
and improved himself by residing several years at Rome. Many collections at
Bologna possess some of his half-length figures and heads of old men, which
are mistaken by less experienced judges for those of Lana. In the list of
Crespi’s pupils, too, are Giacomo Pavia of Bologna, who flourished in
Spain; Gio. Morini d’Imola; Pier Guarienti, a Veronese, who flourished at
Venice, and was afterwards appointed director of the Dresden gallery; and
the same who wrote the additions to Orlandi’s dictionary. Francesco l’Ange
of Savoy, a pupil of Crespi, became a Philippine monk at Bologna. His chief
merit lay in small scriptural pictures, some of which I saw in Vercelli, in
possession of his Eminence Martiniana, bearing the author’s name, and quite
deserving, by their design and colouring, of a place in that
collection.

Besides Franceschini and Crespi, many others were educated by Cignani.
Their names have been given by Zannelli, who published their lives; a book
I have vainly endeavoured to obtain while engaged in writing the present
work. By Crespi [Pg 254]we have an account of some pupils whom he
instructed in perspective and landscape, as well as in flowers; this
skilful preceptor being accustomed to ascertain the young artists’ talents,
and confine them to the inferior, when not competent to the higher branches
of art, and even to direct them to other professions when unequal to these.
Such pupils as he retained, ought not, then, to be lightly contemned,
although little celebrated, either because they died young, were dispersed
abroad, or obscured by brighter names. Among such are Baldassare Bigatti,
Domenico Galeazzi, Pietro Minelli, known in history by a few altar-pieces.
Matteo Zamboni died young, leaving in some private houses a few specimens
of his works, as much in Cignani’s style as those of any artist. I am
uncertain what public works he conducted in Bologna; but he acquitted
himself well, for his age, in two histories at S. Niccolo in Rimini; the
one representing St. Benedict, the other S. Pier
Celestino. Antonio Castellani is included by Guarienti in the school of
Cignani, though I think by mistake, as he belongs to that of the Caracci.
Not so Giulio Benzi, also mentioned in the Guide of Bologna, and to be
distinguished from the Genoese of that name. I may observe the same of
Guido Signorini, recorded by Crespi, and not to be confounded with another
Guido Signorini, heir to Guido Reni. So far of the artists of Bologna.

[Pg
255]Federigo Bencovich was a foreigner of a Dalmatian family, and I
give his name as he himself wrote it.[51] In the
Dictionaries it is spelt Boncorich and Bendonich; and by Zannelli,
Benconich; so that foreigners may be well excused for often mistaking the
names of Italian painters. Federigo, commonly called in his own time,
Federighetto, acquired more of Cignani’s solidity than amenity of style;
correct in his design, strong in his execution, and well informed in the
best principles of his art. Some of his altar-pieces are at Milan, Bologna,
and Venice; though most of his productions adorn collections, even in
Germany, where he resided many years. In that of the Signori Vianelli of
Chioggia, mention is made of his S. Jacopo Sedente; and in another
collection, of Count Algarotti, at Venice, his landscape, with a village
girl, to which Piazzetta added another figure. Occasionally, his manner is
somewhat too much loaded with shadows, but by no means to be pronounced
contemptible, as asserted by Zanetti, (p. 450) in
opposition to the opinion of Guarienti.

Girolamo Donnini also resided out of his country; born at Coreggio, he
lived at Bologna; and [Pg 256]being inclined to that school, was first
treated of by Crespi, next by Tiraboschi. He had studied under Stringa at
Modena, and under Giangioseffo dal Sole at Bologna. Thence he went to
Forli, at the instigation of Cignani, not so much to become a machinist and
a painter in fresco, as in order to treat less difficult subjects in oil.
His chief merit lay in painting for private ornament, and Orlandi, then
living, bore testimony that his pictures were held in high request for the
decoration of houses. He excelled also on a larger scale; one of his
altar-pieces of S. Antonio, at the Filippini in Bologna, being conducted in
a very masterly style; as well as others, dispersed about Romagna, at
Turin, in his native place, and elsewhere, the manner of which, as is
remarked by Crespi, clearly displays the hand of Cignani’s disciple. A
favourite pupil of Donnini, and whom he assisted in a variety of
circumstances, was Francesco Boni, termed also il Gobbino[52] de’ Sinibaldi, from being in the service of those
lords. He was from Faenza, and left several good pictures in his native
place; among others, a S. Teresa, with S. Gio. della Croce, at the
Carmelitani; a Noli me
tangere, and the Meeting of S. Domenico and S. Francesco, in the
church which formerly belonged to the Domenicans. Pietro Donzelli, of
Mantua, placed an altar-piece in the cathedral of Pescia, in which he
represented S. Carlo administering [Pg 257]to the sick of the
plague, displaying the style of a pupil of Cignani; and this constitutes
all the information I could obtain respecting him.

The other foreign pupils of the Cav. Carlo, who diffused his manner
through the Italian schools, are commemorated in the places where they
flourished; as Lamberti, for instance, at Rome, and Parolini at Ferrara.
Here I shall add a brief sketch of the artists of Romagna, whom I unite to
those of Bologna. Antonio Santi was an Ariminese, whose school only is
mentioned by Crespi; but in the Guide of Rimini, where a few of his works
remain, he is extolled as one of its best pupils, though he died young. The
same Guide makes mention of some paintings in oil and fresco, particularly
in the church of the Angioli, attributed to Angiolo Sarzetti, pupil to
Cignani; from whom, also, he obtained a design for an altar-piece at S.
Colomba. Innocenzio Monti is included by Crespi among the Bolognese, and by
Orlandi among the painters of Imola, where he left some works. One, of the
Circumcision of our Lord, at the Gesù of Mirandola, executed in 1690, is
extolled in a little book of poems. He was more industrious than ingenious,
and more successful in Germany and in Poland than in Italy. Gioseffo Maria
Bartolini, also of Imola, is esteemed, in his native place, for a Miracle
of S. Biagio, and for other works at S. Domenico, and in other churches. He
was employed a good deal at Imola, where he opened school, and throughout
Romagna; an artist of [Pg 258]great facility, and partaking, in some
degree, of the manner of Pasinelli, his first master.

The artists of Forli, among whom Cignani lived during some years, are
not a few. Filippo Pasquali was colleague to Franceschini, whose grand
altar-piece at Rimini he surrounded with a very pleasing ornament. Some of
his earliest efforts are met with in Bologna, at the portico of the
Serviti; but not equal to the altar-piece in the church of S. Vittore at
Ravenna, which he painted at a more advanced age, and which does him great
credit. Andrea and Francesco Bondi, two brothers, are recorded by
Guarienti; though, in the Guides of Pesaro and Ravenna only one is alluded
to, whose name is not given; and what pieces I saw at Forli itself would
seem to have proceeded from one hand; such as the chapel of S. Antonio, at
the Carmelites, the Crucifixion at S. Filippo, besides others. He boasts
the fine execution of Cignani; but the forms and expressions are not
equally select. Among other artists of Forli, instructed by Cignani, was
the priest Sebastiano Savorelli, employed in some church paintings even in
the adjacent cities. To him we may add Mauro Malducci, and Francesco
Fiorentini, both priests, too, of Forli; of all of whom there is found some
account in the life of Cignani.

Under the Roman School we treated of Francesco Mancini, from S. Angelo
in Vado, who, along with Agostino Castellacci, from Pesaro, was instructed
by Cignani; both nearly contiguous [Pg 259]to Romagna, but of
unequal powers. Agostino is little known, even in his own state; but
Mancini was celebrated throughout Lower, as much as Franceschini in Upper
Italy; and he also educated several artists for the countries adjacent to
Romagna. Sebastian Ceccarini was Mancini’s pupil, born at Urbino, and often
mentioned in the Guide of Rome, where, in the time of Clement XII., he
painted the altar-piece for the Swiss chapel at the Quirinal. He is more
known, however, at Fano, where he was established, and long continued to
live, with a handsome salary from that city. There he appears an artist of
various styles, who would have shone little inferior to his master, had he
always adhered to his best manner. His S. Lucia, at the Agostiniani, and
different sacred histories, in the public palace at Fano, display many fine
imitations, strong chiaroscuro, and well-varied tints.

The Canon Gio. Andrea Lazzarini, from Pesaro, also acquired his
knowledge from Mancini. He was both a good poet and prose writer, and truly
well informed in sacred and profane literature. Few Italian writers can
compare with him in treating pictoric subjects. His “Account of the
Paintings in the Cathedral at Osimo,”[53] and
particularly, [Pg 260]his “Catalogue of the Pictures in the
Churches at Pesaro,” cited by us elsewhere, afford ample proofs of his
superiority, no less than those brief “Observations” on the best works
there met with, and that very full “Dissertation upon the Art of Painting,”
that has been often republished. It relates wholly to the branch of
“invention;” and he has other unedited works of equal merit, on
“Composition,” on “Design,” on “Colouring,” and on “Costume,” which were
read in the academy of Pesaro, as early as 1753. These embrace a true
course of painting, an art which he taught gratuitously in his native
place.[54] Count Algarotti, in drawing up his Essay on
Painting, both read and profited by them, as I heard, at least, from
Lazzarini; and as the Count, indeed, candidly himself confessed, in a
letter which he forwarded to him with the work. He also evinced his high
regard for his pictoric talents, by giving him a commission for two
paintings to adorn his select gallery, which were afterwards inserted in
the catalogue. The subjects consist of Cincinnatus called to the
Dictatorship, and Archimedes absorbed in his scientific studies, during the
storming [Pg
261]of Syracuse. These two histories are well executed, inasmuch as
Lazzarini was perfectly master of good painting, as well as good writing;
easy, yet always studied in every part; at once noble and graceful, with
depth of learning to throw an air of antiquity round his productions, but,
at the same time, free from all affectation and parade. His first colouring
was of a strong character, as appears from a Pietà, at the hospital of
Pesaro, conducted, I believe, after having studied the Venetian and the
Lombard Schools, in the course of a pictoric tour. Subsequently, he imbibed
a certain sweetness, which I may call more like Maratta’s, in which his
rivals discover a want of vigour. Though he enjoyed long life, he did not
leave many works, as he applied himself with assiduity to his clerical
duties. Frequently he had occasion to paint for private families, and
succeeded admirably in his Madonnas; one of which, seen weeping, in the
Varani collection at Ferrara, is among his most studied pieces. His native
place possesses three altar-pieces at the Magdalen, three at S. Caterina,
others in different churches, and in general upon a small scale. But his
genius is more clearly apparent in some larger pictures, which are to be
seen in the cathedrals of Osimo and of Foligno; at S. Agostino, of Ancona;
and the two at S. Domenico, in Fano. One of these contains various saints
of the order, placed around the Virgin, whose portraits, positions, and
action, exhibit singular variety and grace. The other represents [Pg 262]S.
Vincenzio, seen in the act of healing the sick, before the people assembled
by sound of bell; nor is it easy, in this immense throng, to find any one
figure resembling another, or superfluous, or less happy in expressing what
it ought. But the work in which he appears, as I have been informed, to
surpass himself, adorns the chapel of the Counts Fantuzzi, in Gualdo, a
diocese of Rimini. He had spent several years at Rome, at the house of
Monsig. Gaetano, afterwards Cardinal Fantuzzi; for whom he made that fine
collection of pictures, from each school, which afterwards went to his
heirs, one of whom, Count Marco, is well known to the public by his
“Monuments of Ravenna,” edited and illustrated in several volumes, with
much research and erudition; and to whose courtesy I owe much of my
information respecting Lazzarini. In this collection are several of the
canon’s paintings, of various kinds; landscape, a branch in which he
appears to perfection; instruments and books of music, porcelain, and
fruits that deceive the eye; and, in particular, two pictures, on imperial
canvass, one exhibiting the Baptism of Christ; the other, the Flight out of
Egypt; where, in the Egyptian plants and monuments we seem to recognize
that ancient land itself. Still the altar-piece at Gualdo shews a greater
degree of originality, as he here displayed his utmost care in imitating
Raffaello, whom he had accurately studied, so as to derive from his forms
and composition all that could go to adorn a picture of [Pg 263]the Virgin and Holy
Child, seen between St. Catherine the martyr,
and the B. Marco Fantuzzi, a Franciscan, who will, perhaps, obtain the
honours of a solemn canonization. The place is decorated with architecture,
the pavement variegated with marbles of different colours. The Holy Child,
placed with the Divine Mother, upon a pedestal, is seen putting a crown on
St. Catherine’s head; while the Mother holds
another in her hand, in order that the B. Marco may be crowned by her in
his turn. Two angels form the train, one of whom points to the wheel, a
symbol used by the saint, and indeed touches with his finger a sharp point,
the better to give an idea of the sufferings of her martyrdom. The other is
an Angel of the Apocalypse, with book and sword; a figure well suited to
the last judgment, whose terrors the B. Marco inculcated in his sermons.
There are two other beautiful cherubs, which add to the interest; one
standing near St. Catherine, holds a roll of
Egyptian papyrus, with some Coptic characters, in which were described the
acts of her passion; while his companion points the attention of the
spectator to a maxim continually repeated by the B. Marco, “Nolite diligere
mundum,” inscribed upon marble. How widely different, in point of
invention, appears an artist versed in literature, and one with no taste
for letters! This, however, is not the whole merit of such a painting: the
saint and one of the angels are truly Raffaellesque figures; the Beato in
extasy, brings to mind the B. Michelina [Pg 264]of Baroccio; the
other figures are all exceedingly well studied, and seem intended to
display the artist’s refined gratitude towards his patrons.

The best professors that Romagna could boast at this period have already
been recounted in different Bolognese Schools; for which reason, without
treating them separately, I shall proceed to the painters of landscape.
Among these, excelling as well in drawing as in figuring, Orlandi gives us
the name of Maria Elena Panzacchi, instructed in the art by Taruffi; but
her landscapes are now little known, even in Bologna; and Crespi has
indicated not more than two. Those of Paolo Alboni, her contemporary, are
recognized in Naples and Rome itself, and in Germany, where he passed many
years. Those which are seen in the Pepoli palace, at the March. Fabri’s,
and in other noble galleries, might be mistaken, according to Crespi, for
the productions of Holland or Flanders, on whose models he was almost
incessantly employed. Angiol Monticelli formed a style under Franceschini
and the younger Viani, which the same biographer highly extols. No artist,
at this period, better knew how to dispose his colours; none tinged his
leaves, his earths, his buildings, and his figures, with more nature and
variety. But he was cut short in mid-career: he became blind when his
talents were in their perfection.

Nunzio Ferraiuoli, called also Degli Afflitti, was born at Nocera de’
Pagani, not a Bolognese. From the studio of Giordano, he went to that of [Pg
265]Giuseppe dal Sole, in Bologna, in which city he was established.
He incessantly employed himself in taking rural views, both in oil and
fresco, and succeeded to admiration, equal, says P. Orlandi, to Claude and
Poussin; an opinion to be attributed to the friendship subsisting between
them. He had a mixed style, half foreign and half Albanesque, if we except
his colouring, which is not so natural. Cavazzone provided him with two
pupils, who, urged by their own genius, assisted by Ferraiuoli, became
tolerably good landscape painters; namely, Carlo Lodi and Bernardo Minozzi.
The first was an excellent disciple of his master; the second formed a
manner peculiar to himself. Besides his ability in frescos, he was
distinguished for his landscape in water-colours, which he illuminated on
pasteboard, and it met with much admiration both at home and abroad.
Gaetano Cittadini, nephew to Pier Francesco, excelled in the same manner,
his rural views displaying singular taste, fine effect of the lights, and
spirited figures. I have met with them throughout Romagna, as well as in
Bologna. In Romagna, however, Marco Sanmartino, a Neapolitan, or Venetian,
is more generally met with; and, in particular, at Rimini, where he some
time fixed his residence. His pieces are ornamented with beautiful little
figures, in which he excelled. He also attempted more extensive works, such
as the Baptism of Constantine, in the cathedral of Rimini, and the Saint
preaching in the Desert,[TN11] in the college of S.
Vincenzio, at Venice; [Pg 266]though there, too, he is distinguished by
his landscape, which formed, indeed, his profession. In the Guide of
Rimini, he is named Sammartino, as well as by Zanetti and Guarienti. This
last declares that he remained at Venice most part of his life; and, in the
next article, gives the name of one Marco Sanmarchi, a Venetian, both a
landscape and a figure painter, on a small scale, much extolled by
Malvasia, and flourishing about the time of Sammartino. On the authority of
Melchiori, who names him Sammartino, or Sanmarchi, I believe that these two
landscape-painters of Guarienti resolve themselves into one; and that the
mistake arose from the resemblance of the two names, by which one and the
same person was popularly known; as we have had occasion to observe in
other instances. Moreover, what could be the reason that this Sanmarchi, a
Venetian, is not known in Venice itself, but only in Bologna, where it does
not appear that he ever had a permanent abode?

The elder Cittadini, who excelled in flowers, and fruits, and animals,
is commended in the preceding epoch. In the present, we shall make mention
of his three sons, Carlo, Gio. Bastista, and Angiol Michele, who, however
able in figures, at least the two first, are known to have assisted their
father, and imitated him in the subjects most familiar to him; hence they
were termed by Albano, syndic to the Bolognese professors,[55] the fruiterers and florists. From Carlo sprung Gaetano,
the landscape [Pg 267]painter, and Gio. Girolamo, who down to our
own days, though without attempting figures, excelled in painting different
animals, fruits, and vases of flowers. But this family was successfully
rivalled by Domenico Bettini, a Florentine professor in the same line; who,
after remaining a long time at Modena, where we have mentioned him, came to
establish himself at Bologna, towards the end of the sixteenth century. He
had learnt design under Vignali, and next continued to improve himself in
the school of Nuzzi, at Rome. He was among the first, says Orlandi, who
dismissing those obscure and dismal grounds, painted more clear and openly;
adding attractions to such paintings, by the invention of situations, and
by the introduction of perspective: he was frequently invited to different
Italian cities, to decorate halls and cabinets. But the favourite artist in
this kind, of his day, was Candido Vitali, who, taught by Cignani, always
attentive to the peculiarities of his pupils, made rapid progress in these
attractive branches of the art. The freshness which appears in his flowers
and fruits, the beauty of his quadrupeds and birds, are farther recommended
by a taste of composition, and a delicacy of hand, which are prized both in
Italy and abroad. Baimondo Manzini, a miniaturist rather than a painter,
painted less in oil; but with such a degree of nature, that his animals,
exhibited in cartoons, and placed by him in a certain light, have deceived
even painters themselves; for which he has been extolled by Zanotti as a
modern [Pg
268]Zeuxis. An assemblage of his fishes, birds, and flowers, is to
be seen in the fine gallery of the Casa Ercolani.

At the same period the art was indebted to the judgment of Cignani for a
good painter of battle-pieces in Antonio Calza, a Veronese, mentioned in
the third volume; where it is observed that, being subsequently assisted by
Borgognone, he became master of that branch of art at Bologna. Contemporary
with him was another pupil of Cortese, who resided during several years in
the same city, named Cornelio Verhuik, of Rotterdam. Besides his
battle-pieces in his master’s manner, displaying strong and vivid
colouring, he painted in the Flemish style markets, fairs, and landscape,
which he enlivened with small figures, like those of Callot. From Cignani
also the Bolognese School received an excellent portrait painter in Sante
Vandi, more commonly called Santino da’ Ritratti. Few of his age were
qualified to compete with him in point of talent, grace, and correctness in
the characteristic features, particularly when drawn in small proportions,
such as were calculated even to decorate boxes and rings. For these he had
constant commissions, both from private persons and from princes, most of
all from the Grand Duke Ferdinando of Tuscany, and Ferdinando, Duke of
Mantua, who gave him a salary at his court, until his return to Bologna on
the duke’s death. But he remained there only a short time, being still
invited to different cities, so that he educated no [Pg 269]pupils for his
native place, and died abroad. With him, observes Crespi, “disappeared the
manner of producing portraits at once so soft and powerful, combined with
such natural expression.”

Above every other branch of inferior painting, however, the ornamental
and perspective then flourished at Bologna. This art, as we have stated,
after the solid foundations on which it had been placed by Dentone and
Mitelli, aimed too much at a pleasing and beautiful, without consulting a
natural effect. But the school did not all at once deteriorate, being some
time maintained by imitators of some of the most correct models. In this
number Zanotti extols Jacopo Mannini, a most accurate artist, who decorated
a chapel at Colorno for the Duke of Parma, in which the Cav. Draghi was
employed as figurist, whose genius was at once as eager and rapid as
Mannini’s was slow. Much like two steeds of opposite temper yoked to the
same vehicle, their sole occupation seemed that of biting and kicking each
other; and it became necessary to separate them, the slow one being sent
back to his native Bologna, where owing to this blemish he never met with
any encouragement. Arrigo Haffner, a lieutenant, with Antonio his brother,
who died a Philippine friar in Genoa, were also followers of Mitelli in
delicacy and harmony of colour. They had been much employed at Rome under
Canuti, their master in figures, and the former was chosen by Franceschini
to paint the perspectives in the church of Corpus Domini. They produced
also a good deal [Pg 270]at Genoa and its state, sometimes with one,
sometimes with another of the more eminent figurists. Antonio acquired most
reputation, superior perhaps in all but invention to his brother,
particularly in the sweet union of his tints, as well as in the estimation
of distinguished personages. He was called by the Grand Duke Gio. Gastone
to Florence, to consult him respecting the altar of pietre dure, intended for the chapel of the
Depositi at S. Lorenzo.

A still higher station in this profession was attained by Marcantonio
Chiarini, an excellent architect as well as writer in that department. He
had frequent invitations from Italian princes and lords, and even from
Germany, where he painted along with Lanzani in the palace of Prince Eugene
of Savoy. Many of his pictures, conducted in perspective for noble
Bolognese families, still remain, and are held as models of a sound and
true taste, imitating the ancient colouring and design, without giving
admission to certain marbles, which appear like gems, but please only the
inexperienced. From Chiarini’s manner was derived that of Pietro
Paltronieri, universally known under the name of the Mirandolese
dalle prospettive. He was the Viviano of this latter age, and his
architectural pieces on the ancient model are met with, not only in
Bologna, where he resided, but in Rome, where he long continued, and in a
number of other cities. They consist of arches, fountains, aqueducts,
temples, ruins, tinged with a certain reddish colour, which serves to
distinguish them [Pg 271]among many others. To these he adds skies,
fields, and waters, which appear real; nor do they want appropriate
figures, introduced by Graziani and other select young artists at Bologna.
We must not confound Mirandolese with Perracini, also known in Bologna by
the name of Mirandolese, who flourished at the same period, but with no
sort of reputation beyond that of a tolerable figurist.

The school of Cignani increased that of the perspective painters. It
first presented them with Tommaso Aldrovandini, nephew to Mauro; both of
whom accompanied Cignani’s figures in the public palace of Forli. Tommaso
was employed with Cignani himself at Bologna and Parma. Conforming himself,
under the eye of this celebrated master, to his best style, he so far
succeeded, that the whole appears the work of Carlo alone, more especially
in the chiaroscuro. His ornamental portion, too, is there conducted so that
neither the precise extent of the light, nor of the shade, is apparent, but
only an effect resulting from them, as we see it in nature. He executed the
architectural ornaments in the grand hall of Genoa, painted, as we have
said, by Franceschini; and he left other works in that capital. It was his
invariable custom to modify his style, alternately soft or strong, in the
manner of the figurist. He instructed in the art Pompeo, son of Mauro, and
his cousin, who, after having displayed some specimens at Turin, Vienna,
Dresden, and in many other foreign cities, resided, and died at Rome, with
the reputation [Pg 272]of a very elegant artist. From the school of
Pompeo sprung two ornamental painters, Gioseffo Orsoni, and Stefano
Orlandi, who, in conjunction, painted some able frescos in various Italian
cities, besides many theatrical pieces for the same places.

Whatever splendor of ornament may have been conferred upon the theatre
by the Aldrovandini family, so greatly devoted to it; that of the Galli, in
the present age, sprung from Gio. Maria, pupil to Albani, surnamed, from
his country, Bibiena, has acquired still greater celebrity. By the same
surname were distinguished Ferdinando and Francesco, his sons, with their
posterity; nor has any pictoric family, either in this or any other age,
advanced higher claims to public notice. There was hardly any court that
invited not some of the Bibieni into its service; nor was any sphere more
eligible for that family than the great courts, whose sovereign dignity was
equalled by the elevation of their ideas, which only princely power could
carry into execution. The festivals which they directed on the occasion of
victories, of nuptials, or of royal entrances, were the most sumptuous that
Europe ever witnessed. The genius of Ferdinando, formed for architecture,
and for this reason wholly directed to it by Cignani, attained such
excellence, that he was enabled to teach it, in a volume which he printed
at Parma. He afterwards corrected some parts of it, in two little volumes
published at Bologna; the one upon civil architecture, the other on the
theory of perspective. Indeed, [Pg 273]his genius and works gave new form and
character to the theatres. He was the real inventor of those magnificent
scenes which we now witness, and of that rapid mechanic motion with which
they are seen to move and change. He spent great part of his life in the
Duke of Parma’s service; a good deal at Milan, and at Vienna, in the court
of Charles VI.; always more esteemed as an architect than as a painter. But
here, too, he shone, not only in colouring scenes, and similar productions
for public festivals; but in perspectives for palaces and temples, more
particularly for the state of Parma. Francesco, less learned, but an
equally prompt and elevated designer, pursued the same line, and extended
it in different cities, being invited to Genoa, Naples, Mantua, Verona, and
Rome, at which last he remained three years. He entered the service of the
Emperors Leopold and Joseph, who changed his resolution of proceeding to
England, and subsequently to Spain, where Philip V. had already declared
him his architect. In different collections the perspective pieces of the
two brothers appear; and they are occasionally enlivened with figures by
the hand of Francesco, who acquired his knowledge from Pasinelli and
Cignani, instances of which I have seen in different collections at
Bologna.

Ferdinando had a numerous family, of whose members we shall mention
Alessandro, Antonio, and Giuseppe; not because equal to their predecessors,
but as being versed in the practice of [Pg 274]their manner, both
in oil and fresco; and on this account eagerly sought after by the
different courts of Europe. The first entered into the service of the
Elector Palatine, in which he terminated his days. The second was much
employed at Vienna and in Hungary. On returning into Italy, too, he still
removed from place to place, being retained by all the first cities in
Tuscany; and still more in Lombardy, until the period of his death, which
occurred at Milan. He was an artist more admired for his facility of genius
than for his correctness. Giuseppe, who, on his father’s departure from
Vienna on account of illness, was substituted architect and painter of
court festivals in his twentieth year, afterwards left that city for
Dresden, where he enjoyed the same office, and, after the lapse of many
years, also at Berlin. He was invariably patronised by princes, who gave
him regular salaries; and by other members of the empire, who engaged him,
at the moment, to adorn their festivals and theatres. His son Carlo pursued
the same career, being pensioned first by the Margrave of Bareith, and
afterwards by the King of Prussia, as successor to his father; but he
acquired greater reputation in foreign countries. For, Germany becoming
involved in war, he took occasion to make the tour of France, proceeding
through Flanders and Holland, and visiting Rome on his return into Italy.
Last of all he made a voyage into England, and at the court of London
rejected very [Pg 275]advantageous offers to take up his residence
in that city. Many of the decorations invented by Giuseppe and Carlo, on
occasion of public festivals, have been engraved from their designs, in the
production of which they were equally rapid, masterly, and refined.

Where the Bibieni had failed in introducing their novel inventions for
grand spectacles, their disciples finally succeeded. In this list,
according to the history of Zanotti and of Crespi, the most eminent rank is
held by Domenico Francia, once the assistant of Ferdinando at Vienna,
afterwards architect and painter to the King of Sweden. After his term with
that court had elapsed, he visited Portugal, and again proceeded to Italy
and Germany, till his arrival in his native place, where he died. To him we
may add the name of Vittorio Bigari, mentioned in high terms by Zanotti, an
artist employed by different sovereigns of Europe, and the father of three
sons, who pursued the same career. He also displayed singular merit in his
figures. Nor must we omit Serafino Brizzi, who obtained equal reputation
for his perspectives in oil interspersed both throughout foreign and native
cities. It would form, however, an undertaking no way adapted to a
compendious history, to collect the names of all the professors of so
extended an art; and the more so as, in the course of the present age, it
was becoming the general opinion that in many respects such art [Pg 276]was
greatly on the decline, owing to the prevalence of only middling and
inferior artificers.

Not many years ago, however, it seemed to revive, and a new epoch opened
upon the public, the praise of which is due to Mauro Tesi, to whom his
friends raised a marble monument in S. Petronio, with a bust and the
following inscription: “Mauro Tesi elegantiæ veteris in pingendo ornatu et
architectura restitutori.” He belonged to the state of Modena, and, when
young, was put to the school of a very poor painter of arms in Bologna.
Thus it was his lot, writes Algarotti, to have had not a single master of
architecture among the moderns. By means of a peculiar natural genius, and
studying the designs of Mitelli and Colonna, examining at the same time
their models throughout the city, he re-conducted the art to a style, solid
in architecture, sparing in decoration, as it had formerly been, and in
some parts still more philosophical and learned. His patron, the excellent
Count Algarotti, assisted in perfecting his taste, and made him his
companion on his tours, encouraging him to make very excellent observations
on the works of the ancients. Whoever has perused his life and
publications, a fine edition of which appeared at Venice, edited by the
learned Aglietti, will have perceived that he was as much attached to Tesi
as if he had been his own son. Nor did Tesi shew less respect to Algarotti
than to a father; and when the latter went to Pisa for his [Pg
277]health, his young friend devoted himself so assiduously to him,
as to contract the same disease, of which he died two years afterwards,
still very young, at Bologna. Here he left various works, the most
conspicuous consisting of a gallery belonging to the deceased Marquis
Zambeccari, with marbles, camei, and figures, very well executed; a picture
displaying grand relief combined with the most finished exactness. In
Tuscany also are some remains of his taste, at S. Spirito in Pistoia, and
in the hall of the Marquis Gerini at Florence. I saw, too, in possession of
the count’s heirs at Venice, two pictures, conceived by Algarotti and
painted by Mauro. One of these, which he has described (vol. vi. p. 92) represents a temple of Serapis, decorated in the
Egyptian manner, with bassi-relievi and pyramids in the distance; fit to
adorn the choicest cabinet. It is enriched with figures by Zuccherelli, in
the same way as Tiepolo added them to Tesi’s other pieces. There are
engravings of some of Mauro’s works in possession of the same nobles, as
well as his whole studio of designs, landscapes, views of architecture,
capitals, friezes, figures; a rich and copious assemblage of materials,
almost superfluous in so short but bright a career. After Mauro, no greater
proofs of esteem in this art were shewn by Algarotti to any one than to
Gaspero Pesci, to whom he directed a number of his letters; of him too
Algarotti’s heirs possess two pictures, consisting of [Pg 278]ancient
architecture, with slight sketches of figures, scarcely indicated.

But at length we approach a conclusion. The Bolognese academy still
continues to flourish in pristine vigour; the aids afforded to the pupils
have even been extended; and, in addition to the academical prizes, there
are dispensed others, which the noble families Marsili and Aldrovandi
established at stated meetings, and which still go by their name. I cannot,
however, as in other schools, record very splendid remunerations to the
masters. But this forms the more rare and distinguished honour of the
Bolognese artists—to labour for distinction, and to confer their
preceptorial services in the arts and sciences upon their country, not only
without reward, but even to their own loss, a subject fully treated of by
Crespi (pp. 4, 5) in his Felsina. Notwithstanding these
disadvantages they have continued to maintain, during two centuries, the
character of masters in the art. From the time the Caracci first spoke,
almost every other school listened and was silent. Their disciples
followed, divided into a variety of sects; and these continued, for a long
period, to hold sway in Italy. The reputation of the figurists being
somewhat on the decline, a substitute sprang up in the decorative and
perspective painters, who established laws, and produced examples, still
eagerly imitated both in Italy and other parts. Neither the Bibieni, the
Tesi, nor the others whom [Pg 279]I have mentioned towards the close, are so
exclusively entitled to historical consideration, but that the Gandolfi[56] family, with several others, [Pg 280]which have either
recently become extinct, or still flourish, may claim a share. Doubtless
these will not be in want of deserved eulogy from other pens, that will
successively follow mine.

[49]
Literally, the little baker.

[50]
See Lett. Pittor. tom. iv. p. 136.

[51]
In his two letters, directed to Rosalba Carriera. See Catalogue of the
deceased Canon Vianelli’s Collection, (p. 34).
This artist also published a Diary, in 1720 and 1721, written
at Paris by the same lady; in which she notices her own works, her
remuneration, and honours. It is accompanied by learned notes. I have
recently received notice of the work, which causes me to mention it in this
school.

[52]
Gobbino, the little hunch-back.

[53]
These paintings, executed in the abside of the cathedral, with the
assistance of his pupils, constitute his most celebrated frescos. In this
“Account” there is a Discourse, well worth notice, on Ancient Marbles of
different Colours, which he introduced in those paintings, and the method
he adopted in uniting them. Such a treatise, not to be found in any other
writer, renders this little volume valuable; which shews, too, that he
likewise excelled in architecture.

[54]
These Treatises were published at Pesaro in 1806; and, although, as the
industrious editor well observes, they were drawn up from unfinished
sketches, they still gratify us, no less by their extensive information,
than by the ingenuity which they display.

[55]
Malvasia, vol. ii. p.
265.

[56]
Previous to the present edition, Gaetano Gandolfi breathed his last;
Ubaldo, his elder brother, having already preceded him to the tomb, at the
time he was preparing to decorate the cupola of S. Vitale in Ravenna.
Ubaldo had been pupil to Torelli, to Graziani, and in particular under
Lelli had exercised his talents in drawing successfully from the naked
model, and to such a foundation added dignity of style. Of this, several
works in painting conducted with extreme care, as well as some in clay and
stucco, at Bologna, and other places in Romagna, are the proof. But to
judge more particularly of his merits, we ought to examine his academical
designs. In his ideas he was common, and not very natural in his colouring,
and generally considered on this account inferior to his brother Gaetano,
who was esteemed in Italy one of the most able artists of his day. Bologna,
always grateful to its eminent citizens, expressed at his decease the
degree of esteem in which he was held while living. His obsequies, of which
a separate account was published in folio, equal what we read in Malvasia
respecting those of Agostino Caracci; and the oration there recited in his
praise by Sig. Grilli, deserves insertion in any of the most select works
written on the art. There too, Gandolfi, very judiciously, is not held up
as a model in painting; a forbearance which he himself displayed, even
refusing to receive pupils, and observing that he was himself in want of
instruction. Yet from the influence of his great reputation he was
frequently imitated, and, as it happened, with most success in his worst
qualities, more particularly in his tints. In this respect he had been ill
grounded by his elder brother; but improved himself by studying for the
space of a year at the fountain head of colourists, in Venice, and by
copying for a Venetian dilettante the finest pieces of the Caracci at
Bologna. It is difficult to account for his fine colouring in some
paintings, equal at least to the good artists of his time, and his inferior
colouring in others, as that of the Death of Socrates, at Monsig. Trenta’s,
bishop of Foligno. It is feeble and deficient in truth, owing either to
caprice or to age. In his preparations of paintings he was more
commendable: his first conceptions were sketched on slate with pencil, and
more carefully on paper. He next began to select; modelled the figures in
chalk, and draped them; afterwards forming the design on a large scale, and
by aid of his experiments, and of the living model, he went on completing
and retouching his work. He has been accused of borrowing a little too
freely from ancient models; but whoever had seen him, aged as he was,
devoting himself in the public academy to the practice of modelling, will
not unjustly confound him with those plagiarists, so notorious in our own
day. Moreover, he may be pronounced inimitable to most artists, in those
rare gifts, which nature had lavished upon him: enthusiasm, fertility of
invention, sensibility, and skill in depicting the passions; to which he
added a correct eye, and ability both to design and compose, in the
decoration of friezes for the institute, exotic plants and other rarities
of nature, as well as to engrave with much elegance, and skill to paint in
oil as well as in fresco. A really impartial biographer must pass his
opinion on every man, and let his verdict result from an examination of his
masterpieces. Such belonging to Gandolfi are his Assumption, in the ceiling
at S. M. della Vita, and the Nuptials of Cana, at the refectory of S.
Salvatore in Bologna; not to insist on the Martyrdom of S. Pantaleone, at
the church of the Girolimini in Naples, with some other works scattered
through various parts of Italy.

[Pg 281]

BOOK IV.

SCHOOL OF FERRARA.

EPOCH I.

The Ancients.

Ferrara, once the capital of a small principality under the
dukes of Este, but, since the year 1597, reduced into a legation, dependant
upon the see of Rome, lays claim to a series of excellent artists, greatly
superior to its power and population. This, however, will appear less
extraordinary, if we call to mind the number of its illustrious poets,
commencing even before the time of Boiardo and Ariosto, and continued down
to our own days; a sure indication of national genius, equally fervid,
elegant, and inventive, adapted, more than common, to the cultivation of
the agreeable arts. Added to this felicity of disposition was the good
taste prevalent in the city, which, in its distribution of public labours,
or its approbation of their results, was directed by learned and
enlightened men, of whom it could boast in every department. Thus the
artists have in general observed appropriate costume, kept their attention
on history, and composed in such a manner that a classical eye,
particularly in their paintings [Pg 282]in the ducal palaces, recognizes the image
of that antiquity of which it has previously obtained a knowledge from
books. The conveniences of its site, also, have been favourable to the
progress of painting at Ferrara; which, situated near Venice, Parma, and
Bologna, not far from Florence, and at no very great distance from Rome
itself, has afforded facility to its students for selecting from the
Italian schools what was most conformable to the peculiar genius of each.
Hence the origin of so many beautiful manners as adorn this school; some
imitating only one classic master, others composed of various styles; so
that Giampietro Zanotti was in doubt whether, after the five leading
schools of Italy, that of Ferrara did not surpass every other. It is not my
purpose to decide the question, nor could it be done without giving offence
to one or other of the parties. I shall here only attempt a brief history
of this school upon the same plan as the rest; and I shall include a few
artists of Romagna, agreeably to my promise in the preceding book, or, to
speak more correctly, in its introduction.

The most valuable information which I have to insert will be extracted
from a precious MS. communicated to me by the Ab. Morelli, the
distinguished ornament of his age and country, no less than of the learned
office he fills.[57] This MS. contains the lives of
Ferrarese professors of the fine arts, written by Doctor Girolamo
Baruffaldi, first a canon of Ferrara, next archpriest of Cento. To [Pg
283]these is prefixed a laboured preface by Pierfrancesco Zanotti,
with copious emendations and notes by the Canon Crespi. Such a work, drawn
up by this polished writer, and thus approved, continued, and illustrated
by two men of the profession, was long a desideratum in Italy; nor do I
know why it never made its appearance. A specimen, indeed, was given by
Bottari, at the end of his Life of Alfonso Lombardi, in the course of which
he inserted the life of Galasso, and of a few other artists of Ferrara.
Moreover, in the fourth volume of the “Lettere Pittoriche,” he published a
letter of the deceased Can. Antenore Scalabrini, relating to Baruffaldi’s[TN12] MS., which underwent this noble
ecclesiastic’s corrections, communicated by him to Crespi, who inserted
them in his annotations. Baruffaldi, also, having commenced the lives of
the artists of Cento, and of Lower Romagna, a work left unfinished, Crespi
supplied all it wanted; and it has been mentioned by us in the school of
Guercino, and among some artists who flourished at Ravenna and other cities
of Romagna. Cittadella, author of the “Catalogue of Ferrarese Painters and
Sculptors,” (edited in 1782, in 4 vols.) declares that he drew his chief
information from Baruffaldi, (vol. iii. p. 140). He complains, however, in the preface,
that a more correct work being either destroyed or lost, (alluding probably
to this work with Crespi’s notes), “he has not been in possession of such
undoubted authorities as might be desired;” a very candid admission, fully
entitled to [Pg
284]credit. But this work having come into my possession, through
the courtesy of my learned friend, I shall avail myself of it for public
information. On such authority I shall freely ground this part of my
history, adding notices drawn from other sources, and not unfrequently from
the Guide of Ferrara, published by the learned Frizzi, in 1787; a work that
may be included among the best yet given to Italy. So much we state by way
of exordium.

The Ferrarese School took its twin origin, so to say, with that of
Venice, if we may credit a monumental testimony, cited by Dr. Ferrante
Borsetti, in his work called “Historia almi Ferrariensis Gymnasii,”
published in 1735. This memorial was extracted from an ancient codex of
Virgil, written in 1193; which, according to Baruffaldi, passed from the
library of the Carmelites at Ferrara, into the possession of the Counts
Alvarotti at Padua, whose books, in course of time, were added to the
library of the Paduan seminary. At the end of this codex is read the name
of Gio. Alighieri, the miniaturist of this volume; and in the last page
there had afterwards been added, in the ancient vulgar tongue, the
following memorial:—that in 1242, Azzo d’Este, first lord of Ferrara,
committed to one Gelasio di Niccolo, a painting of the Fall of Phaeton; and
from him too Filippo, bishop of Ferrara, ordered an image of our Lady, and
an ensign of St. George, which was used in going
to meet Tiepolo, when he was despatched by the Venetian republic as
ambassador to Ferrara. Gelasio is there [Pg 285]stated to belong to
the district of St. George, and to have been
pupil in Venice to Teofane of Constantinople, which induced Zanetti to
place this Greek at the head of the masters of his school. On the authority
of so many learned men, to whom such memorial appeared genuine, I am led to
give it credit; although it contains some marks that, at first sight,
appear suspicious. I have further made inquiries after it in the Paduan
seminary, but it is not to be found there.

Approaching the fourteenth century, I find mention, that whilst Giotto
was returning from Verona into Tuscany, “he was compelled to stop at
Ferrara, and paint in the service of these lords of Este, at their palace;
also some pieces at S. Agostino, which are still there;” that is, in
Vasari’s time, from whom these words are cited. I am uncertain whether any
yet exist; but they afford sufficient authority to believe that the
Ferrarese School, directed by such models, revived in an equal degree with
the other schools of Italy. There are no accounts of the artists who
flourished nearest to Giotto, from which we may judge how far they were
influenced by his manner. His successors, however, must have been one
Rambaldo and one Laudadio, who, about 1380, are recorded, in the annals of
Marano, to have painted in the church of the Servi. This is now demolished,
nor does there exist any account of the style of these painters. As early
as 1380 appeared paintings in fresco in the monastery of S. Antonio, by an
unknown [Pg
286]hand, and also retouched, but of whose style I find no
indication. In the Bolognese School I treated of one Cristoforo, who
painted about the same time, at the church of Mezzaratta;[TN13] but as it is a disputed question whether he belonged
to Ferrara or to Modena, nothing certain can be concluded as to his manner.
Thus the history of letters affords us some degree of light, up to the
opening of the fifteenth century; but the history of existing monuments
only dates from Galasso Galassi, an undoubted Ferrarese, who flourished
subsequent to the year 1400, when even in Florence the Giottesque style had
begun to decline in favour of more recent artists.

The master of this artist is unknown; nor can I easily suppose, with
some, that he was educated at Bologna. I found my objection upon an
observation made upon Galasso’s pictures, mentioned by us in the church of
Mezzaratta at Bologna, and obvious to all. They consist of histories of the
Passion, signed by the author’s name; and, if I mistake not, they are
wholly opposed to the style of all other pieces in the same place. The
character of the heads is well studied for that period, the beards and hair
more in disorder than in any other old painter I have seen; the hands
small, and fingers widely detached from each other; and, in the whole,
something peculiar and novel, apparently not derived from the Bolognese,
from the Venetians, nor from the Florentines. I conjecture, then, that he
acquired this style of design when young, [Pg 287]and introduced it
from his native place; the more so, as this production appearing in 1404,
according to Baruffaldi, must have formed one of his earliest specimens at
Bologna. He afterwards remained there many years, though I cannot think the
date 1462, said to be attached to one of his histories, genuine; and, if
there, it must have been added subsequently; but other proofs are not
wanting of his permanent residence. For he there took the portrait of
Niccolo Aretino, the sculptor, who died in 1417, as we are assured by
Vasari; and on other authority, he produced some altar-pieces, one of which
yet exists at S. Maria delle Rondini. It represents the Virgin sitting
among various saints, and boasts, says Crespi, a depth of colouring,
combined with architecture, countenances, and drapery not ill designed. He
has also a Nunziata, in the Malvezzi museum, a picture displaying ancient
design, but well finished and of soft colouring. His best piece was a
history in fresco, representing the Obsequies of the Virgin, conducted by
order of the Card. Bessarion, Bolognese legate, at S. Maria del Monte, in
1450; a work much admired by Crespi, in whose time it was destroyed. From
similar facts, added to the commendations bestowed on Galasso by Leandro
Alberti, I conclude that he must have obtained much reputation in the above
city. He died in his native place, in what precise year is uncertain.
Vasari treats of him at length in his first edition, but in the second [Pg 288]he
is dismissed with a few lines. Hence the Ferrarese also have directed
against him the same complaints as the other schools.

In the time of Galasso flourished Antonio da Ferrara, a disciple of the
Florentines. Vasari bestows on him a short eulogy, among the pupils of
Angiolo Gaddi; observing that he “produced many fine works at S. Francesco
d’Urbino, and at Città di Castello.” Treating too of Timoteo della Vite,
born at Urbino, the son of Calliope, daughter of Mastro Antonio Alberto da
Ferrara, he adds, that this last artist was “a very fair painter for his
age, such as his works at Urbino and elsewhere declare him.” Nothing
undoubted now remains of him; if, indeed, a picture on gold ground in the
sacristy at S. Bartolommeo, representing the Acts of the holy Apostle, with
others of the Baptist, in small figures, is not from his hand. The work
doubtless belongs to that age; bearing much resemblance to Angiolo, with
colours even more soft and warm. In Ferrara he left nothing that now
survives; the chambers which he painted for Alberto d’Este, marquis of
Ferrara, in his palace, afterwards changed into a public studio, being
destroyed. This work was conducted about 1438, when the general council for
the reunion of the Greeks was opened at Ferrara, in the presence of Pope
Eugenius IV., and John Paleologus, the emperor. The Marquis ordered Antonio
to represent this grand assembly on different walls, with the likenesses of
[Pg
289]full size of the principal personages then present. In other
apartments he exhibited the Glory of the Blessed, which conferred on that
place the name it still bears, of the Palace of Paradise. From a few relics
of this work it may with certainty be deduced, that this artist displayed
greater beauty in his heads, more softness of colouring, more variety in
the attitude of his figures, than Galasso. Orlandi calls him Antonio da
Ferrara, adding, that he flourished about the year 1500; a term of life too
protracted for us to venture here to confirm.

Towards the middle of the fifteenth century appeared Bartolommeo
Vaccarini, whose paintings, signed with the artist’s name, Baruffaldi
declares that he himself had seen. There was also Oliviero da S. Giovanni,
a fresco painter, whose Madonnas were then by no means rare in the city. To
these we may add Ettore Bonacossa, painter of that holy image of our Lady
called del Duomo, which not long ago was solemnly crowned, at the foot of
which is read the name of Ettore, and the year 1448. Still they were only
artists of mediocrity; but others attained greater celebrity, having
modernized their style in some degree, after the example, as I incline to
think, of two foreigners. One of these was Pier della Francesca, invited to
Ferrara to paint in the palace of Schivanoia by Niccolo d’Este, as it is
conjectured in a note to Baruffaldi. Surprised by sickness, he was unable
to complete the work, but he painted there a few apartments, which yet
remain as a model for [Pg 290]young artists. The other was Squarcione, who
also, in the days of Niccolo d’Este and his son Borso, opened a school in
Padua; whose manner had followers without number throughout Italy, and must
have influenced the Ferrarese artists; distant, perhaps, two days’ journey
from Padua.

Possessing such means appeared Cosimo Tura, whom Vasari and other
historians term Cosmè, and give him as pupil to Galasso. He was
court-painter in the time of Borso d’Este and Tito Strozzi, who left a
poetic eulogy upon him. His style is dry and humble, as was customary in
that age, still far removed from true dignity and softness. The figures are
treated in the style of Mantegna, the muscles clearly expressed, the
architecture drawn with care, the bassi-relievi highly ornamented, and
laboured in the most minute and exact taste. This is remarkable in his
miniatures, which are pointed out to foreigners in the choral books of the
cathedral and the Certosa, as extreme rarities. Nor does he vary in his oil
paintings; as in his Presepio, in the sacristy of the cathedral; the Acts
of S. Eustace, in the monastery of S. Guglielmo; various Saints surrounding
the Virgin, in the church of S. Giovanni. In his larger figures he is not
so much commended; though Baruffaldi speaks highly of his works in fresco,
in the forementioned palace of Schivanoia. The design was distributed into
twelve compartments, in a grand hall; and it might well be entitled a small
poetic series, representing the exploits [Pg 291]of Borso. In each
picture was included a month in the year, which was scientifically
indicated with astronomical symbols and classical deities, adapted to each;
an idea very probably borrowed from the saloon at Padua. In each month,
too, was introduced the prince in his usual employment at such season; in
the judgment-hall, in the chase, at spectacles, with great variety of
circumstances, and full of poetry in the execution.

There was also an artist of considerable merit named Stefano da Ferrara,
pupil to Squarcione, and recorded by Vasari, in the life of Mantegna, as a
painter of few pieces, among which were the Miracles of S. Antonio painted
round the ark. Though Vasari describes his works only as tolerable, it must
be observed that he was considerably above mediocrity, at least in the
smaller figures; since Michele Savonarola (de Laud. Patavii, 1. i.) says of
the specimens before mentioned, that they seemed to move, while the dignity
and importance of the place in which he painted conveys a high idea of his
reputation. This work is lost; but there remains in the same temple a
half-figure of the Virgin, which Vasari attributes to Stefano; and in the
church of the Madonnina at Ferrara is one of his altar-pieces of S. Rocco,
in a good manner. Baruffaldi supposes that he flourished till about 1500,
when he found mention of the death of one Stefano Falsagalloni, a painter;
an age very likely to be correct, when speaking of a contemporary of
Mantegna. [Pg
292]On the other side, there is cited an altar-piece at S. Maria in
Vado, executed in 1531, but which might possibly come from the hand of
another Stefano.

However it be respecting this epoch, certain it is, that towards the
beginning of the sixteenth century Ferrara was in no want of celebrated
artists; since Vasari, as we have observed in the Bolognese School, affirms
that Gio. Bentivoglio caused his palace to be decorated “by various
Ferrarese masters,” besides those of Modena and of Bologna. Among these he
included Francia, on whom, about 1490, he confers the name of “a new
painter.” In the list of artists of Ferrara I included Lorenzo Costa; and
from the circumstance of Francia being then a “new painter,” and other
reasons, I drew an argument against the received opinion that Costa was the
pupil of Francia; which, therefore, I shall not here repeat. I must not,
however, omit other information respecting him, as connected with Ferrara,
where he resided before coming into notice at Bologna. At court, as well as
for private individuals, he there conducted pictures and portraits, with
other works “held in much esteem;” and at the Padri di S. Domenico he
painted the whole choir, now long since destroyed; where “we recognise the
care which he used in the art, and how much study he bestowed upon his
works.” These, I believe, and other pieces conducted at Ravenna, acquired
him reputation at Bologna, and disposed the Bentivogli to avail themselves
of his talents.

[Pg
293]It remains to discover on which of the Ferrarese artists who
attended him, such commission was conferred. Cosmè and Stefano were then
living; but it is known that more closely connected than these with the
Bentivogli, was Cossa of Ferrara, a painter almost forgotten in his native
place, from having resided so long at Bologna. Some of his pieces are still
there, consisting of Madonnas, seated between saints and angels, with
tolerably good architecture. One of these, bearing his name, and date of
1474, is now in the Institute, vulgar in point of features and but middling
in colouring. This, however, is not his best specimen, there being two
portraits of the Bentivogli, (one at the church of the Baracano, the other
in the Merchants’ palace,) from which I should conjecture that he is one of
those artists of whom we are in search. Nor, at this time, is there any
other Ferrarese artist whom I can add to him, besides Baldassare Estense,
some of whose pictures, signed by himself, are cited by Baruffaldi; and in
museums are some of his medals, two, more particularly, in honour of Ercole
d’Este, Duke of Ferrara, very ably executed in the year 1472.

On the subject of first rate artists I am often constrained to introduce
notices in different places; in particular, when they were employed in some
cities, and in others became heads of schools. Such was Costa in respect to
Ferrara. He formed pupils for other schools; as one Gio. Borghese, from
Messina, and a Nicoluccio Calabrese, who, apprehending [Pg 294]that he was
caricatured in one of Costa’s productions, fiercely assaulted, and almost
despatched him with his dagger. I pass over others ascribed to him by
Orlandi, Bottari, and Baruffaldi; in which they are mistaken, as I remarked
in the School of Bologna, when treating of Francia. The Ferrarese
constitute his real honour; Costa being here what Bellini was at Venice,
and Francia at Bologna, the founder of a great school, and a public
teacher. Some of his pupils competed with the best artists of the
fourteenth century; and part approached the splendor of the golden age. We
shall review the whole series, which, commencing at this period, and
continuing to the following epoch, gives him a claim to a primary station
among the masters of Italy. All his disciples became excellent designers
and noble colourists, transmitting both these qualities to their
successors. Their tints exhibit a peculiar kind of strength, or, as a great
connoisseur used to express it, of fire and ardour, which often serves to
characterize them in collections; a quality not so much derived from Costa
as from some other masters.

Ercole Grandi, called by Vasari, in his life, Ercole da Ferrara, became
an abler designer than his master Costa, and is greatly preferred to him by
the historian. Such too I believe to have been the public opinion from the
period when Grandi was employed with Costa at Bologna, in preference to
whom he was invited to different places to paint alone. But his affection
for his master, and his [Pg 295]own modesty, led him to reject every
advantageous offer; so that when Costa went to Mantua, he would have
followed, had he been permitted so to do. Lorenzo, however, could no longer
brook a disciple who already surpassed him; owing to which, and the
necessity of completing the painting he had begun in the Garganelli chapel
at St. Peter’s, he left Grandi in his stead at
Bologna. Ercole there produced a work which Albano pronounced equal to
Mantegna, to Pietro Perugino, or any artist who professed the modern
antique style; nor perhaps did any boast a touch altogether so soft,
harmonious, and refined. He painted to advance the art, and spared neither
time nor expense to attain his object, employing seven years on his fresco
histories at St. Peter’s; and five more in
retouching them when dry. This was only at occasional intervals, employing
himself at the same period in other works, sometimes at, and sometimes out
of Bologna. He would even have continued to render his work more perfect,
had it not been for the jealousy of some artists in the city, who nightly
robbed him of his designs and cartoons, which so greatly incensed him that
he abandoned his labours, and Bologna itself. Such is the account of
Baruffaldi, and it agrees with the invidious character of certain artists
of that period, drawn by Vasari, who in this respect also drew down upon
himself the indignation of Malvasia.

In the chapel of Garganelli Ercole painted, on one side, the Death of
the Virgin, and on the [Pg 296]other the Crucifixion of Christ; nor did he
produce in such a variety any one head like another. He also added a
novelty in his draperies, a knowledge of foreshortening, an expression of
passionate grief, “such,” says Vasari, “as can scarcely be conceived.” The
soldiers “are finely executed, with the most natural and appropriate action
that any figures up to that time had displayed.” Many years ago, when this
chapel was taken down, as much as possible of Ercole’s painting was
preserved, and placed in the wall of the Tanara palace, where it may still
be seen. It is indeed his masterpiece, and one of the most excellent that
appeared in Italy during his times, in which the artist seemed to have
revived the example of Isocrates, who devoted so many years to the polish
of his celebrated panegyric. There is little else of his remaining at
Bologna; but at S. Paolo in Ferrara is a genuine altar-piece, and nothing
more in public. Some other of his works are preserved in the church of
Porto in Ravenna, and some pictures in the public palace at Cesena. He has
some specimens in foreign galleries; two of his pictures are at Dresden, a
few others at Rome and Florence; though frequently his name has been
usurped by that of another painter, Ercole not having enjoyed the celebrity
which he deserved. Thus his picture of the Woman taken in Adultery, used to
be pointed out in the Pitti palace for a work of Mantegna. For the rest,
his paintings are extremely rare, as he did not survive beyond his fortieth
[Pg
297]year, during which period he painted with the caution of a
modest scholar, more than with the freedom of a master.

Lodovico Mazzolini is not to be confounded with the Mazzolino mentioned
by Lomazzo in his “Idea of the Temple or Theatre of Painting;” thus
entitling Francesco Mazzuola, as if in sport. Mazzolini of Ferrara was
transformed by Vasari into Malini, by a Florentine writer into Marzolini,
and by others divided into two, so as to become a duplicate, and answer for
two painters—one Malini, another Mazzolini; both of Ferrara, and
pupils to the same Costa. To crown his misfortunes, he was not sufficiently
known to Baruffaldi himself, who described him as “no despicable scholar of
Costa,” having probably seen only some of his more feeble efforts. He did
not excel in large figures, but possessed very rare merit in those on a
smaller scale. At S. Francesco in Bologna is one of his altar-pieces, the
Child Jesus disputing in the Temple; to which is added a small history of
his birth. It was admired by Baldassare da Siena; and Lamo, in his MS.
often before cited, describes it as an excellent production; but this piece
was retouched by Cesi. Other little pictures, and among these the
duplicates of his histories already recorded, are to be seen at Rome in the
Aldobrandini gallery, presented, perhaps, as a legacy by the Cardinal
Alessandro, who in Mazzolini’s time was legate at Ferrara. Other pieces are
at the Campidoglio, formerly belonging [Pg 298]to Card. Pio, as I
gather from a note of Mons. Bottari. From such specimens, in considerable
number and genuine, we may form an idea of Mazzolini’s manner, which
Baruffaldi laments should continue to be one nearly unknown to the
dilettanti. It displays an incredible degree of finish; sometimes appearing
in his smallest pictures like miniature; while not only the figures, but
the landscape, the architecture, and the bassi-relievi, are most carefully
executed. There is a spirit and clearness in his heads, to which few of his
contemporaries could attain; though they are wholly taken from life, and
not remarkably select; in particular those of his old men, which in the
wrinkles and the nose sometimes border on caricature. The colour is of a
deep tone, in the style before mentioned; not so soft as that of Ercole;
with the addition of some gilding even in the drapery, but sparingly
applied. In some collections his name has been confounded with that of
Gaudenzio Ferrari, perhaps derived by mistake from Lodovico da Ferrara.
Thus, in the royal gallery at Florence, a little picture of the Virgin and
Holy Child, to whom S. Anna is seen presenting fruits, with figures of S.
Giovacchino and another saint, has been attributed to Ferrari. But it is
the work of Mazzolini, if I do not deceive myself, after the comparison
made with others examined at Rome.

From the resemblance of his style to Costa, and even superior in the
heads, it is conjectured that Michele Coltellini sprung from the same
school. [Pg
299]Some specimens of his works are recorded in the church and
convent of the PP. Agostiniani of Lombardy, two of which yet remain in
existence; one an altar-piece at the church, in the usual composition of
the fourteenth century, and in the refectory a S. Monica with four female
saints belonging to that order. The date inscribed, together with his name,
on an altar-piece, informs us that he was still living in the year 1517. It
is uncertain in what school Domenico Panetti received his education; but I
know that his works, during several years, appear only feeble efforts. His
former pupil, Garofolo, however, returning subsequently from Rome, after
acquiring the new style under Raffaello, he received his old master,
Panetti, as a pupil, and so greatly improved him as to render his latter
works worthy of competition with the best masters of the fourteenth
century. Such is his St. Andrew, at the
Agostiniani, just before recorded, in which he displays not only accuracy,
but, what is far more rare for his times, a dignified and majestic manner.
The artist’s name, which is affixed, with several other works conducted in
the same taste (one of which is now seen in Dresden) bear evidence of a
change in pictoric character without example. Gio. Bellini and Pietro
Perugino, indeed, improved themselves upon the models of their disciples,
but they had previously attained the rank of eminent masters, which cannot
be averred of Panetti. Vasari relates that Garofolo was pupil to Domenico
Lanero, in Ferrara; an [Pg 300]error resembling that of Orlandi, who terms
him Lanetti, and all these are the same individual Domenico Panetti. He
flourished some years during the sixteenth century, in the same manner as
the two Codi, and the three Cotignoli, who though belonging to lower
Romagna, having flourished abroad, have been included in the school of
Bologna, or in its adjacent places. A few others, known only by their
names, such as Alessandro Carpi, or Cesare Testa, may be sought for in the
work of Cittadella.