Il P. della Valle, in p. 56 of the above mentioned volume, observes, that Matteo, in the year 1462, when he painted with his father in Pienza, was young, and that in the portrait which he painted of himself in 1491, he does not appear aged. He could not therefore have painted in Naples in 1418. After this we may believe it very possible, that in this date an L has been inadvertently omitted, and that the true reading is M.CCCC.LXVIII. Thus the above writer conjectures, and with so much the more probability, as he advances proofs, both from the form of the letters and the absence of the artist from his native place. Whoever desires similar examples, may turn to page 141 of vol. i., and he will find that such errors have occurred more than once in the date of books.

Guided by this circ.u.mstance we may correct what Dominici has a.s.serted of Matteo da Siena having influenced the style of Solario. It may be true that there is a resemblance in the air of the heads, and the general style, but such similarity can only be accounted for by Matteo deriving it from Solario, or both, as often happens, deriving it from the same master.

Antonello, of the family of the Antonj, universally known under the name of Antonello da Messina, is a name so ill.u.s.trious in the history of art, that it is not sufficient to have mentioned him in the first book and to refer to him here again, as he will claim a further notice in the Venetian School, and we must endeavour too to overcome some perplexing difficulties, to ascertain with correctness the time at which he flourished, and attempt to settle the dispute, whether he were the first who painted in oil in Italy, or whether that art was practised before his time. Vasari relates, that when young, after having spent many years in Rome in the study of design,[101] and many more at Palermo, painting there with the reputation of a good artist, he repaired first to Messina, and from thence pa.s.sed to Naples, where he chanced to see a large composition painted in oil by Gio. da Bruggia, which had been presented by some Florentine merchants to King Alfonso. Antonello, smitten with this new art, took his departure to Flanders, and there, by his affability, and by a present of some drawings of the Italian School, so far ingratiated himself with Giovanni, as to induce him to communicate to him the secret, and the aged painter dying soon afterwards, thus left him instructed in the new art. This must have happened about the year 1440, since that time is required to support the supposition that Giovanni, born about 1370, died at an advanced age, as the old writers a.s.sert, or exactly in 1441, as is a.s.serted by the author of the _Galleria Imperiale_. Antonello then left Flanders, and first resided for some months in his native place; from thence he went to Venice, where he communicated the secret to Domenico Veneziano; and having painted there a considerable time, died there at the age of forty-nine. All this we find in Vasari, and it agrees with what he relates in the life of Domenico Veneziano, that this artist, after having learnt the new method from Antonello in Venice, painted in Loreto with Piero della Francesca, some few years before that artist lost his eyesight, which happened in 1458. Thus the arrival of Antonello in Venice must have occurred about the year 1450, or some previous year; but this conclusion is contrary to Venetian evidence. The remaining traces of Antonello, or the dates attached to his works there, commence in 1474, and terminate according to Ridolfi in 1490. There does not appear any reason whatever, why he should not have attached dates to his pictures, until after residing twenty-four years in Venice. Besides, how can it be maintained, that Antonello, after pa.s.sing many years in Rome as a student, and many in Palermo as a master, and some years in Messina and Flanders, should not in Venice, in the forty-ninth year after the death of Giovanni, have pa.s.sed the forty-ninth year of his age. Hackert quotes the opinion of Gallo, who in the _Annali di Messina_, dates the birth of Antonello in 1447, and his death at forty-nine years of age, that is, in 1496. But if this were so, how could he have known Gio. da Bruggia? Yet if such fact be denied, we must contradict a tradition which has been generally credited. I should be more inclined to believe that there is a mistake in his age, and that he died at a more advanced period of life. Nor on this supposition do we wrong Vasari; others having remarked what we shall also on a proper opportunity confirm; that as far as regards Venetian artists, Vasari errs almost in every page from the want of accurate information. I further believe that respecting the residence of Antonello in Venice, he wrote with inaccuracy. That he was there about the year 1450, and communicated his secret to Domenico, is a fact, which after so many processes made in Florence on the murder of Domenico, and so much discussion respecting him, must have been well ascertained, not depending on the report contained in the memoirs of the painters by Grillandajo, or any other contemporary, in whose writings Vasari might search for information. But admitting this, I am of opinion, that Antonello did not reside constantly in Venice from the year 1450 until his death, as Vasari insinuates. It appears that he travelled afterwards in several countries, resided for a long time in Milan, and acquired there a great celebrity; and that he repaired afresh to Venice, and enjoyed there for some years a public salary. This we gather from Maurolico, quoted by Hackert: _Ob mirum hic ingenium Venetiis aliquot annos publice conductus vixit: Mediolani quoque fuit percelebris_, (_Hist. Sican. pl. 186, prim. edit._), and if he was not a contemporary writer, still he was not very far removed from Antonello.

This is the hypothesis I propose in order to reconcile the many contradictory accounts which we find on this subject in Vasari, Ridolfi, and Zanetti; and when we come to the Venetian School, I shall not forget to adduce further proofs in support of it. Others may perhaps succeed better than I have done in this task, and with that hope I shall console myself: as in my researches I have no other object than truth, I shall be equally satisfied whether I discover it myself, or it be communicated to me by others.

That therefore Antonello was the first who exhibited a perfect method of practising painting in oil in Italy, is an a.s.sertion that, it seems to me, may be with justice maintained, or at least it cannot be said that there is proof to the contrary. And yet in the history of the art in the Two Sicilies, this honour is strongly disputed. In that history we find the description of a chapel in the Duomo of Messina, called Madonna della Lettera, where it is said there exists a very old Greek picture of the Virgin, an object of adoration, which was said to be in oil. If this were even admitted, it could not detract from the merit of Antonello in having restored a beautiful art that had fallen into desuetude; but in these Greek pictures, the wax had often the appearance of oil, as we observed in vol. i. p. 89. Marco da Siena, in the fragment of a discourse which Dominici has preserved, a.s.serts, that the Neapolitan painters of 1300 continued to improve in the two manners of painting in fresco and in oil. When I peruse again what I have written in vol. i. p.

90, where some attempt at colouring in oil anterior to Antonello is admitted, I may be permitted not to rely on the word of Pino alone.

There exist in Naples many pictures of 1300, and I cannot imagine, why in a controversy like this, they are neither examined nor alluded to, and why the question is rested solely on a work or two of Colantonio.

Some national writers, and not long since, Signorelli, in his _Coltura delle due Sicili_ (tom. iii. p. 171), have pretended, that Colantonio del Fiore was certainly the first to paint in oil, and adduce in proof the very picture of S. Jerome, before mentioned, and another in S. Maria Nuova. Il Sig. Piacenza after inspecting them, says, that he was not able to decide whether these pictures were really in oil or not. Zanetti (P. V. p. 20) also remarks, that it is extremely difficult to pa.s.s a decided judgment on works of this kind, and I have made the same observation with respect to Van Eyck, which will I hope, convince every reader who will be at the trouble to refer to vol. i. p. 87. And unless that had been the case, how happened it that all Europe was filled with the name of Van Eyck in the course of a few years; that every painter ran to him; that his works were coveted by princes, and that they who could not obtain them, procured the works of his scholars, and others the works of Ausse, Ugo d'Anversa, and Antonello; and of Ruggieri especially, of whose great fame in Italy we shall in another place adduce the doc.u.ments.[102] On the other hand, who, beyond Naples and its territory, had at that time heard of Colantonio? Who ever sought with such eagerness the works of Solario? And if this last was the scholar and son-in-law of a master who painted so well in oil, how happened it that he was neither distinguished in the art, nor even acquired it? Why did he himself and his scholars work in distemper? Why did the Sicilians, as we have seen, pa.s.s over to Venice, where Antonello resided, to instruct themselves, and not confine themselves to Naples?

Why did the whole school of Venice, the emporium of Europe, and capable of contradicting any false report, attest, on the death of Antonello, that he was the first that painted in oil in Italy, and no one opposed to him either Solario or Colantonio?[103] They either could not at that time have been acquainted with this discovery, or did not know it to an extent that can contradict Vasari, and the prevailing opinions respecting Antonello. Dominici has advanced more on this point than any other person, a.s.serting that this art was discovered in Naples, and was carried from thence to Flanders by Van Eyck himself, to which supposition, after the observations already made, I deem it superfluous to reply.[104]

We shall now return to the scholars of Solario, who were very numerous.

Amongst them was a Niccola di Vito, who may be called the Buffalmacco of this school, for his singular humour and his eccentric invention, though in other respects he was an inferior artist, and little deserving commemoration. Simone Papa did not paint any large composition in which he might be compared to his master; he confined himself to altarpieces, with few figures grouped in a pleasing style, and finished with exquisite care; so that he sometimes equalled Zingaro, as in a S.

Michele, painted for S. Maria Nuova. Of the same cla.s.s seems to have been Angiolillo di Roccadirame, who in the church of S. Bridget, painted that saint contemplating in a vision the birth of Christ; a picture which even with the experienced, might pa.s.s for the work of his master.

More celebrated and more deserving of notice, are Pietro and Polito (Ippolito) del Donzello, sons-in-law of Angiolo Franco, and relatives of the celebrated architect Giuliano da Maiano, by whom they were instructed in that art. Vasari mentions them as the first painters of the Neapolitan school, but does not give any account of their master, or of what school they were natives, and he writes in a way that might lead the reader to believe that they were Tuscans. He says that Giuliano, having finished the palace of Poggio Reale for King Robert, the monarch engaged the two brothers to decorate it, and that first Giuliano dying, and the king afterwards, Polito _returned_ to Florence.[105] Bottari observes, that he did not find the two Donzelli mentioned by Orlandi, nor by any one else; a clear proof that he did not himself consider them natives of Naples, and on that account he did not look for them in Bernardo Dominici, who has written at length upon them, complaining of the negligence or inadvertent error of Vasari.

The pictures of the two brothers were painted, according to Vasari, about the year 1447. But as he informs us that Polito did not leave Naples until the death of Alfonso, this epoch should be extended to 1463, or beyond; as he remained for a year longer, or thereabouts, under the reign of Ferdinand, the son and successor of Alfonso. He painted for that monarch some large compositions in the refectory of S. Maria Nuova, partly alone and partly in conjunction with his brother, and both brothers combined in decorating for the king a part of the palace of Poggio Reale. We may here with propriety also mention, that they painted in one of the rooms the conspiracy against Ferdinand, which being seen by Jacopo Sannazzaro, gave occasion to his writing a sonnet, the 41st in the second part of his _Rime_. Their style resembles that of their master, except that their colouring is softer. They distinguished themselves also in their architectural ornaments, and in the painting of friezes and trophies, and subjects in chiaroscuro, in the manner of ba.s.sirilievi, an art which I am not aware that any one practised before them. The younger brother leaving Naples and dying soon afterwards, Pietro remained employed in that city, where he and his scholars acquired a great reputation by their paintings in oil and fresco. The portraits of Pietro had all the force of nature, and it is not long since, that on the destruction of some of his pictures on a wall in the palace of the Dukes of Matalona, some heads were removed with the greatest care, and preserved for their excellence.

We may now notice Silvestro de' Buoni, who was placed by his father in the school of Zingaro, and on his death attached himself to the Donzelli. His father was an indifferent painter, of the name of Buono, and from that has arisen the mistake of some persons, who have ascribed to the son some works of the father in an old style, and unworthy the reputation of Silvestro. This artist, in the opinion of the Cav.

Ma.s.simo, had a finer colouring and a superior general effect to the Donzelli; and in the force of his chiaroscuro, and in the delicacy of his contours, far surpa.s.sed all the painters of his country who had lived to that time. Dominici refers to many of his pictures in the various churches of Naples. One of the most celebrated is that of S.

Giovanni a Mare, in which he included three saints, all of the same name, S. John the Baptist, the Evangelist, and S. Chrysostom.

Silvestro is said to have had a disciple in Tesauro, whose Christian name has not been correctly handed down to us; but he is generally called Bernardo. He is supposed to have been of a painter's family, and descended from that Filippo who is commemorated as the second of this school, and father or uncle of Raimo, whom we shall soon notice. This Bernardo, or whatever his name may have been, made nearer approaches to the modern style than any of the preceding artists; more judicious in his invention, more natural in his figures and drapery; select, expressive, harmonized, and displaying a knowledge in gradation and relief, beyond what could be expected in a painter who is not known to have been acquainted with any other schools, or seen any pictures beyond those of his own country. Luca Giordano, at a time when he was considered the Coryphaeus of painting, was struck with astonishment at the painting of a Soffitto by Tesauro at S. Giovanni de' Pappacodi, and did not hesitate to declare that there were parts in it, which in an age so fruitful in fine works, no one could have surpa.s.sed. It represents the Seven Sacraments. The minute description which the historian gives of it, shews us what sobriety and judgment there were in his composition; and the portraits of Alfonso II. and Ippolita Sforza, whose espousals he represented in the Sacrament of Marriage, afford us some light for fixing the date of this picture. Raimo Tesauro was very much employed in works in fresco. Some pictures by him are also mentioned in S. Maria Nuova, and in Monte Vergine; pictures, says the Cav. Ma.s.simo, "very studied and perfect, according to the latest schools succeeding our Zingaro."

To the same schools Gio. Antonio d'Amato owed his first instructions; but it is said, that when he saw the pictures which Pietro Perugino had painted for the Duomo of Naples, he became ambitious of emulating the style of that master. By diligence, in which he was second to none, he approached, as one may say, the confines of modern art; and died at an advanced period of the sixteenth century. He is highly extolled for his Dispute of the Sacrament, painted for the Metropolitan church, and for two other pictures placed in the Borgo di Chiaia, the one at the Carmine, the other at S. Leonardo. And here we may close our account of the early painters, scanty indeed, but still copious for a city hara.s.sed by incessant hostilities.[106]

[Footnote 98: In the Museo of the Sig. D. Franc. Daniele, are some birds, not inferior to the doves of Furietti.]

[Footnote 99: I adopt this mode because "little has. .h.i.therto been published on the Sicilian School," as the Sig. Hackert observes in his _Memorie de' Pittori Messinesi_. I had not seen that book when I published the former edition of the present work, and I was then desirous that the memoirs of the Sicilian painters should be collected together and given to the public. I rejoice that we have had memoirs presented to us of those of Messina, and that we shall also have those of the Syracusans and others, as the worthy professor gives us reason to hope in the preface to the _Memorie_ before mentioned, which were written by an anonymous writer, and published by Sig. Hackert with his own remarks.]

[Footnote 100: The history of the art in Messina enumerates a series of pictures from the year 1267, of which period is the S. Placido of the cathedral, painted by an Antonio d'Antonio. It is supposed that this is a family of painters, which had the surname of Antonj, and that many pictures in S. Francesco, S. Anna, and elsewhere, are by different Antonj, until we come to Salvatore di Antonio, father of the celebrated Antonello di Messina, and himself a master; and there remains by him a S. Francis in the act of receiving the Stigmata, in the church of his name. Thus the genealogy of this Antonello is carried to the before mentioned Antonio di Antonio, and still further by a writer called _il Minacciato_ (Hack. p. 11), although Antonio never, to my knowledge, subscribed himself degli Antonj, having always on his pictures, which I have seen, inscribed his country, instead of his surname, as _Messinensis_, _Messineus_, _Messinae_.]

[Footnote 101: The _Memorie de' Pittori Messinesi_ a.s.sert, that at Rome he was attracted by the fame of the works of Masaccio, and that he there also designed all the ancient statues. They add, too, that he arrived at such celebrity, that his works are equal to those of the best masters of his time. I imagine it must be meant to allude to those who preceded Pietro Perugino, Francia, Gio. Bellini, and Mantegna; as his works will not bear any comparison with those of the latter masters.]

[Footnote 102: In the first epoch of the Venetian School.]

[Footnote 103: The following inscription, composed at the instance of the Venetian painters, is found in Ridolfi, p. 49. "_Antonius pictor, praecipuum Messanae suae et totius Siciliae ornamentum hac humo contegitur: non solum suis picturis, in quibus singulare artificium et venustas fuit: sed et quod coloribus oleo miscendis splendorem et perpetuitatem_ PRIMUS ITALIae PICTURae _contulit, summo_ SEMPER _artific.u.m studio celebratus._"]

[Footnote 104: A letter of Summonzio, written on the 20th March, 1524, has been communicated to me by the Sig. Cav. de' Lazara, extracted from the 60th volume of the MSS. collected in Venice by the Sig. Ab. Profess.

Daniele Francesconi. It is addressed to M. A. Michele, who had requested from him some information respecting the ancient and modern artists of Naples; and in reference to the present question he thus speaks. "Since that period (the reign of King Ladislaus), we have not had any one of so much talent in the art of painting as our Maestro Colantonio of Naples, who would in all probability have arrived at great eminence, if he had not died young. Owing to the taste of the times, he did not arrive at that perfection of design founded on the antique, which his disciple Antonello da Messina attained; an artist, as I understand, well known amongst you. The style of Colantonio was founded on the Flemish, and the colouring of that country, to which he was so much attached, that he had intended to go thither, but the King Raniero retained him here, satisfied with showing him the practice and mode of such colouring."

From this letter, which seems contrary to my argument, I collect sufficient, if I err not, to confirm it. For, 1st, the defence of those writers falls to the ground, who a.s.sume that the art of oil colouring was derived from Naples, while we see that Colantonio, by means of the king, received it from Flanders. 2ndly, Van Eyck himself is not here named, but the painters of Flanders generally; which country first awakened, as we have observed, by the example of Italy, had discovered new, and it is true, imperfect and inefficient methods, but still superior to distemper; and who knows if this were not the mode adopted by Colantonio. 3rdly, It is said that he died young, a circ.u.mstance which may give credit to the difficulty that he had in communicating the secret: in fact, it is not known that he communicated it even to his son-in-law, much less to a stranger. 4thly, Hence the necessity of Antonello undertaking the journey to Flanders to learn the secret from Van Eyck, who was then in years, and not without difficulty communicated it to him. 5thly, If we believe with Ridolfi that Antonello painted in 1494 in Trevigi, and credit the testimony of Vasari, that he was not then more than forty-nine years of age, how could he be the scholar of Colantonio, who, according to Dominici, died in 1444? It is with diffidence I advance these remarks on a matter on which I have before expressed my doubts, and I have been obliged to leave some points undecided, or decided rather according to the opinions of others than my own.]

[Footnote 105: In the ducal gallery in Florence, is a Deposition from the Cross, wholly in the style of Zingaro: and I know not whether it ought to be ascribed to Polito, who certainly resided in Florence, or to some other painter of the Neapolitan School.]

[Footnote 106: In Messina, towards the close of the fifteenth century, or at the beginning of the sixteenth, some artists flourished who practised their native style, not yet modernised on the Italian model, as Alfonso Franco, a scholar of Jacopello d'Antonio, and a Pietro Oliva, of an uncertain school. Both are praised for their natural manner, the peculiar boast of that age, but in the first we admire a correct design and a lively expression, for which his works have been much sought after by strangers, who have spared only to his native place a Deposition from the Cross, at S. Francesco di Paola, and a Dispute of Christ with the Doctors, at S. Agostino. Still less remains of Antonello Rosaliba, always a graceful painter. This is a Madonna with the Holy Infant, in the village of Postunina.]

NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.

SECOND EPOCH.

_Modern Neapolitan Style, founded on the Schools of Raffaello and Michelangiolo._

It has already been observed, that at the commencement of the sixteenth century, the art of painting seemed in every country to have attained to maturity, and that every school at that time a.s.sumed its own peculiar and distinguishing character. Naples did not, however, possess a manner so decided as that of other schools of Italy, and thus afforded an opportunity for the cultivation of the best style, as the students who left their native country returned home, each with the manner of his own master, and the sovereigns and n.o.bility of the kingdom invited and employed the most celebrated strangers. In this respect, perhaps, Naples did not yield precedence to any city after Rome. Thus the first talents were constantly employed in ornamenting both the churches and palaces of that metropolis. Nor indeed was that country ever deficient in men of genius, who manifested every exquisite quality for distinction, particularly such as depended on a strong and fervid imagination. Hence an accomplished writer and painter has observed, that no part of Italy could boast of so many native artists, such is the fire, the fancy, and freedom, which characterizes, for the most part, the works of these masters. Their rapidity of execution was another effect of their genius, a quality which has been alike praised by the ancients,[107] and the moderns, when combined with other more requisite gifts of genius. But this despatch in general excludes correct design, which from that cause is seldom found in that school. Nor do we find that it paid much attention to ideal perfection, as most of its professors, following the practice of the naturalists, selected the character of their heads and the att.i.tudes of their figures from common life; some with more, and others with less discrimination. With regard to colour, this school changed its principles in conformity to the taste of the times. It was fertile in invention and composition, but deficient in application and study. The history of the vicissitudes it experienced will occupy the remainder of this volume.

The epoch of modern painting in Naples could not have commenced under happier auspices than those which it had the good fortune to experience.

Pietro Perugino had painted an a.s.sumption of the Virgin, which I am informed exists in the Duomo, or S. Reparata, a very ancient cathedral church, since connected with the new Duomo. This work opened the way to a better taste. When Raffaello and his school rose into public esteem, Naples was among the first distant cities to profit from it, by means of some of his scholars, to whom were also added some followers of Michelangiolo, about the middle of the century. Thus till nearly the year 1600, this school paid little attention to any other style than that of these two great masters and their imitators, except a few artists who were admirers of t.i.tian.

We may commence the new series with Andrea Sabbatini of Salerno. This artist was so much struck with the style of Pietro, when he saw his picture in the Duomo, that he immediately determined to study in the school of Perugia. He took his departure accordingly for that city, but meeting on the road some brother painters who much more highly extolled the works of Raffaello, executed for Julius II., he changed his mind and proceeded to Rome, and there placed himself in the school of that great master. He remained with him however, only a short time, as the death of his father compelled him to return home, against his wishes. But he arrived a new man. It is related that he painted with Raffaello at the Pace, and in the Vatican, and that he became an accomplished copyist of his works, and successfully emulated the style of his master. Compared with his fellow scholars, although he did not rival Giulio Romano, he yet surpa.s.sed Raffaele del Colle, and others of that cla.s.s. He had a correctness of design, selection in his faces and in his att.i.tudes, a depth of shade, and the muscles rather strongly expressed; a breadth in the folding of his drapery, and a colour which still preserves its freshness after the lapse of so many years. He executed many works in Naples, as appears from the catalogue of his pictures. Among his best works are numbered some pictures at S. Maria delle Grazie; besides the frescos which he executed there and in other places, extolled by writers as miracles of art, but few of which remain to the present day. He painted also in his native city, in Gaeta, and indeed in all parts of the kingdom, both in the churches and for private collections, where many of his Madonnas, of an enchanting beauty, are still to be seen.[108]

Andrea had several scholars, some of whom studied under other masters, and did not acquire much of his style. Such was Cesare Turco, who rather took after Pietro; a good painter in oil, but unsuccessful in fresco.

But Andrea was the sole master of Francesco Santafede, the father and master of Fabrizio; painters who in point of colouring have few equals in this school, and possessing a singular uniformity of style.

Nevertheless the experienced discover in the father more vigour, and more clearness in his shadows; and there are by him some pictures in the Soffitto of the Nunziata, and a Deposition from the Cross in the possession of the prince di Somma, highly celebrated. But of all the scholars of Andrea, one Paolillo resembled him the most, whose works were all ascribed to his master, until Dominici restored them to their right owner. He would have been the great ornament of this school had he not died young.

Polidoro Caldara, or Caravaggio, came to Naples in the year of the sacking of Rome, 1527. He was not, as Vasari would have us believe, in danger of perishing through want at Naples; for Andrea da Salerno, who had been his fellow disciple, generously received him into his house, and introduced him in the city, where he obtained many commissions, and formed several scholars before he went to Sicily. He had distinguished himself in Rome by his chiaroscuri, as we have related; and he painted in colours in Naples and Messina. His colour in oil was pallid and obscure, at least for some time, and in this style I saw some pictures of the Pa.s.sion in Rome, which Gavin Hamilton had received from Sicily.

In other respects they were valuable, from their design and invention.

Vasari mentions this master with enthusiasm, calls him a divine genius, and extols to the skies a picture which he painted in Messina a little while before his death. This was a composition of Christ on his way to Mount Calvary, surrounded by a great mult.i.tude, and he a.s.sures us that the colouring was enchanting.

Giambernardo Lama was first a scholar of Amato, and afterwards attached himself to Polidoro, in whose manner he painted a Pieta at S. Giacomo degli Spagnuoli, which, from its conception, its correctness, and vigour of design, variety in att.i.tude, and general style of composition, was by many ascribed to that master. In general however, he displayed a softer and more natural manner, and was partial to the style of Andrea di Salerno. Marco di Pino, an imitator of Michelangiolo, as we have observed, though sober and judicious, was held in disesteem by him. In the _Segretario_ of Capece, there is an interesting letter to Lama, where amongst other things he says, "I hear that you do not agree with Marco da Siena, as you paint with more regard to beauty, and he is attached to a vigorous design without softening his colours. I know not what you desire of him, but pray leave him to his own method, and do you follow yours."

A Francesco Ruviale, a Spaniard, is also mentioned in Naples, called Polidorino, from his happy imitation of his master, whom he a.s.sisted in painting for the Orsini some subjects ill.u.s.trative of the history of that n.o.ble family; and after the departure of his master, he executed by himself several works at Monte Oliveto and elsewhere. The greater part of these have perished, as happened in Rome to so many of the works of Polidoro. This Ruviale appears to me to be a different artist from a Ruviale, a Spaniard, who is enumerated among the scholars of Salviati, and the a.s.sistants of Vasari, in the painting of the Chancery; on which occasion Vasari says, he formed himself into a good painter. This was under Paul VII. in 1544, at which time Polidorino must already have been a master. Palomino has not said a word of any other Ruviale, a painter of his country; and this is a proof that the two preceding artists never returned home to Spain.

Some have included among the scholars of Polidoro an able artist and good colourist, called Marco Calabrese, whose surname is Cardisco.

Vasari ranks him before all his Neapolitan contemporaries, and considers his genius a fruit produced remote from its native soil. This observation cannot appear correct to any one who recollects that the Calabria of the present day is the ancient Magna Graecia, where in former times the arts were carried to the highest pitch of perfection. Cardisco painted much in Naples and in the state. His most celebrated work is the Dispute of S. Agostino in the church of that saint in Aversa. He had a scholar in Gio. Batista Crescione, who together with Lionardo Castellani, his relative, painted at the time Vasari wrote, which was an excuse for his noticing them only in a cursory manner. We may further observe that Polidoro was the founder of a florid school in Messina, where we must look for his most able scholars.[109]

Gio. Francesco Penni, or as he is called, il Fattore, came to Naples some time after Polidoro, but soon afterwards fell sick, and died in the year 1528. He contributed in two different ways to the advancement of the school of Naples. In the first place he left there the great copy of the Transfiguration of Raffaello, which he had painted in Rome in conjunction with Perino, and which was afterwards placed in S. Spirito degl'Incurabili, and served as a study to Lama, and the best painters, until, with other select pictures and sculptures at Naples, it was purchased and removed by the viceroy Don Pietro Antonio of Aragon.

Secondly, he left there a scholar of the name of Lionardo, commonly called il Pistoja, from the place of his birth; an excellent colourist, but not a very correct designer. We noticed him among the a.s.sistants of Raffaello, and more at length among the artists of the Florentine state, where we find some of his pictures, as in Volterra and elsewhere. After he had lost his friend Penni in Naples, he established himself there for the remainder of his days, where he received sufficient encouragement from the n.o.bility of that city, and painted less for the churches than for private individuals. He chiefly excelled in portrait.

Pistoja is said to have been one of the masters of Francesco Curia, a painter, who, though somewhat of a mannerist in the style of Vasari and Zucchero, is yet commended for the n.o.ble and agreeable style of his composition, for his beautiful countenances, and natural colouring.

These qualities are singularly conspicuous in a Circ.u.mcision painted for the church della Pieta, esteemed by Ribera, Giordano, and Solimene, one of the first pictures in Naples. He left in Ippolito Borghese an accomplished imitator, who was absent a long time from his native country, where few of his works remain, but those are highly prized. He was in the year 1620 in Perugia, as Morelli relates in his description of the pictures and statues of that city, and painted an a.s.sumption of the Virgin, which was placed in S. Lorenzo.

There were two Neapolitans who were scholars and a.s.sistants of Perino del Vaga in Rome; Gio. Corso, initiated in the art by Amato, or as others a.s.sert by Polidoro; and Gianfilippo Criscuolo, instructed a long time by Salerno. There are few remains of Corso in Naples, except such as are retouched; nor is any piece so much extolled as a Christ with a Cross painted for the church of S. Lorenzo. Criscuolo in the short time he was at Rome, diligently copied Raffaello, and was greatly attached to his school. He followed, however, his own genius, which was reserved and timid, and formed for himself rather a severe manner; a circ.u.mstance to his honour, at a time when the contours were overcharged and the correctness of Raffaello was neglected. He is also highly commended as an instructor.

From his school came Francesco Imparato, who was afterwards taught by t.i.tian, and so far emulated his style, that a S. Peter Martyr by him in the church of that saint in Naples was praised by Caracciolo as the best picture which had then been seen in that city. We must not confound this Francesco with Girolamo Imparato, his son, who flourished after the end of the sixteenth century, and enjoyed a reputation greater than he perhaps merited. He too was a follower of the Venetian, and afterwards of the Lombard style, and he travelled to improve himself in colouring, the fruits of which were seen in the picture of the Rosario at S.

Tommaso d'Aquino, and in others of his works. The Cav. Stanzioni, who knew him, and was his compet.i.tor, considered him inferior to his father in talent, and describes him as vain and ostentatious.

To these painters of the school of Raffaello, there succeeded in Naples two followers of Michelangiolo, whom we have before noticed. The first of these was Vasari, who was called thither in 1544, to paint the refectory of the P. P. Olivetani, and was afterwards charged with many commissions in Naples and in Rome. By the aid of architecture, in which he excelled more than in painting, he converted that edifice, which was in what is commonly called the Gothic style, to a better form; altered the vault, and ornamented it with modern stuccos, which were the first seen in Naples, and painted there a considerable number of subjects, with that rapidity and mediocrity that characterize the greater part of his works. He remained there for the s.p.a.ce of a year, and of the services he rendered to the city, we may judge from the following pa.s.sage in his life. "It is extraordinary," he says, "that in so large and n.o.ble a city, there should have been found no masters after Giotto, to have executed any work of celebrity, although some works by Perugino and by Raffaello had been introduced. On these grounds I have endeavoured, to the best of my humble talents, to awaken the genius of that country to a spirit of emulation, and to the accomplishment of some great and honourable work; and from these my labours, or from some other cause, we now see many beautiful works in stucco and painting, in addition to the before mentioned pictures." It is not easy to conjecture why Vasari should here overlook many eminent painters, and even Andrea da Salerno himself, so ill.u.s.trious an artist, and whose name would have conferred a greater honour on his book, than it could possibly have derived from it. Whether self love prompted him to pa.s.s over that painter and other Neapolitan artists, in the hope that he should himself be considered the restorer of taste in Naples; or whether it was the consequence of the dispute which existed at that time between him and the painters of Naples; or whether, as I observed in my preface, it sometimes happens in this art, that a picture which delights one person, disgusts another, I know not, and every one must judge for himself. For myself, however much disposed I should be to pardon him for many omissions, which in a work like his, are almost unavoidable, still I cannot exculpate him for this total silence. Nor have the writers of Naples ever ceased complaining of this neglect, and some indeed have bitterly inveighed against him and accused him of contributing to the deterioration of taste. So true is it, that an offence against a whole nation is an offence never pardoned.

The other imitator, and a favourite of Michelangiolo (but not his scholar, as some have a.s.serted) that painted in Naples, was Marco di Pino, or Marco da Siena, frequently before mentioned by us. He appears to have arrived in Naples after the year 1560. He was well received in that city, and had some privileges conferred on him; nor did the circ.u.mstance of his being a stranger create towards him any feeling of jealousy on the part of the Neapolitans, who are naturally hospitable to strangers of good character; and he is described by all as a sincere, affable, and respectable man. He enjoyed in Naples the first reputation, and was often employed in works of consequence in some of the greater churches of the city, and in others of the kingdom at large. He repeated on several occasions the Deposition from the Cross, which he painted at Rome, but with many variations, and the one the most esteemed was that which he placed in S. Giovanni de' Fiorentini, in 1577. The Circ.u.mcision in the Gesu Vecchio, where Parrino traces the portrait of the artist and his wife,[110] the adoration of the Magi at S. Severino, and others of his works, contain views of buildings, not unworthy of him, as he was an eminent architect, and also a good writer on that art. Of his merit as a painter, I believe I do not err, when I say that among the followers of Michelangiolo, there is none whose design is less extravagant and whose colour is more vigorous. He is not however, always equal. In the church of S. Severino, where he painted four pictures, the Nativity of the Virgin is much inferior to the others. A mannered style was so common in artists of that age, that few were exempt from it. He had many scholars in Naples, but none of the celebrity of Gio. Angelo Criscuolo. This artist was the brother of Gio. Filippo, already mentioned, and exercised the profession of a notary, without relinquishing that of a miniature painter, which he had learnt in his youth. He became desirous of emulating his brother in larger compositions, and under the direction of Marco succeeded in acquiring his style.

These two painters laid the foundation of the history of the art in Naples. In 1568, there issued from the Giunti press in Florence, a new edition of the works of Vasari, in which the author speaks very briefly of Marco da Siena, in the life of Daniello da Volterra. He only observes that he had derived the greatest benefit from the instructions of that master, and that he had afterwards chosen Naples for his country, and settled and continued his labours there. Marco, either not satisfied with this eulogium, or displeased at the silence of Vasari with regard to many of the painters of Siena, and almost all those of Naples, determined to publish a work of his own in opposition to him. Among his scholars was the notary before mentioned, who supplied him with memoirs of the Neapolitan painters taken from the archives of the city, and from tradition; and from these materials Marco prepared a _Discorso_. He composed it in 1569, a year after the publication of this edition of Vasari's works, and it was the first sketch of the history of the fine arts in Naples. It did not, however, then see the light, and was not published until 1742, and then only in part, by Dominici, together with notes written by Criscuolo in the Neapolitan dialect, and with the addition of other notes collected respecting the subsequent artists, and arranged by two excellent painters, Ma.s.simo Stanzioni, and Paolo de'

Matteis. Dominici himself added some others of his own collecting, and communicated by some of his learned friends, among whom was the celebrated antiquarian Matteo Egizio. The late _Guida_ or _Breve Descrizione di Napoli_ says, this voluminous work stands in need of more information, a better arrangement, and a more concise style. There might also be added some better criticisms on the ancient artists, and less partiality towards some of the modern. Still this is a very lucid work, and highly valuable for the opinions expressed on the talents of artists, for the most part by other artists, whose names inspire confidence in the reader. Whether the sister arts of architecture and sculpture are as judiciously treated of, it is not our province to inquire.

In the above work the reader may find the names of other artists of Naples who belong to the close of this epoch, as Silvestro Bruno, who enjoyed in Naples the fame of a good master; a second Simone Papa, or del Papa, a clever fresco painter, and likewise another Gio. Ant. Amato, who to distinguish him from the first is called the younger. He was first instructed in the art by his uncle, afterwards by Lama, and successively imitated their several styles. He obtained considerable fame, and the infant Christ painted by him in the Banco de' Poveri, is highly extolled. To these may be added those artists who fixed their residence in other parts of Italy, as Pirro Ligorio, honoured, as we have observed, by Pius IV. in Rome, and who died in Ferrara, engineer to Alfonso II.; and Gio. Bernardino Azzolini, or rather Mazzolini, in whose praise Soprani and Ratti unite. He arrived in Genoa about 1510, and there executed some works worthy of that golden age of art. He excelled in waxwork, and formed heads with an absolute expression of life. He extended the same energetic character to his oil pictures, particularly in the Martyrdom of S. Agatha in S. Giuseppe.

The provincial cities had also in this age their own schools, or at least their own masters; some of whom remained in their native places, and others resided abroad. Cola dell'Amatrice, known also to Vasari, who mentions him in his life of Calabrese, took up his residence in Ascoli del Piceno, and enjoyed a distinguished name in architecture and in painting, through all that province. He had somewhat of a hard manner in his earlier paintings, but in his subsequent works he exhibited a fulness of design and an accomplished modern style. He is highly extolled in the Guida di Ascoli for his picture in the oratory of the _Corpus Domini_, which represents the Saviour in the act of dispensing the Eucharist to the Apostles.