Part 19

Antonio Vassilacchi, called Aliense, a native of the island of Milo, inherited from the line climate of Greece a genius adapted to confer honour upon the arts, and particularly on works of a vast and imaginative character. Paul Veronese, struck with his first efforts, banished him, with a feeling of jealousy, from his studio, advising him at the same time to confine himself to small pictures. Aliense observing Paul engaged in reviving the examples of Titian, renewed as far as lay in his power those of Tintoretto. He studied casts taken from the antique, designing from them both day and night; he exercised himself in acquiring a knowledge of the human frame, modelled in wax, copied Tintoretto with the utmost assiduity, and, as if wholly to forget what he had learnt from Paul, he sold the designs made at his school. Yet he could not so far divest himself of them, but that in his earliest productions, remaining at the church of Le Vergini, he displayed the manner of Paul. He has been accused by historians of having abandoned this style for one less adapted to his genius; and moreover of having been misled by the innovations of the mannerists. Sometimes, however, he painted with extreme care, as in his Epiphany, for the Council of Ten, though in general he abused the facility of his genius, without fear of risking his credit, inasmuch as his rivals Palma and Corona pursued the same plan. In order better to oppose his great enemy Vittoria, he attached himself to another architect, who possessed much influence, named Girolamo Campagna, the disciple of Sansovino; and he moreover enjoyed the favour of Tintoretto. In this manner Aliense obtained many commissions, both for the public palace and the Venetian churches, besides being engaged in many works for other cities, more especially for Perugia, at S. Pietro, all upon a magnificent scale; yet without acquiring that degree of estimation which the felicity of his genius deserved. He was assisted by Tommaso Dolobella, of Belluno, a good practitioner, and well received in Poland, where he long continued in the service of Sigismond III. In his Life of Aliense, Ridolfi makes mention also of Pietro Mera, a Fleming, whose portrait Aliense painted, as being his friend; but neither from history, nor from his own style, can we gather that he was Aliense's disciple. He resided, and employed himself much in Venice, at SS. Giovanni and Paolo, at La Madonna dell' Orto, and elsewhere: while the judgment pronounced upon him by Zanetti is, that he appeared to have greatly attached himself to the Venetian artists, and to have derived sufficient profit.

Pietro Malombra, a Venetian by birth, deserves almost to be excluded from the list of Palma's disciples, and even from that of the mannerists. If he sometimes deviated from the right path, it must rather be attributed to human error, than to erroneous maxims. Born in a degree of comparative ease, he acquired from education a sense of the value of that excellent axiom, "that honour is better than gain." After employing himself in the studio of Salviati, where he obtained a good knowledge of design, he continued to paint for his own pleasure. But equally intelligent and docile, he never scrupled to bestow the utmost pains to bring his works to a higher degree of perfection, than was the usual practice of his times. Afterwards experiencing a reverse of fortune, he entered upon the art as his profession, and ornamented parts of the Ducal Palace. In his portraits and pictures upon a small scale, he was also very successful. He represented at San Francesco di Paola, various miracles of the saint, in four pictures; and his figures display a precision in their contours, a grace, and an originality which lead us to doubt whether they can belong, not merely to the epoch, but to the school of which we are here treating. Similar specimens he produced for galleries, sometimes enlivening with them his perspective views, in which he possessed equal skill and assiduity. Those in which he exhibited the grand piazza, or the great hall of council, representing in them their respective sacred or civil ceremonies, processions, ingresses, public audiences, great spectacles, to which the place adds an air of grandeur, extorted the plaudits of all ranks.

Girolamo Pilotto occupies the sixth place among those, who, in the opinion of Boschini, are apt to be confounded with Palma. Zanetti is content with observing, that he was a true follower of that style, and that in his works may be recognized the ideas of his master, conducted in a very happy manner. Venice boasts few of his pieces, although we are elsewhere informed that he died at an advanced age. His picture of the Nuptials of the Sea, painted for the public palace, is extolled in high terms by Orlandi, while others have greatly admired his San Biagio, which he produced for the great altar of the Fraglia, in Rovigo; a picture displaying great sweetness of manner, and signed with his name.

To attempt a full list of the rest of the mannerists, who followed more or less the composition of Palma, would only weary the reader with a repetition of names. From these I select, therefore, merely a few of the most remarkable in Venice and its vicinity, having to make mention of others in the respective schools of terra firma. Girolamo Gamberati, a scholar of Porta, acquired the art of colouring from Palma, upon whose model he painted at Le Vergini, and other places. It is still suspected, however, that the character displayed in his pieces, must have come from the hand of Palma, whose friendship occasionally assisted him. In the Guide by Zanetti, we find mention of a Jacomo Alberelli, a disciple of Palma, who painted the Baptism of Christ at the church of the Ognisanti. There is a slight allusion to him in Ridolfi, by whom he is entitled Albarelli; and he adds, that he produced the bust for the tomb of his master, in whose service he lived during thirty-four years. Camillo Ballini is also recorded among the Palmese mannerists, whether a native of Venice or of the state is not certain. In his manner he is pleasing, though neither spirited nor vigorous; and he was likewise employed in the Ducal Palace. Boschini moreover extols Bianchi, Dimo, and Donati, all Venetians, and his own friends; but I would omit them, finding no commendations in any other work. I omit also Antonio Cecchini da Pesaro, whose age, as reported in the index, cannot be brought to agree with the period of Palma's professorship.

In Trevigi, Ascanio Spineda, a noble of that city, is held in some estimation, and included among the disciples of Palma; from whom he is sometimes with difficulty distinguished. One of the most exact in point of design, he also colours with much sweetness and grace of tints; an artist deserving to be known in his native district, which abounds with the best of his works. He employed himself there, for many churches, succeeding perhaps better at San Teonisto than at any other place. No one surpassed him in the number of his pieces for public exhibition, if we except indeed one Bartolommeo Orioli, who, about the same period, displayed the talent of a good practiser, though with less repute. This last belonged to that numerous tribe who, in Italy, were ambitious of uniting in themselves the powers of poetry and painting; but who, not having received sufficient polish either in precept or in art, gave vent to their inspiration in their native place, covering the columns with sonnets, and the churches with pictures, without exciting the envy of the adjacent districts. Father Federici praises him for his portraits; a valued ornament, at that period, of large pictures, and well introduced by Orioli, in the church of St. Croce, where a numerous procession of the people of Trevigi appears, taken from the life. Burchiellati, a contemporary historian of the place, adds, as a companion to the foregoing, the name of Giacomo Bravo, a painter of figures and ornamental works, which are still held in some degree of estimation.

Paolo Piazza, of Castelfranco, who afterwards became a Capuchin by the name of Father Cosimo, is enumerated by Baglione among the good practisers, and the pupils of Palma. Yet he bears little resemblance to him, having formed a style of his own, not powerful indeed, but free and pleasing, which attracted the eye of Paul V., the Emperor Rodolph II., and the Doge Priuli; all of whom availed themselves of his ability. Both the capital and the state boast many of his pieces in fresco, and some altarpieces: nor is Rome without them, where, in the Palazzo Borghese, he painted those very fanciful ornaments in friezes, for various chambers, as well as histories of Cleopatra for the Great Hall, and in the Campidoglio at the Conservatori, a celebrated picture of Christ taken from the Cross. While residing in Rome he attended to the instruction of Andrea Piazza, his nephew, who in course of time entered the service of the Duke of Lorraine, by whom he had the honour of being made a cavalier. Upon returning to his own state, he produced his great picture of the Marriage of Cana, for the church of Santa Maria; one of the best pieces that adorn the place.

Matteo Ingoli, a native of Ravenna, resided from early youth, until the period of his immature decease, in the city of Venice. He sprung from the school of Luigi del Friso, and proposed for himself, says Boschini, Paul Veronese and Palma as his models. If I mistake not, however, he aspired to a more solid, but less beautiful style, as far as we can gather from one of his pictures at the Corpus Domini, from his Supper of our Lord at San Apollinare, and from others of his works; in all which we trace the hand of precision and assiduity. He was also a good architect, and terminated his days during one of those awful periods in which the Venetian state was visited by the plague, adding another instance of loss to the fine arts, similar to those which we have noticed in other schools.

Another victim to the same contagion was Pietro Damini, of Castelfranco, who, it is averred, had he survived a little longer, would have displayed the powers of a Titian; an expression we are to receive as somewhat hyperbolical. He acquired the art of colouring from Gio. Batista Novelli, a good scholar of Palma, who, more for amusement than for gain, ornamented Castelfranco and the adjacent places with several well executed pieces. Damini next devoted much time to the theory of the art, and to the study of the best engravings, upon which he modelled his design. By this method, it is said, that he freed himself from the shackles of the mannerists, though it gave to his colours a degree of crudity; and in truth this is a defect that strikes the eye in many of his productions. Numerous specimens remain at Padua, where he established himself at the age of twenty; several at Vicenza, at Venice, and still more in Castelfranco, where his altarpiece of the Blessed Simone Stoch at Santa Maria, is highly estimated, as well as the Tabernacle surrounded with twelve histories, from both the Old and New Testaments; a novel idea, and executed with real taste. His style is elegant and pleasing, but not uniformly excellent. He is observed to have frequently changed his manner, in aspiring to reach a higher degree of perfection in his art. We might, in some instances, pronounce him an excellent naturalist; in others more of an adept in ideal beauty, as we gather from his picture of the Crucifixion at Santo di Padova, which displays rare beauty and harmony combined, though he did not live long enough to produce others of equal merit. He died early, and at a short interval his brother Giorgio, seized by the same disorder, followed him to the tomb, an artist excellent in portrait, and pictures with small figures.

Subsequent to this period, (1630, 1631,) in which the deaths of a number of artists occur, the traces of the old Venetian style, in its best school, began still more to disappear; and the Venetian paintings produced after the middle of the century, display for the most part a different character. It is remarked by Signor Zanetti, that several foreign artists established themselves about this period in the city, and held sway over the art at their own discretion. Attached to various schools, and chiefly admirers of Caravaggio, in his plebeian manner, they agreed amongst themselves in nothing, perhaps, except two points. One of these was, to consult truth in a greater degree than had before been done; an extremely useful idea to render art, now degenerated into a paltry trade, once more real art. But the plan was not well executed by many, who were either incapable of selecting what was natural, or of ennobling it when found; while, at all events, they were too apt to mannerize it with an excessive use of strong shades. The other plan was to avail themselves of very dark and oily grounds, which were as favourable to despatch as injurious to the duration of paintings, as we have more than once had occasion to observe. Indeed this had so far come into vogue, in most places, as even to infect, in some degree, the great school of the Caracci. Hence it has arisen that in many of those pictures the lights only have remained durable, and the masses of shade, the middle tints having disappeared; insomuch that posterity has distinguished this class of artists by the new appellation of the sect of _Tenebrosi_, or the dark colourists. Boschini, who first put forth his _Carta del Navegar Pitoresco_ in 1660, is very severe, as we have before stated, upon the sect of mere naturalists, stigmatizing them generally, and upbraiding them for coming to seek their bread at Venice; while, at the time that they employed themselves in crying down the taste, the spirit, and the rapid hand of the Venetians, their own productions bore ample witness to the pitiable efforts by which they were produced. He gives no names; but it is not difficult to gather from the whole his aversion to the Roman and Florentine artists, of whom we shall shortly give an account. Upon these he certainly does not bestow encomiums, as he does upon all others at that period engaged in Venice, his commendations being sometimes extremely vague, and at others extravagant.

If we wish to avoid forming erroneous judgments, then, we must abandon his Painter's Chart of Navigation, and attach ourselves to the _Pittura Veneziana_, a very different guide to that of Boschini. In this the author takes care to distinguish, with the precision of a good historian, such as were followers of Caravaggio, like Saraceni; excellent pupils of Guercino, like Triva; fine colourists, however much accustomed to copy rather than invent, like Strozza, and though less select, his scholar Langetti; to whom we may add a third Genoese artist, who flourished during those times at Venice, though he left no public specimen of his labours; this was Niccolo Cassana. Of these, as well as of a few others, I shall treat in the schools to which they respectively belong. Several other names are omitted by the author, either on account of such artists having produced little in the city, or from his being unacquainted with their education and the place of their birth. Among these is Antonio Beverense, an artist who painted for the college of the Nunziata, the Marriage of the Virgin Mary, a picture that displays accuracy of design, superiority of forms, and a very fine chiaroscuro. He was, for the most part, a disciple of the Bolognese, and from his united taste and diligence fully deserving of being more generally known. I suspect, however, that he ought to be named a native of Bavaria, and to the circumstance of his speedy return into his own country, we are, perhaps, to ascribe the little notice he seems to have attracted. Returning to the authority of Zanetti, we find, that besides giving a favourable opinion of the authors just mentioned, he bestows equal commendation upon those who are soon to follow; explaining their respective excellences and defects, and detecting such as belonged to the class of _Tenebrosi_ through their own fault, and such as became so owing to the bad priming of those times; in treating of whom I follow the path he has pointed out.

Pietro Ricchi was an artist who resided for a long period at Venice, where he left a great number of works, and is generally known by the name of il Lucchese. It remains doubtful whether he deserves to be accused of having introduced the oily and obscure method of painting already mentioned. It is at least certain, that besides having made use of bad priming, he was in the habit of covering his canvass with oil whenever he applied his pencil, which has occasioned the loss of so many of his works that once produced an excellent effect, but which are now either defaced or perished. This is the case with those that remained in Venice, in Vicenza, Brescia, Padua, and Udine; some of which, indeed, are not greatly to be regretted; the production of mere mechanic skill, and that not always executed correctly. A few, however, are conducted with much care, as we find in his S. Raimond, at the Dominicans of Bergamo, and his Epiphany at the patriarchal church in Venice, both highly deserving of commemoration, no less for the union of their colours, than for the taste displayed in the whole composition. We may easily perceive that they are the productions of a scholar, or at least of an imitator of Guido; of one accustomed to consult the pictures of Tintoretto, and of the most celebrated Venetians. Another artist equal to Ricchi in the handling of his pencil, and more accurate in the union of his colours, will be found in Federigo Cervelli of Milan, who, on opening his school at a somewhat later period in Venice, obtained the celebrated Ricci for one of his pupils. At the school of San Teodoro, we meet with a history piece of that saint, from the hand of Cervelli; and in this we may trace all the features of the same style, that was afterwards continued by Ricci, who added dignity, however, to its forms, and executed them upon canvass and upon grounds better calculated to bear the effects of age.

The other artists to be enumerated in the same class, are Francesco Rosa, a pupil rather than follower of Cortona, for an account of whom we must refer the reader to the fifth book of the fifth volume; and Giovanni Batista Lorenzetti, whose composition, bold, rapid, and magnificent, displays a powerful and correct hand. The merit of the second is conspicuous in his frescos, exhibited at Santa Anastasia, in his native city of Verona, for which he received twelve hundred ducats, including only the decoration of the chapel. Add to these the name of Ruschi, or Rusca, a Roman, and a disciple of Caravaggio in his forms, and of his age in the mixture of his colours. He was wholly unknown at Rome, though he acquired some degree of reputation in the cities of Venice, of Vicenza, and of Trevigi. His paintings are admitted into collections, where several of his oblong pieces are to be met with in pretty good preservation. Contemporary with him was Girolamo Pellegrini, a native, of the same place, not mentioned in the Guide of Rome, but commemorated in that of Venice for some works, chiefly executed in fresco upon a large scale, in which he appears neither a very select, various, nor spirited painter, though of a sufficiently elevated character. Bastiano Mazzoni, a Florentine, is another artist unknown in his native city, belonging to the class of the naturalists, though possessed of a certain delicacy, roundness of style, and ease of handling. He was also an excellent architect, of whose talents the Cavalier Liberi availed himself in the erection of his fine palace at Venice, which appears to exceed the fortune of a painter. Count Ottaviano Angarano, a Venetian noble, if he did not altogether avoid the style then current, avoided at least its extravagance; and the Nativity which he placed at San Daniele, confers upon him double honour, having been both painted and engraved by his hand. Stefano Pauluzzi, a citizen of Venice, has been enumerated among the best belonging to this sect, if indeed he is to be included in it, as the deterioration of his pictures may be rather attributed to the badness of his grounds than to the artist. Niccolo Renieri Mabuseo also flourished at the same period, an artist, who at Rome, under Manfredi, a follower of Caravaggio, formed a taste partaking of his early Flemish and of his Italian education; very pleasing in the opinion of Zanetti, and in general displaying much strength of hand. He had four daughters who inherited their father's talents, all of whose productions were highly admired in Venice. Two of these, of the name of Angelica and Anna, remained with their parent; Clorinda entered into an union with Vecchia, and Lucrezia with Daniel Vandych, a Frenchman, who afterwards entered into the service of the Duke of Mantua, as the keeper of his gallery of pictures; himself a fine portrait painter, and by no means despicable in his histories. To his I add the name of D. Ermanno Stroifi, a Paduan, first a pupil, and an excellent imitator of Prete the Genoese, and afterwards of Titian though occasionally, owing to an excessive attention to the chiaroscuro, he deviated too much from the right path. We are informed by Boschini that he travelled for the purpose of observing other schools, and that on returning to Venice, he still continued to rise in the estimation of the Venetians. A Madonna from his hand is to be seen at the great altar of the Carmini in that city; and in Padua, his Pieta, placed at San Tommaso Cantuariense. I conclude this list with one Matteo, a Florentine artist, not commemorated in his own state, from the circumstance of having resided abroad; better known by the name of Matteo da' Pitocchi. He displayed most talent in his representation of Mendicants, heads of which class are to be met with in Venice, in Verona, in Vicenza, and elsewhere, as well as several burlesques and other fanciful pieces, in the galleries of many Italian nobles. He painted likewise for churches, more particularly in Padua, where he most probably died; and the Serviti are in possession of some on a larger scale, designed in the character of a mere naturalist. These names we trust will be found sufficient, however various and unequal both in point of style and merit, as affording examples of the taste of that age.