Part 7

[Footnote 31: We find traces of his paintings from the year 1507. See Tassi, in his _Lives of the Painters, &c._ p. 56, where he corrects a mistake of Zanetti, who, instead of one painter, had divided him into two. One of his pictures, in the parish church of Endine, will remove every doubt. There he signed himself, _Franciscus Rizus Bergomensis habitator Venetiis, 1529_. In another piece, in the parochial church of Serina, he wrote _Francesco Rizo da Santa Croxe depense, 1518_. His last work, of which I find any account, is also in the parochial church of Chirignano, in the Mestrina, dated 1541. Father Federici, who describes it, makes Francesco the son of Girolamo da S. Croce, or S. Croce, whose name we find subscribed in both ways, but not ever Rizo. I cannot agree with him, first, because Ridolfi says only, (p. 62,) that they were of _the same family_; second, because the pictures of Girolamo, according to Tassi, commence later, and are traced also later than those of Francesco, that is in 1549; and thirdly, because the style of Girolamo is incomparably more modernized, as we shall presently shew.]

[Footnote 32: Morelli _Notizia_, p. 212.]

[Footnote 33: In the _Statuti de' Pittori_, it is written Mireti; and the same work contains memoirs of him in 1423 and 1441; years, however, which do not accord with his dependence on the Bellini. This Girolamo might possibly have been the brother, or other relation, of that Gio. Miretto, for whom see p. 13. These two names will do away with the _Moreto_ of Vasari, and we must substitute Mireto or Miretto.]

[Footnote 34: I repeat the epigram, which is subscribed in ancient characters, on the strength of which we may believe that the work was esteemed one of the most valuable the art had produced up to that period, transcribed by the very frequently commended Sig. Co. Cav. Lazara; it is thus:

Non hic Parrhasio, non hic tribuendus Apelli, Hos licet Auctores dignus habere labor. Euganeus, vixdum impleto ter mense, Jacobus Ex Montagnana nobile pinxit opus.]

[Footnote 35: He is thus named in the "Statuti de' Pittori," of Padua, and in the _MS. Zen._ whence we may correct Ridolfi, who calls him Girolamo.]

[Footnote 36: In vol. iii. ed. Rom. p. 427, it is written by mistake Mantegna, where it says that he, Speranza, and Veruzio, studied design under Mantegna.]

[Footnote 37: Padre Faccioli, in his third volume of the _Inscrizioni della Citta e territorio di Vicenza_, records the following epigraph, _Jo. Sperantiae de Vangeribus me pinxit_, in which Vangeribus may, perhaps, apply to some small village in the territory of Vicenza. He is wholly silent respecting Veruzio, thus confirming the suspicion that his name is a mere mistake of Vasari, whom it is hoped our posterity will still continue to correct, and yet leave sufficient employment for their children. The following is my conjecture. P. Faccioli gives an account of a picture that remains in S. Francesco di Schio; it is composed in the manner usually adopted in the composition of the marriage of S. Catherine; and there are also other saints well executed in the Mantegna style, as is observed by the Cav. Gio. de Lazara, whose authority I esteem excellent. It bears the inscription, "Franciscus Verlus de Vicentia pinxit xx. Junii. M. D. XII.;" and to this is added by Faccioli another old painting by the same hand, remaining at Sercedo. Now I contend that the name of this painter, being reported to Vasari, with its diminutive termination, like many others, borrowed either from the stature or the age, (in the Venetian dialect it was Verlucio or Verluzo) it was afterwards given by him in his history as Veruzio. The critics of the Greek writers will know how to do me justice in this, for this mode of discovering and correcting names I have derived from them.]

[Footnote 38: To judge from some pictures at Bergamo, we might suppose him educated in the style of the fourteenth century; but he afterwards approached nearer to the modern, as we perceive at Padua, where he resembles Palma Vecchio; and this is sufficiently conspicuous also in Friuli, where we make mention of him at a more cultivated era.]

[Footnote 39: In this character is the larger picture at S. Niccolo, a church of the Dominicans in Treviso, in which the cupola, the columns, and the perspective, with the throne of the virgin seated with the infant Jesus, and surrounded by saints standing, the steps ornamented by a harping seraph, all discover Bellini's composition; but I had not seen the work, until after the former edition of my history at Bassano. It was painted in 1520, by P. Marco Pensaben, assisted by P. Marco Maraveia, both Dominican priests, engaged for the purpose from Venice. They remained there until July, 1521, when the first of them secretly fled from the convent, and the altarpiece of Treviso was completed in a month by one Gian-Girolamo, a painter invited from Venice; supposed to be Girolamo Trevisano, the younger. This artist is not, however, mentioned, as I am aware, either, by the citizens, or by foreigners, by any other name than Girolamo, and calculating from the chronology of Ridolfi, he must then have been thirteen years of age. Until this subject be more clearly investigated, I must confess my ignorance of such a Gian-Girolamo. But I am better acquainted with the name of Pensaben, who was afterwards found, and in 1524 was, as before, a Dominican friar at Venice; but a few years after, in 1530, is mentioned in authentic books belonging to the order, being registered among those who had either left the order or were dead. P. Federici believes him to have been the same as F. Bastiano del Piombo, an untenable supposition, as I have elsewhere shown. I believe Pensaben to have been an excellent artist in the Bellini manner, though not commemorated in history, nor by his order. In an order so prolific with genius, and in an age abounding with great names, he is by no means a solitary instance of this: the present work being found to contain many other examples.]

[Footnote 40: As early as the eleventh century, or thereabouts, it would appear that some similar kind of art was in repute in Germany. The monk Theophilus, in the works before mentioned, "De omni scientia artis pingendi," alluding, at the commencement, to the most esteemed productions of every country, observes: "quidquid in fenestrarum varietate preciosa diligit Francia; quidquid in auri, argenti, cupri, ferri, lignorum, lapidumque subtilitate sollers laudat Germania." _Codice Viennese._]

VENETIAN SCHOOL.

SECOND EPOCH.

_Giorgione, Titian, Tintoret, Jacopo da Bassano, Paolo Veronese._

Behold us at length arrived at the golden period of the Venetian School, which like the others of Italy, produced its most distinguished ornaments about the year 1500; artists who at once eclipsed the fame of their predecessors, and the hopes of attaining to equal excellence on the part of their successors. In reaching this degree of eminence, it is true they pursued different paths, though they all aimed at acquiring the same perfection of colouring; the most natural, the most lively, and the most applauded of any single school of the age; a distinction they likewise conferred upon their posterity, forming the distinguishing characteristic of the Venetian painters. The merit of this has been attributed to the climate by some, who assert, that in Venice, and the adjacent places, nature herself has bestowed a warmer and deeper colour upon objects than elsewhere; a frivolous supposition, and undeserving of much of our attention, inasmuch as the artists of Holland and Flanders, in climates so extremely opposite, have obtained the same meed of praise. Neither is it to be attributed to the quality of the colours; both Giorgione and Titian having been known to make use of few, and these, so far from being selected or procured elsewhere, exposed to sale in all the public shops in Venice. If it should again be objected, that in those days the colours were sold purer and less adulterated, I admit there may be some degree of truth in this, inasmuch as Passeri, in his life of Orbetto, complained at that time of the early decay of many pictures, "owing to the quality of the colours fraudulently sold by the retailers." But I would merely inquire, if it were possible, that materials thus pure and uncontaminated should so often fall into the hands of the Venetians and their Flemish imitators, yet be so seldom met with in the rest of the schools. The cause of their superiority is to be sought, therefore, in their mechanism and art of colouring; in regard to which the best Venetian painters conformed, in some points, to the most celebrated artists of Italy. In other points, however, they differed from them. It was a common practice at that period, to prepare with a chalk surface the altarpieces and pictures which were intended to be executed; and that white ground, favourable to every variety of tint the painter could lay upon it, equally favoured the production of a certain polish, floridity, and surprising transparency; a custom which, being laid aside out of indolence and avarice, I am happy to perceive seems about to be renewed. But in addition to this the Venetians were in possession of an art that may be considered peculiar to themselves. For it may be observed, that the chief part of them during these three centuries, produced the effect of their paintings, not so much by a strong layer of colours, as by separate strokes of the pencil; and each colour being thus adapted to its place, without much repeating or refining it, they still continued augmenting the work, by which the tints were preserved clear and virgin; a result which requires no less promptness of hand than of intellect, besides education, and a taste cultivated from the earliest period. Hence the artist Vecchia was accustomed to say, that by dint of copying pictures executed with diligence, a painter will acquire the same quality; but to succeed in copies from a Titian or a Paolo, and to imitate their stroke, is a task surmounted only by the Venetians, whether natives or educated in their school. (_Boschini_, p. 274.)

Should it here be inquired what good result may attend such a method, I reply that Boschini points out two very considerable ones. The first of them is, that by this mode of colouring, which he terms _di macchia_ and _di pratica_, a certain hardness of style may more easily be avoided; and the other, that, better than any other, it gives a bolder relief to paintings in the distance: and pictures being intended to be thus viewed, rather than closer to the eye, such an object is by this process most easily attainable. I am aware of the moderns having misapplied and abused these maxims; but they were meant to have been judiciously employed, and I only wish to propose as examples the most celebrated of the school who so ably comprehended the method, and the limits of such a practice. Nor was the harmony of colours better understood by any other artists, insomuch, that the mode of assimilating and of contrasting them, may be considered as the second source of the delightful and lively, so predominant in their works, and more especially in those of Titian and his contemporaries.

Such skill was not merely confined to the fleshy parts, in whose colour the disciples of Titian have so far excelled every other school; it extended also to the drapery. For indeed, there are no pieces of velvets, of stuffs, or of crapes, which they did not imitate to perfection, more particularly in their portraits, in which the Venetians of that period abounded, displaying specimens the most ornamental and beautiful. The cavalier Mengs is of opinion, that also to this branch of the art, requiring the strictest attention to truth, and conferring a peculiar kind of interest upon a picture, may be in some measure attributed the degree of power and truth acquired by those eminent colourists. Their merit was moreover conspicuous in imitating every kind of work in gold, in silver, and every species of metal; so much so, that there are no royal palaces or lordly feasts, read of in any poet, which do not appear more nobly represented in some Venetian paintings. It was equally remarkable in point of landscape, which sometimes surpassed the efforts of the Flemish painters, and in architectural views, which, with a magnificence unknown elsewhere, they succeeded in introducing into their compositions, as we had before occasion to observe of the artists of the fourteenth century; a species of industry extremely favourable, likewise, to the distribution, the variety, and to the complete effect of groups of figures.

In these extensive compositions, which about the period of the Bellini abounded in half-length or diminutive figures, there has since been displayed a grandeur of proportions which has led the way to the most enlarged productions, on the scale we have more recently seen. The most terrific among these is the Supper of Paolo Veronese at S. Giorgio, in which the gifts of nature are so nobly seconded by the exhibition of talent, which appears to have been transmitted by succession through this school, nearly until the present day. Such ability consists in finely designing all the details of any work, however great, including the transmission and gradations of light, so that the eye of itself seems to follow its track, and embraces the entire effect from one end of the canvass to the other. And it has been observed by several who have witnessed ancient paintings (a violation of good taste, of late but too common,) cut up and curtailed to adapt them to the size of walls and doors, that such an operation often succeeds tolerably well with the pictures of other schools, but is extremely difficult with those of the Venetians; so intimately is one part connected with another, and harmonized with the whole.

These, along with other similar qualities that flatter the eye of the spectator, that attract the learned and the unlearned, and seem to transport the mind by the novelty and the reality of the representation, constitute a style which is termed by Reynolds the ornamental, who, likewise, among all the schools, yields the palm in this to the Venetians; a style afterwards introduced by Vovet into France, by Rubens into Flanders, and by Giordano into Naples and into Spain. The same English critic places it in the second rank, next to the grand style, and remarks that the professors of the sublime were fearful of falling into luxurious and pompous exhibitions of the accessaries; no less because prejudicial to the artist's industry in point of design and in point of expression, than because the transitory impression which it produces upon the spectator, seldom reaches the heart. And truly, as the sublime of Tully is more simple than the ornament of Pliny, and seems to dread any excitement of admiration for the beautiful, lest its energy should be unnerved by too studied a degree of elegance; so is it with the grandeur of Michelangiolo and of Raffaello, that without seeking to occupy us with the illusions of art, goes at once to the heart; terrifies or inspires us; awakens emotions of pity, of veneration, and the love of truth, exalting us, as it were, above ourselves, and leading us to indulge, even in spite of ourselves, the most delicious of all feelings, in that of wonder. It is upon this account that Reynolds considered it dangerous for students to become enamoured of the Venetian style; an opinion, which, judiciously understood, may prove of much service to such artists as are calculated to succeed in the more sublime. But since amidst such diversity of talent, there must appear artists better adapted to adorn than to express; it would not be advisable that their genius should be urged into a career in which it will leave them always among the last, withdrawing them, at the same time, from another in which they might have taken the lead. Let him, therefore, who in this art of silent eloquence possesses not the energy and spirit of Demosthenes, apply himself wholly, heart and soul, to the elegance, the pomp, and the copiousness of Demetrius Phalereus.

Let it not from this be supposed, that the sole merit of the Venetians consists in surprising the spectator by the effects of ornament and colour, and that the customary style and true method of painting, were not understood in those parts. Yet I am aware of the opinion of many foreigners, who having never removed beyond their native spot, are inclined to pronounce a general censure upon these artists, as being ignorant of design, too laboured in their composition, unacquainted with ideal beauty, and even unable to understand expression, costume, and grace; finally, that the rapidity so much in vogue with the whole of the school,[41] led them to despise the rules of art, not permitting them to complete the work before them, out of an anxiety to engage in other labours, for the sake of the profits afforded by them. To some of their painters, doubtless, these observations may apply, but assuredly not to the whole; for if one city be obnoxious to them, another is not so much so; or if they can be affirmed of a certain epoch or class of artists, it would be an idle attempt to fix them upon all. This school is in truth most abundant, no less in artists than in fine examples in every characteristic of the art; but neither one nor the other are sufficiently known and appreciated. Yet it is hoped the reader will be enabled to form a more correct idea of both; and after having cultivated an acquaintance with the Bellini, the Giorgioni, and the Titians, besides other masters, will trace, as it were from one parent stock, the various offshoots transplanted throughout the state, imbibing, according to the nature of the soil, and the vicinity of other climes, new tastes and qualities, without losing at the same time their original and native flavour. And if in the progress of our history we shall here and there, among plants of nobler growth, meet with some "_lazzi sorbi_," to use the words of our poet, some bitter apples, growing at their side; let these only be attacked; but let not the disgrace attaching to a few careless artists be calumniously extended to the whole of their school.

The happy era we are now entering upon, commences with Giorgione and with Titian, two names which, connected together, yet in competition with each other, divided between them, as it were, the whole body of disciples throughout the capital and the state; insomuch that we find no city that had not more or less adopted for its model one or other of these masters. I shall proceed to describe them separately, each with his own class, as I believe such a method most favourable, to shew how the whole of the school I am describing was almost entirely derived and propagated from two masters of a similar style. Giorgio Barbarelli of Castelfranco, more generally known by the name of Giorgione, from a certain grandeur conferred upon him by nature, no less of mind than form, and which appears also impressed upon his productions, as the character is said to be in the handwriting, was educated in the school of the Bellini. But impelled by a spirit conscious of its own powers, he despised that minuteness in the art which yet remained to be exploded, at once substituting for it a certain freedom and audacity of manner, in which the perfection of painting consists. In this view he may be said to be an inventor; no artist before his time having acquired that mastery of his pencil, so hardy and determined in its strokes, and producing such an effect in the distance. From that period he continued to ennoble his manner, rendering the contours more round and ample, the foreshortenings more new, the expression of the countenance more warm and lively, as well as the motions of his figures. His drapery, with all the other accessaries of the art became more select, the gradations of the different colours more soft and natural, and his chiaroscuro more powerful and effective. It was in this last indeed, that Venetian painting was the most deficient, while it had been introduced into the rest of the schools by Vinci previous to the sixteenth century. Vasari is of opinion that from the same artist, or rather from some of his designs, it was first acquired by Giorgione, a supposition that Boschini will not admit, maintaining that he was only indebted for it to himself, being his own master and scholar. And, in truth, the taste of Lionardo and of the Milanese artists who acquired it from him, not only differs in point of design, inclining in the contours and in the features more towards the graceful and the beautiful, while Giorgione affects rather a round and full expression; but it is contrasted with it, likewise, in the chiaroscuro. The composition of Lionardo abounds much more in shades, which are gradually softened with greater care; while in regard to his lights he is far more sparing, and studies to unite them in a small space with a degree of vividness that produces surprise. Giorgione's composition, on the other hand, is more clear and open, and with less shade; his middle tints, also, partake in nothing of the ironcast and grey, but are natural and beautiful; and in short, he approaches nearer to the style of Coreggio, if Mengs at least judges rightly, than to any other master. Still I am far from concluding that Vinci in no way contributed to the formation of Giorgione's new manner; every improvement in the art having taken its rise from some former one, which being admired for its novelty, became familiar to surrounding artists by example, and to more distant ones by its reputation, thus adding what was before wanting to the perfection of the art. And in this way have geniuses in different parts arisen, destined to increase and improve such advantages. This, if I mistake not, has been the case with the science of perspective, subsequent to the time of Pier della Francesca; with regard to foreshortening after Melozzo; and also with chiaroscuro after Lionardo.