The History of Painting in Italy, Vol. 4 (of 6) / From the Period of the Revival of the Fine Arts to the End of the Eighteenth Century

by Luigi Lanzi

CHAPTER V.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH I.

Account of the Ancients until the time of Vinci.

If in each of our pictoric schools we have adhered to the plan of tracing back the memorials of more barbarous ages, and thence proceeding to more cultivated periods, Milan more especially as the capital of Lombardy, and the court of the Lombard kings, will afford us an epoch remarkable no less for its lofty character than for the grandeur of its monuments. When Italy passed from the dominion of the Goths to that of the Longobards, the arts, which invariably follow in the train of fortune, transferred their primary seat from Ravenna to Milan, to Monza, and to Pavia. Each of these places still retains traces of the sort of design now entitled, both on account of the place and the time, Longobardic, much in the same manner as in the diplomatic science we distinguish by the same name certain characters peculiar to that age, or rather to those ages, for after the Longobards were driven from Italy, the same taste in writing and sculpture continued to flourish during a great part of them. This style, as exhibited in works, both of metal and of marble, is coarse and hard beyond the example of any preceding age, and is seen most frequently and to most advantage in the representation of monsters, birds, and quadrupeds rather than of human figures. At the cathedral, at S. Michele, and at S. Giovanni in Pavia, appear some friezes over the gates, consisting of animals chained in a variety of ways to one another, sometimes in natural positions, and sometimes with the head turned behind. In the interior of the same churches, as well as in some others, we meet also with capitals, presenting similar figures, not unfrequently united to historical representations of men, differing so much from the human figure as to appear belonging to another species. The same kind of abuse of the art was practised in places under the sway of the Longobard dukes, one of which was the Friuli, which still preserves a number of these barbarous efforts. In Cividale there is a marble altar, first begun by Duke Pemmone, and completed by his son Ratchi, who lived during the eighth century. The bassi-relievi consist of Christ seated between different angels, his Epiphany, and the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin.[38] Art would appear scarcely capable of producing any thing more rude than these figures, yet whoever will be at the pains of examining the frieze on a gate at the same place, or the capitals of the pillars of S. Celso at Milan,[39] works of the tenth century, will admit that it was susceptible of still greater corruption when it added absurdity to its coarseness, and produced distorted and dwarfish figures, all hands and all heads, with legs and feet incapable of supporting them. There are an infinite number of similar marbles, and of like design, at Verona and other places. To these, nevertheless, are opposed other monuments which will not permit us to admit, as a general rule, that every trace of good taste was then extinct in Italy. I might easily adduce instances, drawn from different arts, and in particular from that of working in gold, which, during the tenth century, boasted its Volvino, who produced the very celebrated altar-piece at S. Ambrogio in Milan, a work which may be pronounced equal in point of style to the finest specimens of the dittici, or small ivory altar-pieces, that the museums of sacred art can boast.

Confining myself, however, to the subject before me, we know that Tiraboschi remarked in the palace of Monza, some of the most ancient pictures belonging to those ages, while other similar reliques are pointed out at S. Michele in Pavia, although placed in too elevated a situation to permit us to form an exact judgment of them. Others yet more extensive exist in Galliano, of which a description is given in the Opuscoli of P. Allegranza, (p. 193). Upon this point I may observe, that the Treatise upon Painting already mentioned, was discovered in a manuscript in the University of Cambridge to have had this title:—Theophilus Monachus (elsewhere qui et Rugerius), de omni scientiâ artis pingendi. Incipit Tractatus Lumbardicus qualiter temperantur colores, &c. This is a convincing proof, that if painting could then boast an asylum in Italy, it must have been more particularly in Lombardy. And in the church of S. Ambrogio, just mentioned, proofs of this are not wanting. Over the Confessional is seen a ceiling in terra cotta, with figures in basso-relievo, tolerably designed and coloured, resembling the composition of the best mosaic-workers in Ravenna and in Rome, supposed to be the work of the tenth century, or thereabouts. The figures of the Sleeping Saints are also seen near the gate, which must have been painted about the same time, and were at one time covered with lime, though they have since been brought to light and very carefully preserved by the learned ecclesiastics who are entrusted with the care of the temple. The portico has also a figure of the Redeemer, with a holy man worshipping at his feet, wholly in the Greek manner; besides a Crucifixion, which, to judge from the characters, might more suitably be ascribed to the thirteenth century than to the next. I omit the mention of several figures of the Crucified Saviour and of the Virgin, interspersed through the city and the state; contenting myself with referring to those of our Lady placed at S. Satiro and at Gravedona, which are of very ancient date.

From the period of these first efforts, I am of opinion that the art of painting continued to flourish throughout the state and city of Milan, though we are not fortunate enough to retain sufficient memorials of it to compile a full historical account. For little mention has been made by our oldest writers concerning the artists, except incidentally, as by Vasari in his Lives of Bramante, of Vinci, and of Carpi, and by Lomazzo, in his Treatise, and in his Temple, or Theatre[40] of Painting. As little likewise has been said by several of the more modern writers, nor that always with good authority, such as Torre, Latuada, Santagostini, whose narratives were collected by Orlandi, and inserted in his Dictionary. Some supplementary information has been supplied by Notices of the Paintings of Italy as to a variety of artists, and their exact age; and by the New Guide to Milan, truly new and unique until this period in Italy, and reflecting the highest credit upon the Ab. Bianconi, who not only points out every thing most rare in the city, but teaches us, by sound rules, how best to distinguish excellence from mediocrity and inferiority in the art. To this we may add the name of the Consiglier de' Pagave, who published very interesting notices relating to this school, in the third, fifth, and eighth volumes of the new Sienese edition of Vasari. I am also enabled to furnish considerable information in addition, politely transmitted to me in manuscript by the last writer, for the present work. From these I am happy to announce we may become acquainted with the names of new masters, along with much chronological information of a sounder kind, relating to those already known, frequently derived from the Necrologio of Milan, which had been carefully preserved by one of the public functionaries of that city.

By aid of these, and other materials I have to bring forward, I prepare to treat of the Milanese School from as early a date as 1335, when Giotto was employed in ornamenting various places in the city, which, down to the time of Vasari, continued to be esteemed as most beautiful specimens of the art. Not long subsequent to Giotto, an artist named Stefano Fiorentino was invited thither by Matteo Visconti, and is celebrated as one of the most accomplished pupils of the former. But he was compelled by indisposition to abandon the work he had undertaken in that city; nor do we know that at that period he had any successor in the Giotto manner. About the year 1370, Gio. da Milano, pupil to Taddeo Gaddi, arrived there, so able an artist that his master, at his death, entrusted to him the care of his son Angiolo, and another son, whom he was to instruct in a knowledge of the art. It is therefore evident that the Florentine early exercised an influence over the Milanese School. We are informed at the same time of two native artists, who, according to Lomazzo, flourished at the period of Petrarch and of Giotto. These are Laodicia di Pavia, called by Guarienti, pittrice, and Andrino di Edesia, also said to belong to Pavia, although both his name and that of Laodicia lead us to conjecture that they must have been of Greek origin. To Edesia and his school have been attributed some frescos which yet remain at S. Martino and other places in Pavia.[41] I cannot speak positively of the authors; their taste is tolerably good, and the colouring partakes of that of the Florentines of the age. Michel de Roncho, a Milanese, is another artist discovered by Count Tassi, at the same time that he gives some account of the two Nova who flourished at Bergamo. Michele is said to have assisted in their labours in the cathedral of that city, from the year 1376 to 1377, and remnants of these paintings survive, which shew that they approached nearer the composition of Giotto than the artists of Pavia. There are some pictures in Domodossola that also bring us acquainted with an able artist of Nova. They are preserved in Castello Sylva and elsewhere, and bear the following memorandum—Ego Petrus filius Petri Pictoris de Novariâ hoc opus pinxi, 1370. Without, however, going farther than Milan, we there find in the Sacristy of the Conventuali, as well as in different cloisters, paintings produced in the fourteenth century, without any indication of their authors, and most frequently resembling the Florentine manner, though occasionally displaying a new and original style, not common to any other school of Italy.

Among these anonymous productions in the ancient style, the most remarkable is what remains in the Sacristy of Le Grazie, where every panel presents us with some act from the Old or the New Testament. The author would appear to have lived during the latter part of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries; nor is it easy to meet with any other Italian production, conducted during that age by a single artist, so abundantly supplied with figures. The style is dry, but the colouring, where it has escaped the power of the sun, is so warm, so well laid on, so boldly relieved from its grounds, that it yields in nothing to the best Venetian or Florentine pieces of the time, insomuch that whoever be the artist he is fully entitled to all the praise of originality. Another Lombard artist, formerly believed to be a Venetian, is better known. His name has been incorrectly given by Vasari, in his life of Carpaccio, and in that of Gian Bellini, as well as by Orlandi and by Guarienti, in three articles inserted in the Dictionary of art. In one article, following Vasari, he is called by Orlandi, Girolamo Mazzoni, or Morzoni, and in the two others he is named Giacomo Marzone, and Girolamo Morzone, by Guarienti, a writer happier perhaps in adding to the errors and prejudices entertained about the old painters, than in correcting them. His real name is to be found upon an altar-piece which is still preserved at Venice, or in its island of S. Elena, a piece representing the Assumption of the Virgin, with the titular saint, S. Gio. Batista, S. Benedetto, and a holy Martyr, along with the following inscription—Giacomo Morazone à laurà questo lauorier. An. Dni. mccccxxxxi. The excellent critic Zanetti is persuaded, from its Lombard dialect, as well as from the fact of the artist having painted a good deal in different cities of Lombardy, as related by Vasari, that he does not belong to the Venetian, but to the Lombard School, and the more so as he took his name from Morazzone, a place in Lombardy. It is true, that granting this, there is no great sacrifice made, inasmuch as this Giacomo, who, when in Venice, was the competitor of Jacobello del Fiore, displayed little merit, at least in this picture, which cannot boast even a foot placed upon the ground according to the rules of perspective, nor any other merit that raises it much above the character of the thirteenth century.

Michelino was an artist who also retained the ancient style, and continued to the last the practice of making his figures large and his buildings small, a practice blamed by Lomazzo even in the oldest painters. He assigns to him a rank, however, among the best of his age on account of his designs of animals of every kind, which he painted, says Lomazzo, wonderfully well, and of the human figure, which he executed with effect, rather in burlesque than in serious subjects; and in this style was esteemed the model of his school. He would appear likewise to have been esteemed by foreigners, as we find in the Notizia Morelli, that in the house of the Vendramini at Venice there was preserved "a small book in 4to. bound in kid-skin, with figures of animals coloured" by this artist. At a little interval, according to Pagave, we are to place the period of Agostino di Bramantino, an artist unknown to Bottari, as well as to more recent investigators of pictorial history. I apprehend that an error committed by Vasari gave rise to an additional one in the mind of Pagave, a very accurate writer. Vasari, remarking that in a chamber of the Vatican, which was subsequently painted by Raffaello, the previous labours of Pier della Francesca, of Bramantino, of Signorelli, and of the Ab. di S. Clemente, were destroyed to accommodate the former, supposes that the two first of the artists, thus sacrificed, conducted them contemporaneously under Nicholas V. about 1450. Induced by the esteem he had for the same Bramantino, he collected notices also of his other works, and discovered him to be the author of the Dead Christ foreshortened, of the Family which deceived the horse at Milan, and of several perspectives; the whole of which account is founded in error, when attributed to a Bramantino, who flourished about 1450, yet the whole is true when we suppose them to have been the work of one Bramantino, pupil to Bramante, who lived in the year 1529. I cannot perceive, however, in what way the Consiglier Pagave could have detected Vasari's mistake in the Milanese works; whilst in those of the Vatican, which, according to Vasari himself, all belong to the same individual, he has taken occasion to repeat it. He had better have asserted that the historian had erred in point of chronology, in supposing that Bramantino painted under the pontificate of Nicholas V. than have ventured on the hypothesis of the existence of an ancient Bramantino, called Agostino, by whom a very beautiful work was to be seen in the papal palace, and no other specimen at Rome, at Milan, or elsewhere. I disclaim all belief then in this old artist until more authentic proofs are brought forward of his existence, and I shall be enabled to throw new light upon the subject before I conclude the present epoch.

In the time of the celebrated Francesco Sforza, and of the Cardinal Ascanio his brother, both desirous no less of enriching the city with fine buildings than these last with the most beautiful decorations; there sprung up a number of architects and statuaries, and, what is more to our purpose, of very able painters for the age. Their reputation spread through Italy, and induced Bramante to visit Milan, a young artist who possessed the noblest genius, both for architecture and painting, and who, after acquiring a name in Milan, taught the arts to Italy and to the world. The former had made little progress in point of colouring, which, though strong, was somewhat heavy and sombre, nor in regard to their drapery, which is disposed in straight, hard folds, until the time of Bramante, while they are also cold in their features and attitudes. They had improved the art, however, in regard to perspective, no less in execution than in writing on the subject; a circumstance that led Lomazzo to observe, that as design was the peculiar excellence of the Romans, and colouring of the Venetians, so perspective seemed to be the chief boast of the Lombards. It will be useful to report his own words, from his Treatise upon Painting, p. 405. "In this art of correctly viewing objects, the great inventors were Gio. da Valle, Costantino Vaprio, Foppa, Civerchio, Ambrogio and Filippo Bevilacqui, and Carlo, all of them belonging to Milan. Add to these Fazio Bembo da Valdarno, and Cristoforo Moretto of Cremona, Pietro Francesco of Pavia, and Albertino da Lodi;[42] who, besides the works they produced at other places, painted for the Corte Maggiore at Milan, those figures of the armed barons, in the time of Francesco Sforza, first duke of Milan:" that is to say, between the period of 1447 and 1466.

In treating of these artists, I shall observe nothing further in reference to the last four, having described those of Cremona in their own place, and not being aware that any thing more than the name of the other two survives at Milan; I say at Milan, because Pier Francesco of Pavia, whose surname was Sacchi, left, as we shall find, some fine specimens at Genoa, where he resided during some time. It is doubtful whether any altar-piece remains by the first of these, (Gio. della Valle,) it being impossible to ascertain the fact. Nor do I know of any genuine work belonging to Costantino Vaprio, though there is a Madonna painted by another Vaprio, surrounded by saints in different compartments, at the Serviti, in Pavia, with this inscription:—Augustinus de Vaprio pinxit 1498: a production of some merit.

Vincenzio Foppa, said by Ridolfi to have flourished about the year 1407, is esteemed almost the founder of the Milanese School, in which he distinguished himself during the sovereignty of Filippo Visconti, and that of Francesco Sforza. I alluded to his name in the Venetian School, to which he is referable from his being of Brescia, whatever Lomazzo may on the other hand contend. It is my wish to avoid all questions of nationality, and the compendious method of my work will be a sufficient apology in this respect, more particularly as far as relates to the names of less celebrated artists. But with the head of a school, such as Foppa, I cannot consider it a loss of time to investigate his real country, in particular as the elucidation of many confused and doubtful points in the history of the art is found to depend upon this. In Vasari's Life of Scarpaccia we find it mentioned, that about the middle of the century "Vincenzio, a Brescian painter, was held in high repute, as it is recounted by Filarete." And in the life of this excellent architect, as well as in that of Michelozzo, he says, that in some of their buildings, erected under Duke Francesco, Vincenzo di Zoppa (read Foppa), a Lombard artist, painted the interior, "as no better master was to be met with in the surrounding states." Now that there was a Vincenzo, a Brescian artist, who then and subsequently flourished, and who ranked among the best artists, is proved by Ambrogio Calepino, in his ancient edition of 1505, at the word pingo. There, after having applauded Mantegna beyond all other artists of his age, he adds:—Huic accedunt Jo. Bellinus Venetus, Leonardus Florentinus, et Vincentius Brixianus, excellentissimo ingenio homines, ut qui cum omni antiquitate de picturâ possint contendere. After so high a testimony to his merits, written, if I mistake not, while Foppa was still living, though edited after his decease, (as we noticed from the eulogy written by Boschini on Ridolfi, in its proper place); let us next attend to that found on his monument in the first cloister of S. Barnaba at Brescia, which runs as follows:—Excellentiss. ac. eximii. pictoris. Vincentii. de. Foppis. ci. Br. 1492. (Zamb. p. 32.) To these testimonials I may add that from the hand of the author, which I discovered in the Carrara Gallery at Bergamo, where, on a small ancient picture, conducted with much care, and a singular study of foreshortening, extremely rare for the period, representing Christ crucified between the two Thieves, is written:—Vincentius Brixiensis fecit, 1455.—What proof more manifest can be required for the identity of one and the same painter, recorded by various authors with so much contradiction with regard to name, country, and age?

It must therefore be admitted, after a comparison of the passages adduced, that there is only a single Brescian artist in question, that he is not to be referred to so remote a period as reported, and that he could not have painted in the year 1407 of the vulgar era, inasmuch as he very nearly reaches the beginning of the sixteenth century. We may for the same reasons dismiss from history those specious accounts interspersed by Lomazzo, asserting that Foppa drew the proportions of his figures from Lysippus; that Bramante acquired the art of perspective from his writings, out of which he composed a treatise of essential utility to Raffaello, to Polidoro, and to Gaudenzio; and that Albert Durer and Daniel Barbaro availed themselves, by plagiarism, of Foppa's inventions. Such assertions, already in a great measure refuted by the learned Consiglier Pagave in his notes to Vasari,[43] first took their rise in supposing that the age of Foppa was anterior to Piero della Francesca, from whom perspective in Italy may truly be said to have dated its improvement. Next to him Foppa was one of the first who cultivated the same art, as clearly appears from the little picture already mentioned at Bergamo. In Milan there are some of his works remaining at the hospital, executed upon canvass, and a martyrdom of S. Sebastiano, at Brera, in fresco, which, for design of the naked figure, for the natural air of the heads, for its draperies and for its tints, is very commendable, though greatly inferior in point of attitude and expression. I have frequently doubted whether there were two Vincenzi of Brescia, since Lomazzo, besides Vincenzo Foppa, whom, against the received opinion, he makes a native of Milan, marks down in his index a Vincenzio Bresciano, of whom I am not aware that he makes the slightest mention throughout the whole of his work. I am led to suspect, that meeting with some works bearing the signature of Vincenzio Bresciano, without the surname of Foppa, beyond the limits of Milan, the historian, fixed in his persuasion that Foppa must be a native of Milan, set down two artists of the name instead of a single one, and that this, moreover, was perhaps an old prejudice, prevailing in the Milanese School, and which Lomazzo was unable to dismiss. National errors and prejudices are always the last to be renounced. In the Notizia Morelli, a Vincenzo Bressano the elder is twice mentioned, an adjunct, which, if not a surname, as it was in the instance of Minzocchi, may have arisen from some false report connected with the two Vincenzi Bresciani. Indeed we have repeatedly observed that the names of artists have been very frequently drawn, not from authentic writings, but from common report, which generally presents us with a worse account of what has been ill heard or understood.

Vincenzo Civerchio, denominated by Vasari Verchio, to which Lomazzo, who asserts him to have been a Milanese, added the surname of Il Vecchio, is an artist whom we have recorded in the Venetian School, to which he is referred as a native of Crema, though he resided at Milan and educated several excellent pupils for that school, and with the exception of Vinci is the best entitled of any master to its gratitude. Vasari, when he praises his works in fresco, considers him in no way inferior to Foppa. In his figures he was extremely studied, and admirable in his method of grouping them in the distance, so as to throw the low grounds back, and bring down the higher parts with a gentle gradation. Of this he affords a model at S. Eustorgio in some histories of S. Peter Martyr, painted for a chapel of that name, which are highly commended by Lomazzo, though they have since been covered with plaister, there remaining only from the hand of Civerchio the summits of the cupola, which we trust will enjoy a longer date.[44] Ambrogio Bevilacqua is an artist known by a production at S. Stefano, representing S. Ambrogio with saints Gervasio and Protasio standing at his side. Other paintings procured for him the reputation of a fine drawer of perspective, though in the specimen here mentioned he has undoubtedly not adhered to its rules. The design, however, is such as approaches, with some slight traces of dryness, to a good style. Memorials of this artist are found as early as 1486; but of his brother Filippo, his assistant, and of Carlo, a native of Milan, mentioned by Lomazzo in the same work, I am able to find no account. There are two, however, who are referred by our already highly commended correspondent to this more remote epoch. These are Gio. de' Ponzoni, who left a picture of S. Cristoforo in a church near the city, called Samaritana, and a Francesco Crivelli, who is reported to have been the first who painted portraits in the city of Milan.

Of those who here follow, a part formed the body of painters under the government of Lodovico the Moor, during whose time Vinci resided at Milan, and others were gradually making progress during the following years, though not any wholly succeeded in freeing themselves from the old style. The first on the list are the two Bernardi, as frequently also called Bernardini, natives of Trevilio in the Milanese, the one of the family Butinoni, the other of that of Zenale, both pupils of Civerchio, and his rivals both in painting and in writing. Trevilio is a territory in the Milanese, at that period included in that of Bergamo, and for this reason comprehended by Count Tassi in its school. It is also a considerable distance from Trevigi, where he took advantage of the resemblance of the name to announce one Bernardino da Trevigi, a painter and architect, who never existed. Vasari mentions a Bernardino da Trevio (he meant to say Trevilio) who, in the time of Bramante, was an engineer at Milan, "a very able designer, and esteemed an excellent master by Vinci, though his manner was somewhat harsh and dry in his pictures;" and he then cites among his other works a picture of the Resurrection at the cloister of the Grazie, which presents some beautiful foreshortenings. It is surprising how Bottari should have changed Trevio into Trevigi, and how Orlandi should have understood Vasari as writing of Butinone, when, guided by Lomazzo, at page 271, and in other parts of the treatise, it was easy to conjecture that he was there speaking of Zenale of Trevilio. He was a distinguished character, in the confidence of Vinci,[45] and in the Treatise upon Painting compared with Mantegna, besides being continually referred to as an example in the art of perspective, on which, when old, in 1524, he composed a work, and put down a variety of observations. There, too, among others, he treated the question so long contested in those days, whether the objects represented small and in the distance ought to be less distinct in order to imitate nature, than those that are larger and more near, a question which he explained in the negative, contending rather that distant objects should be as highly finished and well proportioned as those more fully before the eye. This, then, is the Bernardino, so much commended by Vasari, whose opinion of this artist may be verified by viewing the Resurrection at Le Grazie, and a Nunziata at San Sempliciano, presenting a very fine piece of architecture, calculated to deceive the eye. This, however, is the best portion of the painting, as the figures are insignificant, both in themselves and in their drapery. In respect to Butenone, his contemporary, and companion also when he painted at San Pietro in Gessato, we may conclude that he displayed an excellent knowledge of perspective, since it is affirmed by Lomazzo. For the rest, his works, with the exception of a few pictures for rooms, better designed than coloured, have all perished. There is a Madonna represented between some saints, which I saw in possession of the Consiglier Pagave, at whose suggestion I add to the pupils of Civerchio, a Bartolommeo di Cassino of Milan, and Luigi de' Donati of Como, of whom authentic altar-pieces remain.

At the period when these artists were in repute, Bramante came to Milan. His real name, as reported to us by Cesariani his disciple and the commentator on Vitruvius, was Donato, and he was, as is supposed, of the family of Lazzari, though this has been strongly contested in the Antichità Picene, vol. x. There it is shewn, at some length, that his real country was not Castel Durante, now Urbania, as so many writers assert, but a town of Castel Fermignano. Both places are in the state of Urbino, whence he used formerly to be called Bramante di Urbino. There he studied the works of Fra Carnevale, though Vasari gives no further information respecting his education. He continues to relate that on leaving his native place he wandered through several cities in Lombardy, executing, to the best of his ability, small works, until his arrival at Milan, where, becoming acquainted with the conductors of the cathedral, and among these with Bernardo, he resolved to devote himself wholly to architecture, which he did. Before the year 1500 he went to Rome, where he entered the service of Alexander VI. and Julius II., and died there in his seventieth year, in 1514. We may here conjecture that the historian gave himself very little anxiety about investigating the memoirs of this great man. Sig. Pagave has proved to be a far more accurate inquirer into the truth. Animated by his love of this quality, the soul of all history, he at once renounced the honour his country would have derived from having instructed a Bramante; nor yet has he referred to[k] him as a pupil to Carnevale, or to Piero della Francesca, or to Mantegna, like some writers cited by Signor Colucci. He has properly noticed his arrival at Milan, already as a master, in 1476, after having erected both palaces and temples in the state of Romagna. From this period, until the fall of Lodovico, that is until 1499, he remained at Milan, where he executed commissions, with large salaries for the court, and was employed as well by private persons in works of architecture, and sometimes of painting.

Cellini in his second treatise denies Bramante the fame of an excellent painter, placing him in the middling class, and at this period he is known by few in lower Italy, where he is never named in collections, though he is very generally met with in the Milanese. Cesariano and Lomazzo had already asserted the same thing, the latter having frequently praised him in his work when giving an account of his pictures both sacred and profane, in distemper and in fresco, as well as of his portraits. His general manner, he observes, much resembles that of Andrea Mantegna. Like him he had employed himself in copying from casts, which led him to throw his lights with too much force on his fleshes. In the same manner also as Mantegna he covered his models with glued canvass, or with pasteboard, in order that in the curves and folds he might correct the ancients. And like him he employed for painting in distemper, a kind of viscous water, an instance of which is adduced by Lomazzo, who repaired one of the specimens. Most of Bramante's pictures in fresco, mentioned by Lomazzo and by Scaramuccia as adorning the public places in Milan, are now destroyed or defaced, if we except those that are preserved in the chambers of the Palazzi Borri and Castiglioni, which are pretty numerous. There is also a chapel in the Certosa at Pavia, said to have been painted by him. His proportions are square, and sometimes have an air of coarseness, his countenances are full, the heads of his old men grand, his colouring is very lively and well relieved from the ground, though not free from some degree of crudity. This character I have remarked in one of his altar-pieces, with various saints, and with fine perspective, in possession of the Cav. Melzi, and the same in a picture at the Incoronata in Lodi, a very beautiful temple erected by Gio. Bataggio, a native of the place, from the design of Bramante. His masterpiece, which is to be seen at Milan, is a S. Sebastiano, in that saint's church, where scarcely a trace of the style of the fourteenth century is perceptible. The Notizia Morelli points out his picture of a Pietà, at S. Pancrazio, in Bergamo, which Pasta had mistaken for one of Lotto, and mentions also his picture of the Philosophers, painted by Bramante in 1486, belonging to the same city.

He educated two pupils in Milan, whose names have survived. One of these is Nolfo da Monza, who is said to have painted from the designs furnished by Bramante, at S. Satiro and other places; an artist who, if not equal to the first painters, was nevertheless, it is remarked by Scanelli, of a superior character. In the sacristy also of S. Satiro, placed near the beautiful little temple of Bramante, are a number of old pictures, most probably from the hand of Nolfo. The other artist is Bramantino, supposed by Orlandi to have been the preceptor of Bramante, by others confounded with him, and finally discovered to have been his favourite disciple, from which circumstance he obtained his surname. His real name was Bartolommeo Suardi, an architect, and, what is more to my purpose, a painter of singular merit. In deceiving the eye of animals, he equalled the ancients, as we are acquainted by Lomazzo in the opening of his third book. During a period he followed his master; but on occasion of visiting Rome he improved his style, though not so much in regard to his figures and proportions, as in his colouring and his folds, which he made more wide and spacious. He was doubtless invited or conducted to Rome by Bramante, and there, under Pope Julius II., painted those portraits so highly praised by Vasari, and which, when about to be removed, to give place to Raffaello's, were first copied at the request of Jovius, who wished to insert them in his museum. It is certain that the Vatican paintings by Bramantino do not belong to the time of Nicholas V. as we have shewn. He returned from Rome to Milan, as we are informed by Lomazzo; and to this more favourable period we may refer his production of S. Ambrogio, and that of S. Michele, with a figure of the Virgin, coloured in the Venetian style, and recorded in the select Melzi gallery, and to be mentioned hereafter. There are also some altar-pieces both designed and coloured by him, in the church of S. Francesco, which display more elevation and dignity than belonged to his age. But his chief excellence was in perspective, and his rules have been inserted by Lomazzo in his work, out of respect to this distinguished artist. He likewise holds him up as a model, in his picture of the Dead Christ between the Maries, painted for the gate of S. Sepolcro, a work which produces a fine illusion; the legs of the Redeemer, in whatever point they are viewed, appearing with equal advantage to the eye. Other artists I am aware have produced the same effect: but it is a just, though a trite saying, that an inventor is worth more than all his imitators. The Cistercian fathers have a grand perspective in their monastery, representing the Descent of Christ into Purgatory, from his hand. It consists of few figures, little choice in the countenances, but their colouring is both powerful and natural; they are well placed, and well preserved in their distance, disposed in beautiful groups, with a pleasing retrocession of the pilasters, which serve to mark the place, united to a harmony that attracts the eye. He had a pupil named Agostin da Milano, well skilled in foreshortening, and who painted at the Carmine a piece that Lomazzo proposes, along with the cupola of Coreggio at the cathedral of Parma, as a model of excellence in its kind. His name is made very clear in the index of Lomazzo, as follows:—Agostino di Bramantino of Milan, a painter and disciple of the same Bramantino. I cannot imagine how such a circumstance escaped the notice of Sig. Pagave, and how he was led to present us with that more ancient Agostino Bramantino, (so called from his family name, not from that of his master) whose existence we have shewn to have been ideal, wholly arising out of a mistake of Vasari. The one here mentioned was real, though his name is so little known at Milan, as to lead us to suppose he must have passed much of his time in foreign parts. And we are even authorized to conjecture that he may be the same Agostino delle Prospettive whom we meet with in Bologna, in 1525. All the circumstances are so strong, that in a matter of justice, they would have proved sufficient to establish his identity; his name of Agostino, his age, suitable to the preceptorship of Suardi, his excellence in the art, which procured for him his surname, and the silence of Malvasia, who could not be ignorant of him, but who, because he was drawing up a history of the Bolognese School only, omitted to mention him.

There were other artists about 1500, who, as it is said, following Foppa, painted in the style which we now call antico moderno. Ambrogio Borgognone represented at S. Simpliciano the histories of S. Sisinio and some accompanying martyrs, which adorn one of the cloisters. The thinness of the legs, and some other remains of his early education, are not so displeasing in this work, as we find its accurate study, and the natural manner in which it is conducted, calculated to please. The beauty of his youthful heads, variety of countenance, simplicity of drapery, and the customs of those times, faithfully portrayed[l] in the ecclesiastical paraphernalia, and mode of living, together with a certain uncommon grace of expression, not met with in this or any other school, are sufficient to attract attention.

Gio. Donato Montorfano painted a Crucifixion, abounding with figures for the refectory of Le Grazie, where it is unfortunately thrown into the shade by the Grand Supper of Vinci. He cannot compete with a rival to whom many of the greatest masters are compelled to yield the palm. He excels only in his colouring, which has preserved his work fresh and entire, while that of Vinci shewed signs of decay in a few years. What is original in Montorfano is a peculiar clearness in his features, as well as in his attitudes, and which, if united to a little more elegance, would have left him but few equals in his line. He represents a group of soldiers seen playing, and in every countenance is depicted attention, and the desire of conquest. He has also some heads of a delicate air, extremely beautiful, though the distance in regard to their position is not well preserved. The architecture introduced, of the gates and edifices of Jerusalem, is both correct and magnificent, presenting those gradual retrocessions in perspective upon which this school at the time so much prided itself. He retained the habit which continued till the time of Gaudenzio at Milan, though long before reformed in other places, of mixing with his pictures some plastic work in composition, and thus giving in relief glories of saints, and ornaments of men and horses.

Ambrogio da Fossano, a place in the Piedmontese,[46] was an artist, who, at the grand Certosa in Pavia, designed the superb façade of the church, being an architect as well as a painter. In the temple before mentioned there is an altar-piece, which is ascribed either to him or his brother, not very highly finished, but in a taste not very dissimilar from that of Mantegna. Andrea Milanese, who has been confounded by one of Vasari's annotators with Andrea Salai, extorted the admiration of Zanetti, by an altar-piece he produced at Murano, executed in 1495, and it would appear that he studied in Venice. I cannot agree with Bottari that he is the same as Andrea del Gobbo, mentioned by Vasari in his life of Coreggio, since this last was a disciple of Gaudenzio.[47] About the same time flourished Stefano Scotto, the master of Gaudenzio Ferrari, much commended by Lomazzo for his art in arabesques, and of his family is perhaps a Felice Scotto, who painted a good deal at Como for private individuals, and left a number of pictures in fresco at S. Croce, relating to the life of S. Bernardino. His genius is varied and expressive, he displays judgment in composition, and is one of the best artists of the fourteenth century known in these parts. He was probably a pupil of some other school, his design being more elegant, and his colouring more clear and open than those of the Milanese. We might easily amplify the present list with other names, furnished by Morigia in his work on the Milanese nobility, where we find mentioned with praise Nicolao Piccinino, Girolamo Chiocca, Carlo Valli, or di Valle, brother to Giovanni, all of them Milanese, besides Vincenzo Moietta, a native of Caravaggio, who flourished in Milan about 1500, or something earlier, along with the foregoing. About the same period the study of miniature was greatly promoted by the two Ferranti, Agosto the son, and Decio the father, three works by whom are to be seen in the cathedral at Vigevano, consisting of a Missal, a book of the Evangelists, and one of the epistles illuminated with miniatures in the most exact taste.

Other professors then flourished throughout the state, of whom either some account remains in books, or some works with the signature of their names. At that period the Milanese was much more extensive than it has been since the cession of so large a portion to the house of Savoy. The artists belonging to the ceded portion will be considered by me in this school, to which they appertain, being educated in it, and instructing other pupils in it, in their turn. Hence besides those of Pavia, of Como, and others of the modern state, we shall in this chapter give some account of the Novarese and Vercellese artists (of whom I shall also give the information found in the prefaces to the tenth and eleventh volumes of Vasari, edited at Siena by P. della Valle), with others who flourished in the old state. Pavia boasted a Bartolommeo Bononi, by whom there is an altar-piece bearing the date of 1507, at San Francesco, and also one Bernardin Colombano who produced another specimen at the Carmine in 1515. In other churches I likewise met with some specimens by an unknown hand, (but perhaps by Gio. di Pavia, inserted by Malvasia in his catalogue of the pupils of Lorenzo Costa,) partaking a good deal of the Bolognese style of that age. At the same period flourished Andrea Passeri of Como, for whose cathedral he painted the Virgin among different apostles, in which the heads and the whole composition have some resemblance to the modern. But there is a dryness in the hands, with use of gilding unworthy of the age, (1505) in which his picture was painted. A Marco Marconi of Como, who flourished about 1500, displayed much of the Giorgione manner, and was probably a pupil of the Venetians. Troso da Monza was employed a good deal at Milan, and painted some pieces at S. Giovanni in his native place. Several histories of the Queen Teodelina, adorning the same church, executed in various compartments in 1444, are now also ascribed to him. It is not very easy to follow his inventions, somewhat confused and new in regard to the drapery and the Longobardish customs which he has there exhibited. There are some good heads, and colouring by no means despicable; for the rest, it is a mediocre production, and perhaps executed early in life. He is an artist much praised by Lomazzo for his other works which he left at the Palazzo Landi. They consist of Roman histories, a production, says Lomazzo, (p. 272) quite surprising for the figures as well as the architecture and the perspective, which is stupendous. Father Resta, cited by Morelli, who saw it in 1707, says that it almost astounded him by its surpassing excellence, beauty, and sweetness. (Lett. Pittor. tom. iii. p. 342.)

In the new state of Piedmont is situated Novara, where, in the archives of the cathedral, Gio. Antonio Merli painted in green earth Pietro Lombardo, with three other distinguished natives of Novara; an excellent portrait-painter for his age. In Vercelli, adjoining it, there flourished about 1460 Boniforte, Ercole Oldoni, and F. Pietro di Vercelli, of which last there is an ancient altar-piece preserved at S. Marco. Giovenone afterwards appeared, who is esteemed in that city as the first instructor of Gaudenzio, although Lomazzo is silent upon it. If he was not, he was worthy of the charge. The Augustin fathers possess a Christ risen from the Dead, between saints Margaret and Cecilia, with two angels, a picture of a noble character, in the taste of Bramantino and the best Milanese artists, and conducted with great knowledge of the naked figure and of perspective.

[38] The inscription is annexed to it, and may be found in Bertoli, Antichità di Aquileia, num. 516.

[39] See the Dottore Gaetano Bugati, in his Historical and Critical account of the relics and the worship of San Celso the Martyr, p. 1; and the P. M. Allegranza, Explanations and Reflections relating to some sacred monuments at Milan, p. 168.

[40] He borrowed the idea of this work from the Theatre of Giulio Camillo, with whom he compares his own Treatise in chap. ix. Hence, as in the case of some books which have two titles, I judge it best to call it by this name (Theatre) also, as others have done.

[41] See Notizie delle Pitture, Sculture, ed Architetture d'Italia, by Sig. Bertoli, p. 41, &c.

[42] Note that Lomazzo would not have passed over the name of Agostino di Bramantino, were it true that he had flourished as early as 1420, and employed himself at Rome, an honour to which the rest of these Milanese did not attain.

[43] Vasari, vol. iii. p. 233.

[44] The epochs relating to this artist appear difficult, and almost irreconcileable. From Lomazzo's account he was a painter as early as 1460, and according to Ronna, in his Zibaldone Cremasco, for the year 1795, p. 84, there are existing documents which prove that he was still living in 1535. If we give credit to these, Civerchio must have flourished to an extreme age, so as to be ranked in this point with Titian, with Calvi, and the other hoary-headed octogenarians of the art.

[45] Lomazzo, in his Treatise, (book i. chap, ix.), relates that Vinci in his Supper had endued the countenance of both the saints Giacomo with so much beauty, that despairing to make that of the Saviour more imposing, he went to advise with Bernardo Zenale, who to console him said, "Leave the face of Christ unfinished as it is, as you will never be able to make it worthy of Christ among those Apostles," and this Leonardo did.

[46] A number of places which are now included in the Piedmontese, formerly belonged to the state of Milan, as we have already observed. The city of Vercelli was united to the house of Savoy in 1427, and was subsequently subject to a variety of changes. Many of its more ancient painters are referred to the Milanese as their scholars; but they may be enumerated among the Piedmontese as citizens. This remark will apply to many different passages, both in this and in the fifth volume.

[47] Lomazzo, Trattato, c. 37.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH II.

Leonardo da Vinci establishes an Academy of Design at Milan. His Pupils and the best native Artists down to the time of Gaudenzio.

In treating of the Florentine School we took occasion to enter into a brief examination of the pictoric education of Vinci, of his peculiar style, and of his residence in different cities, among which was mentioned Milan, and the academy which he there instituted. He arrived in that city, according to the testimony of Vasari, in the year 1594, the first of the reign of Prince Lodovico Il Moro; or rather he resided there, if not altogether, at least for the execution of commissions, from 1482, as it has been recently supposed,[48] and left it after its capture by the French in 1499. The years spent by Lionardo at Milan were, perhaps, the happiest of his life, and certainly productive of the most utility to the art of any in the whole period of his career. The duke had deputed him to superintend an academy of design, which, if I mistake not, was the first in Italy, which gave the law to the leading ones in other parts. It continued to flourish after the departure of Vinci, was much frequented, and formed excellent pupils, maintaining in the place of its first director, his precepts, his writings, and his models. No very distinct accounts indeed of his method have survived; but we are certain that he formed it on scientific principles, deduced from philosophical reasoning, with which Vinci was familiar in every branch. His treatise upon painting is esteemed, however imperfect, as a kind of second canon of Polycletes, and explains the manner in which Lionardo taught.[49] We may also gather some knowledge of it from his other numerous and various writings, which, having been left to the care of Melzi, and in the course of time distributed, now form the ornament of different cabinets. Fourteen volumes of these presented to the public, are in the Ambrosian collection, and many of them are calculated to smooth the difficulties of the art to young beginners. It is further known that the author, having entered into a familiar friendship with Marcantonio della Torre, lecturer of Pavia, united with him in illustrating the science of anatomy, then little known in Italy, and that he represented with the utmost exactness, in addition to the human figure, that of the horse, in a knowledge of which he was esteemed quite unrivalled. The benefit he conferred upon the art by the study of optics is also well known, and no one was better acquainted with the nature of aërial perspective,[50] which became a distinctive and hereditary characteristic of his school. He was extremely well versed in the science of music, and in playing upon the lyre, and equally so in poetry and history. Here his example was followed by Luini and others; and to him likewise it was owing that the Milanese School became one of the most accurate and observing in regard to antiquity and to costume. Mengs has noticed before me that no artist could surpass Vinci in the grand effect of his chiaroscuro. He instructed his pupils to make as cautious an use of light as of a gem, not lavishing it too freely, but reserving it always for the best place. And hence we find in his, and in the best of his disciples' paintings, that fine relief, owing to which the pictures, and in particular the countenances, seem as if starting from the canvass.

For a long period past, the art had become gradually more refined, and considered its subjects more minutely; in which Botticelli, Mantegna, and others had acquired great reputation. As minuteness, however, is opposed to sublimity, it ill accorded with that elevation in which the supreme merit of the art would seem to consist. In my opinion Lionardo succeeded in uniting these two opposite qualities, before any other artist. In subjects which he undertook fully to complete, he was not satisfied with only perfecting the heads, counterfeiting the shining of the eyes, the pores of the skin, the roots of the hair, and even the beating of the arteries; he likewise portrayed each separate garment and every accessary with minuteness. Thus, in his landscapes also, there was not a single herb or leaf of a tree, which he had not taken like a portrait, from the select face of nature; and to his very leaves he gave a peculiar air, and fold, and position, best adapted to represent them rustling in the wind. While he bestowed his attention in this manner upon the minutiæ, he at the same time, as is observed by Mengs, led the way to a more enlarged and dignified style; entered into the most abstruse inquiries as to the source and nature of expression, the most philosophical and elevated branch of the art; and smoothed the way, if I may be permitted to say so, for the appearance of Raffaello. No one could be more curious in his researches, more intent upon observing, or more prompt in catching the motions of the passions, as exhibited either in the features or the actions. He frequented places of public assembly, and all spectacles in which man gave free play to his active powers; and there, in a small book always ready at hand, he drew the attitudes which he selected; and these designs he preserved in order to apply them, with expressions more or less powerful, according to the occasion, and the degree of expression he wished to introduce. For it was his custom, in the same manner as he gradually strengthened his shadows until he reached the highest degree; so also in the composition of his figures, to proceed in heightening them until he attained the perfection of passion and of motion. The same kind of gradation he observed in regard to elegance, of which he was perhaps the earliest admirer; since previous artists appeared unable to distinguish grace from beauty, and still more so to adapt it to pleasing subjects in such a way as to rise from the less to the more attractive points, as was practised by Lionardo da Vinci. He even adhered to the same rule in his burlesques; always throwing an air of greater ridicule over one than another, insomuch that he was heard to say, that they ought to be carried to such a height, if possible, as even to make a dead man laugh.

The characteristic, therefore, of this incomparable artist, consists in a refinement of taste, of which no equal example, either preceding or following him, is to be found; if, indeed, we may not admit that of the old Protogenes, in whom Apelles was unable to find any reason why he himself should be preferred to him, except it were the superabundant industry of his competitor.[51] And, in truth, it would appear, that Vinci likewise, did not always call to mind the maxim of "ne quid nimis," in the observance of which, the perfection of human pursuits is to be found. Phidias himself, said Tully, bore in his mind a more beautiful Minerva and a grander Jove, than he was capable of exhibiting with his chisel; and it is prudent counsel, that teaches us to aspire to the best, but to rest satisfied with attaining what is good. Vinci was never pleased with his labours if he did not execute them as perfectly as he had conceived them; and being unable to reach the high point proposed with a mortal hand, he sometimes only designed his work, or conducted it only to a certain degree of completion. Sometimes he devoted to it so long a period as almost to renew the example of the ancient who employed seven years over his picture. But as there was no limit to the discovery of fresh beauties in that work, so, in the opinion of Lomazzo, it happens with the perfections of Vinci's paintings, including even those which Vasari and others allude to as left imperfect.

Before proceeding further, it becomes our historical duty, having here mentioned his imperfect works, to inform the reader of the real sense in which the words are to be taken when applied to Vinci. It is certain he left a number of works only half finished, such as his Epiphany, in the ducal gallery at Florence, or his Holy Family, in the archbishop's palace at Milan. Most frequently, however, the report is grounded upon his having left some portion of his pieces less perfectly finished than the rest; a deficiency, nevertheless, that cannot always be detected even by the best judges. The portrait, for instance, of M. Lisa Gioconda, painted at Florence in the period of four years, and then, according to Vasari, left imperfect, was minutely examined by Mariette, in the collection of the king of France, and was declared to be carried to so high a degree of finish, that it was impossible to surpass it. The defect will be more easily recognized in other portraits, several of which are yet to be seen at Milan; for instance, that of a lady belonging to the Sig. Principe Albani; and one of a man, in the Palazzo Scotti Gallerati. Indeed Lomazzo has remarked, that, excepting three or four, he left all the rest of his heads imperfect. But imperfections and faults like his would have been accounted distinguishing qualities in almost any other artist.

Even his grand Supper has been stated in history as an imperfect production, though at the same time all history is agreed in celebrating it as one of the most beautiful paintings that ever proceeded from the hand of man. It was painted for the refectory of the Dominican fathers, at Milan, and may be pronounced a compendium not only of all that Lionardo taught in his books, but also of what he embraced in his studies. He here gave expression to the exact point of time best adapted to animate his history, which is the moment when the redeemer addresses his disciples, saying, "One of you will betray me." Then each of his innocent followers is seen to start as if struck with a thunderbolt; those at a distance seem to interrogate their companions, as if they think they must have mistaken what he had said; others, according to their natural disposition, appear variously affected; one of them swoons away, one stands lost in astonishment, a third rises in indignation, while the very simplicity and candour depicted upon the countenance of a fourth, seem to place him beyond the reach of suspicion. But Judas instantly draws in his countenance, and while he appears as it were attempting to give it an air of innocence, the eye rests upon him in a moment as the undoubted traitor. Vinci himself used to observe, that for the space of a whole year, he employed his time in meditating how he could best give expression to the features of so bad a heart; and that being accustomed to frequent a place where the worst characters were known to assemble, he there met with a physiognomy to his purpose; to which he also added the features of many others. In his figures of the two Saints Jacopo, presenting fine forms, most appropriate to the characters, he availed himself of the same plan; and being unable with his utmost diligence to invest that of Christ with a superior air to the rest, he left the head in an unfinished state, as we learn from Vasari, though Armenini pronounced it exquisitely complete. The rest of the picture, the tablecloth with its folds, the whole of the utensils, the table, the architecture, the distribution of the lights, the perspective of the ceiling, (which in the tapestry of San Pietro, at Rome, is changed almost into a hanging garden) all was conducted with the most exquisite care; all was worthy of the finest pencil in the world. Had Lionardo desired to follow the practice of his age in painting in distemper, the art at this time would have been in possession of this treasure. But being always fond of attempting new methods, he painted this masterpiece upon a peculiar ground, formed of distilled oils, which was the reason that it gradually detached itself from the wall, a misfortune which had also nearly befallen one of his Madonnas, at S. Onofrio, at Rome, though it was preserved under glass. About half a century subsequent to the production of his great Supper, when Armenini then saw it, it was already half decayed; and Scanelli, who examined it in 1642, declares that it "was with difficulty he could discern the history as it had been." In the present century a hope had been indulged of this magnificent painting being restored by aid of some varnish, or other secret, as may be seen by consulting Bottari. In regard to this, however, and the other vicissitudes of this great picture, we ought also to consider what is stated in a tone of ridicule and reproach by Bianconi, in his New Guide.[52] It will be sufficient for my purpose to add, that nothing remains in the modern picture from the hand of Vinci, if we except three heads of apostles, which may be said to be rather sketched than painted. Milan boasts few of his works, as those which are ascribed to him are for the most part the productions of his school, occasionally retouched by himself, as in the altar-piece of S. Ambrogio ad nemus, which has great merit. A Madonna, however, and Infant, in the Belgioioso d'Este palace, as well as one or two other pictures in private possession, are undoubtedly from his hand. We are assured, indeed, that he left few pieces at Milan, as well from his known fastidiousness in painting, as from his having been diverted from it, both by inclination and by the commissions received from the prince, to conduct works connected with engineering, hydraulics, and machinery for a variety of purposes, besides those of architecture;[53] and especially in regard to that celebrated model of a horse, of which, owing to its size, as we are told by Vasari, no cast could be taken in bronze. And this writer is the more entitled to credit, as well because he flourished near the period of which he treats, as because he could hardly be ignorant of a work, which would almost have placed the fame of our Italian on an equality with that of Lysippus.[54]

Of all his labours in Milan, therefore, nothing is better deserving of our notice than the academy which he founded, whose pupils constitute the proudest and most flourishing epoch of this school. They are not all equally well known; and we often find, both in collections and in churches, that pictures are pointed out as being of the school of Vinci, without specifying the particular artists. Their altar-pieces seldom display composition, varying much from that common to other schools of the age; namely, figures of the Virgin with the Infant, upon a throne, surrounded by saints, chiefly in an erect posture, and a few cherubs on the steps. Vinci's disciples, however, if I mistake not, were the first who conferred on their figures some degree of unity in action, so as to give them the appearance of conversing with each other. In the remaining parts, also, they exhibit a pretty uniform taste; they represent the same faces, all somewhat oval, smiling lips, the same manner in their precise and somewhat dry outlines, the same choice of temperate colours, well harmonized, together with the same study of the chiaroscuro, which the less skilful artists overcharge with darkness, while the better ones apply it in moderation.

One who approached nearest to his style, at a certain period, was Cesar da Sesto, likewise called Cesare Milanese, though not recorded by Vasari, or Lomazzo, in the list of his disciples. Still he is generally admitted by more modern writers. In the Ambrosian collection is the head of an old man, so extremely clear and studied, in the Vinci manner, by this artist, as to surprise the beholder. In some of his other works he followed Raffaello, whom he knew in Rome; and it is reported, that this prince of painting one day said to him, "It seems to me strange that being bound in such strict ties of friendship as we two are, we do not in the least respect each other with our pencils," as if they had been rivals on a sort of equality. He was intimate too with Baldassar Peruzzi, and was employed with him in the castle of Ostia. In this work, which was one of the earliest efforts of Baldassare, Vasari seems inclined to yield the palm of excellence to the Milanese artist. He was esteemed Vinci's best pupil; and he is more than once held up by Lomazzo, as a model in design, in attitude, and more particularly in the art of using his lights. He cites an Herodias by him, of which I have seen a copy in possession of the Consiglier Pagave, and the countenance bore an extreme resemblance to the Fornarina of Raffaello. The Cav. D. Girolamo Melzi has likewise one of his Holy Families, in the Raffaello manner, which he obtained a few years ago at an immense sum, as well as that celebrated altar-piece painted for S. Rocco. It is divided into compartments; in the midst is seen the Titular Saint and the Holy Virgin, with the Infant, imitated from a figure by Raffaello, which is at Foligno. From his Dispute of the Sacrament he likewise borrowed the S. Gio. Batista seated on a cloud, which is accompanied with the figure of St. John the Evangelist, placed in the same position. These decorate the upper part of the picture; the lower being occupied by the figures of the two half-naked saints, Cristoforo and Sebastiano, both appropriately executed, and the last exhibiting a new and beautiful foreshortening. They are on a larger scale than the figures of Poussin, and with such resemblance to Coreggio's, that, in the opinion of the Ab. Bianconi, they might have been easily ascribed to him, in default of the artist's name; such is the softness, union, and brightness of the fleshes, such their beauty of colouring, and the harmony investing the whole painting. It used to be closed with two panels, where, with a certain correspondence of subjects, were drawn the two princes of the Apostles, with Saints Martino and Giorgio on horseback; all of which display the same maxims, though not equal diligence in the art. Hence we may infer that this artist did not, like Vinci, aspire at producing masterpieces as an invariable rule, but was content, like Luini, with occasional efforts of the kind.

At the church of Sarono, situated between Pavia and Milan, are seen the figures of four Saints, drawn on four narrow pilasters; the two equestrian saints, already mentioned, and Saints Sebastiano and Rocco, to whom especially invocations are made against the plague. They are inscribed with the name Cæsar Magnus, f. 1533: the foreshortening is well adapted to the place; and the figure of S. Rocco more especially displays a composition such as we have mentioned. The features are not very pleasing, with the exception of those of St. George, as they are somewhat too round and full. These pieces are in general assigned to the artist of whom we here treat, and many are inclined to infer, from the inscription, that he belonged to the family of the Magni. But it is doubted by others; the frescos not appearing to justify his high reputation, however excellent in their way. Besides, I find the death of Cesare da Sesto recorded, in a MS. communicated to me by Sig. Bianconi, as occurring in the year 1524, though not in such a manner as to remove all kind of doubt. I find some reason for inclining to an opposite opinion in the great diversity of style, remarkable in this artist, the conformity of various ideas in the frescos and in his altar-piece, together with the silence of Lomazzo, generally so exact in his mention of the best Lombards, and who records no other Cesare but da Sesto.

I ought not to separate the name of this noble figurist from that of Bernazzano the landscape painter, as they were united no less in interest than in friendship. It is uncertain whether he was instructed by Vinci; he doubtless availed himself of his models, and in drawing rural landscape, fruits, flowers, and birds, he succeeded so admirably as to produce the same wonderful effects as are told of Zeuxes and Apelles, in Greece. This indeed Italian artists have frequently renewed, though with a less degree of applause. Having represented a strawberry-bed in a court-yard, the peafowl were so deceived by its resemblance, that they pecked at the wall until the painting was destroyed. He painted the landscape part for a picture of the Baptism of Christ, and on the ground drew some birds in the act of feeding. On its being placed in the open air, the birds were seen to fly towards the picture, as if to join their companions. As this artist had the sense to perceive his own deficiency in figures, he cultivated an intimacy with Cesare, who added to his landscapes fables and histories, sometimes with a degree of license that is reprobated by Lomazzo. These paintings are held in high esteem, where the figure-painter has made a point of displaying his powers.

Gio. Antonio Beltraffio, as his name is written on his monument, was a gentleman of Milan, who employed only his leisure hours in painting, and produced some works at Milan, and other places; but the best is at Bologna. It is placed at the Misericordia, and bore his signature, with that of his master Vinci, and the date 1500, though these have been since erased. In it is represented the Virgin between Saints John the Baptist and Bastiano, while the figure of Girolamo da Cesio, who gave the commission for the picture, is seen kneeling at the foot of the throne. It forms the only production of Beltraffio placed in public, and is on that account esteemed the more valuable. The whole of it exhibits the exact study of his school in the air of the heads, judicious in composition, and softened in its outlines. His design, however, is rather more dry than that of his fellow pupils; the effect, perhaps, of his early education, under the Milanese artists of the fourteenth century, not sufficiently corrected.

Francesco Melzi was another Milanese of noble birth, enumerated among Lionardo's disciples, though he had only the benefit of his instructions in design during his more tender years. He approached nearest of any to Vinci's manner, conducting pieces that are frequently mistaken for those of his master; but he employed himself seldom, because he was rich.[55] He was greatly esteemed by Vinci, inasmuch as he united a very fine countenance to the most amiable disposition, his gratitude inducing him to accompany his master on his last visit into France. He was as generously rewarded for it, becoming heir to the whole of Vinci's designs, instruments, books, and manuscripts. He promoted as far as possible the reputation of his master, by furnishing both Vasari and Lomazzo with notices for his life; and by preserving for the eye of posterity the valuable collection of his writings. For as long as the numerous volumes deposited at the Ambrosian library continue to exist, the world must admit that he was one of the chief revivers, not only of painting but of statics, of hydrostatics, of optics, and of anatomy.

Andrea Salai, or Salaino, was, from similar qualities, a great favourite with Vinci, who chose him according to the language of the times, as his creato, using him as a model for beautiful figures, both of a human and angelic cast. He instructed him, as we are told by Vasari, in matters pertaining to the art, and retouched his labours, which I think must gradually have changed their name; as a Salai is not now esteemed like a Vinci. There is a St. John the Baptist pointed out as his, elegant, but rather dry, in the archbishop's palace; a very animated portrait of a man, in the Aresi palace; with a few other pieces. His picture in the sacristy of S. Celso, is more particularly celebrated. It was drawn from the cartoon of Lionardo, executed at Florence, and so greatly applauded, that the citizens ran to behold it, as they would have done some great solemnity. Vasari calls it the cartoon of St. Anna, who, with the Virgin, is seen fondling the Holy Child, while the infant John the Baptist is playing with him. Subsequently, this cartoon rose into such repute, that when Francis I. invited Vinci to his court, he entreated that he would undertake the colouring; but the latter, says Vasari, according to his custom, amused him a long while with words. It appears, moreover, from a letter of P. Resta, inserted in the third volume of the Lettere Pittoriche, that Vinci formed three cartoons of his St. Anna, one of which was coloured by Salai. This artist admirably fulfilled the design of the inventor, in the taste of his well harmonised and low colours, in the agreeable character of his landscape, and in grand effect. In the same sacristy, opposite to it, was placed, for some time, a Holy Family by Raffaello, now removed to Vienna; nor did it shrink from such competition. A similar copy of the same cartoon was obtained from Vienna for our reigning sovereign, Ferdinand III. and now adorns the ducal gallery at Florence, likewise, perhaps, from the hand of Salai.

Marco Uglone, or Uggione, or da Oggione, ought to be included among the best Milanese painters. He did not employ himself exclusively on favourite pictures, like most of the scholars of Vinci, who preferred to paint little and well; but was celebrated for his frescos; and his works at the Pace still maintain their outline entire, and their colours bright. Some of these are in the church, and a very magnificent picture of the Crucifixion is to be seen in the refectory; surprising for the variety, beauty, and spirit of its figures. Few Lombard artists attained the degree of expression that is here manifested; and few to such mastery of composition and novelty of costume. In his human figures, he aimed at elegance of proportion; and in those of horses he is seen to be the disciple of Vinci. For another refectory, that of the Certosa, in Pavia, he copied the Supper of Lionardo, and it is such as to supply, in some measure, the loss of the original. Milan boasts two of his altar-pieces, one at S. Paolo in Compito, and another at S. Eufemia, in the style of the school we have described, and both excellent productions; though the manner which he observed in his frescos, is more soft and analogous to modern composition.

In the historical memoirs of Vinci, written by Amoretti, one Galeazzo is mentioned as one of his pupils, though it is difficult to decide who he was, along with other artists recorded in the Vinci MSS. These are one Jacomo, one Fanfoia, and a Lorenzo, which might perhaps be interpreted to be Lotto, did not the epochs pointed out by Count Tassi and P. Federici, relating to this artist, appear inapplicable to the Lorenzo of Vinci, who was born in 1488, and came to Lionardo in April, 1505, and probably while Vinci was at Fiesole, since he was there in the month of March in that year; that is, a month before,[56] and continued to reside with him at least while he remained in Italy. I am inclined to believe he filled the place of his domestic.

Father Resta, in his "Portable Gallery," cited by me in the third chapter, inserts also, among Vinci's Milanese disciples, one Gio. Pedrini, and Lomazzo, a Pietro Ricci, of whom I can learn nothing farther. Some, indeed, include in the same list Cesare Cesariano, an architect and painter in miniature, whose life has been written by Poleni. Lattuada, too, mentions Niccola Appiano, and makes him the author of a fresco painting over the gate of the Pace, which is certainly in the Vinci manner. Cesare Arbasia, of whom we shall further treat in the sixth book of the fifth volume, under the head of Piedmont, was erroneously referred, at Cordova, to the school of Vinci, and is mentioned as his pupil by Palomino. This was impossible, if we consider the epochs of his life, together with the character of his paintings. Were a resemblance of style enough to decide the question of preceptorship, I might here add to Leonardo's school a number of other Milanese, both of the city and the state. I cannot, however, dispense with a maxim, which, under a variety of forms, I have recommended to my readers; that history alone can ascertain for us the real pupils, as style does such as are imitators. Being unable, therefore, to pronounce them disciples, I shall give to Vinci only as his imitators the names of Count Francesco d'Adda, who was accustomed to paint on panels and on slate for private cabinets; Ambrogio Egogui, of whom there remains at Nerviano a fine altar-piece, executed in 1527; Gaudenzio Vinci, of Nova, who is distinguished also for another altar-piece at Arona, with a date anterior to the preceding. I never saw any of these; but it is agreed by all, that they are in the Vinci manner; and that the last especially is an astonishing production. Another work, which made its appearance only a few years ago at Rome, representing the figure of the Virgin, and quite in Leonardo's composition, as I have heard, bears the following inscription: Bernardinus Faxolus de Papia fecit, 1518. It was purchased by the Sig. Principe Braschi, for his very choice gallery; and it appeared truly surprising at Rome, that such a painter should be presented to our age, as it were alone, and without a word of recommendation from any historian. Yet similar occurrences are not unknown in Italy, and it forms a portion of her fame to enumerate her celebrated artists by ranks and not by numbers.

It remains for us to do justice to Vinci's most distinguished imitator, Bernardin Lovino, as he writes it, or Luini, as it is generally expressed; a native of Luino, in the Lago Maggiore. Resta asserts, that he did not arrive at Milan until after the departure of Vinci, and that he was instructed by Scotto. The author of the Guide, (at page 120) includes him in the list of Lionardo's pupils, and this, from the period when he flourished, might, I think, have been the case. Because if Gaudenzio, born in 1484, was at once the disciple of Scotto and of Lovino, as we are informed in the treatise of Lomazzo, (p. 421) it follows, that Bernardino must already have been a master about 1500, the time when Vinci left Milan. To much the same period Vasari refers Bernardino da Lupino, (he should have said da Luino,) an artist who painted the Marriage and other histories of the Virgin in so highly finished a taste at Sarono. One of Vasari's annotators erroneously again changes the name of Lupino into Lanino, a pupil of Gaudenzio. My supposition respecting the age of Bernardino, is further confirmed by a portrait which he drew of himself at Sarono, in his Dispute of the child Jesus with the Doctors, where he appears then old, and this picture was executed in the year 1525, as appears from the date. Luini, therefore, may have been one of Vinci's disciples; and he certainly frequented his academy. Others indeed of the school surpassed him in delicacy of hand, and in the pleasing effect of the chiaroscuro, a quality for which Lomazzo commends Cesare da Sesto, declaring that Luini drew his shadows in too coarse a style. Notwithstanding this, no artist approached nearer Vinci, both in point of design and colouring than Bernardino, who very frequently composed in a taste so like that of his master, that out of Milan many of his pieces pass for those of Vinci. Such is the opinion of true connoisseurs, as reported and approved by the author of the New Guide, who is assuredly one belonging to this class. He adduces two examples in the pictures at the Ambrosiana; namely, the Magdalen, and the St. John, who is seen caressing his lamb, a piece which foreigners can hardly be persuaded is not from Vinci's own hand. I have seen other pictures of equal, or nearly equal, merit, in different Milanese collections which I have frequently mentioned.

We must, however, add what I observed in reference to Cesare da Sesto just before, that in some of his works there is great resemblance to the manner of Raffaello, such as in a Madonna, belonging to the Prince of Keweniller, and one or two others which I know were purchased under the impression of their being Raffaello's. Hence, I imagine, must have arisen the opinion, that he had visited Rome, which is very properly questioned by the Ab. Bianconi, (p. 391), who rather inclines to the negative. Nor can I myself admit it without some further proofs, a similarity of manner to me appearing far too weak an argument to decide the fact. The same point was discussed in the third chapter on the subject of Coreggio; and if we found reason to conclude, that Coreggio succeeded in enlarging and refining his divine genius to such a degree, without seeing either Raffaello or Michelangiolo at Rome, we may admit the same to have been the case in the instance of Luini. The book of nature is equally open to all artists; taste is a sure guide to selection; and, by degrees, practice leads to the complete execution of what is thus selected. Vinci's taste so nearly resembled that of Raffaello in point of delicacy, grace, and expression of the passions, that had he not been diverted by other pursuits, and had he sacrificed some degree of his high finish, for the sake of adding to his facility, amenity, and fulness of outline, his style would naturally have run into competition with that of Raffaello, with whom, as it is, in some of his heads especially, he has many points in common. It was the same with Bernardino, who had embued himself with the taste of Vinci, and nourished during a period that bordered on an improved degree of freedom and softness of manner. At first, indeed, he adopted a less full and somewhat dry style, such as we easily recognise in his Pietà, at the Passione; subsequently he proceeded gradually to modernize it. Even that fine little picture of the Ebriety of Noah, which is shewn at S. Barnaba, as one of his most exquisite pieces, retains a certain precision in its design, a hardness of drapery and a direction of folds, which remind us of the fourteenth century. He becomes more modern in his histories of S. Croce, executed about 1520, several of which he repeated at Sarono five years after, where he appears to surpass his own productions. These last are the works which most resemble Raffaello's composition; though they retain that minuteness in decoration, the gilding of glories, and the abundance of little ornament in the temples, such as we see in Mantegna and his contemporaries; all of which were abandoned by Raffaello, when he arrived at his best manner.

It is my opinion, in fact, that this artist was not so much indebted to Rome, from whose masters he probably only imitated some prints or copies, as to Vinci's academy, with whose maxims he became completely familiar; and more especially to his own genius, vast in its kind, and equalled by very few. I say in its kind; for I allude to all that is sweet, beautiful, pious, and sensitive in the art. In those histories of our Lady, at Sarono, her features present us with a lovely union of beauty, dignity, and modesty, such as approach to Raffaello, although they are not his. They are, moreover, always consistent with the history the artist represents, whether we behold the Virgin at the marriage, or listening with wonder to the prophecies of Simeon; when, penetrated with the grand mystery, she receives the wise men of the east; or when, with a countenance of mingled joy and sorrow, she inquires of her divine son, teaching in the temple, why he had thus left her. The other figures possess a corresponding beauty; the heads appear to live, the looks and motions seem to be expecting a reply; combined with variety of design, of drapery, and of passions, all borrowed from nature; a style in which every thing appears natural and unstudied, which gains at a first view, which compels the eye to study part by part, and from which it cannot withdraw itself without an effort: such is the character of Luini's style in that temple. We observe little variation in his other pictures, which he executed with more care, and at a more mature age, at Milan; nor can I imagine what could lead Vasari to assert that the whole of his works are tolerable; when we meet with so many calculated to excite our wonder. Let us consult his picture of Christ scourged, at S. Giorgio, and inquire by what hand the countenance of our Redeemer has been drawn more full of kindness, humility, and piety; or turn to his smaller cabinet paintings in the possession of the Signori Litta, and other noble houses, so beautifully finished, and inquire again how many artists in his own times could have equalled him in these? The genius of Luini does not, moreover, appear to have been at all fastidious or slow; at least in his fresco paintings. Thus his Crown of Thorns, placed at the college of S. Sepolcro, a picture abounding with figures, for which he received one hundred and fifteen lire, occupied him thirty-eight days, besides eleven more, during which one of his pupils was engaged on the work. He availed himself of similar aid, likewise, in painting the choir of Sarono, in the Monastero[m] Maggiore, at Milan, in several churches of Lago Maggiore, and in other places; and to these assistants we ought apparently to ascribe whatever parts we find less perfect.

Two only of his disciples, his own sons, as far as I can learn, are known. At the period when Lomazzo published his treatise, in 1584, they were both living, and both mentioned by him with commendation. Of Evangelista, the second brother, he remarks, that in the art of ornamenting and festooning, he was equally ingenious and fanciful, at the same time giving him a high rank in other branches of painting; though it is to be regretted that he did not point out any of his productions. Aurelio Luini is frequently praised in the same work, as well as in the Teatro, for his knowledge of anatomy, and for his skill in landscape and perspective. He is subsequently introduced in the Treatise upon Painting, among the most celebrated artists of Milan who then flourished, as a successful rival of Polidoro's style, of which a specimen is praised, consisting of a large fresco, on the façade of the Misericordia. After the lapse of two centuries, Bianconi has written of him with more freedom, declaring, that though the son, he was not the follower of Bernardino, the purity of whose style he was far from attaining. And, in truth, if we except his composition, there is not much calculated to please in this artist. We may, indeed, often trace the paternal manner, much deteriorated however, and tainted with mannerism; his ideas are common, his attitudes less natural, the folds of his drapery are minute, and drawn in a mechanical manner. This character prevails in some genuine pieces of his that I have seen; among which is one in the Melzi Collection, with his name and the date of 1570. Others, however, which I have examined at Milan, are in a better taste, especially at S. Lorenzo, where an altar-piece with the Baptism of Christ, is ascribed to him, that would have done credit to Bernardino. Aurelio instructed in the art Pietro Gnocchi; and, if I mistake not, he was surpassed by his pupil, both in selection and in good taste. A Pietro Luini, having the reputation of a soft and accurate hand, and esteemed the last of the Luini, being admitted in history, I doubt whether he be not the Pietro of whom we here treat, occasionally surnamed from the house of his master, as we find in the case of Porta, and others of the sixteenth century. To him was ascribed the S. Pietro, painted for S. Vittore, seen in the act of receiving the Keys; but in the New Guide it is correctly given to the hand of Gnocchi.

Having thus shewn, as in a family tree, the regular successors of Leonardo at Milan, we must prepare to examine the other school, that traces its origin to Foppa, and other artists of the fourteenth century, who are mentioned in their place. It is not to be confounded with that of Vinci, and is separately considered by writers on the subject, though it is known to have derived great advantage from his models, and, I believe, from his discourse, inasmuch as he is allowed, like Raffaello, to have been extremely courteous and agreeable in his reception of every one, and in communicating his knowledge to all who desired it without any feeling of jealousy. If we take the pains to examine Bramantino and the rest of the Milanese artists, subsequent to the middle of the sixteenth century, we shall find them all more or less imitators of Vinci, aiming at his mode of chiaroscuro and his expression, rather dark in their complexions, and addicted to colour rather with force than with amenity. They are, however, less studious of ideal beauty, less noble in their conceptions, less exquisite in their taste, with the exception of Gaudenzio, who in every thing rivals the first artists of his age; and he is the only one of the ancient school who inculcated its maxims by teaching as well as by example.

Gaudenzio Ferrari da Valdugia is called by Vasari Gaudenzio Milanese. We mentioned him among Raffaello's assistants, referring to the account of Orlandi, who gives him as a pupil to Pietro Perugino, and noticing certain pictures that are attributed to him in lower Italy. But in those parts, where he only tarried a short time, or attempted some new method, he can scarcely be recognized, the information regarding it being very doubtful, which will be further shewn under the Ferrarese School. In Lombardy we may now treat of him with more certainty, many of his works being met with, and many particulars of him from the pen of Lomazzo, his successor in the art, as we shall shortly shew. He mentions Scotto as his master, and next to him Luini; and that previous to either of these he studied with Giovanone, is a current tradition at Vercelli. Novara is thought to be in possession of one of his first paintings, an altar-piece with various divisions at the cathedral, in the taste of the fourteenth century, and with the gilt decorations then so much in request. Vercelli possesses at S. Marco his copy of the cartoon of S. Anna, to which are added the figures of S. Joseph and some other saints. It is a youthful production, but which shews Gaudenzio to have been an early imitator of Vinci, from whom, says Vasari, he derived great assistance. He went young to Rome, where he is said to have been employed by Raffaello, and acquired a more enlarged manner of design, and greater beauty of colouring than had been practised by the Milanese artists. Lomazzo, against the opinion of Scannelli, ranks him among the seven greatest painters in the world, among whom he erred in not including Coreggio. For whoever will compare the cupola of S. Giovanni at Parma with that of S. Maria near Sarono, painted by Gaudenzio about the same period, must admit that there are a variety of beauties in the former, we may in vain seek for in the latter. Although we must admit that it abounds with fine, varied, and well expressed figures, yet Gaudenzio will be found in this, as in some other of his works, to retain traces of the old style; such as a degree of harshness; too uniform a disposition of his figures; his draperies, particularly of his angels, some of them drawn in lines like Mantegna's; with figures occasionally relieved in stucco, and then coloured, a practice he observed also in his trappings of horses, as well as in other accessaries in the manner of Montorfano.

With the exception of these defects, which he wholly avoided in his more finished pieces, Gaudenzio must be pronounced a very great painter, and one who approached nearest of any among Raffaello's assistants to Perino and to Giulio Romano. He displays also a vast fund of ideas, though of an opposite cast, Giulio having frequently directed his genius to profane and licentious subjects, while the former confined himself to sacred compositions. He appears truly unequalled in his expression of the divine majesty, the mysteries of religion, and all the feelings of piety, of which he himself offered a laudable example, receiving the title of Eximie pius in one of the Novarese assemblies. He was excellent in strong expression; not that he aimed at exhibiting highly wrought muscular powers, but his attitudes were, as Vasari entitles them, wild, that is, equally bold and terrible where his subjects admitted of them. Such is the character of his Christ's Passion, at the Grazie in Milan, where Titian was his competitor; and his Fall of S. Paul, at the Conventual friars in Vercelli, a picture approaching the nearest of any to that of Michelangiolo in the Pauline chapel. In the rest of his pictures he shews great partiality for the most difficult foreshortenings, which he introduces very frequently. If he fails in reaching the peculiar grace and beauty of Raffaello, he at least greatly partakes of that character, as we observe in his S. Cristoforo, at Vercelli, where, in addition to the picture of the titular saint, he painted upon the walls various histories of Jesus Christ, and others of Mary Magdalen. In this great work he appears more perhaps than in any other, in the character of a beautiful painter, presenting us with the most lovely heads, and with angels as lively in their forms as spirited in their attitudes. I have heard it praised as his masterpiece, though Lomazzo and the author of the Guide both agree in asserting that the manner he adopted in the Sepolcro of Varallo surpassed all he had elsewhere produced.

If we examine into further particulars of his style, we shall find Ferrari's warm and lively colouring so superior to that of the Milanese artists of his day, that there is no difficulty in recognizing it in the churches where he painted; the eye of the spectator is directly attracted towards it; his carnations are natural, and varied according to the subjects; his draperies display much fancy and originality, as varied as the art varies its draperies; with middle tints, blended so skilfully as to equal the most beautiful produced by any other artist. And if we may so say, he represented the minds even better than the forms of his subjects. He particularly studied this branch of the art, and we seldom observe more marked attitudes or more expressive countenances. Where he adds landscape or architecture to his figures, the former chiefly consists of very fanciful views of cliffs and rocks, which are calculated to charm by their novelty; while his edifices are conducted on the principles of the best perspective. As Lomazzo, however, has dwelt so much at length on his admirable skill both in painting and modelling, it would be idle to insist upon it further. But I ought to add, that it is a great reflection upon Vasari that he did not better know, or better estimate such an artist; so that foreigners, who form their opinions only from history, are left unacquainted with his merit, and have uniformly neglected to do him justice in their writings.

Ferrari's disciples for a long period maintained the manner of their master, the first in succession with more fidelity than the second class, and the second than the third. The chief part were more eager to imitate his expression and his facility than the elegance of his design and colouring, even so far as to fall into the bordering errors of negligence and of caricature. The less celebrated scholars of Gaudenzio were Antonio Lanetti da Bugnato, of whom I know of no remaining genuine production; Fermo Stella da Caravaggio, and Giulio Cesare Luini Valsesiano, who are still to be met with in some of the chapels at Varallo. Lomazzo, in the thirty-seventh chapter of his Treatise, besides Lanino, to come shortly under consideration, mentions, as imitators of Gaudenzio, Bernardo Ferrari of Vigevano, where two sides of the cathedral organ are painted by his hand; and Andrea Solari, or del Gobbo, or Milanese, as he is called by Vasari at the close of his life of Coreggio, in whose age he flourished. He says he was "a very excellent and beautiful painter, and attached to the labours of the art," adducing some of his pictures in private, and an Assumption at the Certosa in Pavia, in which Torre (p. 138) gives him Salaino as a companion. His two most distinguished pupils were Gio. Batista della Cerva and Bernardino Lanino, from whom sprung two branches of the same school, the Milanese and that of Vercelli.

Cerva took up his abode at Milan, and if he painted every picture like that which adorns San Lorenzo, representing the Apparition of Jesus Christ to S. Thomas and the other Apostles, he is entitled to rank with the first of his school, such is the choice and spirited character of the heads, such the warmth and distribution of his colouring, and so truly noble and harmonious is its effect as a whole. He must have been deeply versed in the art, though we possess no more of his public works, as he became the master of Gio. Paolo Lomazzo of Milan, who acquired from him the maxims he afterwards published in his Treatise upon Painting in 1584, and which he condensed in his Idea of the Temple of Painting, printed in 1590, to say nothing of his verses, for the most part connected with the same profession.

In his account of this writer Orlandi inserted several erroneous epochs of his life, subsequently cleared up by Bianconi, who fixes that of his loss of sight about 1571, in the thirty-third year of his age. Until this misfortune he had continued to cultivate all the knowledge he could derive from those times, which indeed in certain branches are in some measure undervalued. He took a tour through Italy, attaching himself to polite letters and to the sciences, for which he indulged such an enthusiasm, in his ill placed ambition to appear a philosopher, astrologer, and mathematician, that he treated matters even the most obvious in an abstruse and often false manner, as mistaken as the principles of the current astrology itself. This defect is very perceptible in his larger work, though being dispersed scantily here and there, it is the more easily excused. But it is more serious in his compendium, or Idea of the Temple of Painting, where it is presented to us in a point of view truly repugnant to common sense. Whilst engaged in teaching an art which consists in designing and colouring well, he flies from planet to planet; to each of the seven painters, whom he calls principals, he assigns one of these celestial bodies, and afterwards one of the metals to correspond. Extravagant as this idea is, he gave scope to still more strange fancies; so that with this method, combined with a most fatiguing prolixity, and the want of an exact index, his treatises have been little read. It would be well worth while to re-model this work, and to separate the fruit from the husk, as it abounds not only with much pleasing historical information, but with the best theories of art heard from the lips of those who knew both Leonardo and Gaudenzio, as well as with excellent observations upon the practice of the best masters, and much critical knowledge relating to the mythology, history, and customs of the ancients. His rules of perspective are particularly valuable. They were compiled from the MSS. of Foppa, of Zenale, of Mantegna, and of Vinci, (Tratt. p. 264); in addition to which he has preserved some fragments of Bramantino, who was extremely ingenious in this art, (p. 276). By these qualities, united to a certain ease of style, not so agreeable perhaps as that of Vasari, yet not so mysterious and obscure as that of Zuccaro, nor so mean as that of Boschini, the treatise of Lomazzo is deserving of attention, even from confessed masters, and of their selection of some of the best chapters for the benefit of their oldest pupils. I know of no other better adapted to furnish youthful genius with fine pictoric ideas on every theme, none more likely to attach him, and to instruct him how to treat questions upon ancient art, none that displays a more extensive acquaintance with the human heart—what are its passions, and by what signs they are manifested, and how they assume a different dress in different countries, with their appropriate limits; and no writer, finally, includes, in a single volume, more useful precepts for the formation of a reflecting artist, a fine reasoner, in a spirit congenial to Vinci, at once the father of the Milanese School, and I may add of pictoric philosophy, which consists in sound reflection upon each branch of the profession.

None of Lomazzo's paintings are doubtful, as the author has celebrated his own life and works in certain verses, composed, as I have reason to think, to beguile the tedium of hours wholly passed in darkness, and which he entitled Grotteschi.[57] His first efforts, as in all instances, are feeble, of which kind is his copy of Vinci's Supper, which may be seen at the Pace. In his others we trace the hand of a master eager to put his maxims into execution, and who succeeds more or less happily. One of the most fundamental of these was to consider as dangerous the imitation of other artists, whether taken from paintings or engravings. It is contended that an artist should aim at becoming original, forming the whole of his composition in his own mind, and copying the individual portions from nature and from truth. This precept, first derived from Gaudenzio, was put in force both by Lomazzo and others of his own time. In his pictures we may always discover some original traits, as in that at S. Marco's, where, instead of putting the keys in the hands of S. Peter, according to the usual custom, he represents the Holy Child offering them to him in a playful attitude. His novelty appears still more conspicuous in his large histories, such as his Sacrifice of Melchisedech, in the library of the Passione, a picture abounding with figures, in which the knowledge of anatomy is equal to the novelty of the drapery, and the animation of the colours to that of the attitudes. He has added to it a combat in the distance, well conceived, and in good perspective. I have seen no other painting of his that displays more knowledge. In other instances he is confused and overloaded, sometimes also extravagant, as in that grand fresco painted for the refectory of S. Agostino at Piacenza, or as it is called of the Rocchettini, which represents the subject of the Forty Days' Fast. This is an ideal feast of meagre meats, where the sovereigns are seen in different seats (some of them portraits of the age), with lords of rank feasting at a splendid banquet of fish, while the poor are devouring such food as they have, and a greedy man is struggling with a huge mouthful sticking in his throat. The Lord blesses the table, and above is seen the sheet which was shewn in a vision to S. Peter. It is a grand picture, calculated to surprise the eye by the exactness with which the particular parts are copied from nature, and with a delicacy that Girupeno asserts was unequalled even by Lomazzo in the works he executed at Milan. But it is not happy as a whole; the canvass is too full, and there is a mixture of sacred and burlesque subjects, from scripture and from the tavern, that cannot be reconciled or approved.

Lomazzo gives the names of two Milanese as his pupils, Cristoforo Ciocca and Ambrogio Figino. He could not long have afforded them his instructions, as at the period when he wrote his treatise, being then blind, they were both still in early youth. He commends them for their portraits, and the first would appear never to have been an able composer, having left, perhaps, no other pieces in public, except his histories of S. Cristoforo, at S. Vittore al Corpo, by no means excellent. Figino succeeded no less admirably in portraits, which he painted also for princes, with high commendation from the Cav. Marino, than in large compositions almost always executed in oil, and more distinguished by the excellence than by the number of the figures. Some of his pictures, as his S. Ambrogio, at S. Austorgio, or his S. Matteo, at S. Raffaello, though presenting few figures, fail not to please by the grandeur of character expressed in the faces of those saints; nor has any other artist of Milan approached in this art nearer to Gaudenzio who left such noble examples in his S. Girolamo and S. Paolo. In works of a larger scale, such as his Assumption at S. Fedele, and the very elegant Concezione at S. Antonio, he also excels. His method is described by his preceptor, in his Treatise, (p. 438). He proposed for his imitation the lights and the accuracy of Leonardo, the dignity of Raffaello, Coreggio's colouring, and the outlines of Michelangiolo. Of the last in particular he was one of the most successful imitators in his designs, which are consequently in the highest repute; but independent of which he is little known, either in collections or in history, further than Milan. This artist must not be mistaken for Girolamo Figino, his contemporary, a very able painter, and an exact miniaturist, if we are to credit Morigia. There is also ranked, among Lomazzo's disciples, a Pietro Martire Stresi, who acquired some reputation by his copies from Raffaello.

The other branch of Gaudenzio's school, before mentioned, sprung from Bernardino Lanini of Vercelli, who there produced some excellent early imitations of the style of Gaudenzio, his master. At S. Giuliano there is a Pietà, with the date of 1547, which might be ascribed to Gaudenzio, had not the name of Bernardino been affixed. It is the same with his other pictures, executed at his native place, when still young, and perhaps the chief distinction consists in his inferior accuracy of design, and less force of chiaroscuro. At a riper age he painted with more freedom, and a good deal in the manner of the naturalists, ranking among the first in Milan. He had a very lively genius both for conceiving and executing, and adapted like that of Ferrari for noble histories. The one of S. Catherine, in the church of that name, near S. Celso, is greatly celebrated, and the more so, from what Lomazzo has said of it, being full of pictoric spirit in the features and the attitudes, with colouring like Titian's, and embued with grace, no less in the face of the saint, which partakes of Guido, than in the choir of angels, which rivals those of Gaudenzio. If there be any portion deficient, it is in the want of more care in arranging his drapery. He was much employed, both for the city and the state, particularly at the cathedral of Novara, where he painted his Sibyllo, and his Padre Eterno, so greatly admired by Lomazzo; besides several histories of the Virgin, which though now deprived of their colour, still attract us by the spirit and clearness of the design. He was sometimes fond of displaying the manner of Vinci, as in his picture of the Patient Christ, between two angels, painted for the church of Ambrogio; so complete in every part, so beautiful and devotional, combined with so fine a relief, as to be esteemed one of the most excellent productions that adorn that church.

Bernardino had two brothers, not known beyond Vercelli; Gaudenzio, of whom there is said to be an altar-piece in the Sacristy of the Padri Barnabiti representing the Virgin between various saints; and his second brother Girolamo, from whose hand I have seen a Descent from the Cross, belonging to a private individual. Both display some distant resemblance to Bernardino in the natural expression of the countenances, the former also in the force of his colouring, though alike greatly inferior in design. Three other Giovenoni, subsequent to Girolamo, flourished about the period of Lanini, whose names were Paolo, Batista, and Giuseppe; the last became an excellent portrait-painter. He was brother-in-law to Lanini, two of whose sons-in-law were likewise good artists; Soleri, whom I reserve for the school of Piedmont, and Gio. Martino Casa, a native of Vercelli, who resided, however, at Milan, whence I obtained my information. Perhaps the last in the list of this school was Vicolungo di Vercelli. In a private house at that place, I saw his Supper of Belshazzar, tolerably well coloured, abounding with figures, extravagant drapery, poor ideas, and no way calculated to surprise, except by exhibiting the successors of Raffaello reduced thus gradually to so mean a state.

Good landscape painters were not wanting in this happy epoch in Milan, particularly in the school of Bernazzano, their productions appearing in several collections, though their names are unknown. To this list perhaps belongs the Francesco Vicentino, a Milanese so much commended by Lomazzo, who, in a landscape, succeeded even in shewing the dust blown about by the wind. He was also a good figure-painter, of which a few fine specimens remain at the Grazie and other churches. Some ornamental painters and of grotesques we have already noticed, to which list we may add Aurelio Buso, mentioned with praise among the native Venetian artists, and here again justly recorded for his labours. Vincenzio Lavizzario, an excellent portrait-painter, may be esteemed the Titian of the Milanese, to whose name we may unite that of Gio. da Monte of Crema, treated in the preceding book, and deserving of repetition here. Along with him flourished Giuseppe Arcimboldi, selected for his skill in portrait, as the court-painter of Maximilian II., in which office he continued also under the emperor Rodolph. Both these artists were much celebrated for those capricci, or fancy pieces, which afterwards fell into disuse. At a distance they appeared to be figures of men and women; but on a nearer view the Flora disappeared in a heap of flowers and leaves, and the Vertumnus was metamorphosed into a composition of fruits and foliage. Nor did these fanciful artists confine themselves to subjects taken from ancient fable; they added others in which they poetically introduced various personifications. The former even represented Cucina, with her head and limbs composed only of pots and pans and other kitchen utensils; while the latter, who acquired great credit from these strange inventions, produced a picture of Agriculture, consisting of spades, ploughs, and scythes, with other appropriate implements.

We have lastly to record an art connected with the inferior branches of painting, scarcely noticed by me in any other place, being, indeed, purposely reserved for the Milanese School, where it more particularly flourished. This is the art of embroidering, not merely flowers and foliage, but extensive history and figure-pieces. It had continued from the time of the Romans in Italy, and there is a very valuable specimen remaining in the so called Casula Dittica, at the Museo di Classe at Ravenna, or more properly some strips of it brocaded with gold, on which, in needlework, appear the portraits of Zenone, Montano, and other saintly bishops. It is a monument of the sixth century, and has been described by the Ab. Sarti, and afterwards by Monsig. Dionisi. The same custom of embroidering sacred walls with figures would appear, from the ancient pictures, to have continued during the dark ages, and there are yet some relics to be seen in some of our Sacristies. The most entire are at S. Niccolo Collegiata in Fabriano, consisting of a priest's cope, with figures of apostles and different saints; and a vestment with mysteries of the passion, worked in embroidery, with the dry and coarse design of the fourteenth century. In Vasari we find frequent mention of this art; and, to say nothing of the ancients, he presents us with many names greatly distinguished in it in more cultivated ages: such as Paolo da Verona, and one Niccolo Veneziano, who being in the service of the Prince Doria, at Genoa, introduced Perin del Vaga at that court, as well as Antonio Ubertini, a Florentine, to whom we alluded under his own school.

Lomazzo traces the account of the Milanese from the earliest period. Luca Schiavone, he observes, carried this branch to the highest degree, and communicated it to Girolamo Delfinone, who flourished in the times of the last Duke Sforza, whose portrait he executed in embroidery, besides several large works, among which is the life of our lady, worked for the cardinal Baiosa. This skill became hereditary in the family, and Scipione, the son of Girolamo, was equally distinguished. His chases of different animals were in great request for royal cabinets, a number of them being collected by Philip of Spain and the English King Henry. Marcantonio, son of Scipione, followed the genius of the family, and is mentioned by Lomazzo in 1591 as a youth of great promise. This writer has also praised for her skill in the same line, Caterina Cantona, a noble Milanese lady, and has omitted the name of Pellegrini, the Minerva of her time, only perhaps because she had then hardly become celebrated. Other individuals of this house are mentioned in the list of artists. Andrea, who painted in the choir of S. Girolamo, and a Pellegrino his cousin, celebrated in the history of Palomino for his productions in the Escurial, and being both architect and painter to the royal court. The lady of whom I write, how far related to them I know not, devoted herself wholly to her needle, and by her hand were embroidered the great pallium (vestment) and other sacred furniture, still preserved in the sacristy of the cathedral, and exhibited to strangers with other curious specimens of ancient learning and the arts. In the Guide for 1783, she is called Antonia, and in that for 1787 Lodovica, unless, indeed, they were two different persons. In the following age Boschini mentioned, with high commendation, the unrivalled Dorothea Aromatari, who, he adds, produced with her needle all those beauties which the finest and most diligent artists exhibited with their pencil. To hers he unites with praise the names of some other female embroiderers of the age; and we, in mentioning that of Arcangela Paladini, had occasion to commend her paintings and her needlework at the same time.

[48] Amoretti, Memorie Storiche di Leonardo da Vinci, p. 20.

[49] This work was reprinted at Florence, together with the figures, 1792, an edition taken from a copy in the hand of Stefano della Bella, belonging to the Riccardi library. It was published by the learned librarian, the Ab. Fontani, with the eulogy of Vinci, abounding with information on his life and paintings, as well as on his designs attached to it. To this is added the eulogy of Stefano, and a Dissertation of Lami upon the Italian painters and sculptors who flourished between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries.

[50] Cellini declares that he borrowed a great number of excellent observations upon perspective from one of Vinci's discourses. (Tratt. ii. p. 153.)

[51] Plin. lib. xxxv. c. 10. Uno se præstare, quod manum ille de tabulâ nesciret tollere. This he said in reference to that Jalysus, on which Protogenes had bestowed no less than seven years.

[52] (Page 329.) The Sig. Baldassare Orsini has likewise inveighed against the inconsiderate retouchings of old paintings, in his Risposta, p. 77; where he also alludes to a letter of Hakert's, in defence of varnishes, and to another in reply, in which the use of them is disapproved by force of examples. He moreover cites a Supplementary Letter drawn from the Roman Journal of Fine Arts, for December, 1788.

[53] A number of designs are to be seen in his MS. volumes belonging to the Ambrosian collection. See Mariette's letter, in vol. ii. of Lett. Pittoriche, p. 171; and, also, "Observations upon the Designs of Lionardo," by the Ab. Amoretti, Ed. of Milan, 1784.

[54] It was intended for the equestrian statue of Francesco Sforza, father of Lodovico. The Cav. Fr. Sabba da Castiglione has mentioned in his Ricordi, No. 109, that this very ingenious model, so greatly celebrated in the annals of the arts, which cost Vinci sixteen years to complete, was seen by the writer in 1499, converted into a target for the Gascon bowmen in the service of Louis XII. when he became master of Milan.

[55] Amoretti, Mem. Stor. del Vinci, p. 130.

[56] See Amoretti, p. 90.

[57] Can there be any doubt whether he was blind or not, when he wrote the following verses:—

Quindi andai[n] a Piacenza, et ivi fei

Nel refetorio di Sant'Agostino

La facciata con tal historia pinta.

Da lontan evvi Piero in orazione

Che vede giù dal ciel un gran lenzuolo

Scender pien d'animai piccioli e grandi

Onde la Quadragesma fu introdotta, &c.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH III.

The Procaccini and other foreign and native artists establish a new Academy, with new styles, in the city and state of Milan.

The two series which we have hitherto described have gradually brought us towards the seventeenth century, when there scarcely remained a trace either of the Vinci or Gaudenzio manner. This arose from their latest successors, who adopted, more or less, those new manners which were gradually introduced into Milan at the expense of the ancient style. As early as the time of Gaudenzio appeared in that city the Coronation of Thorns, painted by Titian, which was so greatly admired that several of his pupils came to establish themselves there, besides other foreigners. Some unfortunate circumstances also occurred; particularly the plague, which more than once, in the same century, desolated the state, and which, sweeping off native artists, opened the way to strangers who succeeded to their commissions. Hence Lomazzo, at the close of his Tempio, only commends three among the Milanese figure-painters, who then flourished, Luini, Gnocchi, and Duchino, the rest being all foreigners. The attachment shewn by several noble families to the arts, conduced to invite them thither, and in particular that of the Borromea, which presented to the archiepiscopal seat of their country two distinguished prelates, cardinal Carlo, who added to the number of saints at the altar, and Federigo, who nearly attained the same honours. Both were inspired by the same spirit of religion; they were simple in private, but splendid and liberal in public. Out of their economy they clothed and fed numbers of citizens, and promoted the dignity of the sanctuary, and of their country. They erected and restored many noble edifices, and decorated with paintings a far greater number both in and beyond the city, insomuch as to make it observed that Milan was no less indebted to the Borromei than Florence to her Medici, or Mantua to her Gonzaghi. The Car. Federigo, who received his education first at Bologna, then at Rome, not only possessed a decided inclination but a taste for the fine arts; and he also enjoyed a longer and more tranquil pontificate than Carlo, so as to enable him to afford them superior patronage. Not satisfied with employing the ablest architects, sculptors, and painters in public works, he rekindled, as it were, the spark that yet survived of Vinci's academy, instituting, with much care and expense, a new academy of the fine arts. He provided it with schools, with casts, and a very choice picture gallery,[58] for the benefit of the young students, taking advantage of the plan and rules of the Roman academy, founded a few years before, with his co-operation. The grand colossal figure of S. Carlo reflects equal honour on the new school and on its founder, being executed in bronze from the design of Cerani, and exhibited at Arona, the place where the saint was born; a statue fourteen times the height of the human figure, and vieing with the grandest productions of Greek or Egyptian statuary. In painting, however, to say the truth, the new is not equal to the ancient school, though by no means deficient in fine artists, as we shall shew. Meanwhile we must resume the thread of our history, and explain how the Milanese, being reduced to very few artists, while painters were much in request for the ornament of churches and other public edifices, greatly on the increase, were superseded by foreign artists, such as the Campi, the Semini, the Procaccini, and the Nuvoloni, who introduced new styles, while others were sought out in foreign parts by some of the citizens of Milan, particularly by Cerano and by Morazzone. These became the instructors of almost all the Milanese youth, and of the state; these commencing their labours about 1570, which they continued until after 1600, at length rose so superior to the ancient schools, not so much in soundness of taste and maxims, as in the amenity of their colours, as gradually to extinguish them. Nor did they only aim at teaching new styles; some of them began to treat them with so much haste as to fall into mannerism, from which period their school began to decline, and appeared to have adopted as a maxim to praise the theory of the ancients, and to practise the haste of the moderns. But let us return to our subject.

I mentioned, not far back, in treating of Titian's disciples, the names of Callisto da Lodi and Gio. da Monte, and I have here to add that of Simone Peterzano, or Preterazzano, who, on his Pietà, at S. Fedele, inscribed himself Titiani Discipulus; and his close imitation seems to confirm its truth. He produced also works in fresco, and particularly at S. Barnaba several histories of St. Paul. He there appears to have aimed at uniting the expression, the foreshortening, and the perspective of the Milanese to the colouring of the Venetian artists; noble works, if they were thoroughly correct; and if the author had been as excellent in fresco as in oil painting. From Venice, or rather from its Senate, we trace the name of Cesare Dandolo, who went to settle at Milan, and whose paintings adorn various palaces, esteemed no less for their art than on account of the rank of the noble artist.

The Campi were among the most eager to establish themselves at Milan, where they were much employed, and Bernardino more than the rest. He painted, likewise, in the adjacent cities, and it was at that period that he completed for the Certosa, at Pavia, the before-mentioned altar-piece of Andrea Solari, which, remaining unfinished at his death, was, after the lapse of many years, completed in the same style by Bernardino, so as to appear wholly from the same hand. Unable alone to despatch his commissions, he had his cartoons coloured by his pupils, who became, like their master, accurate, precise, and worthy of the commendations bestowed upon them by Lomazzo. One of these was Giuseppe Meda, both painter and architect, who represented upon an organ, in the Metropolitana, the figure of David seen playing before the ark. This work is cited by Orlandi, under the name of Carlo Meda, who, perhaps, belonged to the family of the preceding, and who, as stated in the dictionary, appears younger. Few of his other pictures are to be seen, as is observed by Scannelli. Another was Daniello Cunio, of Milan, who became a landscape painter of great merit; perhaps a brother, or other relation of the same Ridolfo Cunio, who is met with in several Milanese collections, and is particularly celebrated for his design. The third was Carlo Urbini da Crema, one of the least celebrated but most deserving artists of his age, and one whom we have commemorated elsewhere. Lamo observes, that Bernardino had a vast number of scholars and assistants, and from his account, we are here enabled to add the names of Andrea da Viadana, Giuliano or Giulio de' Capitani, of Lodi, and Andrea Marliano, of Pavia. Perhaps, also, Andrea Pellini belongs to this list, who, though unknown in his native city of Cremona, is celebrated at Milan for his Descent from the Cross, placed at S. Eustorgio, in 1595.

Of a later date, appeared at Milan the two Semini, from Genoa; both of whom were much employed, and both disciples of the Roman more than any other style. Ottavio, the eldest, instructed Paol Camillo Landriani, called Il Duchino, who was justly praised in the Tempio of Lomazzo as a youth of the greatest promise. He subsequently produced a number of altar-pieces, among which was a Nativity, at S. Ambrogio, in which, to the design and elegance of his master, he unites perhaps a greater degree of softness. The professors hitherto described, do not reach the era of the art's decline, except, possibly, in their extreme old age; insomuch as to be fully worthy of the praise I bestow.

The artists, however, who more particularly employed themselves in painting and teaching at Milan during this period, were the Procaccini of Bologna. Though not mentioned by Lomazzo in his Treatise, in the year 1584, they are afterwards, in 1590, recorded with much honour in his Tempio; so that we may infer that they became celebrated during the intervening period at Milan, where they afterwards established themselves in 1609. Ercole is at the head of this family, whom Orlandi, following Malvasia, represents in a military manner, as having lost the field at Bologna, where he could no longer "make head against the Samacchini, the Cesi, the Sabbatini, the Passarotti, the Fontana, the Caracci, though he afterwards encountered the Figini, the Luini, the Cerani, and the Morazzoni, at Milan." I am at a loss how to verify such an assertion. Ercole was born in 1520, as I gathered from a MS. of P. Resta, in the Ambrosian library; and in 1590, when the "Temple of Painting" first issued from the press, he was very old, nor did he ever exhibit any of his pictures in public at Milan, so that Lomazzo ought to have sought subjects for commendation of him from Parma, and more particularly Bologna. Many of his works still remain there, from which we may decide whether Malvasia and Baldinucci had more reason to represent him as an artist of mediocrity, or Lomazzo to entitle him a very successful imitator of the great Coreggio's colouring, as well as of his grace and beauty. In my own opinion he appears somewhat minute in design, and feeble in his colouring, resembling the tone of the Florentines; a thing so common among his contemporaries, that I know not why it should be made a peculiar reproach to him. For the rest he is more pleasing, accurate, and exact, than most artists of his age; and possibly his over diligence acted as an obstacle to him in a city where the rapid Fontana bore the chief sway. But this quality, besides exempting him from the mannerism then beginning to prevail, rendered him an excellent preceptor; whose principal duty is found to consist in checking the impatience of young artists, and accustoming them to precision and delicacy of taste. Thus many excellent pupils sprung from his school, such as Samacchini, Sabbatini, and Bertoia. He instructed also his three sons, Camillo, Giulio Cesare, and Carlo Antonio, from which last sprung Ercole the younger; all masters of young Milanese artists, and of whom it will be our business to treat in succession.

Camillo is the only one of the three who was known to Lomazzo, who describes him as an artist distinguished both for his design and his colouring. He received his first instructions from his father, and often displays a resemblance in his heads, and in the distribution of his tints; though, where he painted with care, he both warmed and broke them, as well as employed the middle colours, in a superior manner. He studied other schools, and if we are to believe some of his biographers, he practised at Rome from the models of Raffaello and Michelangiolo, besides being passionately devoted to the heads of Parmigianino, an imitation of which is perceptible in all his works. He possessed wonderful facility both in conception and execution; added to nature, beauty, and spirit, always attractive to the eye, though they do not always satisfy the judgment. Nor is this surprising, as he early threw off the reign of paternal instruction, and executed works enough to have employed ten artists, at Bologna, at Ravenna, Reggio, Piacenza, Pavia, and Genoa. He was by many called the Vasari, and the Zuccaro of Lombardy; although to say truth, he surpasses them in sweetness of style and of colours. He was particularly engaged at Milan, a city which boasts some of his best productions, by which he obtained reputation there; and many of his worst, with which he satisfied those who valued his name. Of his earliest works there, and the most free from mannerism, are those adorning the exterior of the organ at the Metropolitana, along with various mysteries of our Lady, and two histories of David playing upon his harp; all described very minutely by Malvasia. But he produced nothing in Milan equal to his Judgment at S. Procol di Reggio, esteemed one of the finest specimens of fresco in all Lombardy; and to his S. Rocco among the sick and dying of the plague, a picture that intimidated Annibal Caracci, when he had to paint a companion for it, (see Malvasia, p. 466). The pictures produced by Camillo, in the cathedral of Piacenza, where the Duke of Parma had placed him in competition with Lodovico Caracci, whose genius was then mature, are well and carefully executed. He there represented our Lady crowned Queen of the Universe by the Almighty, surrounded with a very full choir of Angels, in whose forms he displayed the most finished beauty. It was the part of Lodovico to represent other angels around; and opposite to the Coronation the Padri del Limbo. The first occupied the most distinguished place in the tribune; though both then and now he was esteemed by spectators the least worthy of the two. However advantageously he there appears, and entitled to the applause of Girupeno and other historians, as well as travellers, he at the same time loses a portion of his consequence at the side of Caracci, who, by the novelty of his ideas, the natural expression of his countenances, of his attitudes, and of his symbols, especially in those angels opposed to the more common conceptions of his rival, makes the monotony and weakness of Procaccini the more remarkable. Caracci's superior dignity, likewise, in his figures of the patriarchs, throws that of Camillo's Divinity into the shade. They also executed some histories of the Madonna, placed opposite each other; and almost bearing the same proportion as we have already mentioned. But as the Caracci were few, Procaccini for the most part triumphed over his competitors. He is even now well received in the collections of the great, and our own prince has recently obtained one of his Assumptions, with Apostles surrounding the tomb of Jesus, a picture full of variety, and in a grand manner.

Giulio Cesare, the best of the Procaccini, at first devoted himself to sculpture with success, subsequently attaching himself to painting, as to a less laborious and more pleasing art. He frequented the Caracci Academy at Bologna; and it is said, that taking offence at some satirical observations of Annibal's, he struck, and even wounded him. His French biographer states Giulio's birth to have occurred in 1548, though he postpones this quarrel until 1609, in which year the Procaccini established themselves at Milan. It must have occurred, however, much earlier, as in 1609 Giulio was a renowned painter, while Annibal was in his decline. Giulio Cesare's studies were directed to the models of Coreggio, and it is the opinion of many, that no one approached nearer to the grand style of that artist. In his small pictures, with few figures, in which imitation is more easy, he has often been mistaken for his original, though his elegance cannot boast the same clear and native tone, nor his colours the same rich and vigorous handling. One of his Madonnas, at S. Luigi de' Francesi, at Rome, was, in fact, engraved not long since for a work of Allegri, by an excellent artist; and there are other equally fine imitations at the Sanvitali Palace, in Parma; in that of the Careghi, in Genoa, and other places. Among his numerous altar-pieces, the one I have seen, which displays most of the Coreggio manner, is at S. Afra, in Brescia. It represents the Virgin and Child, surrounded with some figures of Angels and Saints, which are seen gazing and smiling upon him. He has perhaps, indeed, gone somewhat beyond the limits of propriety, in order to attain more grace, which is the case with his Nunziata, at S. Antonio, in Milan; in which the Holy Virgin and Angel are seen smiling at each other; a circumstance hardly compatible either with the time or the mystery. In his attitudes, also, he was occasionally guilty of extravagance, as in his Martyrdom of S. Nazario, in the church of that name, a picture attractive by its harmony and its grace, though the figure of the executioner is in too forced a position. Giulio left many very large histories, such as his Passage of the Red Sea, at S. Vittore, in Milan; and more in Genoa, where Soprani has pointed them out. What is surprising, in so vast a number of his pieces, is the accuracy of his design, the variety of his ideas, and his diligence both in his naked and dressed parts, combined at the same time with a grandeur, which, if I mistake not, he derived from the Caracci. In the Sacristy of S. Maria, at Sarono, is his picture of Saints Andrea, Carlo, and Ambrogio, displaying the most dignified character of their school; if, indeed, we are not to suppose, that in common with the Caracci, he acquired it from those magnificent models of the art at Parma.

To these two may be added Carlantonio Procaccini, not as a figure, but a good landscape painter, and a tolerable hand in drawing fruits and flowers. He produced a variety of pieces for the Milanese gallery, which happening to please the court, then one of the branches of Spain, he had frequent commissions from that country, insomuch that he rose, though the weakest of the family, into the highest repute.

The Procaccini opened school at Milan, where they obtained the reputation of kind and able masters, educating, both for the city and state, so great a number of artists, that it would be neither possible nor useful to comprise them all in a history. They could boast among them some inventors of a new style, the same as the disciples of the Caracci; though most of them aimed at observing the manner of their masters; some maintaining it by their accuracy, and others injuring it by their over haste. We reserve the series of them, however, to the last epoch, in order not to disperse the same school through different parts.

The last of the foreigners who then gave instructions at Milan, was Panfilo Nuvolone, a noble Cremonese, of whose style we treated at length in the list of the Cav. Trotti's disciples. He was a diligent rather than an imaginative artist, and produced no works of any extent at Milan, except for the nunneries of Saints Domenico and Lazzaro, where he painted in the ceiling the history of Lazarus and the Rich Man, with true pictoric splendour; which is no less apparent in his Assumption of the Virgin, in the cupola of the Passione. In his altar-pieces, and histories executed for the ducal gallery at Parma, he aimed rather at perfecting than at multiplying his figures. He instructed his four sons, two of whom are unknown in the history of the art, and the two others are frequently mentioned by different illustrators of the paintings of Milan, of Piacenza, of Parma, and of Brescia; where they are also surnamed, from their father, the Panfili. We shall, however, treat of them more particularly in the age during which they flourished.

Fede Galizia introduced another foreign style into Milan, a female artist, who, according to Orlandi, was a native of Trent. Her father, Annunzio, was a celebrated miniaturist, born at the same place, and a resident at Milan, and from him perhaps she acquired that taste for accuracy and finish of hand, no less remarkable in her figures than in her landscapes; in other points, more similar to the Bolognese predecessors of the Caracci, than to any other school. There are some specimens of her style in foreign collections. One of her best studied pictures is seen at S. Maria Maddalena, where she painted the titular saint, with the figure of Christ in the dress of a gardener. This lady has been criticised by the excellent author of the Guide, for her too great study of the ideal, which she aimed at introducing both into her design and colouring, at the expense of nature and of truth, a practice pretty much in vogue at that period in Italy. About the same time, one Orazio Vaiano was employed a good deal at Milan, where he long resided, called Il Fiorentino from his extraction. He, in some way, came to be confounded, in some of his pictures, with the elder Palma, as we are informed by Orlandi; but how, it is difficult to say. The specimens of his composition at S. Carlo and at S. Antonio Abate, are judicious and diligent, though somewhat feeble in point of colouring; and in the distribution of their lights much resembling the tone of Roncalli. He likewise visited Genoa; but neither he nor Galizia, as I am aware, left any pupils at Milan. The same may be said of the two Carloni, noble fresco painters belonging to Genoa, and of Valerio Profondavalle, from Lovanio, who painted glass, as well as in oil and in fresco, for all which he had frequent commissions at court.

We ought here to add the name of Federigo Zuccari, an artist invited by the Card. Federigo Borromeo to take up his residence at Milan, where, as well as at Pavia, he painted, as we have mentioned, (at p. 139, vol. ii). I am indebted to the polite and kind attention of Sig. Bernardo Gattoni, chaplain and rector of the other Borromean college at Pavia, for correcting an error into which I had fallen, from following the local tradition rather than the written authority of the same Zuccheri, in his "Passaggio per l'Italia," a very rare work, and which I had not seen at that time. In it are described the pictures of the Borromean college at Pavia; and it appears, that Zuccari produced no other besides the principal picture, that of S. Carlo, who is seen in the Consistory in the act of receiving the cardinal's hat; the rest being from the hand of Cesare Nebbia, who flourished at the same period. In order to have them retouched at leisure, while they were left to dry, the cardinal Federigo despatched the two artists to visit the sacred mount of Varallo, whence they passed to Arona, and next to the Isola Bella, situated upon the Lago Maggiore, where the cardinal joined them, and where each of them left a work in fresco, upon two pilasters of the chapel at that place. There has since been found in the archives of the college, an original letter of the cardinal, in which he recommends to the then rector, that Nebbia should be received into the college, and the sums of money disbursed to both, entered in the books of account.

Proceeding next to those artists who studied at other places, I shall briefly mention Ricci of Novara, with Paroni and Nappi of Milan, not omitting others of the same place, commemorated in the lives of Baglioni. Residing at Rome, they in no way contributed to the fame of their native school, neither by their pupils, nor their example; and even at Rome, they may be said to have added rather to the number of paintings than to the decoration of the city. Ricci was a fresco painter, very well adapted to the hasty temper of Sixtus V., whose works he superintended, and promoted the effeminate taste then so prevalent; he possessed much facility and beauty of forms. Paroni pursued the manner of Caravaggio, but his career was short. Nappi displays great variety; and when he painted in his Lombard manner, such as in his Assumption, at the cloister of the Minerva, with other pieces at the Umiltà, he shewed himself a naturalist far more pleasing than the mannerists of his time.

There flourished likewise, for a few years, at Rome, the Cav. Pier Francesco Mazzuchelli, called from his birthplace Morazzone. After practising there for a period, from all the best models, which influenced both his mind and his productions, he directed his attention to the Milanese School, in which he taught, and succeeded beyond all example, in improving his own style. It will be sufficient to compare his picture of the Epiphany which he painted in fresco for one of the chapels of S. Silvestro in capite, which boasts no beauty beyond that of colouring; and his other Epiphany, placed at S. Antonio Abate, at Milan, which appears like the production of another hand; such is the superiority of the design, the effect, and the display of drapery, in the manner of the Venetians. He is said to have studied Titian and Paul Veronese; and some of his angels are painted with arms and legs, in those long proportions that are not the best characteristics of Tintoretto. In general, the genius of Morazzone was not adapted for the graceful, but for the strong and magnificent; as appears in his S. Michael's Conquest over the bad Angels, at S. Gio. di Como, and in the chapel of the Flagellazione, at Varese. In 1626 he was invited to Piacenza, to paint the grand cupola of the cathedral, a work which was left very incomplete by his death, and bestowed upon Guercino. He had drawn the figures of two prophets, which, in any other place, would have appeared to the greatest advantage; but there they are thrown into the shade by those of his successor, that magician of his art, who threw into it the whole enchantment of which he was capable. Morazzone was employed for different collections, no less than for churches; and received a number of commissions from Cardinal Federigo, and the king of Sardinia, from which last he received his title of cavalier.

Contemporary with him flourished Gio. Batista Crespi, better known by the name of Cerano, his native place, a small town in the Novarese. Sprung from a family of artists, which left specimens of its genius at S. Maria di Busto, where his grandfather Gio. Piero, and Raffaello, his father or uncle, (I am not certain which,) had been employed. He studied at Rome, and at Venice, uniting to that of painting great knowledge in the art of modelling, as well as in architecture; being, moreover distinguished for good taste in literature and for polite accomplishments. With such qualifications he took the lead at the court of Milan, from which he received a salary; no less than in the great undertakings of the Card. Federigo, and in the direction of the academy. Not to dwell upon the buildings, statues, and bassi-relievi, which he either designed or executed, but which are less connected with my subject, he painted a great number of altar-pieces, in which he at once exhibited, if I mistake not, great excellences and great defects. He is invariably free, spirited, and harmonious; but he frequently, from too great affectation of grace or of magnificence, falls into a degree of mannerism, as in some of his histories at the Pace, where his naked figures are heavy, and the attitudes of others too extravagant. In his other subjects these defects are less apparent; but here he has also overloaded his shadows. In the greater part of his works, notwithstanding, the correct and the beautiful so far abounds, as to shew that he was one of the first masters of his school. Thus in his Baptism of S. Agostino, painted for S. Marco, he rivals Giulio Cesare Procaccini, whose productions are placed opposite, and in the opinion of some he surpasses him. Another instance occurs in his altar-piece of saints Carlo and Ambrogio, at Santo Paolo, where, in taste of colouring at least he surpasses the Campi; and a third in his celebrated picture of the Rosario, at S. Lazzaro, which casts into shade the fine fresco painting of Nuvoloni. He was particularly skilled in drawing birds and quadrupeds, of which he composed pictures for private ornament, as we gather from Soprani in his life of Sinibaldo Scorza. He educated many pupils, whom we shall reserve for an inferior epoch, excepting Daniele Crespi of Milan, who, on account of his worth, and the period in which he flourished, ought not to be separated from his master.

Daniele is one among those distinguished Italians who are hardly known beyond their native place. He possessed, however, rare genius, and, instructed by Cerano, and afterwards by the best of the Procaccini, undoubtedly surpassed the first, and in the opinion of many likewise the second, though he did not live to reach the age of forty. He had great penetration in learning, and equal facility in executing, selecting the best part of every master he studied, and knowing how to reject the worst. Familiar with the maxims of the Caracci school, even without frequenting it, he adopted and practised them with success. He shews this in his distribution of colours, and in the varied expression of his countenances; select and careful in disposing them according to the prevailing passions of the mind; and above all, admirable in catching the beautiful and devotional spirit that ought to inspire the heads of saints. In the distribution of his figures he at once observes a natural and well judged order, so that no one would wish to behold them placed otherwise than they are. Their drapery is finely varied, and very splendid in the more imposing characters of the piece. His colouring is extremely powerful, no less in oil than in fresco; and in the highly ornamented church of La Passione, for which he painted his grand Descent from the Cross, he left many portraits of distinguished cardinals, all composed in the best Titian taste. He is indeed one of those rare geniuses who delight in being constant rivals of themselves, calling forth their highest energies in each production, in order that they may in some way surpass the last; geniuses, who know how to correct in their later paintings the errors they committed in their first, exhibiting in them the full maturity of those excellences which they discovered in their early attempts. His last pieces, consisting of acts from the life of S. Brunone, at the Certosa, in Milan, are of all the most admired. That of the Dottor Parigino is more particularly celebrated, in which, having raised himself on his bier, he declares his state of reprobation. What desperation he exhibits! what horror in the faces of the beholders! Nor is that of the Duke of Calabria less excellent, where, in going to the chase, he meets with the holy hermit, a picture upon which the artist inscribed, Daniel Crispus Mediolanensis pinxit hoc templum. An. 1629. This was the year before his death, as he was unhappily cut off by the plague of 1630, together with his whole family.

We may here add, as a sort of corollary to the foregoing, the names of some other artists who displayed great merit, though it is uncertain of what school. Such is Gio. Batista Tarillio, by whom there was an altar-piece with the date of 1575, painted for the now suppressed church of S. Martino in Compito. There are some pictures by another native of Milan, named Ranuzio Prata, at Pavia. These I have not seen; they are, however, greatly commended by others. He flourished about 1635. The Novarese also boasted at that period two artists who were brothers, both of whom coloured in pretty good taste. These were Antonio and Gio. Melchiore Tanzi, the former a very able designer, who competed with Carloni at Milan, distinguished himself at Varallo, and painted at S. Gaudenzio di Novara the Battle of Senacherib, a work full of spirit and intelligence. There are likewise other of his works preserved in the galleries of Vienna, of Venice, and of Naples, representing both histories and perspectives; but of his brother there is nothing remaining of any great degree of merit.

[58] He was one of the first in Italy who collected paintings of the Flemish School, which was then fast rising into reputation. His agreement with Gio. Breughel[o] still exists, who painted for the academic collection at Milan the Four Elements, pictures very often repeated, of which copies are to be seen in the royal gallery at Florence, in the Melzi collection at Milan, and in several at Rome. The artist, who had great skill in drawing flowers, fruits, herbs, birds, and animals, of which he formed copious and beautiful compositions, displayed a grand variety in these, and was no less admirable in his high finish, in the clearness of his colours, and in other qualities which acquired him the esteem of the greatest artists, among whom Rubens was one who availed himself of his talents for landscape, which he introduced into his own pictures.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH IV.

The Art continues to decline after the time of Daniele Crespi. A third Academy is founded with a view of improving it.

We now approach the last epoch, which may be truly entitled the decline of this school. I recollect hearing the opinion of a good judge, that Daniele Crespi might be called the last of the Milanese, just as in another sense Cato was pronounced ultimus Romanorum. The observation is correct, so far as it applies to certain geniuses superior to the common lot, but false if we should extend it to the exclusion of every artist of merit from the period which it embraces. It would be injustice to the names of Nuvoloni and Cairo, and several others who flourished in an age nearer our own. But in the same way as Cassiodorus and some other writers are insufficient to remove the stain of barbarism from their age, so the artists we treat of cannot redeem theirs from the stigma of its decline. It is the majority which invariably gives a tone to the times; and he who may have seen Milan and its state would be at no loss to remark, that after the introduction of the Procaccini School, design was more than ever neglected, and mechanical practice succeeded to reason and taste. Artists, after the visitation of the plague, had become more rare; and subsequent to the death of the Cardinal Borromeo, in 1631, they became less united, insomuch that the academy founded by him remained closed during twenty years; and if by the exertions of Antonio Busca it was then re-opened, still it never afterwards produced works similar to those of other times. Whether owing to the manner of teaching, to the want of its great patron, or to the abundance of commissions and the kindness of those who gave them, which urged young artists prematurely to make abortive efforts; no school, perhaps, on the loss of its great masters, was filled with so great a number of inferior and bad ones. I shall not give much account of them, yet must not omit such names as have attained to some consideration. In general it may be remarked of the artists of this epoch, that though the pupils of different schools, they display a mutual resemblance, as much as if they had been instructed by the same master. They possess no character that strikes the eye, no beauty of proportions, no vivacity of countenance, no grace in their colouring. Their whole composition appears languid, even their imitation of the head of the school does not please, as it is either deficient, or overdone, or falls into insignificance. In their choice of colours we detect a certain resemblance to the Bolognese School, to which their guides were not very much opposed, though we often perceive that sombre cast which then prevailed in nearly all the other schools.

To this uniformity of style in Milan, Ercole Procaccini the younger most probably contributed, an artist in whom an unprejudiced critic will be at no loss to detect the character we have described. But in his more studied works, as we find in an Assumption, at S. M. Maggiore, in Bergamo, he exhibits dignity, spirit, and a happy imitation of the Coreggio manner. He received his first instructions from his father Carlantonio, and next from Giulio Cesare, his paternal uncle. It is known that by public report, by his insinuating manners, and by the family reputation, he arrived at a degree of consideration beyond his merit, and lived till he reached the age of eighty. Hence he induced many to follow his maxims, and the more as he kept an open academy for the study of the naked figure at his own house, and succeeded his uncles in their instructions; equal to them perhaps in rapidity, but not so well grounded in the art. He painted much; and in the best collections in Milan, if he is not in as much request as many others, he yet maintains his place.

Two young artists educated in his school reflected credit upon it; Carlo Vimercati, who owed his success to the most pertinacious study of Daniele's works at the Certosa, which he daily visited for a long period while at Milan, and Antonio Busca, who likewise employed his talents upon the best models both at Milan and Rome. Vimercati exhibited few of his pictures in public at Milan; he painted more at Codogno, and in his best manner, as well as in a new one in which he was greatly inferior. Busca assisted his master, and at S. Marco also was employed in competition with him. There, placed opposite to some histories by Procaccini, is seen his picture of the Crucifixion full of pious beauty, surrounded with figures of the Virgin, of Mary Magdalen, and S. John, who are all weeping, and almost draw tears from the eyes of the spectator. But he did not always succeed as in this specimen; the gout deprived him of the use of his feet, and he fell into a weak and abject style, the result of mere mechanic practice. In this state of health, I imagine, he must have conducted two holy histories, placed opposite each other, in the chapel of S. Siro at the Certosa in Pavia, in which he idly repeated in the second the same features as distinguished the first, so greatly is an artist sometimes in contradiction with himself. A similar complaint might be alleged for a different reason, in regard to the style of Cristoforo Storer, a native of Constance. A pupil to the same Ercole, he also produced works of solid taste, as in the instance of his S. Martino, which I saw in possession of the Ab. Bianconi, a picture much valued by its intelligent owner. Subsequently he became a mannerist, and not unfrequently adopted gross or common ideas. In other points he displays much spirit, and is one of the few belonging to that age who may lay claim to the title of a good colourist. I am uncertain whether Gio. Ens, of Milan, sprung from the same school, as well as at what precise time he nourished; I know that he was an artist of less talent, whose delicacy often bordered upon weakness, as we may perceive at S. Marco in Milan. Lodovico Antonio David of Lugano, a scholar of Ercole, of Cairo, and of Cignani, resided at Rome. There he produced some portraits, and at one period made the tour of Italy. The city of Venice possesses one of his Nativities at S. Silvestro, conducted in a minute manner, that betrays a disciple of Camillo more than of any other of the Procaccini. He wrote too upon painting, and compiled some account of Coreggio, for which the reader may consult Orlandi under the head of that artist,[59] or perhaps in preference, Tirasboschi, in his life of him.

Next to the nephew of the best Procaccini, I may place the son-in-law of one of the others. This is the Cav. Federigo Bianchi, on whom, after affording him his instructions, Giulio Cesare bestowed the hand of one of his daughters. He derived from his father-in-law his maxims, rather than his forms and attitudes, which display an original air in Bianchi, and are at once graceful and beautiful without affectation. Some of his Holy Families at S. Stefano and at the Passione are held in much esteem, besides some of his other pictures exhibiting few, but well conceived figures. Such is that of a Visitazione at S. Lorenzo, every way creditable to one of the favourite pupils of Giulio Cesare. He was not distinguished in compositions of a grander character; but he was full of ideas, united to harmony and good keeping, and altogether one of the first Milanese artists in the present age. He was much employed in Piedmont, and we are indebted to him for notices of many artists which he communicated to P. Orlandi, by whom they were made public. This artist is not to be confounded with one Francesco Bianchi, a friend and almost inseparable companion of Antonmaria Ruggieri. They painted together for the most part in fresco, and without the least dispute consented to share all the emolument, all the praise and blame they might receive. They belong to the present age, to which they have bequeathed a more noble example of mutual attachment than of the art they professed.

The greater part of the Procaccini disciples sprung from the school of Camillo. He had likewise taught at Bologna, though his only pupil known there is Lorenzo Franco, who, with his instructions, afterwards became an excellent imitator of the Caracci. In the opinion of P. Resta, however, his style was somewhat too minute; this artist resided and died at Reggio. The school of Camillo at Milan was always full, and no one reflected upon it greater credit than Andrea Salmeggia of Bergamo, of whom we treated in the preceding book. Becoming a follower of Raffaello at Rome, he occasionally returned to his native place, where he attracted admiration by his productions. Like the rest Gio. Batista Discepoli, called Zoppo di Lugnano, was at one time the disciple of Camillo, but afterwards added much of other styles, and was one of the most natural, powerful, and rich colourists of his time. For the rest he is to be included in the rank of the naturalists, rather than among the lovers of the ideal. Several of his pictures are at Milan, in particular that of his Purgatorio at S. Carlo, executed with much skill; and he painted a good deal for his native place and its confines, as well as at Como, where he ornamented Santa Teresa with a picture of the titular saint, with lateral squares, esteemed one of the best altar-pieces belonging to the city. Carlo Cornara acquired equal reputation, though in an opposite style. He produced few works, but all conducted with an exquisite degree of taste, peculiarly his own, which renders them valuable in collections. One of his best altar-pieces was painted for S. Benedetto, at the Certosa, in Pavia, a picture now much defaced by time, and there are a few others completed by one of his daughters after his death, who added to them some original pieces of her own.

Giovanni Mauro Rovere, an artist who exchanged the manner of Camillo for that of Giulio Cesare, was among the earliest followers of the Procaccini, and might be referred to their epoch from the period in which he flourished, did not his inferior character, arising from too great rapidity of hand, prevent his admission into the same rank. He had all that fire, which, when directed with judgment, is the soul of painting, but when abused destroys the beauty of the art. It was very seldom that he was able to command it, though, in a Supper of our Lord, at S. Angelo, in which he used great care, he obtained corresponding success. He had two brothers, named Giambatista and Marco, who assisted him in his labours both for churches and private houses, both of whom were inaccurate but spirited. They have left works in fresco, besides some histories in oil, perspectives, battle-pieces, and landscapes, to be met with in almost every corner of the city. I find that they were also surnamed Rossetti, and still better known under the name of Fiamminghini, derived from their father Riccardo, who came from Flanders to establish himself at Milan.

To these three Rossetti, succeeded the three Santagostini, of whom the first, named Giacomo Antonio, was pupil to Carlo Procaccini. He gave few pieces to the public, though his sons Agostino and Giacinto were more indefatigable, both conjointly, as we may gather from their two grand histories at S. Fedele, and separately. They were distinguished above most of their contemporaries, more especially Agostino. He was the first who wrote a little work upon the paintings of Milan; it was entitled L'Immortalità e Glorie del Pennello, and published in 1671. Whatever rank a book with such a title ought to assume among the writers of the age, it is certain that his pictures exhibit him in the light of a good painter for his time, in particular a Holy Family, painted for S. Alessandro, and a few others among the more highly finished, in which he displays expression, beauty, and harmony, although somewhat too minute. The names of Ossana, Bissi, Ciocca, Ciniselli, with others still less celebrated at Milan, I may venture to pass over without much loss to this history.

The two Nuvoloni, not long since mentioned, though instructed by their father, may be said, in some way, to belong to the Procaccini. Thus Carlo Francesco, the elder, early adopted the manner of Giulio Cesare; and in Giuseppe we every where trace a composition and colouring derived from that school. The former, however, impelled by his genius, became a follower of Guido, and so far succeeded as to deserve the name, which he still enjoys, of the Guido of Lombardy. He does not abound in figures, but in these he is pleasing and graceful, elegant in his forms and the turn and air of his heads, united to a sweetness and harmony of tints which are seldom met with. I saw one of his heads at S. Vittore, where he drew the Miracle of St. Peter over the Porta Speciosa, and many other pieces at Milan, Parma, Cremona, Piacenza, and Como, in the same excellent taste. This artist was selected to take the portrait of the Queen of Spain when she visited Milan; and there still appear in private houses those of many noble individuals who employed him. The faces of his Madonnas are in high request for collections, one of which is in the possession of the Conti del Verme, displaying all the grace and beauty so peculiar to him, and which he has here perhaps indulged at the expense of that dignity which should never be lost sight of. Orlandi gives an account of his devotional exercises, which he always performed previous to his painting the portraits of the Virgin. I know not what opinion may be formed upon this point, either by his or my readers. For my own part I indulge the same peculiar admiration of this artist in the rank of painters, as I do of Justus Lipsius among literary men, who, though both seculars, always observed great filial piety towards our Holy Lady; a piety that has descended from the earliest fathers of the church, in a regular line, down to the elect of our own times. His younger brother painted on a much larger scale; boasted more pictoric fire and more fancy; but he did not always display equal taste, nor was exempt from harsh and sombre shadows that detract from his worth. He was more indefatigable than Carlo, painting not only for the cities of Lombardy above mentioned, but for the state of Venice, and many churches in Brescia. His pictures at S. Domenico in Cremona, in particular his grand piece of the Dead Man raised by the saint, adorned with beautiful architecture, and animated with the most natural expression, are among some of his best works. They were apparently executed in the vigour of life, inasmuch as there are others bearing traces of infirmity, he having pursued the art until his eightieth year, in which his death occurred.

I cannot learn that he left any pupils of note. His brother, Carlo Francesco, however, instructed Gioseffo Zanata, extremely well versed in the art, according to the opinion of Orlandi. Under him, and subsequently under the Venetian artists, studied likewise Federigo Panza, an artist who began with using strong shadows, which he improved as his genius grew more mature. He was well employed and remunerated by the court of Turin. Filippo Abbiati frequented the same school, a man of wonderful talent, adapted for works on an immense scale; rich in ideas, and resolute in executing them. He painted with a certain freedom, amounting to audacity, which, however imperfect, does not fail to please, and would have pleased much more had he been better versed in the principles of his art. He was placed in competition with Federigo Bianchi, in the grand ceiling of S. Alessandro Martire, and with other fine fresco painters; and he every where left evidence of a noble genius. He appears to singular advantage in his Preaching of S. John the Baptist at Sarono, a picture to which is affixed his name. It has few figures, but they are fine and varied, with strong tints, and very appropriate shadows, which produce a good effect. Pietro Maggi, his disciple, was not equal to him in genius, nor did he observe his moderation and care. Giuseppe Rivola, employed for private persons more than for the public, is also deserving of mention, his fellow citizens esteeming him among the best of Abbiati's pupils.

Cerano, though engaged in a variety of other labours, instructed many pupils, and more particularly Melchiorre Giraldini, with success. He very happily caught the manner of his teacher, easy, agreeable, and harmonious, but still inferior to him in the more masterly power of his pencil. At the Madonna at S. Celso is seen a picture of S. Caterina da Siena by his hand, that has been greatly commended. Cerano gave him his daughter in marriage, and left him the whole of his studio. He engraved in acqua forte some minute histories and battle-pieces in the manner of Callot, and he instructed his son in the same branch, whose battle-pieces have been much prized in collections. He also taught a young artist of Gallarate, named Carlo Cane, who, devoting himself at a more advanced age to the manner of Morazzone, became a great proficient in it. He imitated with some success his strength of colouring and his relief; in other points he was common both in his forms and conceptions. He painted some altars, and in the larger one of the cathedral at Monza, there is one representing different saints, at the feet of whom is seen the figure of a dog, which he inserted in all his pieces, even that of Paradise, to express his name. He observed an excellent method in his frescos, his histories of Saints Ambrogio and Ugo, which he painted for the grand church of the Certosa at Pavia, as well as others, still retaining all their original freshness. He opened school at Milan, and we may form an idea of the character of his pupils from his own mediocrity. Cesare Fiori, indeed, acquired some degree of reputation, several of whose ornamental works on a great scale, have been made public. He too had a scholar named Andrea Porta, who aimed at catching the manner of Legnanino. There are others who approach the two best of the Cerani, namely, Giuliano Pozzobonelli, an artist of good credit, and Bartolommeo Genovesini,[60] by whom there remain works possessing some degree of grandeur; besides Gio. Batista Secchi, surnamed from his country Caravaggio, who painted for S. Pietro in Gessato, an altar-piece of the Epiphany with his name.

Morazzone had to boast a numerous list of pupils, imitators, and copyists, both at Milan and elsewhere. The Cav. Francesco Cairo reflected honour upon this school, who, having commenced his career, as is usual, by pursuing his master's footsteps, afterwards changed his manner on meeting with better models, which he studied at Rome and Venice. He also worked on a great scale, and coloured with effect, united, however, to a delicacy of hand and grace of expression, altogether forming a style that surprises us by its novelty. His pictures of the four saints, founders of the church at S. Vittore, of his S. Teresa swooning with celestial love at S. Carlo, his S. Saverio at Brera, various portraits in the Titian manner, and other pieces, public and private, at Milan, at Turin, and elsewhere, entitle him to rank high in the art, though he is not always free from the reproach of sombre colouring. Morazzone derived some credit from the two brothers Gioseffo and Stefano Danedi, more commonly called the Montalti. The first, after being instructed by him in the art, became more refined in his taste under Guido Reni, of whose style he sufficiently partakes, as we may perceive in his Slaughter of the Innocents at S. Sebastiano, and in his Nunziata its companion. Stefano frequented no foreign schools that I know of, though he did not wholly confine himself to Morazzone's manner, rather aiming at refining it upon the example of his brother, and painting with a degree of accuracy and study that he did not find recommended by the taste of his times. His martyrdom of S. Giustina, which he produced for S. Maria in Pedone, forms a specimen of this refinement, while it is moreover exempt from that cold and languid tone which diminishes the value of his other works. One of those artists most attached to Morazzone's style, and who nearest approaches him in the boldness of his pencil, is the Cav. Isidoro Bianchi, otherwise called Isidoro da Campione, a better fresco than oil painter, from what we gather at the church of S. Ambrosio at Milan, and in others at Como. He was selected by the Duke of Savoy, to complete a large hall at Rivoli, left imperfect by the decease of Pier Francesco. There he was declared painter to the ducal court in 1631.

About the same period flourished at Como, besides the Bustini,[61] the two brothers Gio. Paolo and Gio. Batista Recchi, whose chief merit was in painting frescos, disciples likewise of Morazzone. These artists decorated S. Giovanni, and other churches of their native place, two chapels at Varese, with others in the same vicinity. The second of them also became eminent beyond the state, particularly at S. Carlo in Turin, where he is placed near his master. His style is solid and strong, his colouring forcible, and in the skill of his foreshortening on ceilings, he yields to very few of his day. Pasta in his Guide for Bergamo has deservedly praised him on this score, when speaking of a Santa Grata, seen rising into heaven, a work, he observes, that is admirably delightful. In some of the chambers of the Veneria, at Turin, he was assisted by one Gio. Antonio his nephew. The Milanese Guide mentions several other artists, apparently, judging from their style, instructed by the preceding, such as Paolo Caccianiga, Tommaso Formenti, and Giambatista Pozzi.

Whilst the Milanese School was thus hastening to its close, and no longer afforded masters of equal promise, either to the first or second of its series, its youth were compelled to have recourse to richer and more genuine sources, and at this period began to disperse in search of new styles. I omit the family of the Cittadini, which established itself at Bologna, or to say truth, I reserve it to its own school. Stefano Legnani, called Il Legnanino, in order to distinguish him from his father Cristoforo, a portrait-painter, became one of the most celebrated artists in Lombardy towards the beginning of this century, having studied the schools of Cignani at Bologna, and Maratta at Rome. In either of these cities he would have been esteemed one of the best disciples of these two masters, had he left there any of his productions; although in course of time he fell into a degree of mannerism. He is tasteful, sober, and judicious in his compositions, with a certain strength and clearness of colouring, not common among the disciples of Maratta. He became famous for his fresco histories, which are seen at S. Marco and at S. Angiolo, where there is also one of his battles, which is won by the protection of St. James the Apostle, which shews a pictoric fire equal to handling the most difficult themes. He left too a variety of works in Genoa, Turin, and Piedmont, besides his painting of the cupola at Novara, in the church of S. Gaudenzio, than which he produced nothing more truly beautiful.

Andrea Lanzani, after receiving the instructions of Scaramuccia, pupil to Guido, who remained for some period at Milan, passed into the school of Maratta at Rome. But his genius finally decided him to adopt a less placid style, and he began to imitate Lanfranco. His best productions, as it has been observed of others, are those which on his first return from Rome he executed in his native place, while still fresh from the Roman maxims and the Roman models. A proof of this is seen in his S. Carlo Beatified, which on certain days is exhibited along with other pictures in the capital. He painted also a fine piece for the Ambrosian library, representing the actions of Cardinal Federigo, in which there is a rich display of imagination, of drapery, and good effect of chiaroscuro. He is for the most part praised on account of his facility, and the boldness of his hand. He died in Germany, after being honoured with the title of Cavalier, and left no better pupil behind him in Italy than Ottavio Parodi, who resided for a long period at Rome, and is mentioned with commendation by Orlandi. From Rome also, and from the school of Ciro Ferri, Ambrogio Besozzi returned to Milan, in order to study the Cortona manner as a counterpoise to that of Maratta. But he chiefly employed himself in ornamental, rather than historic painting, though very able in the last, as far as we may judge from his S. Sebastian, at S. Ambrogio. He studied Pagani at Venice, and likewise taught there, boasting the celebrated Pellegrini as one of his disciples. Zanetti remarks that he introduced into the academies of that city a new taste of design for the naked figure, somewhat overstrained, indeed, but of good effect. He left there a few pieces in public, and returned to close his days in Lombardy. The churches and collections of Milan abound with his pictures, and there are others in the Dresden gallery.

Pietro Gilardi passed from his native school into that of Bologna, and there, under Franceschini and Giangioseffo del Sole, greatly improved himself. His style is clear, easy, harmonious, and adapted to adorn cupolas, ceilings, and magnificent walls, as appears in the refectory of S. Vittore, at Milan, where his works do him credit. At Varese he completed the chapel of the Assumption, after the cartoons of Legnanino, who died before it was finished; and a few of his own works left imperfect by death were, in their turn, continued and finished by the Cav. Gio. Batista Sassi.

The style of this artist, who had assiduously employed himself under Solimene in Naples, is tolerable in regard to design. Though he painted for several churches in Pavia, and at Milan, he acquired most reputation from his small pictures, intended for private ornament. I am not certain whether he introduced into these parts those greenish tints in colouring, which, from Naples, spread through different schools, or whether it came by way of Turin, where one Corrado Giaquinto was employed in drawing figures, and in painting. Such method, however, did not here displease. Gioseffo Petrini da Carono, pupil to Prete of Genoa, has carried it to its highest point, while Piero Magatti of Varese is not wholly free from it, who flourished very recently: both were reputed good artists according to their time. Nor could so great a city be in want of some Venetian disciples, who have distinguished themselves in our own times; we behold some imitations of Piazzetta, and some of Tiepolo, in a few of the churches, it being usual with young artists to follow living masters in lucrative practice, in preference to the deceased whose emoluments are past. We ought here to insert the name of an eminent Milanese, who reflected honour on his native state in foreign parts. This was Francesco Caccianiga, well known at Rome, though little among his own countrymen. Having treated of him, however, in the Roman School, I shall merely recall his memory and merits to my readers. Neither must I omit his contemporary, Antonio Cucchi, who remained at Milan, not as his equal, but because he became eminent in the footsteps of the Romans, for the diligence, if not for the spirit of his pencil. Nor shall I pass over Ferdinando Porta, distinguished for a number of pictures, conducted in imitation of Coreggio; an artist, however, too inconstant and unequal to himself. These names will suffice for the present epoch, which produced, indeed, others of some note, but not known beyond the confines of their own state. Such works as the Pitture d' Italia, and the Nuova Guida di Milano, will furnish the curious with information respecting them, until some further accounts of them be presented to the public.

From the period when the capital began to encourage the foreign schools preferably to her own, the cities of the state followed the example, in particular that of Pavia, which, during this last century, has had to boast more professors than any other state. Yet none of these moderns are much known beyond the precincts of their native place. Carlo Soriani,[62] however, deserved to be better known, an artist who painted for the cathedral his picture of the Rosario, accompanied by fifteen mysteries, an elegant production in the taste of Soiaro. The series of the artists alluded to begins with Carlo Sacchi, who is said by Orlandi to have been taught by Rosso of Pavia, but most probably by Carlantonio Rossi, a Milanese, who painted for the cathedral of Pavia his S. Siro, and two lateral pieces in the best Procaccini taste, and is described in the Abbeccederio as an eccentric man, though well versed in his art. Sacchi continued his studies at Rome and Venice, and when he wished to imitate Paul Veronese, as in his Miracle of the Dead resuscitated by S. Jacopo, which is placed at the Osservanti, he succeeded admirably, shewing himself a good colourist, splendid in ornament, spirited in attitude, except that in these he is somewhat extravagant and affected. He supplied different collections, and I saw an Adam and Eve by him in possession of the Cav. Brambilla at Pavia, entitled to a place in that fine collection. It is doubtful whether Gio. Batista Tassinari ought to be ranked among his fellow disciples, if we only regard the period in which he flourished. But we may with more certainty, upon Orlandi's authority, pronounce Carlo Bersotti to have been his pupil, an excellent artist in inferior branches, to which he confined himself. Tommaso Gatti, together with Bernardino Ciceri, were, however, his best pupils, the first of whom pursued his studies at Venice, the second at Rome, and both succeeded at least as practical artists. Gatti instructed Marcantonio Pellini, and then consigned him to the schools of Venice and Bologna, which did not carry him beyond the sphere of his master. Ciceri was succeeded by his disciple Gioseffo Crastona, who, embued with Roman erudition, became a painter of figures and of landscapes in that city, of which a number may be seen at Pavia. Among the latest are Pierantonio Barbieri, pupil to Bastiano Ricci, and Carlantonio Bianchi, a disciple of the Roman manner. The artists whom I have described almost in a series, have filled all the churches of Pavia, though many, with their respective paintings and their frescos, conferring additional novelty perhaps, but little additional splendor upon their native state; and no one visits Pavia altogether on their account.

Others also belonging to the state and its vicinity, about the time of Sacchi, quitted their native place, and became celebrated in other quarters; as Mola, of the state of Como, of whom we have treated; and Pietro de' Pietri, who, born in the Novarese, studied and died at Rome, where he has been commended by us in the school of Maratta. Antonio Sacchi, also a native of Como, acquired his knowledge at Rome, whence returning into Lombardy, he undertook to paint a cupola for his native place, but fixing on too high a point of perspective, he made his figures so gigantic that he broke his heart and died. From Como likewise sprung one Fra Emanuele, of the order of the Minori Riformati, whose name is incorrectly inserted by Orlandi in the Abbeccedario, as a self-taught painter. The fact is, that on being sent to reside at Messina, he became a pupil to Silla, and improving the feeble manner he had acquired in his native town, he decorated a number of places belonging to his order, both in Rome and Sicily, in a better taste. There are two of his pictures at Como, at the Riformati; a Supper in the refectory, feebly executed in the style of the declining school of Milan, and a Pietà in the church, with different saints, in a better manner; such is the advantage of practice, reflection, and good guidance even at a mature age.

This epoch produced a fine perspective painter, of whom mention is made under the Roman School, in which he studied and left some works. This is Gio. Chisolfi, a pupil of Salvator Rosa, who, on his return to Milan, besides his architectural pieces, which were esteemed among the very first, devoted himself to large histories and altar-pieces, and executed frescos in a good taste for the Certosa of Pavia, and the Santuario of Varese. He was followed with success by one of his nephews, Bernardo Racchetti, whose perspectives, no less than those of Clemente Spera, are frequently met with in collections. Torre makes mention also of a native of Lucca, who succeeded in perspective and in figures, named Paolo Pini. I have seen only of his a history of Rahab, at S. Maria di Campagna, at Piacenza, of which the architecture is very fine, the figures light and touched with a spirited hand. In extensive works of ornamental fresco, Pier Francesco Prina is commended by Orlandi, with the two Mariani, Domenico and his son Gioseffo. The father remained stationary at Milan, and educated, among other pupils, Castellino da Monza; but the son visited Bologna, and there succeeded in improving his paternal manner so as to distinguish himself throughout Italy and Germany. These names will suffice to give a view of a period, not remarkable for the best taste in this species of painting.

Fabio Ceruti was a landscape painter of some repute in the style of Agricola his master. His pictures are pretty numerous, both throughout the city and the state. Mention is also made of one Perugini, recorded by the Cav. Ratti, in his life of Alessandro Magnasco of Genoa, called Lisandrino. The latter, educated in the school of Abbiati, and a long time resident in Milan, added to the pictures of Perugini, of Spera, and other artists, small figures of such merit as will be entitled to a particular description in his native school.

In compositions of a minor branch, wholly executed by himself, Magnasco may be pronounced an able artist, especially in those diminutive pieces on the Flemish scale, consisting of childish scenes and representations of a popular cast, with which he decorated many collections. He also opened school at Milan, and was imitated by Coppa and other artists, though Bastiano Ricci approached him the nearest of any, possessing a wonderful versatility of genius in respect to imitation. In a similar taste Martino Cignaroli painted at Milan, who had acquired at Verona and at the school of Carpioni, singular skill in conducting pictures for private cabinets. He established himself together with Pietro his brother and his family, in this his new abode, where he had a son named Scipione, who became a good landscape painter at Rome, and subsequently flourished at Milan and at Turin.

About the year 1700 Lorenzo Comendich established himself in the former of these cities, an artist already recorded in this work among the disciples of Monti. In the residence of the Baron Martini, his patron, he produced a variety of works, the most commended among which was his Battle of Luzzara, won by Louis XIV., who is said to have beheld it, as represented by this artist, with singular pleasure.

In pictures of herds of animals of every kind, more perhaps than for his human figures, Carlo Cane rose into some repute. Orlandi likewise greatly commends Angiolmaria Crivelli in the same branch, though I have seen nothing from his hand entitling him to so much eulogy. At Milan this artist is known by the name of Crivellone, in distinction to his son Jacopo, whose principal merit lay in his drawings of birds and fishes. He was much employed by the court of Parma, and died in 1760. Still nearer us in point of time is Londonio, an artist also of some repute for his herds of cattle: his rural and pastoral views are in possession of the Counts Greppi, and other noble houses. At Como flourished one Maderno, whose skill consisted in drawing all kind of kitchen furniture, in the taste of the Bassani, with whom less experienced judges are apt to confound him. I have seen several small pictures by him in possession of the Counts Giovio, that display great beauty. He was also a fine flower-painter, though he was here surpassed by Mario de' Crespini, one of his pupils, whose productions are interspersed throughout his own and the adjacent cities. Of some other artists of inferior note I have given accounts in different places.

It remains for me to mention a third academy which was founded at Milan in 1775, by that distinguished princess, Maria Teresa, and which was afterwards invariably encouraged by new benefactions from her two sons, the emperors Joseph and Leopold, and by their successor to the Empire, Francis II. who, amidst all the distractions of war, is not unmindful of the prosperity of the fine arts. The complete institutions of which this academy had to boast, even in its outset, are described in a compendious manner by its accomplished secretary, in his work entitled the New Guide, already frequently cited. In this we find an account of the number, the variety, and the merit of the different professors; the collections of models, of designs, of prints, and of books, which are there provided for the use of the students; to which he adds the methods of education there inculcated, to the great benefit of the nation, which has already, for some time past, been embued with a more refined taste, and displayed a more extended cultivation.

[59] In the additions to the Dictionary, made by Guarienti, following the article Orlandi, we find Lodovico David of Lugano, of whose pencil he could only trace the picture at S. Silvestro in Venice. This is one of the mistakes committed by this continuator.

[60] I thus named him in the former edition, because all other writers had so done before me, but his family name was Roverio and his surname Genovesino. See the first index.

[61] Benedetto Crespi, who possessed, according to Orlandi, a manner at once strong and elegant, with Antonio Maria, his son and pupil, and Pietro Bianchi, to whom he left his designs, all three called Bustini.

[62] He is thus called by Bartoli.

END OF VOL. IV.

J. M'Creery, Tooks Court,
Chancery Lane, London.

---