CHAPTER XII.
Gubbio and Castel Durante.
Although probably not among the earliest manufactories or boteghe of Italian enamelled and painted wares, Gubbio undoubtedly holds one of the most prominent positions in the history and development of the potter’s art in the 16th century. This small town, seated on the eastern slope of the Apennines, was then incorporated in the territory of the dukes of Urbino under whose influence and enlightened patronage the artist potters of the duchy received the greatest encouragement; and were thus enabled to produce the beautiful works of which so many examples have descended to us. Chiefly under the direction of one man, it would seem that the produce of the Gubbio furnaces was for the most part of a special nature; namely, a decoration of the pieces with the lustre pigments, producing those brilliant metallic ruby, golden, and opalescent tints which vary in every piece, and which assume almost every colour of the rainbow as they reflect the light directed at varying angles upon their surface. The woodcut (p. [112]) represents a vase of great interest and beauty; no. 500 in the South Kensington collection. It is early in date; probably about 1500. The admirable way in which the moulded ornament is arranged to show the full effect of the lustre, and the bold yet harmonious design are worthy of observation. That the Gubbio ware was of a special nature, and produced only at a few fabriques almost exclusively devoted to that class of decoration, is to be reasonably inferred from Piccolpasso’s statement; who speaking of the application of the maiolica pigments says, “Non ch’io ne abbia mai fatto ne men veduto fare.” He was the maestro of an important botega at Castel Durante, one of the largest and most productive of the Umbrian manufactories, within a few miles also
of those of Urbino, with which he must have been intimately acquainted and in frequent correspondence. That he, in the middle of the 16th century, when all these works were at the highest period of their development, should be able to state that he had not only never applied or even witnessed the process of application of these lustrous enrichments is, we think, a convincing proof that they were never adopted at either of those seats of the manufacture of enamelled pottery. Although much modified and improved, lustre colours were not invented by Italian artists, but were derived from the potters of the east, probably from the Moors of Sicily, of Spain, or of Majorca. Hence (we once more repeat) the name “Majolica” was originally applied only to wares having the lustre enrichment; but since the decline of the manufacture, the term has been more generally given: all varieties of Italian enamelled pottery being usually, though wrongly, known as “Maiolica.”
The Gubbio fabrique was in full work previous to 1518; and the brilliantly lustred dish, which we engrave, now at South Kensington is before that date. That some of these early bacili so well known and apparently the work of one artist were made at Pesaro, whence the secret and probably the artist passed to Gubbio, is far from improbable. The reason for this emigration is not known, but it may be surmised that the large quantity of broom and other brush-wood, necessary for the reducing process of the reverberatory furnace in which this lustre was produced, might have been more abundantly supplied by the hills of Gubbio than in the vicinity of the larger city on the coast. That the process of producing these metallic effects was costly, we gather from Piccolpasso’s statement that sometimes not more than six pieces out of a hundred succeeded in the firing.
The fame of the Gubbio wares is associated almost entirely with one name, that of Giorgio Andreoli. We learn from the marchese Brancaleoni that this artist was the son of Pietro, of a “Castello” called “Judeo,” in the diocese of Pavia; and that, accompanied by his brother Salimbene, he went to Gubbio in the second half of the 15th century. He appears to have left and again returned thither in 1492, accompanied by his younger brother Giovanni. They were enrolled as citizens on the 23rd May 1498, on pain of forfeiting 500 ducats if they left the city in which they engaged to continue practising their ceramic art. Patronised by the dukes of Urbino, Giorgio was made “castellano” of Gubbio. Passeri states that the family was noble in Pavia. It is not known why or when he was created a “Maestro,” a title prized even more than nobility, but it is to be presumed that it took place at the time of his enrolment as a citizen; his name with the title “Maestro” first appearing on a document dated that same year, 1498. Piccolpasso states that Maiolica painters were considered noble by profession. The family of Andreoli and the “Casa” still exist in Gubbio, and it was asserted by his descendant Girolamo Andreoli, who died some 40 years since, that political motives induced their emigration from Pavia.
Maestro Giorgio was an artist by profession, not only as a draughtsman but as a modeller, and being familiar with the enamelled terra cottas of Luca della Robbia is said to have executed with his own hands and in their manner large altar-pieces. We were once disposed to think that great confusion existed in respect to these altar-pieces in rilievo, and were inclined to the belief that although some of the smaller lustred works may have been modelled by Giorgio the larger altar-pieces were really only imported by him. Judging from the most important which we have been able to examine, the “Madonna del Rosario” portions of which are in the museum at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, it seemed to approach more nearly to the work of some member of the Della Robbia family. This fine work is in part glazed, and in part coloured in distemper on the unglazed terra cotta, in which respect it precisely agrees with works known to have been executed by Andrea della Robbia assisted by his sons. There are no signs of the application of the lustre colours to any portion of the work, but this might be accounted for by the great risk of failure in the firing, particularly to pieces of such large size and in high relief. Be this as it may, from a further consideration of the style of this work and the record of others, some of which are heightened with the lustre colours, and the fact stated by the marchese Brancaleoni that a receipt for an altar-piece is still preserved in the archives of Gubbio, we are inclined to think that history must be correct in attributing these important works in ceramic sculpture to Mº Giorgio Andreoli. If they were his unassisted work, he deserves as high a place among the modellers of his period as he is acknowledged to have among artistic potters.
To go back twelve years in the history of the products of this fabrique, we have in the South Kensington museum a very interesting example of a work in rilievo, no. 2601, a figure of S. Sebastian, lustred with the gold and ruby pigments, and dated 1501. Notwithstanding its inferiority of modelling when compared with later works, we are in little doubt that this is by Mº Giorgio’s own hand, agreeing as it does in the manner of its painted outline and shading with the treatment of subjects on the earlier dishes, believed to be by him. We must also bear in mind that an interval of twelve years had elapsed between this comparatively crude work, and that beautiful altar-piece whose