Fig. 70.—Raffaelle Ware.
What is known as Raffaelle, or Raffaellesque maiolica, are not those pieces which carry copies of Raffaelle’s pictures, but those, like the example seen in Fig. 70, which are ornamented with arabesques, chimeras, scrolls, etc.
Of the painting of Xanto, a competent critic, Mr. J. C. Robinson, thus writes:
“Xanto’s works may be considered to represent perfectly the ‘Majoliche istoriate,’ and he certainly had a talent for the arrangement of his works in composition, nearly all his subjects being ‘pasticci;’ the various figures or groups introduced being the invention of other artists copied with adroit variations over and over again, and made to do duty in the most widely different characters. As an original artist—if, indeed, he can be so considered—he may be classed with the more mannered of the scholars of Raffaelle. His designs are generally from classical or mythological subjects. Xanto’s execution, although dexterous, is monotonous and mechanical; his scale of coloring is crude and positive, full of violent oppositions, the only merit, if merit it be, being that of a certain force and brightness of aspect; in every other respect his coloring is commonplace, not to say disagreeable even; blue, crude opaque yellow, and orange tints, and bright verdigris green, are the dominant hues, and are scattered over the pieces in full, unbroken masses, the yellow especially meeting the eye at the first glance. In the unsigned pieces, before 1531, the glaze is better and more transparent, the execution more delicate, and the outline more hard and black, than in the later specimens. Some of Xanto’s wares are profusely enriched with metallic lustres, including the beautiful ruby tint; these specimens, however, form but a small, percentage of the entire number of his works extant. This class of piece is, moreover, interesting from the fact that the iridescent colors were obviously not of Xanto’s own production, but that, on the contrary, they were applied to his wares by Mo. Giorgio, and the supposed continuers of Giorgio’s ‘fabrique’ in Gubbio. Many pieces are extant which, in addition to Xanto’s own signature, nearly always written in dark-blue or olive tint, are likewise signed with the monogram ‘N’ of the Giorgio school in the lustre-tint; and one specimen, at least, has been observed which, though painted by Xanto, has been signed in the lustre-tint by Maestro Giorgio himself.”
At this time there came to Urbino some artists who took the name of Fontana, whose works have a great fame—when known; their name originally is believed to have been Pellipario. These brothers appear to have founded a factory or “botega” of their own at Urbino, where they did much work which reached a high reputation. But little of it, however, is surely known; for these painters, like most of the maiolica-painters, but rarely signed their pieces.
“With regard to the Fontana family, chiefs among Italian ceramic artists, we quote from the notice by Mr. Robinson appended to the Soulages catalogue. He tells us that ‘the celebrity of one member of this family has been long established by common consent. Orazio Fontana has always occupied the highest place in the scanty list of maiolica artists, although at the same time nothing was definitely known of his works. Unlike their contemporary Xanto, the Fontana seem but rarely to have signed their productions, and consequently their reputation as yet rests almost entirely on tradition, on incidental notices in writings which date back to the age in which they flourished, and on facts extracted at a recent period from local records. No connected account of this family has as yet been attempted, although the materials are somewhat less scanty than usual. There can be no doubt that a considerable proportion of the products of the Fontana “boteghe” is still extant, and that future observations will throw light on much that is now obscure in the history of this notable race of industrial artists. Orazio Fontana, whose renown seems to have completely eclipsed that of the other members of his family, and, in fact, of all the other Urbinese artists, is first mentioned by Baldi, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, in his eulogy of the state of Urbino pronounced before Duke Francesco Maria II.... From documents cited by Raffaelli, it is established beyond doubt that the original family name was Pellipario, of Castel-Durante, Fontana being an adopted surname; and it is not immaterial to observe that down to the latest mention of any one of the family (in 1605) they are invariably described as of Castel-Durante.... The Fontana were undoubtedly manufacturers as well as artists, i.e., they were the proprietors of “vaserie.” Of the first Nicola, as we have only a brief incidental notice, nothing positive can be affirmed; but with respect to his son Guido we have the testimony both of works still extant and of contemporary documents. We know, also, that Guido’s son Orazio also had a manufactory of his own, and the fact is established that between 1565 and 1571 there were two distinct Fontana manufactories—those of father and son. What became of Orazio’s establishment after his death, whether continued by his brother Camillo or reunited to that of the father, there is no evidence to show. With respect to the remaining members of the family, our information is of the scantiest kind. Camillo, who was inferior in reputation as a painter only to his elder brother, appears to have been invited to Ferrara by Duke Alfonso II., and to have introduced the maiolica-manufacture into that city. Of Nicola, the third (?) son, we have only incidental mention in a legal document, showing that he was alive in the year 1570. Guido, son of Camillo, lived till 1605; and of Flaminio, who may either have been son of Camillo or of Nicola, Dennistoun’s vague notice asserting his settlement in Florence is all I have been able to collect. No signed pieces of Camillo, Flaminio, Nicola the second, or Guido the second, have as yet been observed.
“ ‘A considerable proportion of the Fontana maiolica is doubtless still extant; and it is desirable to endeavor to identify the works of the individual members of the family, without which the mere knowledge of their existence is of very little moment; but this is no easy task; although specimens from the hands of one or other of them are to be undoubtedly found in almost every collection, the work of comparison and collation has as yet been scarcely attempted. The similarity of style and technical characteristics of the several artists, moreover, working, as they did, with the same colors on the same quality of enamel-ground, and doubtless in intimate communication with each other, resolves itself into such a strong family resemblance that it will require the most minute and careful observation, unremittingly continued, ere the authorship of the several specimens can be determined with anything like certainty. The evidence of signed specimens is, of course, the most to be relied on, and is indeed indispensable in giving the clew to complete identification in the first instance; but in the case of the Fontana family a difficulty presents itself which should be noticed in the outset. This difficulty arises in determining the authorship of the pieces signed “Fatto in botega,” etc.—a mode of signature, in fact, which proves very little in determining individual characteristics, inasmuch as apparently nearly all the works so inscribed are painted by other hands than that of the proprietor of the Vaseria. In cases, however, in which the artist has actually signed or initialed pieces with his own name, of course no such difficulty exists, but the certainty acquired by this positive evidence is as yet confined in the case of the Fontana family to their greatest name, Orazio.’ ”
With regard to the artistic quality of this work, I will quote the criticism of a competent judge, Mr. Fortnum, as upon the general question I have a few words to say further on; for it is unfortunately true that too many buy for the name, and not the merit. He says:
“The celebrated vases made for the spezieria of the duke were produced at the Fontana fabrique, and subsequently presented to the Santa Casa at Loreto, where many of them are still preserved. Those shown to the writer on his visit to that celebrated shrine some few years since did not strike him as being of such extraordinary beauty and great artistic excellence as the high-flown eulogy bestowed upon them by some writers would have led him to expect. The majority of the pieces are drug-pots of a not unusual form, but all or nearly all of them are ‘istoriati,’ instead of being, as is generally the case, simply decorated with ‘trofei,’ ‘foglie,’ ‘grotesche,’ the more usual and less costly ornamentation. Some of the pieces have serpent-handles, mask-spouts, etc., but he vainly looked for the magnificent vases of unsurpassed beauty; nor, indeed, did he see anything equal to the shaped pieces preserved in the Bargello at Florence. The work of the well-known hands of the Fontana fabrique is clearly recognizable, and several pieces are probably by Orazio. Some, more important, preserved in a low press, were finer examples. We have said that the pieces individually are not so striking, but, taken as a whole, it is a very remarkable service, said to have originally numbered three hundred and eighty vases, all painted with subjects after the designs of Battista Franco, Giulio Romano, Angelo, and Raffaelle; and, as the work of one private artistic pottery in the comparatively remote capital of a small duchy, it bears no slight testimony to the extraordinary development of every branch of art-industry in the various districts of Italy during the sixteenth century.”