His inventions, which, according to the custom of the age, were employed in scripture history, are repeated by him in nearly the same style in several places; and are generally most pleasing when the proportions of the figures are the least. His small pictures of the Acts of St. Peter and St. Paul, with some representations of our Saviour, and of various saints, in the sacristy of the Vatican, appear most elegant and highly finished miniatures; as likewise are some others in the church of the Holy Cross at Florence, taken from scriptural history, or from the life of St. Francis. The real art of portrait painting commenced with him; to whom we are indebted for correct likenesses of Dante, of Brunetto Latini, and of Corso Donati. It was indeed before attempted, but, according to Vasari, no one had succeeded. He also improved the art of working in mosaic; a piece wrought by him in the Navicella, or ship of St. Peter, may be seen in the portico of that cathedral; but it has been so much repaired, that now the design is wholly different, and appears the work of another artist. It is believed that the art of miniature painting, so much prized in that age for the ornamenting of missals, received great improvement from him.[49] Architecture undoubtedly did; the admirable belfry of the cathedral of Florence is the work of Giotto.
After collecting all the notices he could of the scholars of Cimabue and Giotto, Baldinucci endeavours to make us believe that all the benefits which accrued to painting, sculpture, and architecture in Italy, and even throughout the world, came directly or indirectly from Florence. The following is the manner in which he expresses himself in his first pages, with the proofs which he adduces. "During my researches, I have ascertained beyond all doubt the truth of an opinion I always considered as indisputable, and which is not controverted by respectable ancient historians; that these arts in the first place were restored by Cimabue and Giotto, and afterwards diffused over the world by their disciples; and I conceived the idea of making it evident by the help of a tree, which at a glance might shew their progress from the earliest to the present times." He published the first small part of this tree, just as I exhibit it to the reader; and promised in each succeeding volume to give another part, that would establish the connexion with the principal root (Cimabue), or with the branches derived from it; a promise from which he adroitly delivered himself; therefore we are without any more than these few branches that follow:
But with all his pains he has not satisfied the public expectation, as is observed by Signor Piacenza, who published the splendid Turin edition of Baldinucci as far as the life of Franciabigio, accompanied with very useful notes and dissertations.[50] It is alleged, that to make this tree fair and flourishing, he has inserted in it branches dexterously stolen from his neighbours, who have not failed to reclaim their property. I rejoice to write in an age when the opinions of Baldinucci have few followers even in Florence. The excellent work entitled "Etruria Pittrice," composed and applauded in that city in proportion as it is free from the prejudice of former times, proves this sufficiently. Following in like manner the light of history and of reason, unswayed by party spirit, I shall in the first place observe, that among all the scholars of Cimabue, I do not find any named by Vasari, but Giotto and Arnolfo di Lapo, concerning whom it is certain that the historian was in error. Lapo and Arnolfo are the names of two different sculptors, disciples of Niccolò Pisano, who, being already versed in the art, assisted him in 1266 to adorn with history pieces the pulpit of the cathedral at Siena, an authentic document of which remains in the archives of the work.[51] Thus this branch of the tree belongs to Pisa, unless Cimabue have a claim to it, by contributing in some degree to the instruction of Arnolfo in the principles of architecture. Andrea Tafi was the pupil of Apollonius, a Greek artist, and assisted him in the church of St. John, in some pieces of mosaic, from scriptural history, which, according to Vasari, are without invention and without design; but he improved as he proceeded, for the last part of the work was less despicable than the beginning. Cimabue is not named in these works, nor in what Tafi afterwards executed without assistance; and as he was old when Cimabue began to teach, I cannot conceive how he can be reckoned the scholar of the latter, or a branch from that root. Gaddo Gaddi, says Vasari, was contemporary with Cimabue, and was his intimate friend, as well as that of Tafi; through their friendship he received hints for his improvement in mosaic. At first he followed the manner of the Greeks, mingled with that of Cimabue. After long working in this manner, he went to Rome, and there improved his style, while employed on the façade of S. Maria Maggiore, by his own genius, assisted in my opinion by imitating the ancient workers in mosaic. He also painted some altar-pieces, and I saw at Florence one of his crucifixions, of a square figure, and very respectable workmanship. This circumstance induces me to consider Gaddo, in some measure, among the imitators of Cimabue, but not one of his pupils; for it appears to me unjust, should a contemporary communicate with an artist either as a friend, or for the sake of advice on the art, to set him immediately down as a branch from that stock. Vasari relates of Ugolino Senese, that he was a tenacious follower of the Greek style, and inclined more to imitate Cimabue than Giotto. He does not on this account, indeed, expressly say, that he had been his scholar; he rather hints that he had other instructors at Siena, for which reason it will be better to consider him under that school, there being no reason to doubt that he belonged to it. In that of Bologna we should also class Oderigo, who, as a miniature painter, was more likely to employ some other master than a painter in fresco like Cimabue. In the mean time it is useful to reflect, that were the method of Baldinucci to be pursued, nothing authentic would remain in a history of painting; and the schools of the early masters would increase beyond all limits, were the scholars of each master to be confounded with his friends, acquaintances, and contemporaries, who paid attention to his maxims.
It is still more strange to peruse the account of the connexion between the first and secondary branches of the tree, or if one may use the expression, between the children and grandchildren of Cimabue. There is nothing natural in their succession, and the labour is wholly useless which derives the professors of every fine art, of whatever country, past, present, and to come, from one individual. F. Ristoro and F. Sisto were eminent architects, who rebuilt the grand bridges of the Carraja and the Holy Trinity, about 1264, when Cimabue was twenty-four years of age. Baldinucci writes of both, that they were, perhaps, disciples or imitators of Arnolfo, from the state of their works. But how comes he to found on a perhaps, what he, a little before, had vaunted as a clear demonstration? And then, on what does this perhaps rest? Is it not more probable that Arnolfo, and Cimabue himself, imitated them? That Fra Mino da Turrita should appear in his tree as a scholar of Tafi, and as posterior to Cimabue, is no less absurd. In 1225, a date omitted by Baldinucci, Mino wrought in mosaic at Florence, fifteen years before Cimabue was born. In his old age he commenced a similar work in the cathedral of Pisa, "in the same style in which he had executed his other labours," says Vasari, who adds, that Tafi and Gaddi (both his inferiors in age and reputation) assisted him. The work was "little more than begun," from which we may infer that they were not long associated. It seems to me extraordinary how Baldinucci could assert, "it appears that Vasari imagined that Mino was the pupil of Andrea Tafi," which is contrary to fact: instead of the "clear demonstration," which he promised, he has amused us with "it appears," which is evident only to himself. At length, wishing to make us believe that Giovanni Pisano the sculptor is a pupil of Giotto the painter, he again turns to Vasari, from whom he brings evidence that Giovanni, having completed his work in the cathedral of Arezzo, and being then established at Orvieto, came to Florence to examine the architecture of S. Maria del Fiore, and to become acquainted with Giotto: he further notices two pieces which he executed at Florence, the one a Madonna between two little angels, over the gate of the cathedral; the other a small baptism of St. John; this happened in 1297. Here Baldinucci hazards a reflection, that "if one compares the other works of this artist with the above mentioned figure of the Virgin Mary ... we may recognize in it such improvement ... and so much of the manner of Giotto, that there cannot remain a doubt but he is to be reckoned a disciple of this master, both in respect of his imitation of him, and his observance of his precepts, which he followed during so many years in the exercise of the profession." Every attentive reader will discover here not a clear demonstration of the assumption, but a mass of difficulties. He compares this to the other figures made by Pisano at Florence, before he was acquainted with Giotto; and yet this was the first which he there executed. He wishes to make Giovanni, already sixty years of age, an imitator of Giotto, then twenty-one, when it is much more probable that Giotto would follow him, the best sculptor of the age. There is no foundation for the supposed instruction which Giovanni received from Giotto, who, shortly after, departed for Rome; where, after some other works, he executed the mosaic of the boat in 1298. In short, the whole question of preceptorship rests on no better authority than a single figure. How great are the inconsistencies in this account, and how absurd the explanations and repetitions which are offered! What further shall we say? Is it not lamentable thus to see so many old and honoured artists compelled, in spite of history, to become pupils to masters so much younger and less celebrated than themselves? I know that various writers have censured Baldinucci as an historian of doubtful fidelity, artful in concealing or misrepresenting facts, captious in expounding the opinions of Vasari, and more intent on captivating than instructing his readers. I am not ignorant that his system was controverted even in his own country, as appears from his work published there, entitled Delle Veglie; and that Signor Marmi, a learned Florentine, strongly suspected his fair dealing, of which we shall adduce a proof under the Sienese school. Nevertheless I take into account that he wrote in an age less informed in regard to the history of painting, and that he defended an opinion then much more common in Italy than at present. He had promised Cardinal Leopoldo de' Medici to demonstrate it incontrovertibly for the honour of his country, and of the house of Medici, and had received advice and assistance from him in order to encourage him to defend it, and to refute the contrary opinion. Under the necessity of answering Malvasia,[52] a severe writer against Vasari, and of proving his assertion, that the people of Bologna, no less than those of Siena, of Pisa, and other places, had learned the art from the Florentines, he formed a false system, the absurdity of which he did not immediately perceive; but he at last discovered it, as Signor Piacenza observes, and succeeded in escaping from its trammels. The most ingenious builders of systems have subjected themselves very frequently to the same disadvantage, and the history of literature abounds with similar instances.
Having examined this sophism, I cannot subscribe to the opinion of Baldinucci; but shall comprise my own opinion in two propositions:—The first is, That the improvement of painting is not due to Florence alone. It has been remarked, that the career of human genius, in the progress of the fine arts, is the same in every country. When the man is dissatisfied with what the child learned, he gradually passes from the ruder elements to what is less so, and from thence, to diligence and precision; he afterwards advances to the grand, and the select, and at length attains facility of execution.
Such was the progress of sculpture among the Grecians, and such has been that of painting in our own country. When Correggio advanced from laborious minuteness to grandeur, it was not necessary for him to know that such was the progress of Raffaello, or, at any rate, to have witnessed it: in like manner, nothing more was wanting to the painters of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, than to learn that hitherto they had pursued a wrong path; this was sufficient to guide them into a better path, and it was not then untried; for sculpture had already improved design. We have, in fact, seen the Pisani, and their scholars, preceding the Florentines; and, as their precursors, diffusing a new system of design over Italy. It would be injustice to overlook them in the improvement of painting, in which design is of such importance; or to suppose that they did not signally contribute to its improvement. But if Italy be indebted solely to Cimabue and Giotto for its progress, all the good artists should have come from Florence. And yet, in the cathedral of Orvieto (to instance the finest work, perhaps, of that age), we find, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, many artists from various other places, who would not have been called to ornament such a building, had they not previously enjoyed the reputation of able masters.[53] Add to this, if we are to derive all painters from those two masters, every style of painting should resemble that of their Florentine disciples. But on examining the old paintings of Siena, of Venice, of Bologna, and of Parma, they are found to be dissimilar in idea, in choice of colouring, and in taste of composition. All, then, are not derived from Florence.
My second proposition is, That no people then excelled in, nor contributed, by example, so much to the progress of art as the Florentines. Rival cities may boast artists of merit, even in the first era of painting; their writers may deny the fame of Giotto and his disciples; but truth is more powerful than declamation. Giotto was the father of the new method of painting, as Boccaccio was called the father of the new species of prose composition. After the time of the latter, any subject could be elegantly treated of in prose; after the former, painting could express all subjects with propriety. A Simon da Siena, a Stefano da Firenze, a Pietro Laurati, added charms to the art; but they and others owe to Giotto the transition from the old to a new manner. He essayed it in Tuscany, and while yet a young man, greatly improved it, to the general admiration of all classes. He did not leave Assisi until called to Rome by Boniface VIII., nor did he take up his residence at Avignon, until invited to France by Clement V. Before going there, he was induced to stop at Padua, and on returning some years after, he again resided at the same place. At that time many parts of Italy were under a republican form of government; but abounded in potent families, that bore sway in various quarters, and which, while adorning their country, aimed at its subjugation. Giotto, beyond every other, was in universal request, both at home and abroad. The Polentani of Ravenna, the Malatesti of Rimino, the Estensi of Ferrara, the Visconti of Milan, the Scala of Verona, Castruccio of Lucca, and also Robert, king of Naples, sought to engage him with eagerness, and for some period retained him in their service. Milan, Urbino, Arezzo, and Bologna, were desirous to possess his works; and Pisa, that, in her Campo Santo, afforded an opportunity for the choicest artists of Tuscany to vie with one another,[54] as of old they contended at Corinth, and in Delphi, [55] obtained from him those historic paintings from the life of Job, which are greatly admired, though they are amongst his early productions. When Giotto was no more, similar applause was bestowed on his disciples: cities contended for the honour of inviting them, and they were even more highly estimated than the native artists themselves. We shall find Cavallini and Capanna in the Roman School; in that of Bologna the two Faentini, Pace, and Ottaviano, with Guglielmo da Forli; Menabuoi at Padua; Memmi, who was either a scholar or assistant of Giotto, at Avignon; and we shall find traces of the successors of the same school throughout all Italy. This work will indicate the names of some of them; it will point out the style of others; without including the great number who, in every province, have been withdrawn from our view, for the purpose of replacing old pictures with others in the new manner. Giotto thus became the model for students during the whole of the fourteenth century, as was Raffaello in the sixteenth, and the Caracci in the subsequent century: nor can I find a fourth manner that has been so generally received in Italy as that of those three schools. There have been some who, from the inspiration of their own genius, had adopted a new manner, but they were little known or admired beyond the precincts of their own country. Of the Florentines alone can it be asserted, that they diffused the modern style from one extremity of Italy to the other: in the restoration of painting, though not all, yet the chief praise belongs to them; and this forms my second proposition.
I proceed more willingly to the sequel of my work, having escaped from that part of it in which, amid the contradictory sentiments of authors, I have often suspended my pen, mindful of the maxim, Historia nihil falsi audeat dicere, nihil veri non audeat. Resuming the subject of Florence, after the death of her great artist in 1336, I find painters had there prodigiously multiplied, as I shall presently, from undoubted testimony, proceed to prove. Not long afterwards, that is, in 1349, the painters associated themselves into a religious fraternity, which they denominated the Society of St. Luke, first established in S. Maria Nuova, but afterwards in S. Maria Novella. This was not the first that had arisen in Italy, as Baldinucci affirms: in 1290 there was a company of painters previously established at Venice, of which St. Luke was the patron, the laws of which, it is believed, are still preserved in the church of St. Sophia.[56] But neither this, the Florentine, nor that of Bologna, can be called academies for design; they were only the results of Christian devotion, a sort of school, such as formerly existed, and still exist in many of the arts. They did not consist of painters alone; these always possessed the most elevated rank; but in the same place were assembled artists "in metal and in wood, whose works partook, more or less, of design;" as is related by Baldinucci, in describing the Florentine association. In that of Venice were comprehended basket-makers, gilders, and the lowest daubers; in that of Bologna were included even saddlers, and scabbard-makers; who were only divided from the painters by means of lawsuits and decisions. That unrefined age did not as yet acknowledge the dignity of painting; it denominated those artists master workmen, whom we now call professors of the art, and it called shops what we name studies. I have often doubted, whether the progress of the arts was so rapid among us as in Greece, because, there, painting, either from the beginning or a very early era, was considered as a liberal art: with us its dignity was much longer in being acknowledged.
He who desires to discover the origin of those associations, will find it in the works composed of different arts then most in use, of which I shall treat somewhat fully, for the sake of illustrating the history. A little above I mentioned basket-makers: at that time, all kinds of furniture, such as cupboards, benches, and chests, were wrought by mechanics, and then painted, especially when intended as the furniture of new married women. Many ancient cabinet pictures have been cut out of such pieces of furniture, and, by this means, preserved to later ages. As for images on altars, through the whole of the fourteenth century, they were not formed, as at present, on a separate piece from the surrounding ornaments. There were made little altars, or dittici,[57] in many parts of Italy, called Ancone; they first shaped the wood, and laboriously ornamented it with carving. The design was conformed to the Teutonic, or, as it is called, the Gothic architecture, seen in the façades of churches built in that age. The whole work was a load of minuteness, consisting of little tabernacles, pyramids, and niches; and various doors and windows, with semi-circular and pointed arches, were represented on the surface of the panel; a style very characteristic of that period. I have sometimes there observed, in the middle, little statues in mezzo-relievo.[58] Most frequently the painter designed these figures or busts of saints: sometimes there were also prepared various sorts of little forms, or moulds—formelle—in which to represent histories. Often there was a step added to the little altar, where, in several compartments, were likewise exhibited histories of our Saviour, of the Virgin, and of the martyrs, either real or feigned.[59] Sometimes various compartments were prepared, in which their lives were represented. The carvers in wood were so vain of their craft, that they often inscribed their own names before that of the painter.[60]