[55] It was charged on the office of the Piombo, or papal signet, when Sebastiano da Venezia was invested with it, and was a pension of three hundred scudi. Padre Federici observes that the one was designated Fra Sebastiano, but that the other was not called Fra Giovanni; nor is this remarkable, for a Bishop is called Monsignore, but the person who enjoys a pension charged upon a Bishoprick has not the same title. It cannot however be deduced from this, as Federici wishes to do, that Sebastiano was first Frate di S. Domenico, by the name of F. Marco Pensaben, and afterwards secularized by the Pope, and appointed to the signet, and that he retained the Fra in consequence of his former situation.
ROMAN SCHOOL.
EPOCH III.
The art declines in consequence of the public calamities of Rome, and gradually falls into mannerism.
After the mournful events of the year 1527, Rome for some time remained in a state of stupor, contemplating her past misfortunes and her future destiny; and, like a vessel escaped from shipwreck, began slowly to repair her numerous losses. The soldiers of the besieging army, among other injuries committed in the Apostolic palace, had defaced some heads of Raffaello; and F. Sebastiano, an artist by no means competent to such a task, was employed to repair them. This, at least, was the opinion of Titian, who was introduced to these works, and ignorant of the circumstances, asked Sebastiano what presumptuous wretch had had the audacity to attempt their restoration;[[56]] an impartial observation, against which even the patronage of Michelangiolo could not shield the artist. Paul III. was now in possession of the papal chair, and under his auspices the arts again began to revive. The decoration of the palace of Caprarola, and other works of Paul and his nephews, gave employment to the painters, and happy had these patrons been, could they have found a second Raffaello. Bonarruoti, as we have observed, was engaged by the Pope, and gave to the Roman School many noble specimens of art, though he formed but few scholars. Sebastiano, after the death of Raffaello, freed from all further competition with that great artist, and honoured with the lucrative office of the papal signet, seemed disposed to rest from his labours; and as he had never, at any time, discovered great application, he now resigned himself to a life of vacant leisure, and Vasari does not mention with commendation any pupil of his school except Laureti.[[57]] Giulio Romano was now invited back to Rome, and the superintendence of the building of S. Peter's offered to him, but death prevented his return to his native city. Perino del Vaga, however, repaired to Rome, and might, himself, have effected the restoration of art, if his magnanimity had corresponded with the sublimity of his mind. But he did not inherit the daring genius of his master. He communicated his instructions with jealousy, and worked with a spirit of gain, or to speak correctly, he did not paint himself, but undertaking works of more or less consequence, he allowed his scholars to execute them, often to the injury of his own reputation. He continued to secure to himself artists of the first talents, as we shall see; but this was done with the intention of making them dependant on him, and to prevent their interfering with his emoluments and commissions. But together with the good, he engaged also many indifferent and inferior artists, whence it happens, that in the chambers of the castle of S. Angelo, and in other places, we meet with so marked a difference in many of his works. Few of his scholars attained celebrity. Luzio Romano is the most noted, and possessed a good execution. Of him there exists a frieze in the Palazzo Spada; and for some time, too, he had for an assistant Marcello Venusti of Mantua, a young man of great talents, but diffident, and probably standing in need of more instruction than Perino afforded him. He afterwards received some instructions from Bonarruoti, whose ideas he executed in an excellent manner, as I have mentioned before, and by his aid he became himself also a good designer.[[58]] Perino, by these means, always abounded in work and in money. A similar traffic in the art was carried on by Taddeo Zuccaro, if we are to believe Vasari; and by Vasari himself, too, if we may be allowed to judge from his pictures.
The actual state of the art at this period may be ascertained from a view of the numerous works produced; but none are so distinguished as the paintings in the Sala Regia, commenced under Paul III., and scarcely finished, after a lapse of thirty years, in 1573. Of these Vaga had the direction, as Raffaello had formerly had, of the chambers of the Vatican. He planned the compartments, ornamented the ceiling, directed all the stuccos, cornices, devices, and large figures, and all in the style of a great master. He then applied himself to design the subjects for his pencil, and was employed on them when he was carried off by death in 1547. Through the partiality of Michelangiolo, he was succeeded by Daniel di Volterra, who had already worked in stucco, under his direction, in the same place. Volterra resolved to represent the donations of those sovereigns who had extended or consolidated the temporal dominion of the church, whence the chamber was called Sala dei Regi, and this idea was, in some degree, though with variations, continued by succeeding artists. Volterra was naturally slow and irresolute, and after painting the Deposition from the Cross, which we have mentioned as being executed with the assistance of Michelangiolo, he produced no more of these prodigies of art. He had indeed begun some designs, but on the death of the Pope, in 1549, he was compelled, in order to accommodate the conclave, to remove the scaffolding, and expose the work unfinished. It did not meet with public approbation, nor was it continued under Julius III., and still less under Paul IV., in whose reign the art was held in so little respect, that the apostles, painted by Raffaello in one of the chambers of the Vatican, were displaced.
Pius IV., who resumed the work, on the suggestion of Vasari, in 1561, had intended to charge Salviati with the entire execution of it; but, by the intercessions of Bonarruoti, was at length prevailed on to assign one half of the apartment to Salviati, and the other half to Ricciarelli, though this did not contribute to expedite the work. Pirro Ligorio, a Neapolitan, was at this time held in high esteem by the Pope. He was an antiquarian, though not of great celebrity, but a good architect, and a fresco painter of some merit;[[59]] an enthusiast too, and alike jealous of Ricciarelli, for the homage he paid to Bonarruoti, and of Salviati, for the respect which he did not shew to Ligorio himself. Remarking that the Pope wished to hasten the completion of the work, he proposed to select a number of scholars, and to divide the work amongst them. Vasari adds, that Salviati was disgusted and left Rome; where, on his return, he died, without finishing his work; and that Ricciarelli, who was always slow, never touched it again, and died also after the lapse of some little time. The completion of the work was then entrusted, as far as possible, to the successors of Raffaello. Livio Agresti da Forli, Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta, and Marco da Pino, of Sienna, although they had received their first instructions from other masters, had been instructed by Perino del Vaga, and had assisted in his cartoons. Taddeo Zuccaro had accomplished himself under Giacomone da Faenza, and had made his younger brother Federigo an able artist. To these the work was assigned, and there were added to them Samacchini and Fiorini, Bolognese artists; and Giuseppe Porta della Garfagnana, called Giuseppe Salviati. This latter had been the pupil of Francesco Salviati, from whom he learnt the principles of design; he was afterwards a follower of the school of Venice, where he resided. Of these numerous artists Vasari assigns the palm to Taddeo Zuccaro, but the court was so much pleased with Porta, that it was in contemplation to destroy the works of the other artists, in order that the apartment might be finished by him alone. He represented Alexander III. in the act of bestowing his benediction on Frederick Barbarossa, in the Piazza of S. Mark, in Venice; and he here indulged his taste for architectural ornaments, in the Venetian manner. When however this work is viewed and compared with that of other artists, we discover a sameness of style, the character of the time; a deficiency of strength in the colours and shadows is the common failing. It seems as if the art, through a long course of years, had become debilitated: it discovers the lineaments of a better age, but feebly expressed and deprived of their primitive vigour. That portion of the work which remained unfinished, was, after the death of Pius IV., completed by Vasari and his school, under his successor; and some little was supplied under Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572.
With that year a reign commenced but little auspicious to art, and still less so was the Pontificate of Sixtus V., the successor of Gregory. These Pontiffs erected or ornamented so many public buildings, that we can scarcely move a step in Rome, without meeting with the papal arms of a dragon or a lion. Baglione has accurately described them, and to him we are indebted for the lives of the artists of this and the following period. It is natural for men advanced in years to content themselves with mediocrity in the works which they order, from the apprehension of not living to see them, if they wait for the riper efforts of talent. Hence those artists were the most esteemed, and the most employed, who possessed despatch and facility of execution, particularly by Sixtus, of whose severity towards dilatory artists we shall shortly adduce a memorable instance. This inaccuracy of style was continued to the time of Clement VIII., when a number of works were hastily finished to meet the opening of the holy year 1600. Under these pontiffs the painters of Italy, and even the oltramontani, inundated Rome with their works, in the same manner that the poets and philosophers had filled that city with their writings in the time of Domitian and Marcus Aurelius. Every one indulged his own taste; and the style of many was deteriorated through rapidity of execution. Thus the art, particularly in fresco, became the employment of a mechanic, not founded in the just imitation of nature, but in the capricious ideas of the artist.[[60]] Nor was the colouring better than the design. At no period do we find such an abuse of the simple tints, in none so feeble a chiaroscuro, or less harmony. These are the mannerists, who peopled the churches, convents, and saloons of Rome with their works, but in the collections of the nobility they have not had the same good fortune.
This era, nevertheless, is not wholly to be condemned, as it contains several great names, the relics of the preceding illustrious age. We have enumerated the painters who flourished in Rome in the first reigns of this century, and we ought to notice a number of others. They were for the most part foreigners, and ought to be introduced in other schools. I shall here describe those particularly, who were born within the limits of the Roman School, and those who, being established in it, taught and propagated their own peculiar style.