The Cav. Bernini, a man of more talents as an architect than as a sculptor, was under Urban VIII. and Innocent X., and also until the year 1680, in which he died, the arbiter of the public taste in Rome. The enemy of Sacchi and the benefactor of Cortona, he obtained more employ for his friend than for his rival; and this was easily accomplished, as Cortona was rapid as well as laborious, while Sacchi was slow and irresolute, qualities which rendered him unacceptable even to his own patrons. In course of time Bernini began to favour Romanelli, to the prejudice of Pietro; and, instructing that artist and Baciccio in his principles, he influenced them to the adoption of his own style, which, though it possessed considerable beauty, was nevertheless mannered, particularly in the folds of the drapery. The way being thus opened to caprice, they abandoned the true, and substituted false precepts of art, and many years had not elapsed before pernicious principles appeared in the schools of the painters, and particularly in that of Cortona. Some went so far as to censure the imitation of Raffaello, as Bellori attests in the Life of Carlo Maratta, (p. 102,) and others ridiculed, as useless, the study of nature, preferring to copy, in a servile manner, the works of other artists. These effects are visible in the pictures of the time. All the countenances, although by different artists, have a fulness in the lips and nose like those of Pietro, and have all a sort of family resemblance, so much are they alike; a defect which Bottari says is the only fault of Pietro, but it is not the only fault of his school. Every one was anxious to avoid the labour of study, and to promote facility at the expense of correct design; the errors in which they endeavoured to conceal by overcharging rather than discriminating the contours. No one can be desirous that I should enter into further particulars, when we are treating of matters so very near our own times, and whoever is free from prejudice may judge for himself. I now return to the state of the Roman School about one hundred and twenty years back.
The schools most in repute, after the death of Sacchi, in 1661, and of Berrettini, in 1670, when the best scholars of the Caracci were dead, were reduced to two, that of Cortona supported by Ciro, and that of Sacchi, by Maratta. The first of these expanded the ideas, but induced negligence; the second enforced correctness, but fettered the ideas. Each adopted something from the other, and not always the best part; an affected contrast pleased some of the scholars of Maratta, and the drapery of Maratta was adopted by some of the followers of Ciro.[[85]] The school of Cortona exhibited a grand style in fresco; the other school was restricted to oils. They became rivals, each supported by its own party, and were impartially employed by the pontiffs until the death of Ciro, that is, until 1689. From that time a new tone was given to art by Maratta, who, under Clement XI., was appointed director of the numerous works which that pontiff was carrying on in Rome and in Urbino. Although this master had many able rivals, as we shall see, he still maintained his superiority, and on his death, his school continued to flourish until the pontificate of Benedict XIV., ultimately yielding to the more novel style of Subleyras, Batoni, and Mengs. Thus far of the two schools in general: we shall now notice their followers.
Besides the scholars whom Pietro formed in Tuscany, as Dandini of Florence, Castellucci of Arezzo, Palladino of Cortona, and those whom he formed in other schools, where we shall see them as masters, he educated others in the Roman state, of whom it is now time to speak. The number of his scholars is beyond belief. They were enumerated by Sig. Cav. Luzi, a nobleman of Cortona, who composed a life of Berrettini with more accuracy than had been before done, but his death prevented the publication of it. Pietro continued to teach to the close of his life, and the picture of S. Ivo, which he left imperfect, was finished by Gio. Ventura Borghesi, of Città di Castello. Of this artist there are also at S. Niccola, two pictures, the Nativity, and the Assumption of the Virgin, and I am not acquainted with any other public specimens of his pencil in Rome. His native place possesses many of his performances, and the most esteemed are four circles of the History of S. Caterina, V. M., in the church of that saint. Many of his works are to be found also in Prague, and the cities of Germany. He follows Pietro with sufficient fidelity in design, but does not display so much vigour of colour. Carlo Cesi, of Rieti, or rather of Antrodoco, in that neighbourhood, was also a distinguished scholar of Pietro. He lived in Rome, and in the Quirinal gallery, where the best artists of the age painted under Alexander VII., he has left a large picture of the Judgment of Solomon. He worked also in other places; as at S. M. Maggiore, at the Rotunda, and was patronized by several cardinals. He was correct in his design, and opposed, both in person and by his precepts and example, the fatal and prevailing facility of his time. Pascoli has preserved some of his axioms, and this among others, that the beautiful should not be crowded, but distributed with judgment in the composition of pictures; otherwise they resemble a written style, which by the redundancy of brilliant and sententious remarks fails in its effect. Francesco Bonifazio was of Viterbo, and from the various pictures by him, which Orlandi saw in that city, I do not hesitate to rank him among the successful followers of Pietro. We may mention Michelangiolo Ricciolini, a Roman by birth, although called of Todi, whose portrait is in the Medici gallery, where is also that of Niccolo Ricciolini, respecting whom Orlandi is silent. Both were employed in decorating the churches of Rome; the second had the reputation of a better designer than the first, and in the cartoons painted for some mosaics for the Vatican church, he competed with the Cav. Franceschini. Paolo Gismondi, called also Paolo Perugino, became a good fresco painter, and there are works remaining by him in the S. Agata, in the Piazza Nova, and at S. Agnes, in the Piazza Navona. Pietro Paolo Baldini, of whose native place I am ignorant, is stated by Titi to have been of the school of Cortona. Ten pictures by him are counted in the churches of Rome, and in some of them, as in the Crucifixion of S. Eustace, a precision of style derived from another school is observable. Bartolommeo Palombo has only two pictures in the capital. That of S. Maria Maddelena de' Pazzi, which is placed at S. Martino a' Monti, entitles him to rank with the best of his fellow scholars, the picture possesses so strong a colouring, and the figures are so graceful and well designed. Pietro Lucatelli, of Rome, was a distinguished painter, and is named in the catalogue of the Colonna gallery, as the scholar of Ciro, and in Titi, as the disciple of Cortona. He is a different artist from Andrea Lucatelli, of whom we shall shortly speak. Gio. Batista Lenardi, whom, in a former edition, I hesitated to place in the list of the pupils of Pietro, I now consider as belonging to that school, though he was instructed also by Baldi. In the chapel of the B. Rita, at S. Agostino, he painted two lateral pictures as well as the vault; he also ornamented other churches with his works, and particularly that of Buonfratelli, at Trastevere, where he painted the picture of S. Gio. Calibita. That of the great altar was ascribed to him, probably from a similarity of style; but is by Andrea Generoli, called Il Sabinese, a pupil either of Pietro himself, or of one of his followers.
Thus far of the less celebrated of this school. The three superior artists, whose works still attract us in the galleries of princes, are Cortesi, and the two elder scholars of the academy of Pietro, Romanelli and Ferri. Nor is it improbable that having competitors in some of his first scholars, he became indisposed to instruct others with the same degree of good will, as those noble minds are few, in whom the zeal of advancing the art exceeds the regret at having produced an ingrate or a rival.
Guglielmo Cortesi, the brother of P. Giacomo, like him named Il Borgognone, was one of the best artists of this period; and a scholar rather than an imitator of Pietro. His admiration was fixed on Maratta, whom he followed in the studied variety of his heads, and in the sobriety of the composition, more than in the division of the folds of his drapery or in colour; in which latter he manifested a clearness partaking of the Flemish. His style was somewhat influenced by that of his brother, whose assistant he was, and by his study of the Caracci. He often appears to have imitated the strong relief and azure grounds of Guercino. His Crucifixion of S. Andrea, in the church of Monte Cavallo, the Fight of Joshua in the Quirinal palace, and a Madonna attended by Saints, in the Trinità de' Pellegrini, merit our attention. In these works there is a happy union of various styles, exempt from mannerism.
Francesco Romanelli was born at Viterbo, and, as well as Testa, studied some time under Domenichino. He afterwards placed himself with Pietro, whose manner he imitated so successfully, that on Pietro going on a journey into Lombardy, he left him, together with Bottalla (called Bortelli by Baldinucci) to supply his place in decorating the Barberini palace. It is reported that the two scholars, in the absence of their master, endeavoured to have the work transferred to themselves, and were on that account dismissed. It was at this time that Romanelli, assisted by Bernini, changed his style, and adopted by degrees a more elegant and a seductive manner in his figures, but possessing less grandeur and science than that of Pietro. He used more slender proportions, clearer tints, and a more minute taste in folding his drapery. His Deposition in S. Ambrogio, which was extolled as a prodigy, stimulated Pietro to paint opposite to it that wonderful picture of S. Stephen, on seeing which Bernini exclaimed, that he then perceived the difference between the master and the scholar. Romanelli was twice in France, having found a patron in the Cardinal Barberini, who had fled to Paris; and he participated in the spirited manner of that country, which gave an animation before unknown to his figures. This at least is the opinion of Pascoli. He decorated a portico of Cardinal Mazarine with subjects from the metamorphoses of Ovid, and afterwards adorned some of the royal saloons with passages from the Æneid. He was preparing to return to France with his family for the third time, when he was intercepted by death at Viterbo. He left in that city, at the grand altar of the Duomo, the picture of S. Lorenzo, and in Rome, and in other cities of Italy, numerous works both public and private, although he died at about forty-five years of age. He had the honour of painting in the church of the Vatican. The presentation which he placed there is now in the church of the Certosa, the mosaic in S. Peter. He did not leave behind him any scholars who inherited his reputation. Urbano, his son, was educated by Ciro after the death of his father. He is known for his works in the cathedral churches of Velletri and Viterbo: those in Viterbo are from the life of S. Lorenzo, the patron saint of the church, and prove him to have been a young man of considerable promise, but he was cut off prematurely.
Ciro Ferri, a Roman by birth, was, of all the disciples of Cortona, the one the most attached in person, and similar to him in style; and not a few of the works of Pietro were given to him to complete, both in Florence and in Rome. There are indeed some pictures so dubious, that the experienced are in doubt whether to assign them to the master or the scholar. He displays generally less grace in design, a less expansive genius, and shuns that breadth of drapery which his master affected. The number of his works in Rome is not proportioned to his residence there, because he lent much assistance to his master. There is a S. Ambrogio in the church of that saint just mentioned, and it is a touchstone of merit for whoever wishes to compare him with the best of his fellow scholars, or with his master himself. His works in the Pitti palace have been already mentioned in another place, and we ought not to forget another grand composition by him in S. M. Maggiore in Bergamo, consisting of various scriptural histories painted in fresco. He speaks of them himself in some letters inserted in the Pittoriche, (tom. ii. p. 38,) from which we gather, that he had been reprehended for his colouring, and contemplated visiting Venice in order to improve himself. He did not leave any scholar of celebrity in Rome. Corbellini, who finished the Cupola of S. Agnes, the last work of Ciro, which has been engraved, would not have found a place in Titi and Pascoli, if it had not been to afford those writers an opportunity of expressing their regret at so fine a composition being injured by the hand that attempted to finish it.
But another scion of the same stock sprung up to support the name and credit of the school of Ciro, transferred from Florence to Rome. We mentioned in the first book, that when Ciro was in Florence he formed a scholar in Gabbiani, who became the master of Benedetto Luti. Ciro was only just dead when Luti arrived in Rome, who not being able to become his scholar, as he had designed when he left his native place, applied himself to studying the works of Ciro, and those of other good masters, as I have elsewhere remarked. He thus formed for himself an original style, and enjoyed in Rome the reputation of an excellent artist in the time of Clement XI., who honoured him with commissions, and decorated him with the cross. It is to be regretted that he attached himself so much to crayons, with which he is said to have inundated all Europe. He was intended by nature for nobler things. He painted well in fresco, and still better in oils. His S. Anthony in the church of the Apostles, and the Magdalen in that of the Sisters of Magnanapoli, which is engraved, are highly esteemed. Nor would it add a little to his reputation, if we had engravings of his two pictures in the Duomo of Piacenza, S. Conrad penitent, and S. Alexius recognised after death; where, amidst other excellences, a fine expression of the pathetic predominates. Of his profane pieces, his Psyche in the Capitoline gallery, is the most remarkable, and breathes an elegant and refined taste. Of the few productions which Tuscany possesses by him, we have written in the school of Gabbiani. We shall here mention a few of his scholars, who remained in Rome, noticing others in various schools.
Placido Costanzi is often mentioned with approbation in the collections of Rome for the elegant figures he inserted in the landscapes of Orizzonte; he also painted some altarpieces in a refined style. In the church of the Magdalen is a picture of S. Camillo attended by Angels, so gracefully painted, that he seems to have aspired to rival Domenichino. He also distinguished himself in fresco, as may be seen in the S. Maria in Campo Marzio, where the ceiling in the greater tribune is the work of Costanzi.
Pietro Bianchi resembled Luti more than any of his scholars in elegance of manner, and excelled him in large compositions, which he derived from his other master, Baciccio. His extreme fastidiousness and his early death prevented him from leaving many works. A very few of his pictures are found in the churches of Rome. At Gubbio is his picture of S. Chiara, with the Angel appearing, a piece of grand effect, from the distribution of the light. The sketch of this picture was purchased by the King of Sardinia at a high price. He painted for the church of S. Peter a picture, which was executed in mosaic in the altar of the choir: the original is in the Certosa, in which the Cav. Mancini had the greatest share, as Bianchi did little more than furnish the sketch.