The art was, however, more advanced by Antonio Solario, originally a smith, and commonly called lo Zingaro. His history has something romantic in it, like that of Quintin Matsys, who, from his first profession, was called il Fabbro, and became a painter from his love to a young girl, who promised to marry him when he had made himself a proficient in the art of painting. Solario in the same manner being enamoured of a daughter of Colantonio, and receiving from him a promise of her hand in marriage in ten years, if he became an eminent painter, forsook his furnace for the academy, and substituted the pencil for the file. There is an idle tradition of a queen of Naples having been the author of this match, but that matter I leave in the hands of the narrators of it. It is more interesting to us to know that Solario went to Bologna, where he was for several years the scholar of Lippo Dalmasio, called also Lippo delle Madonne, from his numerous portraits of the Virgin, and the grace with which he painted them. On leaving Bologna he visited other parts of Italy in order to study the works of the best artists in the various schools; as Vivarini, in Venice; Bicci, in Florence; Galasso, in Ferrara; Pisanello, and Gentile da Fabriano, in Rome. It has been thought that he assisted the two last, as Luca Giordano affirmed that among the pictures in the Lateran he recognized some heads which were indisputably by Solario. He excelled in this particular, and excited the admiration of Marco da Siena himself, who declared that his countenances seemed alive. He became also a good perspective painter for those times, and respectable in historical compositions; which he enlivened with landscape in a better style than other painters, and distinguished his figures by drapery peculiar to the age, and carefully drawn from nature. He was less happy in designing his hands and feet, and often appears heavy in his attitudes, and crude in his colouring. On his return to Naples, it is said, that he gave proof of his skill, and was favorably received by Colantonio, and thus became his son-in-law nine years after his first departure; and that he painted and taught there under King Alfonso, until the year 1455, about which time he died.
The most celebrated work of this artist was in the choir of S. Severino, in fresco, representing, in several compartments, the life of S. Benedict, and containing an incredible variety of figures and subjects. He left also numerous pictures with portraits, and Madonnas of a beautiful form, and not a few others painted in various churches of Naples. In that of S. Domenico Maggiore, where he painted a dead Christ, and in that of S. Pier Martire, where he represented a S. Vincenzio, with some subjects from the life of that saint, it is said that he surpassed himself. Thus there commenced in Naples a new epoch, which from its original and most celebrated prototype, is called by the Cav. Massimo, the school of Zingaro, as in that city those pictures are commonly distinguished by the name of Zingaresque, which were painted from the time of that artist to that of Tesauro, or a little later, in the same way that pictures are every where called Cortonesque, that are painted in imitation of Berettini.
About this time there flourished two eminent artists, whom I deem it proper to mention in this place before I enter on the succeeding scholars of the Neapolitan School. These were Matteo da Siena, and Antonello da Messina. The first we noticed in the school of Siena, and mentioned his having painted in Naples the Slaughter of the Innocents. It exists in the church of S. Caterina a Formello, and is engraved in the third volume of the Lettere Senesi. The year m.cccc.xviii. is attached to it, but we ought not to yield implicit faith to this date. Il P. della Valle, in p. 56 of the above mentioned volume, observes, that Matteo, in the year 1462, when he painted with his father in Pienza, was young, and that in the portrait which he painted of himself in 1491, he does not appear aged. He could not therefore have painted in Naples in 1418. After this we may believe it very possible, that in this date an L has been inadvertently omitted, and that the true reading is m.cccc.lxviii. Thus the above writer conjectures, and with so much the more probability, as he advances proofs, both from the form of the letters and the absence of the artist from his native place. Whoever desires similar examples, may turn to page 141 of vol. i., and he will find that such errors have occurred more than once in the date of books. Guided by this circumstance we may correct what Dominici has asserted of Matteo da Siena having influenced the style of Solario. It may be true that there is a resemblance in the air of the heads, and the general style, but such similarity can only be accounted for by Matteo deriving it from Solario, or both, as often happens, deriving it from the same master.
Antonello, of the family of the Antonj, universally known under the name of Antonello da Messina, is a name so illustrious in the history of art, that it is not sufficient to have mentioned him in the first book and to refer to him here again, as he will claim a further notice in the Venetian School, and we must endeavour too to overcome some perplexing difficulties, to ascertain with correctness the time at which he flourished, and attempt to settle the dispute, whether he were the first who painted in oil in Italy, or whether that art was practised before his time. Vasari relates, that when young, after having spent many years in Rome in the study of design,[[101]] and many more at Palermo, painting there with the reputation of a good artist, he repaired first to Messina, and from thence passed to Naples, where he chanced to see a large composition painted in oil by Gio. da Bruggia, which had been presented by some Florentine merchants to King Alfonso. Antonello, smitten with this new art, took his departure to Flanders, and there, by his affability, and by a present of some drawings of the Italian School, so far ingratiated himself with Giovanni, as to induce him to communicate to him the secret, and the aged painter dying soon afterwards, thus left him instructed in the new art. This must have happened about the year 1440, since that time is required to support the supposition that Giovanni, born about 1370, died at an advanced age, as the old writers assert, or exactly in 1441, as is asserted by the author of the Galleria Imperiale. Antonello then left Flanders, and first resided for some months in his native place; from thence he went to Venice, where he communicated the secret to Domenico Veneziano; and having painted there a considerable time, died there at the age of forty-nine. All this we find in Vasari, and it agrees with what he relates in the life of Domenico Veneziano, that this artist, after having learnt the new method from Antonello in Venice, painted in Loreto with Piero della Francesca, some few years before that artist lost his eyesight, which happened in 1458. Thus the arrival of Antonello in Venice must have occurred about the year 1450, or some previous year; but this conclusion is contrary to Venetian evidence. The remaining traces of Antonello, or the dates attached to his works there, commence in 1474, and terminate according to Ridolfi in 1490. There does not appear any reason whatever, why he should not have attached dates to his pictures, until after residing twenty-four years in Venice. Besides, how can it be maintained, that Antonello, after passing many years in Rome as a student, and many in Palermo as a master, and some years in Messina and Flanders, should not in Venice, in the forty-ninth year after the death of Giovanni, have passed the forty-ninth year of his age. Hackert quotes the opinion of Gallo, who in the Annali di Messina, dates the birth of Antonello in 1447, and his death at forty-nine years of age, that is, in 1496. But if this were so, how could he have known Gio. da Bruggia? Yet if such fact be denied, we must contradict a tradition which has been generally credited. I should be more inclined to believe that there is a mistake in his age, and that he died at a more advanced period of life. Nor on this supposition do we wrong Vasari; others having remarked what we shall also on a proper opportunity confirm; that as far as regards Venetian artists, Vasari errs almost in every page from the want of accurate information. I further believe that respecting the residence of Antonello in Venice, he wrote with inaccuracy. That he was there about the year 1450, and communicated his secret to Domenico, is a fact, which after so many processes made in Florence on the murder of Domenico, and so much discussion respecting him, must have been well ascertained, not depending on the report contained in the memoirs of the painters by Grillandajo, or any other contemporary, in whose writings Vasari might search for information. But admitting this, I am of opinion, that Antonello did not reside constantly in Venice from the year 1450 until his death, as Vasari insinuates. It appears that he travelled afterwards in several countries, resided for a long time in Milan, and acquired there a great celebrity; and that he repaired afresh to Venice, and enjoyed there for some years a public salary. This we gather from Maurolico, quoted by Hackert: Ob mirum hic ingenium Venetiis aliquot annos publicè conductus vixit: Mediolani quoque fuit percelebris, (Hist. Sican. pl. 186, prim. edit.), and if he was not a contemporary writer, still he was not very far removed from Antonello. This is the hypothesis I propose in order to reconcile the many contradictory accounts which we find on this subject in Vasari, Ridolfi, and Zanetti; and when we come to the Venetian School, I shall not forget to adduce further proofs in support of it. Others may perhaps succeed better than I have done in this task, and with that hope I shall console myself: as in my researches I have no other object than truth, I shall be equally satisfied whether I discover it myself, or it be communicated to me by others.
That therefore Antonello was the first who exhibited a perfect method of practising painting in oil in Italy, is an assertion that, it seems to me, may be with justice maintained, or at least it cannot be said that there is proof to the contrary. And yet in the history of the art in the Two Sicilies, this honour is strongly disputed. In that history we find the description of a chapel in the Duomo of Messina, called Madonna della Lettera, where it is said there exists a very old Greek picture of the Virgin, an object of adoration, which was said to be in oil. If this were even admitted, it could not detract from the merit of Antonello in having restored a beautiful art that had fallen into desuetude; but in these Greek pictures, the wax had often the appearance of oil, as we observed in vol. i. p. 89. Marco da Siena, in the fragment of a discourse which Dominici has preserved, asserts, that the Neapolitan painters of 1300 continued to improve in the two manners of painting in fresco and in oil. When I peruse again what I have written in vol. i. p. 90, where some attempt at colouring in oil anterior to Antonello is admitted, I may be permitted not to rely on the word of Pino alone. There exist in Naples many pictures of 1300, and I cannot imagine, why in a controversy like this, they are neither examined nor alluded to, and why the question is rested solely on a work or two of Colantonio. Some national writers, and not long since, Signorelli, in his Coltura delle due Sicili (tom. iii. p. 171), have pretended, that Colantonio del Fiore was certainly the first to paint in oil, and adduce in proof the very picture of S. Jerome, before mentioned, and another in S. Maria Nuova. Il Sig. Piacenza after inspecting them, says, that he was not able to decide whether these pictures were really in oil or not. Zanetti (P. V. p. 20) also remarks, that it is extremely difficult to pass a decided judgment on works of this kind, and I have made the same observation with respect to Van Eyck, which will I hope, convince every reader who will be at the trouble to refer to vol. i. p. 87. And unless that had been the case, how happened it that all Europe was filled with the name of Van Eyck in the course of a few years; that every painter ran to him; that his works were coveted by princes, and that they who could not obtain them, procured the works of his scholars, and others the works of Ausse, Ugo d'Anversa, and Antonello; and of Ruggieri especially, of whose great fame in Italy we shall in another place adduce the documents.[[102]] On the other hand, who, beyond Naples and its territory, had at that time heard of Colantonio? Who ever sought with such eagerness the works of Solario? And if this last was the scholar and son-in-law of a master who painted so well in oil, how happened it that he was neither distinguished in the art, nor even acquired it? Why did he himself and his scholars work in distemper? Why did the Sicilians, as we have seen, pass over to Venice, where Antonello resided, to instruct themselves, and not confine themselves to Naples? Why did the whole school of Venice, the emporium of Europe, and capable of contradicting any false report, attest, on the death of Antonello, that he was the first that painted in oil in Italy, and no one opposed to him either Solario or Colantonio?[[103]] They either could not at that time have been acquainted with this discovery, or did not know it to an extent that can contradict Vasari, and the prevailing opinions respecting Antonello. Dominici has advanced more on this point than any other person, asserting that this art was discovered in Naples, and was carried from thence to Flanders by Van Eyck himself, to which supposition, after the observations already made, I deem it superfluous to reply.[[104]]
We shall now return to the scholars of Solario, who were very numerous. Amongst them was a Niccola di Vito, who may be called the Buffalmacco of this school, for his singular humour and his eccentric invention, though in other respects he was an inferior artist, and little deserving commemoration. Simone Papa did not paint any large composition in which he might be compared to his master; he confined himself to altarpieces, with few figures grouped in a pleasing style, and finished with exquisite care; so that he sometimes equalled Zingaro, as in a S. Michele, painted for S. Maria Nuova. Of the same class seems to have been Angiolillo di Roccadirame, who in the church of S. Bridget, painted that saint contemplating in a vision the birth of Christ; a picture which even with the experienced, might pass for the work of his master. More celebrated and more deserving of notice, are Pietro and Polito (Ippolito) del Donzello, sons-in-law of Angiolo Franco, and relatives of the celebrated architect Giuliano da Maiano, by whom they were instructed in that art. Vasari mentions them as the first painters of the Neapolitan school, but does not give any account of their master, or of what school they were natives, and he writes in a way that might lead the reader to believe that they were Tuscans. He says that Giuliano, having finished the palace of Poggio Reale for King Robert, the monarch engaged the two brothers to decorate it, and that first Giuliano dying, and the king afterwards, Polito returned to Florence.[[105]] Bottari observes, that he did not find the two Donzelli mentioned by Orlandi, nor by any one else; a clear proof that he did not himself consider them natives of Naples, and on that account he did not look for them in Bernardo Dominici, who has written at length upon them, complaining of the negligence or inadvertent error of Vasari.
The pictures of the two brothers were painted, according to Vasari, about the year 1447. But as he informs us that Polito did not leave Naples until the death of Alfonso, this epoch should be extended to 1463, or beyond; as he remained for a year longer, or thereabouts, under the reign of Ferdinand, the son and successor of Alfonso. He painted for that monarch some large compositions in the refectory of S. Maria Nuova, partly alone and partly in conjunction with his brother, and both brothers combined in decorating for the king a part of the palace of Poggio Reale. We may here with propriety also mention, that they painted in one of the rooms the conspiracy against Ferdinand, which being seen by Jacopo Sannazzaro, gave occasion to his writing a sonnet, the 41st in the second part of his Rime. Their style resembles that of their master, except that their colouring is softer. They distinguished themselves also in their architectural ornaments, and in the painting of friezes and trophies, and subjects in chiaroscuro, in the manner of bassirilievi, an art which I am not aware that any one practised before them. The younger brother leaving Naples and dying soon afterwards, Pietro remained employed in that city, where he and his scholars acquired a great reputation by their paintings in oil and fresco. The portraits of Pietro had all the force of nature, and it is not long since, that on the destruction of some of his pictures on a wall in the palace of the Dukes of Matalona, some heads were removed with the greatest care, and preserved for their excellence.
We may now notice Silvestro de' Buoni, who was placed by his father in the school of Zingaro, and on his death attached himself to the Donzelli. His father was an indifferent painter, of the name of Buono, and from that has arisen the mistake of some persons, who have ascribed to the son some works of the father in an old style, and unworthy the reputation of Silvestro. This artist, in the opinion of the Cav. Massimo, had a finer colouring and a superior general effect to the Donzelli; and in the force of his chiaroscuro, and in the delicacy of his contours, far surpassed all the painters of his country who had lived to that time. Dominici refers to many of his pictures in the various churches of Naples. One of the most celebrated is that of S. Giovanni a Mare, in which he included three saints, all of the same name, S. John the Baptist, the Evangelist, and S. Chrysostom.
Silvestro is said to have had a disciple in Tesauro, whose Christian name has not been correctly handed down to us; but he is generally called Bernardo. He is supposed to have been of a painter's family, and descended from that Filippo who is commemorated as the second of this school, and father or uncle of Raimo, whom we shall soon notice. This Bernardo, or whatever his name may have been, made nearer approaches to the modern style than any of the preceding artists; more judicious in his invention, more natural in his figures and drapery; select, expressive, harmonized, and displaying a knowledge in gradation and relief, beyond what could be expected in a painter who is not known to have been acquainted with any other schools, or seen any pictures beyond those of his own country. Luca Giordano, at a time when he was considered the Coryphæus of painting, was struck with astonishment at the painting of a Soffitto by Tesauro at S. Giovanni de' Pappacodi, and did not hesitate to declare that there were parts in it, which in an age so fruitful in fine works, no one could have surpassed. It represents the Seven Sacraments. The minute description which the historian gives of it, shews us what sobriety and judgment there were in his composition; and the portraits of Alfonso II. and Ippolita Sforza, whose espousals he represented in the Sacrament of Marriage, afford us some light for fixing the date of this picture. Raimo Tesauro was very much employed in works in fresco. Some pictures by him are also mentioned in S. Maria Nuova, and in Monte Vergine; pictures, says the Cav. Massimo, "very studied and perfect, according to the latest schools succeeding our Zingaro."
To the same schools Gio. Antonio d'Amato owed his first instructions; but it is said, that when he saw the pictures which Pietro Perugino had painted for the Duomo of Naples, he became ambitious of emulating the style of that master. By diligence, in which he was second to none, he approached, as one may say, the confines of modern art; and died at an advanced period of the sixteenth century. He is highly extolled for his Dispute of the Sacrament, painted for the Metropolitan church, and for two other pictures placed in the Borgo di Chiaia, the one at the Carmine, the other at S. Leonardo. And here we may close our account of the early painters, scanty indeed, but still copious for a city harassed by incessant hostilities.[[106]]