Francesco Zugni, of Brescia, is mentioned by Ridolfi among the best of Palma's disciples. He could not compete with him in the beauty of his forms and attitudes, though he surpassed him in the fulness of his colouring, and in the spirit in which he conducted his works. These were for the most part in fresco, and frequently exhibited the perspectives of Sandrini, an architect of great merit. With him he was employed in the hall of the Podestà, in that of the Capitano, and in several villas. He displayed equal excellence in his oil paintings, as we gather from that of the Circumcision at the Grazie, and from some small figures adorning one of the choirs, designed and touched with great spirit.
Grazio Cossale, or Cozzale, produced a variety of pieces upon a large scale, still remaining in his native province. He was gifted with a rich imagination, and of a character, compared by Cozzando, the historian of Brescia, to that of Palma; and he indeed appears to have emulated his facility without abusing it. His picture of the Presentation, which he left at the church of the Miracoli; his Epiphany at the Grazie, and other pieces dispersed throughout Brescia, are all calculated to arrest the eye of the spectator, who must likewise possess little feeling, should he fail to lament the unhappy fate of so great a man, who fell by the hand of one of his own sons. Neither in Camillo Rama, Ottavio Amigoni, nor in Jacopo Barucco, all disciples of Palma, have I met with any works of equal beauty throughout that city, the last of whom, indeed, has loaded his pieces with a more than ordinary degree of shade. Amigoni, who had been pupil to Gandino, likewise held his school, in which he counted, among other scholars, Pompeo Ghiti, an artist who, under Zoppo of Lugano, succeeded in improving his manner, or rendered it at least more powerful. He possessed a rich imagination, excellent in the art of design, and in his touch similar to, though perhaps not so strong as the Luganese. Francesco Paglia was a pupil and imitator of Guercino, and the father of Antonio and Angelo, both devoted to the art. He was most successful in his portraits, though he painted also scriptural pieces; one of the most esteemed of which is to be seen at La Carità. He was excellent in the laying on of his colours, and in chiaroscuro, but displayed little spirit, while his proportions were frequently too long and slender. But to describe minutely the manner of the successors of Ghiti and Paglia, would occupy too much of our space; such are the names of Tortelli, very spirited in Venetian composition, of Cappelli, instructed likewise by Pasinelli at Bologna, and by Baciccio at Rome, along with some others of a more modern character, who succeeded tolerably in the path marked out by the artists of Bologna, and a few of whom may be referred to the ensuing epoch.
During the time of Palma and the Venetian mannerists, the art had been maintained in Bergamo by the successors of Lotto, and of his contemporaries. We meet with ample commendations of Gio. Paolo Lolmo, a good artist in diminutive pictures. In the altarpiece of Santi Rocco and Sebastiano at S. Maria Maggiore, and executed about 1587, not one of his earliest pieces, he displayed a great partiality for the design of the fourteenth century; diligent, a minute observer of refinements in figures, though not sufficiently modern. But there were two excellent artists, altogether in the modern style, who flourished at the same period; Salmeggia and Cavagna, who competed with one another in perfect amity, for many years, in ornamenting their native province. One of them died in 1626, the other in the following year.
Enea Salmeggia, called Talpino, received instructions in the art from the Campi at Cremona, and from the Procaccini in Milan; whence proceeding to Rome, he studied for a period of fourteen years the models of Raffaello, imitating him during the remainder of his life. Orlandi and other writers join in extolling his San Vittore, at the Olivetani in Milan, as well as a few other of his works, observing that they had been even ascribed to Raffaello. And whoever attentively examines that fine specimen, will not feel inclined to refuse Salmeggia one of the most distinguished places in the rank of Raffaello's followers. The clearness of his contours (sometimes, however, carried to the borders of littleness) the expression of his youthful countenances, the smoothness of his pencil and the flow of his drapery, together with a certain graceful air in the motions and expressions, sufficiently mark him for an admirer of that sovereign master, however much inferior to him in point of dignity, in imitation of the antique, and in felicity of composition. His method of colouring was also different. He affects greater variety of colours in his draperies; the tints in a large portion of his works are at present faded; and the shades as in other pictures of the same period, are much altered. Yet it is probable that this great artist, as it has been observed of Poussin and of Raffaello himself, did not always bestow the same degree of care upon his colouring, satisfied with displaying from time to time his surpassing excellence in this department. In the church of La Passione at Milan, he produced his Christ praying in the Garden, as well as his picture of the Flagellazione, works conducted in his best style. The former of these is finely coloured in the manner of the Bassani; and the latter, of a more lofty and animated character, is superior to the other even in force of colouring. Bergamo boasts other specimens of him, and in particular in the two great altars of Santa Marta and of Santa Grata. There we meet with two noble pictures, each of which may boast its separate admirers who prefer it to the other; and each displays an union of colours, at once so fresh, clear, and beautiful, that we are never weary of contemplating them. In both he has observed the same general composition; the Virgin being represented on high, crowned with a glory, while below her are seen the figures of several saints; but in the second, perhaps, he has employed a greater degree of care. Here he has introduced a splendid variety of shortenings, of attitudes, and of lineaments; and even inserted the city of Bergamo, with some fine architecture in the style of Paul Veronese. The figures are arrayed with extreme care, among which appears a bishop in his sacred paraphernalia, that serves to remind us of Titian himself. His pictures for private ornament are rare and valuable, but not sufficiently known beyond his native province and its vicinity, a circumstance common to many very excellent artists belonging to all our schools. Italy, indeed, is too abundantly supplied with distinguished names to admit of the whole of them being generally known and estimated as they deserve.
The style of Enea was not such as to be easily maintained, without consulting the great examples of Raffaello as he had done. His two sons, Francesco and Chiara, although educated by their father, succeeded rather in imitating his studies and his figures, than in thoroughly penetrating into the principles of his art. The fruits, however, of a good education were sufficiently apparent in them; and when placed in competition with some of their contemporaries, they appear, if not very animated, at least very sedulous artists, and greatly exempt from the faults of the mannerists. The city is in possession of many of their public works; in some of the best of which their father is supposed to have afforded them his assistance.
Gianpaolo Cavagna seems in some way to have escaped the notice of Boschini, and even of Orlandi, who had bestowed so much commendation upon his rival. He ranks, in his native province, as high as Salmeggia, and he certainly appears to have possessed a still more enlarged genius, more decision, and more talent for extensive works. A pupil of Morone, the great portrait painter, as we have already mentioned, he evinced a taste for the Venetian School, attaching himself in particular to Paul Veronese, in whose style he conducted some of his best productions. He was ambitious of surpassing him likewise in point of design, which he assuredly did in his naked figures, exhibiting even the adult form with a degree of masterly power. He had acquired the best method of painting in fresco, in his native place, and he succeeded in it admirably, as appears from the choir of Santa Maria Maggiore, where he represented the Virgin received into Heaven, a very spirited and varied composition, abounding with figures of angels and of prophets, truly great; the distinguishing characteristic, perhaps, of this artist's genius. Nor did he appear to less advantage in oils, more particularly when the immediate vicinity of other celebrated painters put his talents to the test. Of this kind the most successful, perhaps, are his Daniel in the Lions' Den, and his picture of San Francesco receiving the stigmata, forming side pictures to one of the best altarpieces by Lorenzo Lotto at San Spirito; yet they are nevertheless worthy of that distinguished post. His Crucifixion, between various saints, placed at Santa Lucia, has been still more highly extolled as one of the finest productions the city has to boast, and preferred by many judges to any of the altarpieces of Talpino. I shall abstain from expressing an opinion upon a subject in which artists themselves would disagree, merely observing that it is more difficult to meet with inferior or careless pieces from the hand of Salmeggia than from Cavagna's. He had also a son a painter of the name of Francesco, called Cavagnuola, who, surviving his father, acquired some degree of celebrity. He attached himself wholly to the style of Gianpaolo, as well as certain foreigners sprung from the same school, such as Girolamo Grifoni, in whose productions we seem to trace the copy of a copy of the style of Paul. If the artists named Santa Croce belong to Bergamo, and to one family, as we are informed in the Guida of Padua, we ought here to insert the name of Pietro Paolo, the least distinguished among the Santa Croce, but not unworthy of commemoration for one of his Madonnas at the Arena, and for other pictures at different churches in Padua, in all of which he appears attached to the school of Cavagna, or at least to the less mannered class of the Venetians.
Subsequent to the above two artists, we meet with the name of Francesco Zucco, a good pupil of the Campi at Verona, and of Moroni at Bergamo. From this last he acquired the art of giving a singular degree of spirit to his portraits, and from Paul Veronese the mode of ornamenting them with most taste and fancy. Even in his larger compositions he sometimes adhered so closely to the same artist, that several of them were ascribed even by his fellow citizens to Paul, a circumstance that occurred to his pictures of the Nativity and of an Epiphany, on the organ of San Gottardo. He adopted, moreover, a variety of manners, apparently ambitious of displaying to the public his power of imitating Cavagna or Talpino, as he pleased. Contemporary with these artists, he so far rivalled them, (as in his San Diego at Le Grazie, or in the large altar at the Cappuccine,) as to approve himself worthy of such emulation. In other works he gives us occasion to wish for a better union of his colours, in which he cannot be pronounced equal to the first masters of the school, so admirable in this department.
Subsequent to the year 1627, there was no want of artists of ability at Bergamo, among whom we may mention a Fabio di Pietro Ronzelli, whose style, if not sufficiently select and ideal, was at least solid and robust. To his we may add the name of Carlo Ceresa, an artist of much study and research, pleasing in his colouring, and having apparently formed his taste upon the models of the best age, successful in giving ideal beauty to his countenances. The former of these, most probably the son of one Piero, known as a good portrait painter, and respectable in point of composition, painted the Martyrdom of San Alessandro, for the church of Santa Grata, while the latter added the two side pictures without the least traces of mannerism. Contemporary with both these, Domenico Ghislandi distinguished himself as a painter of frescos, more particularly in architecture. He was the father of Fra Vittore, called likewise Frate Paolotto, whom we shall have occasion to mention hereafter. At present it will hardly be desirable that I should extend my remarks to other names scarcely heard of beyond the limits of their native province; though in justice to the city I must observe that in its dearth of native talent, it spared no expense in decorating public places with the works of the best foreign artists, of every country. Ample proofs of this liberality may be seen in the cathedral and the adjacent church of Santa Maria Maggiore. Such are among the advantages enjoyed by cities, which are equally in possession of taste and of riches. But when deficient in either of these, they will be compelled to adopt the plan pursued in rural occupations, where each agriculturist employs the oxen that belong to his own fields.
Crema, at this period, might pride itself on having produced such an artist as Carlo Urbini, who, though of limited genius, was very pleasing skilful in perspective, and equal to grand historical pieces. He had afforded a specimen of his powers in one of the public halls, in which he exhibited national battles and victories, besides having employed his talents in different churches. In ornamenting that of San Domenico, however, an artist of the name of Uriele, most probably of the Gatti family at Cremona, was preferred before him, though extremely inferior. This injustice seemed to alienate his mind from his native place, and he proceeded to Milan, by whose writers he has been recorded with honour. Yet his history piece at San Lorenzo, conducted in fresco, seems to contain rather the seeds than the fruits of noble painting, and he appears to greater advantage in oil colours, as we gather from his picture of our Saviour taking leave of his virgin mother previous to his sufferings, a production ornamenting Santa Maria near San Celso, where it may compete with the best Lombard masters of that time. Lomazzo makes mention of him in reference to such as produced pieces most suitable to the places for which they were intended; an useful practice, familiar to the old masters, who took care to adapt their pictures, not only to places, but to household furniture, insomuch that in many of their vases and drinking cups, which we meet with in the kingdom of Naples, are represented, for the most part, scenes of festivity, mysteries, and fables of the Bacchanalian God. Subsequent to him flourished Jacopo Barbello, whose paintings in various churches at Bergamo are extolled by Pasta, more particularly in that of San Lazzaro, an altarpiece representing the titular saint, remarkable no less for its dignity of design, than for decision of hand. In the series of this school I find mention of no other artist after him, a school distinguished in its origin by the name of Polidoro, and afterwards adorned by few but very select artists.
We shall next proceed, according to our plan, to treat of certain painters of landscape, of battle pieces, of perspective, flowers, and similar subjects. Henry de Bles, a Bohemian, better known under the name of Civetta, an owl, from the frequent introduction of that bird into his landscapes, was an artist who resided for a long period in the Venetian state. Besides his specimens of landscape to be met with in Venice, and which uniformly present some traces of ancient crudeness, he painted a Nativity of our Lord, for San Nazaro in Brescia, resembling in its style of composition the manner of Bassano. Its prevailing tone is sky-coloured, and in the features of its countenances it partakes of a foreign expression. I have also seen small pictures from his hand intended for cabinets, often thronged with minute figures, known by the name of Chimere and Stregozzi, or witch pieces, a kind in which he was extremely fanciful. But on this head we shall have occasion to return to him in a short time, and proceed to a Flemish artist, who flourished, about the beginning of 1600, in the state. His name was Lodovico Pozzo, or Pozzoserrato, called also da Trevigi, from his long residence in that city, where he died, leaving it, as Federici relates, beautifully decorated with specimens of his hand. He excelled in the representation of distant objects, like his rival Paol Brilli of Venice, in such as were viewed near; and he is more pleasing and select than the latter in, his variation of clouds and distinctions of light; while at the same time he was celebrated for his altarpieces. Subsequent to these appeared several foreign artists, eminent for their skill in landscape, in the time of Boschini at Venice, where several specimens of their art must be still in existence. They were afterwards extolled likewise by Orlandi. There was a Mr. Filgher, a German, who very happily represented the different seasons of the year, and even the different lights throughout the day; a Mons. Giron, a French artist, extremely natural in all kind of views, both of a terrestrial and aerial character, and a M. Cusin who imitated the noble manner of Titian in his landscapes, with much success. Nor ought we to omit Biagio Lombardo, a citizen of Venice, an artist highly commended by Ridolfi, who declares that he rivalled both the best Italian and Flemish painters in his landscape. Girolamo Vernigo, surnamed also da' Paesi, and particularly celebrated in his native city of Verona, where he fell a victim to the plague in 1630, is entitled to rank in the same list. Jacopo Maffei succeeded admirably in his display of incidents at sea, a picture of which kind was engraved by Boschini. Another artist of the name of Bartolommeo Calomato has been pointed out to me by his excellency Persico, in his cabinet of medals; and he ought apparently to be referred to this epoch, judging from his less vigorous and less refined style, although graceful and lively in his expression. He was remarkable for his small pictures representing both rural and civic views, along with small figures very animated and well composed.