I do not recollect to have seen the landscapes of Pecchio in Verona, though the fine encomium bestowed upon him by Balestra, in one of his Lettere Pittoriche, leads me to hold him in high esteem. In the adjacent parts at Salò appeared Gio. Batista Cimaroli, a pupil of Calza, who was much admired, both by foreigners and natives at Venice. Among landscape painters I find in several galleries the name of Formentini, the figures of whose pieces were from the pencil of Marchesini. D. Giuseppe Roncelli of Bergamo is another artist who acquired reputation, and whose virtues procured for him, from the pen of Mazzoleni, the honour of a life, while his singular skill in depicting nocturnal conflagrations, as well as landscapes, induced Celesti to add figures to them. In Padua the landscapes of Marini were in high repute, to which Brusaferro likewise added variety with his figures. Still more than these Luca Carlevaris, an excellent painter of landscape at Udine, rose into notice, no less distinguished also by his perspectives and sea views. Public specimens of his labours still remain at Venice, though not so numerous as in private houses, particularly in possession of the Zenobri family, who so far patronized his talents as to procure for him the name of Luca di Cà Zenobrio. To him succeeded the nephew of Sebastiano Ricci, named Marco, who, pursuing the safe career chalked out by Titian, and availing himself of the delightful site of his native place at Belluno, became one of the ablest landscape painters belonging to the Venetian School. It would be no exaggeration to say that few before his time distinguished themselves with equal force of truth, and that those who succeeded him have never equalled him in this respect. In order to estimate his worth, we are not to consult such landscapes as he painted for sale and disposed of to dealers; nor those executed in water colours upon goatskin, which, though very pleasing, are wanting in solidity. We ought to consult only his oil productions, conducted with far more care, and more commonly to be met with in England than in Italy. Indeed he had a much more extended taste than he displayed in his works. The two brother artists named Valeriano, declared that he had afforded them the most enlightened views of the art. These were Domenico, a painter of perspectives, and Giuseppe, a figure painter, both employed in ornamenting different churches, and more particularly theatres, in Venice, and indeed throughout Italy and other parts of Europe. Francesco Zuccarelli passed a great portion of his life in the city of Venice, an artist already recorded by us among the Florentines, and by whose example Giuseppe Zais was formed as a landscape painter, being particularly employed in that branch by the British Consul Smith, a distinguished patron of youthful genius devoted to the art. In point of invention he was more varied and copious than his master, but inferior to him in the mellowness of his tints. He had acquired from Simonini, who also resided during a long period at Venice, the art of painting battle pieces, in which he shewed equal skill. But he failed to sustain either his own dignity or that of his art, and giving himself up to carelessness and dissipation, he died a common mendicant in the hospital of Trevigi.
Carlevaris and Ricci are names likewise highly esteemed in architectural painting. Several specimens of this are to be seen in possession of his Excellency Girolamo Molin, placed as it were in competition with each other in one of the halls. If we compare them, the former will appear somewhat languid and monotonous, although he must be allowed to be an accurate observer of perspective, and succeeds in harmonizing his figures well with the picture. The latter, however, displays more strength, partaking of the erudite taste of Viviano, while the figures introduced into it by his uncle are full of pictorial fire and attraction, and greatly add to its worth. But both of these, to use the language of Dante, were afterwards cacciati di nido, driven from their nest, by Antonio Canal, more generally called Canaletto. Sprung from a painter of theatres of the name of Bernardo, he embraced the profession of his father, attaining to a novelty of design, and a promptness of hand in this branch, that were afterwards of great use to him in painting innumerable smaller pictures for private ornament. Disgusted with his first profession, he removed while still young to Rome, where he wholly devoted himself to drawing views from nature, and in particular from ancient ruins. On returning into Venice he continued in like manner to take views of that city, views that nature and art seem to have vied with each other in rendering the most novel and magnificent in the world. A great part he drew exactly as he saw them, a pleasing illusion for the satisfaction of those who were never so fortunate as to behold the Adriatic Queen with their own eyes. He moreover composed a great number of inventive pieces, forming a graceful union of the modern and the antique, of truth and of fancy together. Several of these he produced for Algarotti; but the most novel and instructive of any, as it seems to me, is the production in which the grand bridge of Rialto, designed by Palladio, instead of that which at present is seen, overlooks the great canal, crowned beyond with the cathedral of Vicenza, and the Palazzo Chericato, Palladio's own works, along with other choice edifices, disposed according to the taste of that learned writer, who has so much contributed to improve that of all Italy, and even beyond Italy itself. For the greater correctness of his perspectives, Canaletto made use of the optic camera, though he obviated its defects, especially in the tints of the airs. The first indeed to point out the real use of it, he limited it only to what was calculated to afford pleasure. He aimed at producing great effect, and in this partakes somewhat of Tiepolo, who occasionally introduced figures into his pieces for him. In whatever he employs his pencil, whether buildings, waters, clouds, or figures, he never fails to impress them with a vigorous character, always viewing objects in their most favourable aspect. When he avails himself of a certain pictorial license, he does it with caution, and in such a way that the generality of spectators consider it quite natural, while true judges only are sensible of its art, an art that he possessed in a very eminent degree.
His nephew and pupil, Bernardo Bellotto, approached so nearly to his style, that it is with difficulty their respective pieces are distinguished. He also visited Rome, though when Orlandi bestowed his encomiums upon him in his work, he was at Dresden, and it is uncertain whether he again returned into Italy. Francesco Guardi was recently esteemed a second Canaletto, his views of Venice having attracted the admiration not only of Italy but of foreign parts, yet with such persons alone who are satisfied with the spirit, the taste, and the fine effect which he invariably studied; as in other points, in accuracy of proportions, and in judgment as regards the art, he cannot pretend to vie with his master. Several others likewise excelled in this species of painting, whose pictures I saw in the Algarotti collection and in other places; such as Jacopo Marieschi, who was also a good figurist, and Antonio Visentini, whose views were ornamented with the figures of Tiepolo and Zuccherelli. Gio. Colombini of Trevigi, pupil to Bastian Ricci, whose Pecile was the Domenican convent in that place, succeeded in his perspectives, in giving illusion to the eye, and in the masterly gradation of the different objects of view. The figures he has introduced are his own, though he was less skilful in this branch. He filled that place with his portraits, introducing another family as it were of painted Domenicans, and not without some appearance of caricature.
In other minor branches of the art, the flowers of Domenico Levo were extremely admired. He was pupil to Felice Bigi of Parma, who opened school in Verona. To his we may add those of one Caffi and a few other natives, though the most choice collectors pride themselves upon the specimens of Gaspero Lopez, a Neapolitan. Thus at least he subscribes himself in one of his most beautiful works, in possession of the Conti Lecchi at Brescia, where, as well as in the capital, he resided during a long period. About the middle of the century there appeared one of his imitators, named in various collections Duramano, an artist somewhat too much given to mannerism.
Both the flowers and birds of Count Giorgio Durante of Brescia were eagerly sought after, no less on account of their exact imitation of the life, than for their taste of composition, and the truly beautiful and picturesque attitudes in which they were drawn. They are rarely to be met with beyond Brescia, though several noble Venetian families, and among these that of Nani, possess a few specimens; but the best, perhaps, of all is to be seen in the royal court at Turin. The name of Ridolfo Manzoni is distinguished in the same line of composition; he was a native of Castelfranco, and several of his little pictures in oil, in the best taste, are there found in possession of different individuals. But he derived his chief reputation, as well as profit, from his miniature productions. In the History of Painting in the Frioul, we meet with the name of another artist, Paolo Paoletti, a native of Padua. He passed his early youth in Udine, and was employed for many years in the house of the Conti Caiselli. Although more particularly celebrated in his flowers, he drew with great truth all kind of fruits, herbs, fishes, and game. The family in which he was domesticated possesses quite a museum of these rarities, and numerous specimens are met with in other hands, both within and beyond the limits of the Frioul. In his flower paintings he is compared by Altan even with the celebrated Segers, an extent of liberality in which I by no means agree.
In the last place we have here to treat of an art that received great improvement during this century in Venice, an art which, though not directed to the increase of copies, is nevertheless of some importance to painting, inasmuch as it favours the duration of ancient productions, by adopting the most judicious means of preserving and restoring them. Such methods were more valuable also to Venice than to any other city, its climate being particularly unfavourable to paintings in oil, owing to the salts with which the air is impregnated, gradually eating away or injuring the colours. For this reason the government very judiciously appointed a number of artists to inspect the public exhibitions, and watch over the preservation of the paintings which were found inclined to decay, restoring them without incurring the risk, as it sometimes happens, of a new one being substituted for an ancient specimen. A studio for this purpose was opened in 1778, consisting of a large saloon at the Santi Giovanni e Paolo, the superintendence of which was entrusted to the care of the learned Peter Edwards, who received the title of President. The various processes adopted in the restoration of each specimen are extremely long and tedious, and executed with surprising accuracy; and in instances where the picture has not suffered too greatly from the effects of injury or time, it returns with renewed youth from the studio, calculated to survive the lapse of many more years.
Other equally useful methods have been adopted by the Republic for the preservation of the fine models that adorn its churches, in order that they should not run the risk of being sold and carried away. Hence it is that the state, even throughout its most diminutive districts and towns, has been enabled to preserve so many valuable paintings; while, at the same time, it has furnished provision for its youthful artists, best calculated to facilitate their improvement. During several centuries the ancient company of painters, ennobled by the names of distinguished pupils, continued to flourish; but there was still wanting the sort of reputation arising from dignity of situation and establishment, from the number and assiduity of its masters, and from the distribution of rewards. Since the year 1724 it was decreed, and confirmed in 1766, that a magnificent academy should be erected, devoted to the fine arts, "upon the plan," as was further stated, "of the principal institutions in Italy and throughout Europe." And it forms indeed an object gratifying to the mind of the most accomplished foreigners, to behold this seat of art, and to cultivate an acquaintance with its objects and pursuits. These views of the government have been promoted by the private individuals of that most splendid body of nobility, an assembly in which the Abate Filippo Farsetti very liberally distinguished himself, by presenting the institution with a large collection of paintings, and casts taken from the finest antique statues. Their successors have displayed the same kind of spirit, nor do they merely afford students access to the study of these monuments; but their finest productions, in every year, are selected according to the judgment of public professors, and rewarded with all the ceremony and munificence worthy of such an institution.
Nor have other nobles and gentlemen throughout the city and the state of Venice been wanting in liberality towards young artists of genius, enabling them to pursue their studies both at home and abroad, until they have completed their education. Few contributions indeed confer so much honour upon families as these; for in addition to the merit of succouring a fellow creature, and a fellow citizen, there are thus expectations to be indulged that some genius may rise up capable of conferring honour upon the arts, and perhaps restoring them to their ancient merit. We have it in our power to record various instances of this liberal spirit; we could mention a number of excellent artists who express their gratitude for the kindness of their patrons, did not the rule we have laid down for ourselves not to introduce the eulogies of living artists, in order to avoid occasion of complaint to such as may be omitted, forbid the enumeration of them. Still I may allude to an instance of it in another branch of the art, which is very generally known, and this is the generous encouragement afforded by their Excellencies Falier and Zulian, to Antonio Canova, the celebrated sculptor, encouragement to which Rome and Italy are in a great degree indebted for such an artist. He suffices to convince us, that though Fortune may indeed deprive our country of her great masterpieces of art, she cannot destroy the genius capable of reproducing them.
[87] Melchiori mentions also with commendation, Gio. Batista, father of Antonio, and pupil to Vecchia, who had been unable to assist his son Antonio, left an orphan at a very tender age.
[88] Father Federici mentions also his son Gio. Batista, citing a fine altarpiece of his at Sorigo, and adds, that he would have become celebrated, had he not preferred the ease permitted him by a handsome fortune, to the glory of a great painter.