But of these elder masters of the art, there remains either only the name, as of a Giovanni da Venezia and a Martinello da Bassano, or some solitary relic of their labours without a name, as in the sarcophagus, in wood, of the Beata Giuliana, painted about the year 1262, the same in which she died. This monument remains in her own monastery of San Biagio alla Guidecca, long held in veneration, even after the body of the blessed saint had been removed, in the year 1297, into an urn of stone. There are there represented San Biagio, the titular saint of the church, San Cataldo, the bishop, and the blessed Giuliana, the two former in an upright, the latter in a kneeling posture; their names are written in Latin, and the style, although coarse, is nevertheless not Greek. Probably that of the painter is also in the same corner, a picture of whom, a Pietà, has recently been discovered by the Ab. Boni, who considers him a new Cimabue of the Venetian art. As it has already been described by him in his Florentine collection of "Opuscoli Scientifici,"[[7]] I shall not extend my account of it; for the reader will there find other names, as will afterwards be shewn, recently discovered by the indefatigable author of some early Venetian writers, until this period unknown to history. Among these are Stefano Pievano, of S. Agnese, a picture by whom, dated 1381, is described; Alberegno, belonging to the fifteenth century, and one Esegrenio, who flourished somewhat later, to which time we may refer two fine and highly valued figures of holy virgins, not long since discovered, of Tommaso da Modena, and which, from the disputes they have elicited, have been subjected to experiments at Florence, to ascertain whether they are painted in oil or distemper—experiments that tend only to prove that this Tommaso was unacquainted with the art of colouring in oil.
It was only subsequent to the year 1300, that the names, united to the productions of the Venetians, began to make themselves manifest; when, partly by the examples held out by Giotto, partly by their own assiduity and talent, the painters of the city and of the state visibly improved, and softened the harshness of their manner. Giotto, according to a MS. cited by Rossetti,[[8]] was at Padua in 1306; according to Vasari, he returned from Avignon in 1316; and a little while afterwards he was painting at Verona, in the palace of Can della Scala, and at Padua, employed on a chapel in the church of the titular saint. He adds, that towards the close of his days he was again invited there, and embellished other places with his pieces. Nothing, however, remains of him in Verona; but in Padua there still exists the chapel of the Nunziata all'Arena, divided all round into compartments, in each of which is represented some scriptural event. It is truly surprising to behold, not less on account of its high state of preservation, beyond any other of his frescos, than for its full expression of native grace, together with that air of grandeur which Giotto so well knew how to unite. With respect to the chapel, it is believed that Vasari was less accurately informed, inasmuch as Savonarola, who has been cited by Sig. Morelli,[[9]] relates that Giotto ornamented the little church of the Arena, capitulumque Antonii nostri, and the chapter of our St. Antony. And in fact, in the apartment of the chapter house, there yet remain several traces of ancient painting, though turned white with age. In a very ancient MS., of the year 1312,[[10]] there is made mention of his also having been employed in Palatio Comitis, which others suppose ought to be read Communis, intended to apply to the Saloon, of which I shall shortly have to give some account.
To Giotto succeeded Giusto Padovano, so called from the place of his naturalization and usual residence; being, in truth, a Florentine, sprung from the family of the Menabuoi. As a disciple of Giotto, Vasari attributes to him the very extensive work which adorns the church of St. John the Baptist. In the picture over the altar, if it be his, Giusto has exhibited various histories of St. John the Baptist; on the walls are represented both scriptural events and mysteries of the Apocalypse; and on the cupola he has drawn a Choir of Angels, where we behold, as if in a grand consistory, the blessed arrayed in various garments, seated upon the ground; simple, indeed, in its conception, but executed with an incredible degree of diligence and felicity. It is mentioned in the Notizia Morelli, that formerly there was to be read there an inscription over one of the gates—Opus Johannis et Antonii de Padua,—probably companions of Giusto, and, probably, as is conjectured by the author of the MS. above alluded to, the painters of the whole temple. This would seem to augment the number of the Paduan artists, no less than the imitators of Giotto; since the works, already described, are equally as much in his manner as those by Taddeo Gaddi, or any other of his fellow pupils in Florence. The same commendation is bestowed upon Jacopo Davanzo, of whom I treat more at length in the school of Bologna. A less faithful follower of Giotto was Guariento, a Paduan, held in high esteem about the year 1360, as appears from the honourable commissions he obtained from the Venetian senate. One of his frescos and a crucifixion yet remain at Bassano;[[11]] and in the choir of the Eremitani, at Padua, there are many of his figures now retouched, from which Zanetti took occasion to commend him for his rich invention, the spirit of his attitudes, and the felicity with which, at so early a period, he disposed his draperies. At Padua there is an ancient church, dedicated to St. George, erected about 1377, which boasts some history pieces of St. James, executed by the hand of Alticherio, or Aldigieri, da Zevio in the Veronese; and others of St. John, the work of one Sebeto,[[12]] says the historian, a native of Verona. These, likewise, approach pretty nearly the style of Giotto, and more especially the first, who painted also a good deal in his native place.
To these two I may add Jacopo da Verona, known only by his numerous paintings in fresco at San Michele of Padua, which remain in part entire; and Taddeo Bartoli, of Siena, who has shewn himself ambitious at the Arena, of emulating the contiguous labours of Giotto, without attaining the object in view. Another production of the same period is seen in the great hall at Padua, reported to be one of the largest in the world, consisting, as it does, of a mixture of sacred historic pieces, of celestial signs borrowed from Igino, and of the various operations carried on during the respective months of the year, besides several other ideas certainly furnished by some learned man of that age. It is partly the work, says Morelli in his Notizia, upon the authority of Campagnuola, of an artist of Ferrara, and partly that of Gio. Miretto, a Paduan. This recent discovery justifies my own previous opinions, having been unable to prevail upon myself to ascribe such a production to Giotto, although it partakes strongly of his style, which appears to have spread pretty rapidly throughout the territories of Padua, of Verona, of Bergamo, and great part of the Terra Ferma.
Besides this manner, which may be, in some measure, pronounced foreign, there are others equally observable in Venice, no less than in Treviso, in the Chapter of the Padri Predicatori, and in other of the subject cities, and these might more accurately be termed national, so remote are they from the style of Giotto, and that of his disciples before mentioned. I have elsewhere pointed out how far the miniature painters contributed to this degree of originality, a class of artists, with whom Italy, at no time destitute, more fully abounded about that period, while they still continued to improve by employing their talents in drawing objects from the life, and not from any Greek or Italian model. Indeed they had already made no slight advances in every branch of painting, when Giotto first arrived in those parts. I have myself seen, in the grand collection of MSS., made in Venice, by the Abbate Canonici, a book of the Evangelists, obtained in Udine, illustrated with miniatures in pretty good taste for the thirteenth century, in which they were produced; and similar relics are by no means rare throughout the libraries of the state. I suspect, therefore, that many of those new painters, either having been pupils of the miniaturists, or induced to imitate them from the near connexion between the arts, attempted to vie with them in design, in the distribution of their colours, and in their compositions. Hence, it is clearly accounted for, why they did not become the disciples, though acquainted with the works of Giotto, but produced several respectable pieces of their own.
To this class belongs M. Paolo, whom Zanetti found recorded in an ancient parchment, bearing the date of 1346. He is the earliest in the national manner, of whom there exists a work with the indisputable name of its author. It is to be seen in the great church of St. Mark, consisting of a tablet, or, as it is otherwise called, Ancona, divided into several compartments, representing the figure of a dead Christ, with some of the Apostles, and historic incidents from the holy Evangelist. There is inscribed underneath—Magister Paulus cum Jacobo, et Johanne filiis fecit hoc opus; and Signor Zanetti, page 589, observes in regard to it as follows:—Among the specimens of simple painting, in St. Mark's, the ball centre of the great altar is remarkable for several small tablets of gold and silver, on which are painted several figures in the ancient Greek manner. San Pietro Urseolo had it constructed about the year 980, at Constantinople, and it was removed to this place in the time of the Doge Ordelafo Faliero, in 1102, though it was afterwards renovated by command of the Doge Pietro Ziani, in 1209. This historian did not discover the inscription which I found upon it in the year 1782. The artist is sufficiently distinguished for the period in which he flourished, although the stiffness in the design, false action, and expression, beyond those of the best followers of Giotto, are perceptible, so much as to remind us of the Greek specimens of art.[[13]]
There can, likewise, be no doubt, that a painter of the name of Lorenzo, was one of these Venetians, whose altarpiece in St. Antony of Castello, to which is attached his name, with the date of 1358, paid him three hundred gold ducats, has been commended by Zanetti. Besides, we read inscribed on a picture belonging to the noble house of Ercolani, at Bologna, the words manu laurentii de venetiis, 1368; and there is every appearance of his being the author of the fresco in the church of Mezzaratta, not far from Bologna, representing Daniel in the lions' den; and bearing the signature of Laurentius, P. It is a work that bears no resemblance to the style of Giotto, and appears to have been completed about the year 1370. It is equally certain that Niccolo Semitecolo was a Venetian, he having also inscribed his name as we find it written upon a Trinity, which represents the Virgin, along with some histories of St. Sebastian, still preserved in the chapter library of Padua:—"Nicoleto Semitecolo da Veniexia impense, 1367." The work is an excellent specimen of this school; the naked parts are tolerably well drawn, and the proportions of the figures, though sometimes extravagantly so, are bold and free; and what is more important to our present purpose, it discovers no resemblance to the style of Giotto, being inferior in point of design, though equal to him in regard to the colouring. Two other painters, whose style betrays nothing of Giotto, were discovered by Signor Sasso, in Venice, upon the strength of two altarpieces, to which they had affixed their names. Upon one, found in the convent of Corpus Domini, he read Angelus pinxit; and upon the other, also in the same place, Katarinus pinxit. While on this subject, I ought not to pass over the opinion of Baldinucci himself, who always appears to have respected the freedom and independence of the Venetian as opposed to the Florentine school, by refusing to insert the name of a single Venetian in his tree of Cimabue. He merely maintained, that the Venetian painters had improved their style by the labours of Angiol Gaddi, and of one Antonio, a Venetian, whom, in spite of the authority of Vasari, he has declared to be a Florentine; on which point we must refer to what has already been stated in the first volume (p. 61) of this work. Moreover, he asserts of the same Antonio, that he took up his residence at Venice, and thence acquired the appellation of Veneziano; but that he took his departure again, owing to the intrigues of the national professors, as much as to say, of a school formed anterior to his arrival. And so long anterior was it, indeed, that the whole state, as well as the adjacent places, abounded not less with pictures than with pupils, although few of their names with their productions have survived.[[14]]
Among these few is a Simon da Cusighe, who painted an altarpiece and a fresco, still remaining in his native parish, situated near the city of Belluno, where there exist memorials of one Pietro, and other artists of the thirteenth century, along with some very tolerably executed figures, bearing the epigraph of Simon pinxit. To these I add a native of Friuli, of whom there are no authentic remains beyond Gemona, where he painted the façade of the dome, and under a picture of the martyrdom of I know not what saint, appears his name written, mcccxxxii. magister nicolaus pintor me fecit. To this artist is ascribed, by some writers, that vast and meritorious production, still in such a fine state of preservation, ornamenting the dome of Venzone, and which represents the solemn scene of the Consecration; but its author is a matter of mere conjecture, founded in this instance upon the vicinity of the place and time, and resemblance of manner. There are also Pecino and Pietro de Nova, who employed their talents, during a period of many years subsequent to 1363, in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, at Bergamo. But these, like the artist of Padua before mentioned, approach very nearly the composition of Giotto, and possibly might have imbibed such a taste at Milan.[[15]]
The splendor of Venetian painting becomes more strikingly manifest in the fifteenth century; a period that was gradually preparing the way for the grand manner of the Titians and the Giorgioni. The new style took its rise in one of the islands called Murano; but it was destined to attain its perfection in Venice. I first recognized the work of one of the oldest of these artists, subscribing himself, Quiricius de Muriano, in the studio of Signor Sasso. It represents our Saviour in a sitting posture, at whose feet stands a veiled devotee; but there is no mark by which to ascertain its age. There is, likewise, of uncertain date, yet still very ancient, a Bernardino da Murano, of whose productions Zanetti saw nothing more than a rude altarpiece. An Andrea da Murano flourished about the period 1400, whose style, whatever it may retain of harsh and dry, neither superior in composition, nor in choice of features to that of his predecessors, discovers him to have been tolerably skilful in design, even in regard to the extremities, and in placing his figures well in the canvass.
There remains in his native place, at San Pier Martire, an altarpiece painted by his hand, in which a St. Sebastian forms so conspicuous a figure for the beauty of its torso, that Zanetti suspects it must have been copied from some ancient statue. It is he who introduced the art into the house of the Vivarini, his compatriots, who in a continued line of succession preserved the school of Murano for nearly a century; and who produced as rich a harvest of their labours in Venice, as did the Campi afterwards in the city of Cremona, or the Procaccini in Milan. I shall treat of them with brevity, but with such new sources of information, as will at once serve to correct and amplify what has already been written.