I have never perused the history of Bernardino, and the rest of the pictoric family of the Campi, written some time since by Baldinucci, and more recently by Giambatista Zaist, without thinking that I see in the school which these artists established at Cremona, a sketch of that which was subsequently formed by the Caracci in Bologna. In both these cities a single family projected the formation of a new style of painting, which should partake of all the Italian schools, without committing plagiarism against any; and from each family in its respective city sprung a numerous series of excellent masters, who partly by themselves and partly by means of their disciples, adorned their country with their works, the art by their example, and history itself with their names. Why the Cremonese School did not keep pace with that of Bologna in reputation, nor continue so long as the Caracci's, and why the latter completed in a manner what the other only essayed, was occasioned by a variety of causes which I shall gradually explain in the course of the present chapter. In the outset, agreeably to my usual plan, I mean to investigate the origin and principles of this school, nor shall we need to go farther back than the foundation of the magnificent cathedral in 1107, which as speedily as possible was decorated with all that sculpture and painting could afford. Its specimens of both are such as to gratify the eye of the antiquary, who may wish to trace through what channels, and by what degrees, the arts first began to revive in Italy. The sculpture there does not indeed present us with any works that may not likewise be found in Verona, in Crema, and other places; whereas the paintings remaining in the ceiling of the two lateral naves, may be considered uniques, and deserve the trouble of examining them more nearly, on account of the smallness of the figures and the want of light. They consist of sacred histories; the design is extremely dry, the colours are strong, and their drapery wholly novel, except that some of them still continue to be seen in the modern masks and theatres of Italy. Some specimens of architecture are introduced, presenting only right lines, like what we see in our oldest wood engravings, and explanations are also inserted, indicating the principal figures, in the manner of the more ancient mosaic-workers, when the eye, yet unaccustomed to behold pictoric histories, required some such illustration of the subject. Yet we can gather no traces of the Greek mosaics; the whole is Italian, national, and new. The characters leave us in doubt whether we ought to ascribe them to the age of Giotto, or to that preceding him, but the figures attest that their author was indebted neither to Giotto nor his master for what he knew. I can learn nothing of his name from the ancient historians of the school, neither from Antonio Campi, Pietro Lamo, nor Gio. Batista Zaist, whom I have already cited, and who compiled two volumes of memoirs of the old artists of Cremona, edited by Panni in the year 1774.
I may, however, safely assert that there were painters who flourished in the Cremonese as early as 1213; for on occasion of the city obtaining a victory over the people of Milan, the event was commemorated in a picture, in the palace of Lanfranco Oldovino, one of the leaders of the Cremonese army, and for this we have the testimony of Flameno in his History of Castelleone.[34] There is also recorded by the Ab. Sarnelli, in his "Foreigner's Guide to Naples," as well as by the Can. Celano, in the "Notices of the Beauties of Naples," a M. Simone of Cremona, who, about 1335, painted in S. Chiara, and is the same mentioned by Surgente, author of the "Naples Illustrated," as Simon da Siena, and by Dominici as Simone Napolitano. In a former volume I adhered to the opinion of Dominici, inasmuch as he cites Criscuolo and his archives; but let the authority rest with them. Other names might be added, which Zaist has in part collected from MSS., and in part from published documents, such as Polidoro Casella, who flourished about 1345, Angelo Bellavita in 1420, Jacopino Marasca, mentioned in 1430, Luca Sclavo, named by Flameno, subsequent to 1450, among excellent painters, and among the friends of Francesco Sforza, besides Gaspare Bonino, who became celebrated about the year 1460. Hence it may be perceived that this school was not destitute of a series of artists, during a long period, although no specimens of their art survive to confirm it.
The earliest that is to be met with bearing a name and certain date, is a picture which belonged to Zaist, representing Julian (afterwards the saint) killing his father and mother, whom he mistakes for his wife and her paramour. Below the couch on which they are found, are inscribed the two following verses:—
Hoc quod Manteneæ didicit sub dogmate clari,
Antonii Cornæ dextera pinxit opus.—mcccclxxviii.
The name of Antonio della Corna is handed down to us by history, and from this monument he is discovered to have been a pupil of Mantegna, and a follower of the first rather than the second style of his master. But he does not appear to have flourished a sufficient time, or he was not in repute enough to have a place among the painters of the cathedral, in the fourteenth century, who left there a monument of the art that may vie with the Sistine chapel; and if I mistake not the figures of those ancient Florentines are more correct, those of the cathedral more animated. There is a frieze surrounding the arches of the church, divided into several squares, each of which contains a scriptural history painted in fresco. Upon this work a number of Cremonese artists, all of high repute, were successively employed.
The first in this list, subscribed in one of these compartments, Bembus incipiens, and in the other compartment 14— ... under his paintings of the Epiphany and the Purification. The remaining figures after the above, have long been concealed by a side wing of the organ. But the sense is very clear, the name and the date of the centuries appearing together; nor are we at a loss to perceive that the artist, in an undertaking to be conducted by many, and during many years, was desirous of commemorating his name, as the first who commenced it, and in what year. Some, nevertheless, have wished to infer, by detaching the words Bembus incipiens from the rest, that the artist meant to inform us he was then first entering upon his profession; as if the people of Cremona, in the decoration of their finest temple, which was long conducted by the most celebrated painters, would have selected a novice to begin. It is, however, a question whether the inscription refers to Bonifazio Bembo, or to Gianfrancesco his younger brother; but apparently we ought to give it, with Vasari, to the former, a distinguished artist who was employed by the court of Milan as early as 1461, while Gio. Francesco flourished later, as we shall shortly have occasion to shew. In the two histories with which Bembo commenced his labours, as well as in those that follow, he shews himself an able artist, spirited in his attitudes, glowing in his colours, magnificent in his draperies, although still confined within the sphere of the naturalists, and copying from the truth without displaying much selection, if he does not occasionally transgress it by want of correctness. Both our dictionaries of artists and Bottari have confounded this Bonifazio with a Venetian of the same name, whom we have mentioned in his place.
Opposite to those of Bembo is a painting, a history of the Passion, representing our Redeemer before his judges, painted by Cristoforo Moretti,[35] the same, according to Lomazzo, who was employed with Bembo in the court of Milan, and also painted at the church of S. Aquilino. One of his Madonnas is still to be seen there, seated amid different saints, and upon her mantle I was enabled to decipher, Christophorus de Moretis de Cremona, in characters interweaved in the manner of gold lace. Cremonese writers call him the son of Galeazzo Rivello, and father and grandfather to several other Rivelli, all artists, Moretti being only an assumed appellation. From the inscription I have adduced, there appears some difficulty in the way of such a tradition, since de Moretis is an expression importing a family name, not an acquired one. Whatever may be thought on this head, it is certain that he was one of the reformers of the art in Lombardy, and particularly in the branches of perspective and design; and in this history of the Passion, in which he excluded all kind of gilding, he is seen to approach the moderns.
Somewhat later, and not before 1497, Altobello Melone and Boccaccio Boccaccino, two Cremonese artists, were employed in completing the frieze of the cathedral. The former, according to Vasari, painted several histories of the Passion, truly beautiful and deserving of commendation. But he was the least consistent in point of style, introducing, as it has been observed, figures of small and large proportions in the same piece, and also least excellent in his frescos, colouring them in a manner that now gives them the look of tapestry. But he excelled in his oil paintings, as we gather from his altar-piece of Christ descending into Limbo, which is preserved in the sacristy of the Sacramento, a piece for which the canons refused to receive a large sum that was offered for it. The figures are very numerous, of somewhat long proportions, but coloured with equal softness and strength. His knowledge of the naked figure is beyond that of his age, combined with a grace of features and of attitudes that conveys the idea of a great master. In the Notizia of Morelli, his picture of Lucretia, painted for private ornament, is mentioned. It is executed in the Flemish style, and he is said to have been the pupil of Armanino, perhaps an artist of that nation.
Boccaccio Boccaccino bears the same character among the Cremonese as Grillandaio, Mantegna, Vannucci, and Francia, in their respective schools, the best modern among the ancients, and the best of the ancients in the list of the moderns. He had the honour of instructing Garofolo during two years previous to his visiting Rome in 1500. In the frieze of the cathedral, Boccaccino painted the Birth of the Virgin, along with other histories, relating to her and the Divine Infant. The style is in part original, and in part approaches that of Pietro Perugino, whose pupil Pascoli says he was. But he is less regular in his composition, less beautiful in the air of his heads, and less powerful in his chiaroscuro, though richer in his drapery, with more variety of colours, more spirit in his attitudes, and scarcely less harmonious or less pleasing in his architecture and landscape. He is, perhaps, least attractive in some of his figures, which are somewhat coarse, owing to their having a fulness of drapery, and not being sufficiently slender, a defect carefully avoided by the ancient statuaries, as I have formerly observed.[36] It is remarked by Vasari that he visited Rome, in which I agree with him, both because it is in some degree alluded to by Antonio Campi, and because there are evident traces of his imitation of Pietro, as in his Marriage of the Virgin Mary, and in a very magnificent temple, that appears erected upon lofty steps, a subject repeated by Pietro several times. It has been also noticed that his Madonna at S. Vincenzo, with the titular Saint and S. Antonio, seems like the work of Vannucci, and he certainly approaches very near him in other figures. I can easily believe, therefore, that Boccaccino[j] was at Rome; but I also believe that what is written of him by Vasari and by Baldinucci, if not fictitious, is at least wide of the mark.