The Art continues to decline after the time of Daniele Crespi. A third Academy is founded with a view of improving it.
We now approach the last epoch, which may be truly entitled the decline of this school. I recollect hearing the opinion of a good judge, that Daniele Crespi might be called the last of the Milanese, just as in another sense Cato was pronounced ultimus Romanorum. The observation is correct, so far as it applies to certain geniuses superior to the common lot, but false if we should extend it to the exclusion of every artist of merit from the period which it embraces. It would be injustice to the names of Nuvoloni and Cairo, and several others who flourished in an age nearer our own. But in the same way as Cassiodorus and some other writers are insufficient to remove the stain of barbarism from their age, so the artists we treat of cannot redeem theirs from the stigma of its decline. It is the majority which invariably gives a tone to the times; and he who may have seen Milan and its state would be at no loss to remark, that after the introduction of the Procaccini School, design was more than ever neglected, and mechanical practice succeeded to reason and taste. Artists, after the visitation of the plague, had become more rare; and subsequent to the death of the Cardinal Borromeo, in 1631, they became less united, insomuch that the academy founded by him remained closed during twenty years; and if by the exertions of Antonio Busca it was then re-opened, still it never afterwards produced works similar to those of other times. Whether owing to the manner of teaching, to the want of its great patron, or to the abundance of commissions and the kindness of those who gave them, which urged young artists prematurely to make abortive efforts; no school, perhaps, on the loss of its great masters, was filled with so great a number of inferior and bad ones. I shall not give much account of them, yet must not omit such names as have attained to some consideration. In general it may be remarked of the artists of this epoch, that though the pupils of different schools, they display a mutual resemblance, as much as if they had been instructed by the same master. They possess no character that strikes the eye, no beauty of proportions, no vivacity of countenance, no grace in their colouring. Their whole composition appears languid, even their imitation of the head of the school does not please, as it is either deficient, or overdone, or falls into insignificance. In their choice of colours we detect a certain resemblance to the Bolognese School, to which their guides were not very much opposed, though we often perceive that sombre cast which then prevailed in nearly all the other schools.
To this uniformity of style in Milan, Ercole Procaccini the younger most probably contributed, an artist in whom an unprejudiced critic will be at no loss to detect the character we have described. But in his more studied works, as we find in an Assumption, at S. M. Maggiore, in Bergamo, he exhibits dignity, spirit, and a happy imitation of the Coreggio manner. He received his first instructions from his father Carlantonio, and next from Giulio Cesare, his paternal uncle. It is known that by public report, by his insinuating manners, and by the family reputation, he arrived at a degree of consideration beyond his merit, and lived till he reached the age of eighty. Hence he induced many to follow his maxims, and the more as he kept an open academy for the study of the naked figure at his own house, and succeeded his uncles in their instructions; equal to them perhaps in rapidity, but not so well grounded in the art. He painted much; and in the best collections in Milan, if he is not in as much request as many others, he yet maintains his place.
Two young artists educated in his school reflected credit upon it; Carlo Vimercati, who owed his success to the most pertinacious study of Daniele's works at the Certosa, which he daily visited for a long period while at Milan, and Antonio Busca, who likewise employed his talents upon the best models both at Milan and Rome. Vimercati exhibited few of his pictures in public at Milan; he painted more at Codogno, and in his best manner, as well as in a new one in which he was greatly inferior. Busca assisted his master, and at S. Marco also was employed in competition with him. There, placed opposite to some histories by Procaccini, is seen his picture of the Crucifixion full of pious beauty, surrounded with figures of the Virgin, of Mary Magdalen, and S. John, who are all weeping, and almost draw tears from the eyes of the spectator. But he did not always succeed as in this specimen; the gout deprived him of the use of his feet, and he fell into a weak and abject style, the result of mere mechanic practice. In this state of health, I imagine, he must have conducted two holy histories, placed opposite each other, in the chapel of S. Siro at the Certosa in Pavia, in which he idly repeated in the second the same features as distinguished the first, so greatly is an artist sometimes in contradiction with himself. A similar complaint might be alleged for a different reason, in regard to the style of Cristoforo Storer, a native of Constance. A pupil to the same Ercole, he also produced works of solid taste, as in the instance of his S. Martino, which I saw in possession of the Ab. Bianconi, a picture much valued by its intelligent owner. Subsequently he became a mannerist, and not unfrequently adopted gross or common ideas. In other points he displays much spirit, and is one of the few belonging to that age who may lay claim to the title of a good colourist. I am uncertain whether Gio. Ens, of Milan, sprung from the same school, as well as at what precise time he nourished; I know that he was an artist of less talent, whose delicacy often bordered upon weakness, as we may perceive at S. Marco in Milan. Lodovico Antonio David of Lugano, a scholar of Ercole, of Cairo, and of Cignani, resided at Rome. There he produced some portraits, and at one period made the tour of Italy. The city of Venice possesses one of his Nativities at S. Silvestro, conducted in a minute manner, that betrays a disciple of Camillo more than of any other of the Procaccini. He wrote too upon painting, and compiled some account of Coreggio, for which the reader may consult Orlandi under the head of that artist,[59] or perhaps in preference, Tirasboschi, in his life of him.
Next to the nephew of the best Procaccini, I may place the son-in-law of one of the others. This is the Cav. Federigo Bianchi, on whom, after affording him his instructions, Giulio Cesare bestowed the hand of one of his daughters. He derived from his father-in-law his maxims, rather than his forms and attitudes, which display an original air in Bianchi, and are at once graceful and beautiful without affectation. Some of his Holy Families at S. Stefano and at the Passione are held in much esteem, besides some of his other pictures exhibiting few, but well conceived figures. Such is that of a Visitazione at S. Lorenzo, every way creditable to one of the favourite pupils of Giulio Cesare. He was not distinguished in compositions of a grander character; but he was full of ideas, united to harmony and good keeping, and altogether one of the first Milanese artists in the present age. He was much employed in Piedmont, and we are indebted to him for notices of many artists which he communicated to P. Orlandi, by whom they were made public. This artist is not to be confounded with one Francesco Bianchi, a friend and almost inseparable companion of Antonmaria Ruggieri. They painted together for the most part in fresco, and without the least dispute consented to share all the emolument, all the praise and blame they might receive. They belong to the present age, to which they have bequeathed a more noble example of mutual attachment than of the art they professed.
The greater part of the Procaccini disciples sprung from the school of Camillo. He had likewise taught at Bologna, though his only pupil known there is Lorenzo Franco, who, with his instructions, afterwards became an excellent imitator of the Caracci. In the opinion of P. Resta, however, his style was somewhat too minute; this artist resided and died at Reggio. The school of Camillo at Milan was always full, and no one reflected upon it greater credit than Andrea Salmeggia of Bergamo, of whom we treated in the preceding book. Becoming a follower of Raffaello at Rome, he occasionally returned to his native place, where he attracted admiration by his productions. Like the rest Gio. Batista Discepoli, called Zoppo di Lugnano, was at one time the disciple of Camillo, but afterwards added much of other styles, and was one of the most natural, powerful, and rich colourists of his time. For the rest he is to be included in the rank of the naturalists, rather than among the lovers of the ideal. Several of his pictures are at Milan, in particular that of his Purgatorio at S. Carlo, executed with much skill; and he painted a good deal for his native place and its confines, as well as at Como, where he ornamented Santa Teresa with a picture of the titular saint, with lateral squares, esteemed one of the best altar-pieces belonging to the city. Carlo Cornara acquired equal reputation, though in an opposite style. He produced few works, but all conducted with an exquisite degree of taste, peculiarly his own, which renders them valuable in collections. One of his best altar-pieces was painted for S. Benedetto, at the Certosa, in Pavia, a picture now much defaced by time, and there are a few others completed by one of his daughters after his death, who added to them some original pieces of her own.
Giovanni Mauro Rovere, an artist who exchanged the manner of Camillo for that of Giulio Cesare, was among the earliest followers of the Procaccini, and might be referred to their epoch from the period in which he flourished, did not his inferior character, arising from too great rapidity of hand, prevent his admission into the same rank. He had all that fire, which, when directed with judgment, is the soul of painting, but when abused destroys the beauty of the art. It was very seldom that he was able to command it, though, in a Supper of our Lord, at S. Angelo, in which he used great care, he obtained corresponding success. He had two brothers, named Giambatista and Marco, who assisted him in his labours both for churches and private houses, both of whom were inaccurate but spirited. They have left works in fresco, besides some histories in oil, perspectives, battle-pieces, and landscapes, to be met with in almost every corner of the city. I find that they were also surnamed Rossetti, and still better known under the name of Fiamminghini, derived from their father Riccardo, who came from Flanders to establish himself at Milan.
To these three Rossetti, succeeded the three Santagostini, of whom the first, named Giacomo Antonio, was pupil to Carlo Procaccini. He gave few pieces to the public, though his sons Agostino and Giacinto were more indefatigable, both conjointly, as we may gather from their two grand histories at S. Fedele, and separately. They were distinguished above most of their contemporaries, more especially Agostino. He was the first who wrote a little work upon the paintings of Milan; it was entitled L'Immortalità e Glorie del Pennello, and published in 1671. Whatever rank a book with such a title ought to assume among the writers of the age, it is certain that his pictures exhibit him in the light of a good painter for his time, in particular a Holy Family, painted for S. Alessandro, and a few others among the more highly finished, in which he displays expression, beauty, and harmony, although somewhat too minute. The names of Ossana, Bissi, Ciocca, Ciniselli, with others still less celebrated at Milan, I may venture to pass over without much loss to this history.
The two Nuvoloni, not long since mentioned, though instructed by their father, may be said, in some way, to belong to the Procaccini. Thus Carlo Francesco, the elder, early adopted the manner of Giulio Cesare; and in Giuseppe we every where trace a composition and colouring derived from that school. The former, however, impelled by his genius, became a follower of Guido, and so far succeeded as to deserve the name, which he still enjoys, of the Guido of Lombardy. He does not abound in figures, but in these he is pleasing and graceful, elegant in his forms and the turn and air of his heads, united to a sweetness and harmony of tints which are seldom met with. I saw one of his heads at S. Vittore, where he drew the Miracle of St. Peter over the Porta Speciosa, and many other pieces at Milan, Parma, Cremona, Piacenza, and Como, in the same excellent taste. This artist was selected to take the portrait of the Queen of Spain when she visited Milan; and there still appear in private houses those of many noble individuals who employed him. The faces of his Madonnas are in high request for collections, one of which is in the possession of the Conti del Verme, displaying all the grace and beauty so peculiar to him, and which he has here perhaps indulged at the expense of that dignity which should never be lost sight of. Orlandi gives an account of his devotional exercises, which he always performed previous to his painting the portraits of the Virgin. I know not what opinion may be formed upon this point, either by his or my readers. For my own part I indulge the same peculiar admiration of this artist in the rank of painters, as I do of Justus Lipsius among literary men, who, though both seculars, always observed great filial piety towards our Holy Lady; a piety that has descended from the earliest fathers of the church, in a regular line, down to the elect of our own times. His younger brother painted on a much larger scale; boasted more pictoric fire and more fancy; but he did not always display equal taste, nor was exempt from harsh and sombre shadows that detract from his worth. He was more indefatigable than Carlo, painting not only for the cities of Lombardy above mentioned, but for the state of Venice, and many churches in Brescia. His pictures at S. Domenico in Cremona, in particular his grand piece of the Dead Man raised by the saint, adorned with beautiful architecture, and animated with the most natural expression, are among some of his best works. They were apparently executed in the vigour of life, inasmuch as there are others bearing traces of infirmity, he having pursued the art until his eightieth year, in which his death occurred.
I cannot learn that he left any pupils of note. His brother, Carlo Francesco, however, instructed Gioseffo Zanata, extremely well versed in the art, according to the opinion of Orlandi. Under him, and subsequently under the Venetian artists, studied likewise Federigo Panza, an artist who began with using strong shadows, which he improved as his genius grew more mature. He was well employed and remunerated by the court of Turin. Filippo Abbiati frequented the same school, a man of wonderful talent, adapted for works on an immense scale; rich in ideas, and resolute in executing them. He painted with a certain freedom, amounting to audacity, which, however imperfect, does not fail to please, and would have pleased much more had he been better versed in the principles of his art. He was placed in competition with Federigo Bianchi, in the grand ceiling of S. Alessandro Martire, and with other fine fresco painters; and he every where left evidence of a noble genius. He appears to singular advantage in his Preaching of S. John the Baptist at Sarono, a picture to which is affixed his name. It has few figures, but they are fine and varied, with strong tints, and very appropriate shadows, which produce a good effect. Pietro Maggi, his disciple, was not equal to him in genius, nor did he observe his moderation and care. Giuseppe Rivola, employed for private persons more than for the public, is also deserving of mention, his fellow citizens esteeming him among the best of Abbiati's pupils.