The History of Italian Painting. Luigi Lanzi

the best performance which has reached our times, though specimens remain in Ravenna, in Padua, in Rome, in Florence, and in Pisa. It is assuredly the most spirited of all, for he has there, with the most poetical images, depicted the saint shunning vice, and a follower of virtue; it is my opinion that he here gave the first example of symbolical painting, so familiar to his best followers.

His inventions, which, according to the custom of the age, were employed in scripture history, are repeated by him in nearly the same style in several places; and are generally most pleasing when the proportions of the figures are the least. His small pictures of the Acts of St. Peter and St. Paul, with some representations of our Saviour, and of various saints, in the sacristy of the Vatican, appear most elegant and highly finished miniatures; as likewise are some others in the church of the Holy Cross at Florence, taken from scriptural history, or from the life of St. Francis. The real art of portrait painting commenced with him; to whom we are indebted for correct likenesses of Dante, of Brunetto Latini, and of Corso Donati. It was indeed before attempted, but, according to Vasari, no one had succeeded. He also improved the art of working in mosaic; a piece wrought by him in the Navicella, or ship of St. Peter, may be seen in the portico of that cathedral; but it has been so much repaired, that now the design is wholly different, and appears the work of another artist. It is believed that the art of miniature painting, so much prized in that age for the ornamenting of missals, received great improvement from him.[49] Architecture undoubtedly did; the admirable belfry of the cathedral of Florence is the work of Giotto.

      After collecting all the notices he could of the scholars of Cimabue and Giotto, Baldinucci endeavours to make us believe that all the benefits which accrued to painting, sculpture, and architecture in Italy, and even throughout the world, came directly or indirectly from Florence. The following is the manner in which he expresses himself in his first pages, with the proofs which he adduces. "During my researches, I have ascertained beyond all doubt the truth of an opinion I always considered as indisputable, and which is not controverted by respectable ancient historians; that these arts in the first place were restored by Cimabue and Giotto, and afterwards diffused over the world by their disciples; and I conceived the idea of making it evident by the help of a tree, which at a glance might shew their progress from the earliest to the present times." He published the first small part of this tree, just as I exhibit it to the reader; and promised in each succeeding volume to give another part, that would establish the connexion with the principal root (Cimabue), or with the branches derived from it; a promise from which he adroitly delivered himself; therefore we are without any more than these few branches that follow:

But with all his pains he has not satisfied the public expectation, as is observed by Signor Piacenza, who published the splendid Turin edition of Baldinucci as far as the life of Franciabigio, accompanied with very useful notes and dissertations.[50] It is alleged, that to make this tree fair and flourishing, he has inserted in it branches dexterously stolen from his neighbours, who have not failed to reclaim their property. I rejoice to write in an age when the opinions of Baldinucci have few followers even in Florence. The excellent work entitled "Etruria Pittrice," composed and applauded in that city in proportion as it is free from the prejudice of former times, proves this sufficiently. Following in like manner the light of history and of reason, unswayed by party spirit, I shall in the first place observe, that among all the scholars of Cimabue, I do not find any named by Vasari, but Giotto and Arnolfo di Lapo, concerning whom it is certain that the historian was in error. Lapo and Arnolfo are the names of two different sculptors, disciples of Niccolò Pisano, who, being already versed in the art, assisted him in 1266 to adorn with history pieces the pulpit of the cathedral at Siena, an authentic document of which remains in the archives of the work.[51] Thus this branch of the tree belongs to Pisa, unless Cimabue have a claim to it, by contributing in some degree to the instruction of Arnolfo in the principles of architecture. Andrea Tafi was the pupil of Apollonius, a Greek artist, and assisted him in the church of St. John, in some pieces of mosaic, from scriptural history, which, according to Vasari, are without invention and without design; but he improved as he proceeded, for the last part of the work was less despicable than the beginning. Cimabue is not named in these works, nor in what Tafi afterwards executed without assistance; and as he was old when Cimabue began to teach, I cannot conceive how he can be reckoned the scholar of the latter, or a branch from that root. Gaddo Gaddi, says Vasari, was contemporary with Cimabue, and was his intimate friend, as well as that of Tafi; through their friendship he received hints for his improvement in mosaic. At first he followed the manner of the Greeks, mingled with that of Cimabue. After long working in this manner, he went to Rome, and there improved his style, while employed on the façade of S. Maria Maggiore, by his own genius, assisted in my opinion by imitating the ancient workers in mosaic. He also painted some altar-pieces, and I saw at Florence one of his crucifixions, of a square figure, and very respectable workmanship. This circumstance induces me to consider Gaddo, in some measure, among the imitators of Cimabue, but not one of his pupils; for it appears to me unjust, should a contemporary communicate with an artist either as a friend, or for the sake of advice on the art, to set him immediately down as a branch from that stock. Vasari relates of Ugolino Senese, that he was a tenacious follower of the Greek style, and inclined more to imitate Cimabue than Giotto. He does not on this account, indeed, expressly say, that he had been his scholar; he rather hints that he had other instructors at Siena, for which reason it will be better to consider him under that school, there being no reason to doubt that he belonged to it. In that of Bologna we should also class Oderigo, who, as a miniature painter, was more likely to employ some other master than a painter in fresco like Cimabue. In the mean time it is useful to reflect, that were the method of Baldinucci to be pursued, nothing authentic would remain in a history of painting; and the schools of the early masters would increase beyond all limits, were the scholars of each master to be confounded with his friends, acquaintances, and contemporaries, who paid attention to his maxims.

It is still more strange to peruse the account of the connexion between the first and secondary branches of the tree, or if one may use the expression, between the children and grandchildren of Cimabue. There is nothing natural in their succession, and the labour is wholly useless which derives the professors of every fine art, of whatever country, past, present, and to come, from one individual. F. Ristoro and F. Sisto were eminent architects, who rebuilt the grand bridges of the Carraja and the Holy Trinity, about 1264, when Cimabue was twenty-four years of age. Baldinucci writes of both, that they were, perhaps, disciples or imitators of Arnolfo, from the state of their works. But how comes he to found on a perhaps, what he, a little before, had vaunted as a clear demonstration? And then, on what does this perhaps rest? Is it not more probable that Arnolfo, and Cimabue himself, imitated them? That Fra Mino da Turrita should appear in his tree as a scholar of Tafi, and as posterior to Cimabue, is no less absurd. In 1225, a date omitted by Baldinucci, Mino wrought in mosaic at Florence, fifteen years before Cimabue was born. In his old age he commenced a similar work in the cathedral of Pisa, "in the same style in which he had executed his other labours," says Vasari, who adds, that Tafi and Gaddi (both his inferiors in age and reputation) assisted him. The work was "little more than begun," from which we may infer that they were not long associated. It seems to me extraordinary how Baldinucci could assert, "it appears that Vasari imagined that Mino was the pupil of Andrea Tafi," which is contrary to fact: instead of the "clear demonstration," which he promised, he has amused us with "it appears," which is evident only to himself. At length, wishing to make us believe that Giovanni Pisano the sculptor is a pupil of Giotto the painter, he again turns to Vasari, from whom he brings evidence that Giovanni, having completed his work in the cathedral of Arezzo, and being then established at Orvieto, came to Florence to examine the architecture of S. Maria del Fiore, and to become acquainted with Giotto: he further notices two pieces which he executed at Florence, the one a Madonna between two little angels, over the gate of the cathedral; the other a small baptism of St. John; this happened in 1297. Here Baldinucci hazards a reflection, that "if one compares the other works of this artist