The History of Italian Painting. Luigi Lanzi

of whom Vasari was one. He wrote concerning it to Michelangiolo,[203] and asserted that every member of this academy "was indebted to him for what he knew;" and indeed this academy in all its branches partakes strongly of his style. A similar doctrine, as we have observed, already prevailed at Florence; but it would have been better that every one followed the master whom his genius pointed out. In the choice of a style nature ought to direct, not to follow; every one should make his election according to his talents. It is true that the error of the Florentines is common to other nations; and has given rise to an opinion, that academies have had a baneful influence on the arts; since they have only tended to constrain all to follow the same path; and hence Italy is found fruitful in adherents to systems, but barren in true painters. To me the institution of academies has always appeared highly useful, when conducted on the plan of that of the Caracci, of which we shall treat under their school. In the mean time I return to the Florentine school.

      The contemporaries of Vasari were Salviati and Jacopo del Conte, both of whom lived also with Andrea del Sarto, and Bronzino, the scholar of Pontormo. Like Giorgio, their genius led them to an imitation of Michelangiolo. Francesco de' Rossi, called Salviati, from the surname of his patron, was the fellow student of Vasari, under Andrea del Sarto and Baccio Bandinelli. The last mentioned artist was an excellent sculptor, who usually taught design to students in painting, an art which, like Verrocchio, he sometimes practised for amusement. While at Rome, Salviati, contracting an intimate friendship with Giorgio, pursued the same studies, and adopted the same fundamental principles of the art. He finally became a painter more correct, more elevated, and more spirited than his companion, and Vasari classes him among the best artists then in Rome. There he was employed in the palace of his patron, in the Farnese and Riccio palaces, in the Chancery, in the church of S. Gio. Decollato, and in various other places, where he filled extensive walls with historical frescos, an employment which was his chief delight. His invention was very fertile, his compositions varied, his architecture grand; he is one of the few who have united celerity of execution with scientific design, in which he was deeply versed, although occasionally somewhat extravagant. His best production now in Florence is the battle and triumph of Furius Camillus, in the saloon of the old palace, a work full of spirit, that appears from the representations of armour, draperies, and Roman customs, conducted by an able antiquary. There is also in the church of Santa Croce, a Descent from the Cross; to him a familiar subject, which he repeated at the Panfili palace at Rome, and in the Corpus Domini at Venice; and it may be seen in some private collections, in which his Holy Families and portraits are not rare. The octagonal picture of Psyche, in the possession of the Grimani family, is highly celebrated, and Giorgio pronounces it the "finest picture in all Venice." His remark would have been less invidious, had he said it was the most scientific in design; but who can concede to him that it appeared a paragon in that city? The features of Psyche have nothing uncommon; and the whole, though well composed, and adorned with a beautiful landscape, and an elegant little temple, cannot be compared to the charming compositions of Tiziano, or of Paolo Veronese, in which we sometimes behold, as Dante would express it, "the whole creation smile." The design of Salviati was better than his colouring; and on this account he did not meet with success at Venice; on his going to France he was but little employed, and is now less sought after and esteemed than Tiziano or Paolo. In ornamental arts such as poetry and painting, it would seem that mankind are more easily contented with a mediocrity in knowledge, than with mediocrity in the art of pleasing. It was very correctly observed by Salvator Rosa, when requested to give his opinion upon the relative merits of design and colouring, that he had been able to meet with many Santi di Tito in the shops of the suburbs, at a very low price, but that he had never seen there a single specimen of Bassano. Salviati was the best artist of this epoch, and if he was little employed at Florence, according to Vasari, it arose partly from the envy of malevolent persons, partly from his own turbulent, restless, and haughty demeanour. He trained up, however, some artists who belong to this school. Francesco del Prato, an eminent goldsmith, and an excellent artist in the inlaying of metals, when advanced in life, imbibed the love of painting from Salviati, and became his pupil. Having a good idea of design, he was soon able to execute cabinet pictures; two of which, the Plague of Serpents and the Limbo, are pronounced most beautiful by Vasari. It is not improbable that some of the minor pictures ascribed to Salviati may be the work of this artist, who is as little named as if he had never existed. Bernardo Buontalenti, a man of rare and universal genius, was instructed in miniature painting by Clovio, and had Salviati, Vasari, and Bronzino, for his masters in the other branches of painting. He was so successful that his works were in request by Francis I., by the emperor, and the king of Spain. His portrait is in the royal gallery, besides which little in Florence can be ascribed to him with certainty, for he dedicated his time chiefly to architecture and to hydrostatics. Ruviale Spagnuolo, Domenico Romano, and Porta della Garfagnana, belong to the school of Salviati. We shall notice the last among the Venetians, among whom he lived. In the treatise of Lomazzo, Romolo Fiorentino is assigned to the same school; the individual conjectured by P. Orlandi to be the Romolo Cincinnato, a Florentine painter, employed by Philip II. of Spain. He is very honourably mentioned by Palomino, together with his sons and pupils, Diego and Francesco, both eminent artists favoured by Philip IV. and Pope Urban VIII. by whom they were knighted.

      Jacopino del Conte, who is also noticed in the Abecedario Pittorico, under the name of Jacopo del Conte, and considered not as the same individual, but as two distinct artists, was little employed in Florence, but in great request in Rome. He was eminent as a portrait painter to all the Popes and the principal nobility of Rome, from the time of Paul III. to that of Clement VIII., in whose pontificate he died. His ability in composition may be discovered in the frescos in S. Gio. Decollato, and especially in the picture of the Deposition in that place, a work which is reckoned among his finest productions. There the competition of his most distinguished countrymen stimulated his exertions for distinction. He was an imitator of Michelangiolo, but in a manner so free, and a colouring so different, that it seems the production of another school. Scipione Gaetano, whom we shall consider in the third book of our history, was his scholar. Of Domenico Beceri, a respectable pupil of Puligo, and of some others of little note, I have nothing further to add.

Angiolo Bronzino was another friend of Vasari, nearly of the same age, and was enumerated among the more eminent artists, from the grace of his countenances, and the agreeableness of his compositions. He is likewise esteemed as a poet. His poems were printed along with those of Berni; and some of his letters on painting are preserved in the collection of Bottari.[204] Although the scholar and follower of Pontormo, he also recals Michelangiolo to our recollection. His frescos in the old palace are praised, adorning a chapel, on the walls of which he represented the Fall of Manna, and the Scourge of the Serpents, histories full of power and spirit; although the paintings on the ceiling do not correspond with them, being deficient in the line of perspective. Some of his altar-pieces are to be seen in the churches of Florence, several of them feebly executed, with figures of angels, whose beauty appears too soft and effeminate. There are many, on the other hand, extremely beautiful, such as his Pietà at S. Maria Nuova, and likewise his Limbo at Santa Croce, in an altar belonging to the noble family of Riccasoli. This picture is better suited for an academy of design, from the naked figure, than for a church; but the painter was too much attached to Michelangiolo to avoid imitating him even in this error. This picture has been lately very well repaired. Many of his portraits are in Italian collections of paintings, which are praiseworthy for their truth and spirit; but their character is frequently diminished by the colour of the flesh, which sometimes partakes of a leaden hue, at other times appears of a dead white, on which the red appears like rouge. But a yellowish tint is the predominant colour in his pictures, and his greatest fault is a want of relief.

The succeeding artists, who are chiefly Florentines, are named by Vasari in the Obsequies of Bonarruoti, in the memoirs of the academicians, written about the year 1567, and in several other places. Their works are scattered over the city, and many of them are to be found in the cloister of S. Maria Novella. If these semicircular pictures had not been retouched and altered, this place would be, with regard to this epoch, what the cloister of the Olivetines in Bologna is to that of the Caracci; an era, indeed, more auspicious for the art, but not more interesting in an historical point