BOOK III

.

ROMAN SCHOOL.

I have frequently heard the lovers of art express a doubt whether the Roman School possesses the same inherent right to that distinctive appellation as the schools of Florence, Bologna, and Venice. Those of the latter cities were, indeed, founded by their respective citizens, and supported through a long course of ages; while the Roman School, it may be said, could boast only of Giulio Romano and Sacchi, and a few others, natives of Rome, who taught, and left scholars there. The other artists who flourished there were either natives of the cities of the Roman state, or from other parts of Italy, some of whom established themselves in Rome, and others, after the close of their labours there, returned and died in their native places. But this question is, if I mistake not, rather a dispute of words than of things, and similar to those objections advanced by the peripatetic sophists against the modern philosophy; insisting that they abuse the meaning of their words, and quoting, as an example, the _vis inertiae_; as if that, which is in itself inert, could possess the quality of force. The moderns laugh at this difficulty, and coolly reply that, if the _vis_ displeased them, they might substitute _natura_, or any other equivalent word; and that it was lost time to dispute about words, and neglect things. So it may be said in this case; they who disapprove of the designation of school, may substitute that of academy, or any other term denoting a place where the art of painting is professed and taught. And, as the learned universities always derive their names from the city where they are established, as the university of Padua or Pisa, although the professors may be all, or in great part, from other states, so it is with the schools of painting, to which the name of the country is always attached, in preference to that of the master. In Vasari we do not find this classification of schools, and Monsignor Agucchi was the first to divide Italian art into the schools of Lombardy, Venice, Tuscany, and Rome.[1] He has employed the term of schools after the manner of the ancients, and has thus characterised one of them as the Roman School. He has, perhaps, erred in placing Michel Angiolo, as well as Raphael, at the head of this school, as posterity have assigned him his station as chief of the school of Florence; but he has judged right in classing it under a separate head, possessing, as it does, its own peculiar style; and in this he has been followed by all the modern writers of art. The characteristic feature in the Roman School has been said to consist in a strict imitation of the works of the ancients, not only in sublimity, but also in elegance and selection; and to this we shall add other peculiarities, which will be noticed in their proper place. Thus, from its propriety, or from tacit convention, the appellation of the Roman School has been generally adopted; and, as it certainly serves to distinguish one of the leading styles of Italian art, it becomes necessary to employ it, in order to make ourselves clearly understood. We cannot, indeed, allow to the Roman School so extensive a range as we have assigned to that of Florence, in the first book; nevertheless, every one that chooses may apply this appellation to it in a very enlarged sense. Nor is the fact of other artists having taught, or having given a tone to painting in the capital, any valid objection to this term; since, in a similar manner, we find Titiano, Paolo Veronese, and Bassano, in Venice, though all of them were strangers; but, as they were subjects of her government, they were all termed Venetians, as that name alike embraces those born in the city or within the dominions of the Republic. The same may be said of the subjects of the Pope. Besides the natives of Rome, there appeared masters from many of her subject cities, who, teaching in Rome, followed in the steps of their predecessors, and maintained the same principles of art. Passing over Pier della Francesca and Pietro Vannucci, we may refer to Raffaello himself as an example. Raffaello was born in Urbino, and was the subject of a duke, who held his fief under the Roman see, and who, in Rome, held the office of prefect of the city; and whose dominions, in failure of male issue, reverted to the Pope, as the heritage of the church. Thus Raffaello cannot be considered other than a Roman subject. To him succeeded Giulio Romano and his scholars; who were followed by Zuccari, and the mannerists of that time, until the art found a better style under the direction of Baroccio, Baglione, and others. After them flourished Sacchi and Maratta, whose successors have extended to our own times. Restricted within these bounds, the Roman may certainly be considered as a national school; and, if not rich in numbers, it is at least so in point of excellence, as Raffaello in himself outweighs a world of inferior artists.

The other painters who resided in Rome, and followed the principles of that school, I shall neither attempt to add to, nor to subtract from the number of its followers; adopting it as a maxim not to interfere in the decision of disputes, alike idle and irrelevant to my subject. Still less shall I ascribe to it those who there adopted a totally different style, as Michelangiolo da Caravaggio, an artist whom Lombardy may lay claim to, on account of his birth, or Venice, from his receiving his education in that city, though he lived and wrote in Rome, and influenced the taste of the national school there by his own example and that of his scholars. In the same manner many other names will occasionally occur in the history of this school: it is the duty of the historian to mention these, and it is, at the same time, an incomparable triumph to the Roman School, that she stands, in this manner, as the centre of all the others; and that so many artists could not have obtained celebrity, if they had not seen Rome, or could not have claimed that title from the world unless they had first obtained her suffrage.

I shall not identify the limits of this school with those of the dominions of the church, as in that case we should comprise in it the painters of Bologna, Ferrara, and Romagna, whom I have reserved for another volume. In my limits I shall include only the capital, and the provinces in its immediate vicinity, as Latium, the Sabine territories, the patrimony of the Church, Umbria, Picenum, and the state of Urbino, the artists of which district were, for the most part, educated in Rome, or under the eyes of Roman masters. My historical notices of them will be principally derived from Vasari, Baglione, Passeri, and Leone Pascoli. From these writers we have the lives of many artists who painted in Rome, and the last named author has included in his account his fellow countrymen of Perugia. Pascoli has not, indeed, the merits of the three first writers; but he does not deserve the discredit thrown on him by Ratti and Bottari, the latter of whom, in his notes to Vasari, does not hesitate to call him a wretched writer, and unworthy of credit. His work, indeed, on the artists of Perugia, shows that he indiscriminately copied what he found in others, whether good or bad; and to the vulgar traditions of the early artists he paid more than due attention. But his other work, on the history of the modern painters, sculptors, and architects, is a book of authority. In every branch of history much credit is attached to the accounts of contemporary writers, particularly if they were acquaintances or friends of the persons of whom they wrote; and Pascoli has this advantage; for, in addition to information from their own mouths, he derived materials from their surviving friends, nor spared any pains to arrive at the truth, (_see Vita del Cozza_). The judgment, therefore, which he passes on each artist, is not wholly to be despised, since he formed it on those of the various professors then living in Rome, as Winckelmann has observed (tom. i. p. 450); and, if these persons, as it is pretended, have erred in their judgment on the Greek sculptors, they have certainly not erred in their estimate of modern painters, particularly Luti, to whom I imagine Pascoli, from esteem and intimacy, deferred more than to any other artist.

We have from Bellori other lives, written with more learning and criticism, some of which are supposed to be lost. He had originally applied himself to painting, but deserted that art, as we may conjecture from Pascoli (_vita del Canini_), and attached himself to poetry, and the study of antiquities: and his skill in both arts manifests itself in the lives he has left, which are few, but interspersed with interesting and minute particulars of the characters of the painters and their works. In his plan, he informs us he has followed the advice of Niccolo Poussin. He composed also a "Description of the figures painted by Raffaello, in the churches of the Vatican;" a tract which contains some severe reflections on Vasari,[2] but is nevertheless highly useful. We also find a profusion of entertaining anecdotes in Taja, in his "Description of the Vatican;" and in Titi, in his account of the pictures, sculpture, and architecture of Rome. This work has recently been republished, with additions; and we shall occasionally quote it under the name of the _Guide_. Pesaro is indebted for a similar _Guide_ to Signor Becci, and Ascoli and Perugia to Signor Baldassare Orsini, a celebrated architect. We have also the _Lettere Perugine_ of Sig. Dottore Annibale Mariotti, which treat of the early painters of Perugia, with a store of information and critical acumen that render them highly valuable. To these may also be added, the _Risposta_ of the above named Sig. Orsini, whom I regret to see entering on Etruscan ground, as he there repeats many ancient errors, which have been long exploded by common consent: in other points it is a treatise worth perusal. If we turn to _Descriptions_, we have them of several periods, as that of the Basilica Loretana, and that of Assisi, composed by P. Angeli; and the account of the Duomo of Orvieto, written by P. della Valle; and the works on the churches of S. Francesco di Perugia, and S. Pietro di Fano, by anonymous writers. The Abbate Colucci has favoured us with recent notices on various artists of Piceno and Umbria, and Urbino, in his _Antichita Picene_, extended, as far as my observation goes, to tom. XXXI.[3] The learned authors whom I have named, and others to whom I shall occasionally refer, have furnished the chief materials of my present treatise, although I have myself collected a considerable part from artists and lovers of art, either in conversation, or in my correspondence. Thus far in the way of introduction.

[Footnote 1: Bellori, Vite de' Pittori, p. 191. "The Roman School, of which Raffaello and Michel Angiolo were the great masters, derived its principles from the study of the statues and works of the ancients."]

[Footnote 2: Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. p. 323; and Dialoghi sopra le tre Arti del Disegno. In Lucca, 1754.]

[Footnote 3: This work contains contributions from various quarters. I have not, however, made an equal use of all; as I believe some pictures to be copies, which are there referred to as originals; and as several names there mentioned, may with propriety be omitted. In my references, I shall often cite the collections; sometimes also the authors of some more considerable treatises, as P. Civalli, Terzi, Sig. Agostino Rossi, Sig. Arciprete Lazzari, respecting whom I must refer to the second index, where will be found the titles of their respective works.]

ROMAN SCHOOL

EPOCH I.

_Early Artists._

If we turn our eyes for a moment to that tract of country which we have designated as falling within the limits of the Roman School, amidst the claims of modern art, we shall occasionally meet with both Greek and Latin pictures of the rude ages; from the first of which we may conclude, that Greek artists formerly painted in this part of Italy; and from the latter, that our own countrymen were emulous to follow their example. One of these artists is said to have had the name of Luca, and to him is ascribed the picture of the Virgin, at S. Maria Maggiore, and many others in Italy, which are believed to be painted by S. Luke the Evangelist. Who this Luca was, or whether one painter or more of that name ever existed, we shall presently inquire. The tradition was impugned by Manni,[4] and after him by Piacenza, (tom. ii. p. 120,) and is now only preserved among the vulgar, a numerous class indeed, who shut their ears to every rational criticism as an innovation on their faith. This vulgar opinion is alike oppugned by the silence of the early artists, and the well attested fact, that in the first ages of the church the Virgin was not represented with the holy Infant in her arms;[5] but had her hands extended in the act of prayer. This is exemplified in the funeral vase of glass in the Museo Trombelli at Bologna, with the inscription MARIA, and in many bassirilievi of christian sarcophagi, where she is represented in a similar attitude. Rome possesses several of these specimens, and several are to be found in Velletri.[6] It is however a common opinion, that these pictures are by a painter of the name of Luca. Lami refers to a legend of the 14th century of the Madonna dell'Impruneta, where they are said to be the works of a Florentine of the name of Luca, who for his many christian virtues obtained the title of saint.[7] They are not however all in the same style, and some of them bear Greek inscriptions, whence we may conclude that they are by various hands; although they all appear to be painted in or about the 12th century. This tradition was not confined to Italy alone, but found its way also into many of the eastern churches. The author of the _Anecdotes des Beaux Arts_, relates that the memory of a Luca, a hermit, who had painted many rude portraits of the Virgin, was held in great veneration in Greece; and that through a popular superstition he had succeeded to the title of S. Luke the Evangelist. Tournefort (_Voyage, &c._) mentions an image of the Virgin at Mount Lebanon, attributed by the vulgar to S. Luke; but which was doubtless also the work of some Luke, a monk in one of the early ages.

More considerable remains both of the Greek and Italian artists of the 13th century are to be found in Assisi, as related in my first book; and to those already mentioned as painted on the walls, may be added others on panel, and all by unknown artists; particularly a crucifixion in S. Chiara, of which there is a tradition, that it was painted before Giunta appeared. Another picture anterior to this period, and bearing the date of 1219, is to be seen at Subiaco; it is a consecration of a church, and the painter informs us that _Conciolus pinxit_. If in addition to these artists we inquire after the miniature painters, we may find specimens of them in abundance, in the library of the Vatican, and other collections in Rome. I shall name S. Agostino, in the public library of Perugia, where the Redeemer is seen in the midst of saints, and the opening of Genesis is painted in miniature; a design which, from the angular folds of the drapery, partakes of the Greek style, but still serves to prove this art to have been known at that time in Umbria. In addition to what I have remarked, I may also observe, that in Perugia, in the course of the same century, the artists were sufficiently numerous to form an academy, as we may collect from the _Lettere Perugine_, and these, when we consider the time, must have been in great part miniature painters.

It is now time to notice Oderigi of Gubbio, a town very near to Perugia. Vasari tells us that he was a man of celebrity, and a friend of Giotto, in Rome; and Dante, in his second _Cantica_, calls him an honour to Agobbio, and excelling in the art of miniature. These are the only authorities that Baldinucci could have for transferring this ancient artist to the school of Cimabue, and ingrafting him in his usual manner on that stock. Upon these he founded his conjecture; and, according to his custom, gave them more weight than they deserved. His opinion, however amplified, reduces itself to the assumption that Giotto, Oderigi, and Dante, were lovers of art, and common friends, and became therefore acquainted in the school of Cimabue; a very uncertain conclusion. We shall consider this subject more maturely in the school of Bologna, since Oderigi lived there, and instructed Franco, from whom Bologna dates the series of her painters. It is thought, too, that he left some scholars in his native place, and not long after him, in 1321, we find Cecco, and Puccio da Gubbio, engaged as painters of the Cathedral of Orvieto; and about the year 1342, Guido Palmerucci of the same place, employed in the palace of his native city. There remains a work of his in fresco in the hall, much injured by time; but some figures of saints are still preserved, which do not yield to the best style of Giotto. Some other vestiges of very ancient paintings are to be seen in the Confraternita de' Bianchi; in whose archives it is mentioned that the picture of S. Biagio was repaired by Donato, in 1374; whence it must necessarily be of a very early period. This and other interesting information I obtained from Sig. Sebastiano Rangliasci, a noble inhabitant of Gubbio, who has formed a catalogue of the artists of his native city, inserted in the fourth volume of the last edition of Vasari.

We are now arrived at the age of Giotto, and the first who presents himself to us is Pietro Cavallini, who was instructed by Giotto, in Rome,[8] in the arts of painting and mosaic, both of which he followed with skill and intelligence. The Roman Guide makes mention of him, and that of Florence refers to a Nunziata at S. Mark; and there are others mentioned by Vasari as being in the chapels of that city; one of which is in the Loggia del Grano. The most remarkable of his works is to be seen in Assisi. It is a fresco, and occupies a large facade in one division of the church. It represents the crucifixion of our Saviour, surrounded by bands of soldiers, foot and horse, and a numerous crowd of spectators, all varying in their dress and the expression of their passions. In the sky is a band of angels, whose sympathizing sorrow is vividly depicted. In extent and spirit of design it partakes of the style of Memmi, and in one of the sufferers on the cross he has shewn that he justly appreciated and successfully followed his guide. The colours are well preserved, particularly the blue, which there, and in other parts of the church, presents to our admiring gaze, to use the language of our poets, a heaven of oriental sapphire.

Vasari does not appear to have been acquainted with any scholar of Pietro Cavallini, except it be Giovanni da Pistoja; but Pietro, who lived in Rome the greater part of his life, which was extended to a period of eighty-five years, must have contributed his aid in no small degree to the advancement of art, in the capital, as well as in other places. However this may be, in that part of Italy, pictures of his school are still found; or at least memorials of art of the age in which he flourished. We have an Andrea of Velletri, of whom a specimen is preserved in the select collection of the Museo Borgia, with the Virgin surrounded by saints, a common subject at that period in the churches, as I have before observed. It has the name of the painter, with the year 1334, and in execution approaches nearer to the school of Siena than any other. In the year 1321 we find Ugolino Orvietano, Gio. Bonini di Assisi, Lello Perugino, and F. Giacomo da Camerino, noticed by us in another place, all employed in painting in the Cathedral of Orvieto. Mariotti, in his letters, mentions other artists of Perugia, and the memory of a very early painter of Fabriano is preserved by Ascevolini, the historian of that city, who informs us, that in the country church of S. Maria Maddalena, in his time, there was a picture in fresco, by Bocco, executed in 1306. A Francesco Tio da Fabriano, who in 1318 painted the tribune of the Conventuals at Mondaino, is mentioned by Colucci, (tom. xxv. p. 183). This work has perished; but the productions of a successor of his at Fabriano are to be seen in the oratory of S. Antonio Abate, the walls of which remain. Many histories of the saint are there to be found, divided into pictures, in the early style, and inscribed, _Allegrettus Nutii de Fabriano hoc opus fecit 136_.... The art in these parts was not a little advanced by their proximity to Assisi, where Giotto's scholars were employed after his death, particularly Puccio Capanna of Florence. This artist, who is esteemed one of the most successful followers of Giotto, after painting in Florence, in Pistoia, Rimino, and Bologna, is conjectured by Vasari to have settled in Assisi, where he left many works behind him.

We shall find the succeeding century more fruitful in art, as the Popes at that time forsook Avignon, and, re-establishing themselves in Rome, began to decorate the palace of the Vatican, and to employ painters of celebrity both there and in the churches. There does not appear any person of distinction amongst them as a native of Rome. From the Roman State we find Gentile da Fabriano, Piero della Francesca, Bonfigli, Vannucci, and Melozzo, who first practised the art of _sotto in su_; and amongst the strangers are Pisanello, Masaccio, Beato Angelico, Botticelli and his colleagues. Amongst these too, it is said, was to be found Mantegna, and there still remains the chapel painted by him for Innocent VIII. although since converted to another purpose. Each of these artists I shall notice in their respective schools, and shall here only mention such as were found in the country from the Ufente to the Tronto, and from thence to the Metauro, which are the confines of our present class. The names of many others may be collected from books; as an Andrea, and a Bartolommeo, both of Orvieto, and a Mariotto da Viterbo, and others who worked at Orvieto from 1405 to 1457; and some who painted in Rome itself, a Giovenale and a Salli di Celano, and others now forgotten. But without pausing on these, we will advert to the artists of Piceno, of the State of Urbino, and the remaining parts of Umbria: where we shall meet with the traces of schools which remained for many years.

The school of Fabriano, which seems very ancient in Picenum, produced at that time Gentile, one of the first painters of his age, of whom Bonarruoti is reported to have said, that his style was in unison with his name. The first notice we have of him is among the painters of the church of Orvieto, in 1417; and then, or soon afterwards, he received from the historians of that period the appellation of _magister magistrorum_, and they mention the Madonna which he there painted, and which still remains. He afterwards resided in Venice, where, after ornamenting the Palazzo Publico, he was rewarded by the republic with a salary, and with the privilege of wearing the patrician dress of that city. He there, says Vasari, became the master, and, in a manner, the father of Jacopo Bellini, the father and preceptor of two of the ornaments of the Venetian school. These were Gentile, who assumed that name in memory of Gentile da Fabriano, born in 1421; and Giovanni, who surpassed his brother in reputation, and from whose school arose Giorgione and Titian. He (Gentile da Fabriano) was employed in the Lateran, at Rome, where he rivalled Pisanello, in the time of Martin V.; and it is to be regretted that his works, both there and in Venice, have perished. Facio, who eulogizes him, and who had seen his most finished performances, extols him as a man of universal art, who represented, not only the human form and edifices in the most correct manner, but painted also the stormy appearances of nature in a style that struck terror into the spectator. In painting the history of St. John, in the Lateran, and the Five Prophets over it, of the colour of marble, he is said to have used more than common care, as if he at that time prognosticated his own approaching death, which soon afterwards occurred, and the work remained unfinished. Notwithstanding this, Ruggier da Bruggia, as Facio relates, when he went to Rome, in the holy year, and saw it, considered it a stupendous work, which placed Gentile at the head of all the painters of Italy. According to Vasari and Borghini, he executed a countless number of works in the Marca, and in the state of Urbino, and particularly in Gubbio, and in Citta di Castello, which are in the neighbourhood of his native place; and there still remain in those districts, and in Perugia, some paintings in his style. A remarkable one is mentioned in a country church called la Romita, near Fabriano.[9] Florence possesses two beautiful specimens: the one in S. Niccolo, with the effigy and history of the sainted bishop, the other in the sacristy of S. Trinita, with an Epiphany, having the date of 1423. They bear a near resemblance to the style of B. Angelico, except that the proportions of the figures are not so correct, the conception is less just, and the fringe of gold and brocades more frequent. Vasari pronounces him a pupil of Beato, and Baldinucci confirms this opinion, although he says that Beato took religious orders at an early age in 1407, a period which would exclude Gentile from his tuition. I conjecture both the one and the other to have been scholars of miniature painters, from the fineness of their execution, and from the size of their works, which are generally on a small scale. The name of an Antonio da Fabriano appears in a Crucifixion, in 1454, painted on wood, which I saw in Matelica, in the possession of the Signori Piersanti; but it is inferior to Gentile in style.[10]

On an ancient picture, which is preserved in Perugia, in the convent of S. Domenico, is the name of a painter of Camerino, a place in the same neighbourhood, who flourished in 1447. The inscription is _Opus Johannis Bochatis de Chamereno_. In the same district is S. Severino, where we find a Lorenzo, who, in conjunction with his brother, painted in the oratory of S. John the Baptist in Urbino, the life of that saint. These two artists were much behind their age. I have seen some other works by them, from which it appears that they were living in 1470, and painted in the Florentine style of 1400. Other artists of the same province are named in the _Storia del Piceno_, particularly at S. Ginesio, a Fabio di Gentile di Andrea, a Domenico Balestrieri, and a Stefano Folchetti, whose works are cited, with the date of their execution attached to them.[11] In this district also resided several strangers, scarcely known to their native places, as Francesco d'Imola, a scholar of Francia, who, in the convent of Cingoli, painted a Descent from the Cross; and Carlo Crivelli, a Venetian, who passed from one state to another, and finally settled in Ascoli. His works are to be met with there more frequently than in any other city of Picenum. I shall speak of his merits in the Venetian school, and shall here only add, that he had for a pupil Pietro Alamanni, the chief of the painters of Ascoli, a respectable _quattrocentista_, who painted an altarpiece at S. Maria della Carita, in 1489. About this time also we find amongst their names a Vittorio Crivelli, a Venetian, of the family, as I conjecture, and perhaps of the school of Carlo. There is frequent mention of him in the _Antichita Picene_.

Urbino, too, had her artists, as her princes were not behind the other rulers of Italy in good taste. At the restoration of the art, we find Giotto, and several of his scholars, there; and afterwards Gentile da Fabriano,[12] a Galeazzo, and, possibly, a Gentile di Urbino. At Pesaro, in the convent of S. Agostino, I have seen a Madonna, accompanied with beautiful architecture, and an inscription--_Bartholomaeus Magistri Gentilis de Urbino_, 1497; and at Monte Cicardo, I saw the same name on an ancient picture of 1508, but without his birthplace. (Ant. Pic. tom. xvii. 145.) I am in doubt whether this _M. Gentilis_ refers to the father of Bartolommeo or his master, as the scholars at that time often took their designation from their masters. At all events, this artist is not to be confounded with Bartolommeo from Ferrara, whose son, Benedetto, subscribes himself _Benedictus quondam Bartholomaei de Fer. Pictor._ 1492. This is to be seen in the church of S. Domenico di Urbino, on the altarpiece in the Chapel of the Muccioli, their descendants.

In the city of Urbino there remain some works of the father of Raffaello, who, in a letter of the Duchess Giovanna della Rovere, which is the first of the Lettere Pittoriche, is designated as _molto virtuoso_. There is by him in the church of S. Francis, a good picture of S. Sebastian, with figures in an attitude of supplication. There is one attributed also to him in a small church dedicated to the same saint, representing his martyrdom, with a figure foreshortened, which Raffaello, when young, imitated in a picture of the Virgin, at Citta di Castello. He subscribed himself _Io. Sanctis Urbi._ (_Urbinas_). So I read it in the sacristy of the Conventuals of Sinigaglia in an Annunciation in which there is a beautiful angel, and an infant Christ descending from the father; and which seems to be copied from those of Pietro Perugino, with whom Raffaello worked some time, though it has a still more ancient style. The other figures are less beautiful, but yet graceful, and the extremities are carefully executed. But the most distinguished painter in Urbino was F. Bartolommeo Corradini d'Urbino, a Domenican, called Fra. Carnevale. To an accurate eye his pictures are defective in perspective, and retain in the drapery the dryness of his age, but the portraits are so strongly expressed that they seem to live and speak; the architecture is beautiful, and the colours bright, and the air of the heads at the same time noble and unaffected. It is known that Bramante and Raffaello studied him, as there were not, at that time, any better works in Urbino. In Gubbio, which formed a part of this dukedom, were to be seen in that age the remains of the early school. There exists a fresco by Ottaviano Martis in S. Maria Nuova, painted in 1403. The Virgin is surrounded by a choir of angels, certainly too much resembling each other, but in their forms and attitudes as graceful and pleasing as any contemporary productions.

Borgo S. Sepolcro, Foligno, and Perugia, present us with artists of greater celebrity. Borgo was a part of Umbria subject to the Holy See, and was, in 1440, pledged to the Florentines,[13] by Eugenius IV. at the time Piero della Francesca, or Piero Borghese, one of the most memorable painters of this age, was at the summit of his reputation. He must have been born about 1398, since Vasari states that "he painted about the year 1458,"[14] and that he became blind at sixty years of age, and remained so until his death, in his eighty-sixth year. From his fifteenth year he applied himself to painting, at which age he had made himself master of the principles of mathematics, and he rose to great eminence both in art and science.[15] I have not been able to ascertain who was his master, but it is probable that as he was the son of a poor widow, who had barely the means of bringing him up, he did not leave his native place; and that under the guidance of obscure masters he raised himself, by his own genius, to the high degree of fame which he enjoyed. He first appeared, says Vasari, in the court of the elder Guidubaldo Feltro, Duke of Urbino, where he left only some pictures of figures on a small scale, which was the case with such as were not the pupils of the great masters. He was celebrated for a remarkable drawing of a Vase, so ingeniously designed that the front, the back, the sides, the bottom, and the mouth, were all shewn; the whole drawn with the greatest correctness, and the circles gracefully foreshortened. The art of perspective, the principles of which he was, as some affirm, the first among the Italians to develope and to cultivate, was much indebted to him;[16] and painting, too, owed much to his example in imitating the effects of light, in marking correctly the muscles of the naked figure, in preparing models of clay for his figures, and in the study of his drapery, the folds of which he fixed on the model itself, and drew very accurately and minutely. On examining the style of Bramante and his Milanese contemporaries, I have often thought that they derived some light from Piero, for, as I have before said, he painted in Urbino where Bramante studied, and afterwards executed many works in Rome, where Bramantino came and was employed by Nicholas V.

In the Floreria of the Vatican is still to be seen a large fresco painting, in which the above named pontiff is represented with cardinals and prelates, and there is a degree of truth in the countenances highly interesting. Taja does not assert that it is by Pietro, but says that it is attributed to him.[17] Those which are pointed out in Arezzo doubtless belong to him, and the most remarkable are the histories of the holy cross in the choir of the church of the Conventuals, which shew that the art was already advanced beyond its infancy; there is so much new in the Giotto manner of foreshortening, in the relief, and in many difficulties of the art overcome in his works. If he had possessed the grace of Masaccio he might with justice have been placed at his side. At Citta S. Sepolcro there still remain some works attributed to him; a S. Lodovico Vescovo, in the public palace, at S. Chiara a picture of the Assumption, with the apostles in the distance, and a choir of angels at the top, but in the foreground are S. Francis, S. Jerome, and other figures, which injure the unity of the composition. There are, however, still traces in them of the old style; a poverty of design, a hardness in the foldings of the drapery, feet which are well foreshortened, but too far apart. As to the rest, in design, in the air, and in the colouring of the figures, it seems to be a rude sketch of that style which was ameliorated by P. Perugino, and perfected by Raffaello.

In the latter part of this century there flourished several good painters at Foligno, but it is not known from whom they derived their instructions. In the twenty-fifth volume of the Antichita Picene we read, that in the church of S. Francesco di Cagli there exists (I know not whether it be now there) a most beautiful composition, painted in 1461, at the price of 115 ducats of gold, by M. Pietro di Mazzaforte and M. Niccolo Deliberatore of Foligno. At S. Venanzio di Camerino is a large altarpiece on a ground of gold, with Christ on the Cross, surrounded by many Saints, with three small evangelical histories added to it. The inscription is _Opus Nicolai Fulginatis_, 1480; it is in the style of the last imitators of Giotto, and there is scarcely a doubt that the artist studied at Florence. I believe him to be the same artist as Niccolo Deliberatore, or di Liberatore; and different from Niccolo Alunno, also of Foligno, whom Vasari mentions as an excellent painter in the time of Pinturicchio. He painted in distemper, as was common before Pietro Perugino, but in tints that have survived uninjured to our own times. In the distribution of his colours he was original; his heads possess expression, though they are common, and sometimes heavy, when they represent the vulgar. There is at S. Niccolo di Foligno a picture by him, composed in the style of the fourteenth century, the Virgin surrounded by saints, and underneath small histories of the Passion, where the perspicuity is more to be praised than the disposition. In the same style some of his pieces in Foligno are painted after 1500. Vasari thinks they are all surpassed by his Pieta in a chapel of the Duomo, in which are represented two angels, "whose grief is so vividly expressed, that any other artist, however ambitious he might be, would find it difficult to surpass it."

Perugia, from whence the art derived no common lustre, abounded in painters beyond any other city. The celebrated Mariotti formed a long catalogue of the painters of the fourteenth century, and among the most conspicuous are Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, and Bartolommeo Caporali, of whom we have pictures of the date of 1487. Some strangers were also to be found amongst them, as that Lello da Velletri, the author of an altarpiece, and its lower compartments, noticed by Signor Orsini. Benedetto Bonfigli was distinguished above all others, and was the most eminent artist of Perugia in his day. I have seen by him, besides the picture in fresco in the Palazzo Publico, mentioned by Vasari, a picture of the Magi, in S. Domenico, in a style similar to Gentile, and with a large proportion of gold; and another in a more modern style, an Annunciation, in the church of the Orfanelli. The angel in it is most beautiful, and the whole picture would bear comparison with the works of the best artists of this period, if the drawing were more correct.[18]

What I have already adduced sufficiently proves that the art was not neglected in the Papal States, even in the ruder ages; and that men of genius from time to time appeared there, who, without leaving their native places, still gave an impulse to art. Florence, however, has ever been the great capital of design, the leading academy, and the Athens of Italy. It would be idle to question her indisputable claim to this high honour; and Sixtus IV., who, as we have before mentioned, sought through all Italy for artists to ornament the Sistine chapel, procured the greatest number from Tuscany; nor were there to be found amongst them any who were his own subjects, except Pietro Perugino, and he too had risen to notice and celebrity in Florence. These then are the first mature fruits of the Roman school, for until this period they had been crude and tasteless. Pietro is her Masaccio, her Ghirlandajo, her all. We will here take a short view of him and his scholars, reserving, however, the divine Raffaello to the next epoch, which indeed is designated by his illustrious name.

Pietro Vannucci della Pieve,[19] as he calls himself in some pictures, or of Perugia in others, from the citizenship which he there enjoyed, had studied under a master of no great celebrity, if we are to believe Vasari; and this was a Pietro da Perugia, as Bottari conjectured, or Niccolo Alunno, as it was reported in Foligno. Mariotti pretends that Pietro advanced himself greatly in Perugia in the schools of Bonfigli, and Pietro della Francesca, from which he not only derived that excellence in perspective, which, from the testimony of Vasari was so much admired in Florence, but also much of his design and colouring.[20] Mariotti then raises a doubt whether, when he went as an artist to Florence, he became the scholar of Verrocchio, as writers report, or whether he did not rather perfect himself from the great examples of Masaccio, and the excellent painters who at that time flourished there; and he finally determines in favour of the opinion held by Pascoli, Bottari, and Taja, and adopted by Padre Resta, in his _Galleria Portatile_, p. 10, that Verrocchio was never his master. It is well worth while to read the disquisitions of this able writer in his fifth letter, where we may admire the dexterity with which he settles a point so perplexed and so interesting to the history of art. I will only add that it appears to me not improbable, that Pietro, when he arrived at Florence, attached himself to this most celebrated artist, and was instructed by him in design, and in the plastic art particularly, and in that fine style of painting with which Verrocchio, without much practising it himself, imbued both Vinci and Credi. Traditions are seldom wholly groundless; they have generally some foundation in truth.

The manner of Pietro is somewhat hard and dry, like that of other painters of his time; and he occasionally exhibits a poverty in the drapery of his figures; his garments and mantles being curtailed and confined. But he atones for these faults by the grace of his heads, particularly in his boys and in his women; which have an air of elegance and a charm of colour unknown to his contemporaries. It is delightful to behold in his pictures, and in his frescos which remain in Perugia and Rome, the bright azure ground which affords such high relief to his figures; the green, purple, and violet tints so chastely harmonized, the beautiful and well drawn landscape and edifices, which, as Vasari says, was a thing until that time never seen in Florence. In his altarpieces he is not sufficiently varied. There is a remarkable painting executed for the church of S. Simone, at Perugia, of a Holy Family, one of the first specimens of a well designed and well composed altarpiece. In other respects Pietro did not make any great advances in invention; his Crucifixions and his Descents from the Cross are numerous, and of an uniform character. He has thus represented, with little variation, the Ascensions of our Lord and of the Virgin, in Bologna, in Florence, Perugia, and Citta di S. Sepolcro. He was reproached with this circumstance in his lifetime, and defended himself by saying that no one had a right to complain, as the designs were all his own. There is also another defence, which is, that compositions, really beautiful, are still seen with delight when repeated in different places; whoever sees in the Sistine his S. Peter invested with the keys, will not be displeased at finding at Perugia the same landscape, in a picture of the Marriage of the Virgin. On the contrary, this picture is one of the finest objects that noble city affords; and may be considered as containing an epitome of the various styles of Pietro. In the opinion of some persons, his frescos exhibit a more fertile invention, and greater delicacy and harmony of colour. Of these, his masterpiece is in his native city, in the Sala del Cambio. It is an evangelical subject, with saints from the Old Testament, and with his own portrait, to which his grateful fellow citizens attached an elegant eulogy. He is most eminent, and adopts a sort of Raffaellesque style, in some of his latter pictures. I have observed it in a Holy Family, in the Carmine in Perugia. The same may be said too of certain small pictures, almost of a miniature class; as in the grado of S. Peter, in Perugia, than which nothing can be more finished and beautiful; and in many other pieces in which he has spared no pains,[21] but which are few in comparison to the multitude by his scholars, attributed to him.

In treating of the school of Pietro Perugino, it is necessary to advert to what Taja,[22] and after him the author of the _Lettere Perugine_, notices respecting his scholars, "that they were most scrupulous in adhering to the manner of their master, and as they were very numerous, they have filled the world with pictures, which both by painters and connoisseurs are very commonly considered as his." When his works in Perugia are inspected, he generally rises in the esteem of travellers, of whom many have only seen paintings incorrectly ascribed to him. In Florence there are some of his pictures in the Grand Duke's collection: and in the church of S. Chiara, his beautiful Descent from the Cross, and some other works; but in private collections both here and in other cities of Tuscany, many Holy Families are assigned to him, which are most probably by Gerino da Pistoja, or some of his Tuscan scholars, of whom there is a catalogue in our first book. The Papal states also possessed many of his scholars, who were of higher reputation, nor so wholly attached to his manner as the strangers. Bernardino Pinturicchio, his scholar and assistant in Perugia and in Rome, was a painter little valued by Vasari, who has not allowed him his full share of merit. He has not the style of design of his master, and retains more than consistent with his age, the ornaments of gold in his drapery; but he is magnificent in his edifices, spirited in his countenances, and extremely natural in every thing he introduces into his composition. As he was on the most familiar footing with Raffaello, with whom he painted at Siena, he has emulated his grace in some of his figures, as in his picture of S. Lorenzo in the church of the Francescani di Spello, in which there is a small S. John the Baptist, thought by some to be by Raphael himself. He was very successful in arabesques and perspective; in which way he was the first to represent cities in the ornaments of his fresco paintings, as in an apartment of the Vatican, where in his landscapes he introduced views of the principal cities of Italy. In many of his paintings he retained the ancient custom of making part of his decorations of stucco, as the arches, a custom which was observed in the Milanese school to the time of Gaudenzio. Rome possesses some of his works, particularly in the Vatican, and in Araceli. There is a good picture by him in the duomo of Spello.[23] His best is at Siena, in the magnificent sacristy of which we have already made mention. They consist of ten historical subjects, containing the most memorable passages in the life of Pius II., and on the outside is an eleventh, which represents the Coronation of Pius III., by whom this work was ordered.

Vasari has added to the life of Pinturicchio that of Girolamo Genga, of Urbino, at first a scholar of Signorelli, afterwards of Perugino, and who remained some time pursuing his studies in Florence. He was, for a long period, in the service of the Duke of Urbino, and attached himself more to architecture than to painting, though, in the latter, he was sufficiently distinguished to deserve a place in the history of art. We cannot form a correct judgment of him, as a great part of his own works have perished; and as he assisted Signorelli in Orvieto and other places; and was assisted by Timoteo della Vite in Urbino, and in the imperial palace of Pesaro by Raffaelle del Colle, and various others. In the Petrucci palace at Siena, which now belongs to the noble family of Savini, some historical pieces are ascribed to him near those of Signorelli. They are described in the Lettere Senesi, and in the notes published at Siena to the fourth volume of Vasari. These pieces are praised as superior to those of Signorelli, and as in many parts approaching the early style of Raffaello. Nor do I see how, in the above mentioned letters, they could be supposed to be by Razzi, or Peruzzi, or Pacchiarotto, "_in their hard dry manner_" when history assures us that Girolamo was with Pandolfo a considerable time, which cannot be asserted of the other three; and as it appears that Petrucci, to finish the work of Signorelli, selected Genga from among his scholars. If we deprive him of this work, which is the only one which can be called his own, what can he have executed in all this time? In this house there is no other picture that can be assigned to him, although Vasari asserts that he there painted other rooms. A most beautiful picture by Genga, and of the greatest rarity, is to be seen in S. Caterina da Siena in Rome; the subject is the Resurrection of our Saviour.

Of the other scholars of Perugino we have no distinct account; but we find some notice of them in the life of their master. Giovanni Spagnuolo, named Lo Spagna, was one of the many _oltramontani_ whom Perugino instructed. The greater part of these introduced his manner into their own countries, but Giovanni established himself at Spoleti, at which place, and in Assisi, he left his best works. In the opinion of Vasari the colouring of Perugino survived in him more than in any of his fellow scholars. In a chapel of the Angioli, below Assisi, there remains the picture described by Vasari, in which are the portraits of the brotherhood of S. Francis, who closed his days on this spot, and, perhaps, no other pupil of this school has painted portraits with more truth, if we except Raffaello himself, with whom no other painter is to be compared.

A more memorable person is Andrea Luigi di Assisi, a competitor of Raffaello, although of more mature years, who, from his happy genius was named L'Ingegno. He assisted Perugino in the Sala del Cambio, and in other works of more consequence; and he may be said to be the first of that school who began to enlarge the style, and soften the colouring. This is observable in several of his works, and singularly so in the sybils and prophets in fresco in the church of Assisi; if they are by his hand, as is generally believed. It is impossible to behold his pictures without a feeling of compassion, when we recollect that he was visited with blindness at the most valuable period of his life. Domenico di Paris Alfani also enlarged the manner of his master, and even more than him Orazio his son, and not his brother, as has been imagined. This artist bears a great resemblance to Raffaello. There are some of his pictures in Perugia, which, if it were not for a more delicate colouring, and something of the suavity of Baroccio, might be assigned to the school of Raffaello; and there are pictures on which a question arises whether they belong to that school or to Orazio; particularly some Madonnas, which are preserved in various collections. I have seen one in the possession of the accomplished Sig. Auditor Frigeri in Perugia; and there is another in the ducal gallery in Florence. The reputation of the younger Alfani has injured that of the other; and even in Perugia some fine pieces were long considered to be by Orazio, which have since been restored to Domenico. An account of these, and other works of eminent artists, may be found in modern writers; and particularly in Mariotti, who mentions the altarpiece of the Crucifixion, between S. Apollonia and S. Jerome, at the church of the Conventuals, a work by the two Alfanis, father and son. In commendation of the latter he adds, that he was the chief of the academy for design, which was founded in 1573, and which, after many honourable struggles, has been revived in our own time.

There are other artists of less celebrity in Perugia, though not omitted by Vasari. Eusebio da S. Giorgio painted in the church of S. Francesco di Matelica, a picture with several saints, and on the grado, part of the history of S. Anthony, with his name, and the year 1512. We may recognize in it the drawing of Perugino, but the colouring is feeble. His picture of the Magi at S. Agostino is better coloured, and in this he followed Paris. The works of Giannicola da Perugia, a good colourist, and therefore willingly received by Pietro to assist him in his labours, however inferior to that artist in design and perspective, are recognized in the Cappella del Cambio, which is near the celebrated sala of Perugino, and was painted by him with the life of John the Baptist. In the church of S. Thomas, is his picture of that Apostle about to touch the wounds of our Saviour, and excepting a degree of sameness in the heads, it possesses much of the character of Perugino. Giambatista Caporali, erroneously called Benedetto by Vasari, Baldinucci, and others, holds likewise a moderate rank in this school, and is more celebrated among the architects. Giulio, his natural son, afterwards legitimatized, also cultivated the same profession.

The succeeding names belonging to this school are not mentioned by Vasari; a circumstance which does not prove the impropriety of their admission, as there are many deserving of notice. Mariotti, our guide in the chronology of this age, and a correct judge of the conformity of style, notices Mariano di Ser Eusterio, whom Vasari calls Mariano da Perugia (tom. iv. p. 162), referring to a picture in the church of S. Agostino in Ancona, which is "not of much interest." In opposition to this opinion of Vasari, however, Mariotti adduces another picture, of a respectable class, by Mariano, to be found in S. Domenico di Perugia; whence we may conclude that this painting is deserving of a place in the history of art. He also mentions Berto di Giovanni, whom Raffaello engaged as his assistant to paint a picture for the monks of Monteluci (of which we shall speak in our notice of Penni) and who was appointed in this contract by Raphael himself to paint the grado. This grado is in the sacristy, and is so entirely in the manner of Raffaello, in the history of the virgin which it represents, that we may conclude either that Raffaello made the design, or that it was painted by one of his school. If it was by Berto, it proves him to have been one of those who exchanged the school of Perugino for that of Raffaello; and if he did not paint it, he must always be held in consideration for the regard he received from the master of the art. Of this artist more information may be obtained from Bianconi, in the Antologia Romana, vol. iii. p. 121. Mariotti enumerates also Sinibaldo da Perugia, who must be esteemed an excellent painter from his works in his native place, and more so from those in the cathedral at Gubbio, where he painted a fine picture in 1505, and a gonfalon still more beautiful, which would rank him among the first artists of the ancient school. To the above painters Pascoli adds a female artist of the name of Teodora Danti, who painted cabinet pictures in the style of Perugino and his scholars.

From tradition, as well as conjecture, we may notice in Citta di Castello a Francesco of that city, a scholar of Perugino, who, in an altarpiece in the church of the Conventuals, left an Annunciation with a fine landscape. He is named in the Guida di Roma, in the account of the chapel of S. Bernardino in Ara Caeli, where he is supposed to have worked with Pinturicchio and Signorelli. There is a conjecture, though no decided proof, that a Giacomo di Guglielmo was a pupil of Pietro, who, at Castel della Pieve, his native place, painted a gonfalon, estimated by good judges in Perugia at sixty-five florins; and also a Tiberio di Assisi, who, in many of the coloured lunettes in the convent degli Angeli, containing the history of the Life of S. Francis, shews clearly that Perugino was his prototype, though he had not talent enough to imitate him. Besides Tiberio, some have assigned to the instructions of Perugino, the most eminent painter of Assisi, Adone (or Dono) Doni, not unknown to Vasari, who often mentions him, and particularly in his life of Gherardi (vol. v. p. 142). He is there called of Ascoli, an opinion which Bottari maintains against Orlandi, who, on the best grounds, changed it to Assisi. In Ascoli he is not at all known, but he is well known in Perugia by a large picture of the Last Judgment in the church of S. Francis, and still better in Assisi, where he painted in fresco, in the church of the Angeli, the life of the founder, and of S. Stephen, and many other pieces, which, for a long period, served as a school for youth. He had very little of the ancient manner; the truth of his portraits is occasionally wonderful; his colouring is that of the latest of the scholars of Perugino; and he appears to be an artist of more correctness than spirit. I find also a Lattanzio della Marca, of the school of Perugino, commemorated by Vasari in the above mentioned life. He is thought to be the same as Lattanzio da Rimino, of whom Ridolfi makes mention, among the scholars of Giovanni Bellino, as painting a picture in Venice in rivalship with Conegliano.[24] We are enabled more correctly to ascertain this from a document in the possession of Mariotti, of which we shall shortly speak, from which we not only learn to a certainty his native place, but further, that he was the son of Vincenzo Pagani, a celebrated painter, as will hereafter be seen, and that both were living in the year 1553. It appears, therefore, very probable that Lattanzio was instructed by his father, and that we may doubt of his being under Bellini, who died about 1516, or under Perugino, among whose disciples he is not enumerated by the very accurate Mariotti. It seems certain, that on the death of Vannucci he succeeded to his fame, and obtained for himself some of the most important orders in Perugia, as, for instance, the great work of painting the chambers in the castle. He accomplished this task by the assistance of Raffaellino del Colle, Gherardi, Doni, and Paperello. He there commenced the picture of S. Maria del Popolo, and executed the lower part, where there is a great number of persons in the attitude of prayer; a fine expression is observable in the countenances, the figures are well disposed, the landscape beautiful, and there is a strength and clearness in the colouring, and a taste which, on the whole, is different from that of Perugino. The upper part of the picture, which is by Gherardi, has not an equal degree of force. Lattanzio finished his career by being sheriff of his native city; and of this office, a more honourable distinction than at the present day, it appears he took possession in the year 1553, and at that time renounced the art. It is certain, that, in the before mentioned paper, the Capitano Lattanzio di Vincenzo Pagani da Monte Rubbiano acknowledges to have received six scudi of gold from Sforza degli Oddi, as earnest money for a picture representing the Trinity, with four saints; and engages that in the ensuing August it should be executed by his father Vincenzo and Tommaso da Cortona, and this must be the picture still existing in the chapel of the Oddi in S. Francesco, since the figures particularized in the agreement are found there; we shall have an opportunity of noticing it again.

In the _Antichita Picene_, tom. xxi. p. 148, Ercole Ramazzani di Roccacontrada is recorded as a scholar of Pietro Perugino, and for some time of Raffaello. A picture of the circumcision, by him, is there mentioned to be at Castel Planio, with his name and the date of 1588; and in speaking of the artist it is added, that he possessed a beautiful style of colour, a charming invention, and a manner approaching to Barocci. I have never seen the above mentioned picture, nor the others which he left in his native city, mentioned in the _Memorie_ of Abbondanziere: but only one by a Ramazzani di Roccacontrada, painted in the church of S. Francesco, in Matelica, in 1573. Although I cannot affirm to a certainty that this painter called himself Ercole, I still suspect him to be the same. It represents the conception of the Virgin, in which the idea of the subject is taken from Vasari, where Adam, and others of the Old Testament, are seen bound to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as the heirs of sin, while the Virgin triumphs over them in her exemption from the penalty of the first parents. Ramazzani has adopted this design, which he had probably seen, but he has executed his picture on a much larger scale, with better colouring, and much more expression in the countenances. To conclude, we do not see a trace of the manner of Perugino, and the period at which he lived seems too late for him to have received instructions from that artist; and it is most probable that he was taught by some of his latter scholars, in whom, if I mistake not, that more fascinating than correct style of colouring had its origin, before it was adopted by Barocci.

I may further observe, that as Perugino was the most celebrated name at the beginning of the sixteenth century, many other artists of the Roman States, who studied the art about his time, are given to his school without any sufficient authority; and particularly those who retained a share of the old style. Such was a Palmerini of Urbino, a contemporary of Raphael, and probably his fellow scholar in early life, of whom there remains at S. Antonio, a picture of various saints, truly beautiful, and approaching to a more modern style. In the same style I found, in the Borghese Gallery at Rome, the Woman of Samaria at the Well, painted by a Pietro Giulianello, or perhaps _da_ Giulianello, a little district not far from Rome; an artist deserving to be placed in the first rank of _quattrocentisti_, although not mentioned by any writer. There are besides, some pictures by Pietro Paolo Agabiti, who in tom. xx. of the _Ant. Pic._ is said to be of Masaccio, where he painted in 1531, and some time afterwards. But I have seen a work by him in the church of S. Agostino in Sassoferrato, a series of small histories, with an inscription in which he names Sassoferrato as his native place, with the date of 1514; a date that will carry him from the moderns to the better class of the old school. Lorenzo Pittori da Macerata painted in the church of the Virgin, highly esteemed for its architecture, a picture of Christ in 1533, in a manner which has been called _antico moderno_. Two artists, Bartolommeo, and Pompeo his son, flourished in Fano, and painted in 1534 in conjunction, in the church of S. Michele, the resurrection of Lazarus. It is wonderful to observe how little they regarded the reform which the art had undergone. These artists strictly followed the dry style of the quattrocentisti, with a thorough contempt of the modern style. Nor was the son at all modernized on leaving his father's studio. I found at S. Andrea di Pesaro a picture by him of various saints, which might have done him honour in the preceding age. Civalli mentions other works by him in a better style: and he certainly in his lifetime enjoyed a degree of reputation, and was one of the masters of Taddeo Zuccaro. There are a number of painters of this class, of whom a long list might be compiled; they are generally represented to be pupils of some well known master, and in such cases Pietro Perugino is selected; though it would be more candid to confess our ignorance on the subject.

It would be improper to pass on to another epoch of art, without adverting to the grotesque. This branch of the art is censured by Vitruvius[25] as a creation of portentous monsters beyond the reign of nature, transferring to canvas the dreams and ravings of a disordered fancy, as wild as the waves of a convulsed sea, lashed into a thousand varying forms by the fury of the tempest. This style took its name from the _grotte_, for so those beautiful antique edifices may be called, where paintings of this kind are found, covered with earth, and with buildings of a later period. This style was revived in Rome, where a greater proportion of these ancient specimens is found, and was restored at this epoch. Vasari ascribes the revival of them to Morto da Feltro, and the perfecting of the style to Giovanni da Udine. But he himself, notwithstanding the little esteem he had for Pinturicchio, calls him the friend of Morto da Feltro, and allows that he executed many works in the same manner in Castel S. Angelo. Before him too Pietro his master had painted some of the same kind in the Sala del Cambio, which Orsini says are well conceived, and to him likewise a precedent had been afforded by Benedetto Bonfigli, of whom Taja, in his description of the Vatican palace, says, that he painted for Innocent VIII. in Rome some singularly beautiful grotesques. This branch of art was afterwards cultivated in many of the schools of Italy, particularly in that of Siena. Peruzzi approved of it in architecture, and adopted it in his painting, and gave occasion to Lomazzo to offer a defence of it, and precepts, as I before noticed, and as may be seen in the sixth book of his Trattato della Pittura, chapter forty-eight.

[Footnote 4: _Dell'errore, che persiste_, &c. see the second index. It was opposed by Crespi, in his _Dissertazione Anticritica_, referred to in the same index. It was also opposed by P. dell'Aquila, in the _Dizionario portatile della Bibbia, tradotto dal francese_, in a note of some length, on the article S. Luca.]

[Footnote 5: See the _Opuscoli Calogeriani_, tom. xliii. where a learned dissertation is inserted, which shews that this custom was introduced about the middle of the fifth century, on occasion of the Council of Ephesus.]

[Footnote 6: Engraved by command of the learned Cardinal Borgia. The artists began about the middle of the fifth century, to represent her with the Infant in her arms. See _Opuscoli Calogeriani_, as above.]

[Footnote 7: "The painter was a man of holy life, and a Florentine, whose name was Luca, and who was honoured by the common people with the title of saint." Lami, Deliciae Eruditorum, tom. xv.]

[Footnote 8: So says Vasari, who writes his life, but Padre della Valle thinks it highly probable that he was the scholar of Cosimati, and not of Giotto; as Cavallini was contemporary with Giotto. I agree that he was only a very few years younger, and might have received some instructions in the school of Cosimati: but who, except Giotto himself, could have taught him that Giottesque and improved style scarcely inferior to Gaddi?]

[Footnote 9: In the archives of the Collegiate Church of S. Niccolo, in Fabriano, is preserved a catalogue of the pictures of the city, which has been communicated to me by Sig. Can. Claudio Serafini. This picture, which is divided into five compartments, is there mentioned; and it is added, that "many celebrated painters visited the place to view this excellent work, and in particular, the illustrious Raffaello."]

[Footnote 10: In the archives before alluded to, are also mentioned two ancient pictures of a Giuliano da Fabriano, the one in the church of the Domenicans, the other in the Church of the Capuchins.]

[Footnote 11: Tom. xxiii. page 83, &c. By the first, is the ancient picture of S. Maria della Consolazione in that church, erected in 1442. By the second, are the pictures in the church of S. Rocco, painted about the year 1463. The third artist painted a picture in the church of S. Liberato, in 1494.]

[Footnote 12: Galeazzo Sanzio and his sons will be noticed in the second epoch.]

[Footnote 13: See Vasari, Bologna edition, p. 260.]

[Footnote 14: The commentators of Vasari remark, that when he uses this phrase, he refers to the year of the death of the artist, or to the period when he relinquished his art. Pietro must therefore have become blind about the year 1458, in the sixtieth year of his age, and must have died about 1484, aged eighty-six. This painter was intimately connected with the family of Vasari. Lazaro the great-grandfather of Vasari, who died in 1452, was the friend and imitator of Pietro, and some time before his death assigned him his nephew Signorelli as a scholar. We must, therefore, give credit to Vasari's account of Borghese; for if we discredit him on this occasion, as some have done, when are we to believe him? It is true, indeed, that he is guilty of a strange anachronism in mentioning Guidubaldo, the old Duke of Urbino, as his first patron; but this kind of error is frequent in him, and not to be regarded.]

[Footnote 15: "Fu eccellentissimo prospettivo, e il maggior geometra de' suoi tempi." Romano Alberti, Trattato della nobilta della pittura, p. 32. See also Pascoli, Vite, tom. i. p. 90.]

[Footnote 16: It appears that in this art he was preceded by Van Eych of Flanders. See tom. i. p. 81, &c.; and also the eulogium on him by Bartolommeo Facio, p. 46, where he praises his skill in geometry, and refers to several of his pictures, which prove him to have been highly accomplished, and almost unrivalled in perspective.]

[Footnote 17: If there be any truth in Pietro having been blind for twenty-four years, I do not know how he could have painted Sixtus IV. On the other hand this tradition of his blindness comes from Vasari, whose family was so intimately connected with that of Pietro della Francesca, that there was less room for error in the life of that artist than in any other. This excellent picture, of which I have seen a beautiful copy in the possession of the Duke di Ceri, I should myself rather attribute to Melozzo.]

[Footnote 18: He is favorably mentioned by Crispolti, in the _Perugia Augusta_; by Ciatti, in the _Istorie di Perugia_; Alessi, in the _Elogi de' Perugini illustri_; and by Pascoli, in the _Vite de' Pittori Sc. Arch. Perugini_; with whom I can in no manner concur in opinion, that "Benedetto was equal to the best artists of his time, and probably the first among the early masters who contributed to the introduction of an improved style," (p. 21). An assertion singularly unjust to Masaccio.]

[Footnote 19: He subscribed himself _de Castro Plebis_, now _Citta della Pieve_. There, according to Pascoli, the father was born, who afterwards removed to Perugia, where Pietro was born; but the greater probability is, that Pietro also was born in Citta della Pieve. _Mariotti._]

[Footnote 20: This resemblance might have arisen from his imitation of the works of Borghese, (Pietro della Francesca) which he saw in Perugia, as it most assuredly cannot be proved that Perugino was ever in his school. P. Valle and others express great doubts of it, and when I reflect that Vannucci was only twelve years old when Borghese lost his sight, I regard it as an absurd tradition.]

[Footnote 21: Vasari, at the close of his Life observes, "none of his scholars ever equalled Pietro in application or in amenity of colour." Padre della Valle asserts on the contrary, "that he was indebted for a great portion of his celebrity to the talents displayed by his scholars;" and says that he detected the touch of Raffaello in his picture in the Grand Duke's collection; but we must have a stronger testimony before we submit ourselves to this decision.]

[Footnote 22: Descrizione del Palazzo Vaticano, p. 36.]

[Footnote 23: Consisting of three subjects from the Life of Christ, in the Chapel of the Holy Sacraments. The Annunciation, the Birth of Christ, and the Dispute with the Doctors, the best of the three. In one of these he introduced his own portrait. Vasari does not mention this fine production.]

[Footnote 24: He probably came to Venice from Rimino, or resided there for some time. We find other early painters assigned first to one country and then to another, as Jacopo Davanzo, Pietro Vannucci, Lorenzo Lotto, &c.]

[Footnote 25: It is said that Mengs, who was desirous of being considered a philosophical painter, coincided with Vitruvius in opinion. But this opinion should be restricted to some indifferent specimens; for when he afterwards saw them painted in the true style of the ancients, he regarded them with extraordinary pleasure; as in Genoa, which possesses some beautiful arabesques by Vaga. So the defender of Ratti assures us.]

ROMAN SCHOOL.

EPOCH II.

_Raffaello and his School._

We are now arrived at the most brilliant period, not only of the Roman School, but of modern painting itself. We have seen the art carried to a high degree of perfection by Da Vinci and Bonarruoti, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, and it is a remarkable fact that the same period embraces not only Raphael, but also Coreggio, Giorgione, and Titian, and the most celebrated Venetian painters: so that a man enjoying the common term of life might have seen the works of all these illustrious masters. The art in but a few years thus reached a height to which it had never before attained, and which has never been rivalled, except in the attempt to imitate these early masters, or to unite in one style their varied and divided excellences. It seems indeed an ordinary law of providence, that individuals of consummate genius should be born and flourish at the same period, or at least at short intervals from each other, a circumstance of which Velleius Paterculus, after a diligent investigation, protested he could never discover the real cause. I observe, he says, men of the same commanding genius making their appearance together, in the smallest possible space of time; as it happens in the case of animals of different kinds, which, confined in a close place, nevertheless each selects its own class, and those of a kindred race separate themselves from the rest, and unite in the closest manner. A single age was sufficient to illustrate Tragedy, in the persons of AEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides: ancient comedy under Cratinus, Aristophanes, and Eumolpides; and in like manner the new comedy under Menander, Diphilus, and Philemon. There appeared few philosophers of note after the days of Plato and Aristotle, and whoever has made himself acquainted with Isocrates and his school, is acquainted with the summit of Grecian eloquence. The same remark applies also to other countries. The great Roman writers are included under the single age of Octavius: Leo X. was the Augustus of modern Italy; the reign of Louis XIV. was the brilliant era of French letters, that of Charles II. of the English.

This rule applies equally to the fine arts. _Hoc idem_, proceeds Velleius, _evenisse plastis, pictoribus, sculptoribus, quisquis temporum institerit notis reperiet, et eminentiam cujusque operis arctissimis temporum claustris circumdatam._[26] Of this union of men of genius in the same age, _Causas_, he says, _quum semper requiro, numquam invenio quas veras confidam_. It seems to him probable that when a man finds the first station in art occupied by another, he considers it as a post that has been rightfully seized on, and no longer aspires to the possession of it, but is humiliated, and contented to follow at a distance. But this solution I confess does not satisfy my mind. It may indeed account to us why no other Michelangiolo, or Raffaello, has ever appeared; but it does not satisfy me why these two, and the others before mentioned, should all have appeared together in the same age. For myself, I am of opinion that the age is always influenced by certain principles, universally adopted both by professors of the art, and by amateurs: which principles happening at a particular period to be the most just and accurate of their kind, produce in that age some supereminent professors, and a number of good ones. These principles change through the instability of all human affairs, and the age partakes in the change. I may add, nevertheless, that these happy periods never occur without the circumstance of a number of princes and influential individuals rivalling each other in the encouragement of works of taste; and amidst these there always arise some persons of commanding genius, who give a bias and tone to art. The history of sculpture in Athens, a city where munificence and taste went hand in hand, favours my opinion, and it is further confirmed by this golden period of Italian art. Nevertheless I do not pretend to give a verdict on this important question, but leave the decision of it to a more competent tribunal.

But although it be a matter of difficulty to account for this developement and union of rare talent at one particular period, we may however hope to trace the steps of a single individual to excellence; and I would wish to do so of Raffaello. Nature and fortune seemed to unite in lavishing their favours on this artist; the first in investing him with the rarest gifts of genius, the other in adding to these a singular combination of propitious circumstances. In order to illustrate our inquiry it will be necessary to observe him from his earliest years,[27] and to note the progress of his mind. He was born in Urbino in 1483; and if climate, as seems not improbable, have any influence on the genius of an artist, I know not a happier spot that could have been chosen for his birth, than that part of Italy which gave to architecture a Bramante, supplied the art of painting with a successor to Raffaello in Baroccio, and bestowed on sculpture the plastic hand of a Brandani, without referring to many less celebrated, but still deserving artists, who are the boast of Urbino and her state. The father of this illustrious artist was Giovanni di Santi,[28] or as he has been commonly called Giovanni Sanzio, an artist of moderate talents, and who could contribute but little to the instruction of his son; although it was no small advantage to have been initiated in a simple style, divested of mannerism. He made some further progress from studying the works of F. Carnevale, an artist of great merit, for the times in which he flourished; and being placed at Perugia, under Pietro, he soon became master of his style, as Vasari observes, and had then probably already formed the design of excelling him. I was informed in Citta di Castello, that at the age of seventeen he painted the picture of S. Nicholas of Tolentino in the church of the Eremitani. The style was that of Perugino, but the composition differed from that of the age, being the throne of our Saviour surrounded by saints. The Beato (beatified saint) is there represented, while the Virgin and St. Augustine, concealed in part by a cloud, bind his temples with a crown; there are two angels at the right hand, and two at the left, graceful, and in different attitudes; with inscriptions variously folded, on which are inscribed some words in praise of S. Eremitano. Above is the Eternal Father surrounded by a majestic choir of angels. The actors of the scene appear to be in a temple, the pillars of which are ornamented in the minute and laboured style of Mantegna, and the ancient manner is still perceptible in the folds of the drapery, though there is an evident improvement in the design, as in the figure of Satan, who lies under the feet of the saint. This figure is free from the singular deformity with which the ancient painters represented him; and has the genuine features of an Ethiopian. To this picture another of this period may be added in the church of S. Domenico; a Crucifixion, with two attendant angels; the one receives in a cup the sacred blood which flows from the right hand, the other, in two cups, collects that of the left hand and the side; the weeping mother and disciples contribute their aid, while the Magdalen and an aged saint kneeling in silence contemplate the solemn mystery; above is the Deity. These figures might all pass for those of Pietro, except the Virgin, the beauty of which he never equalled, unless perhaps in the latter part of his life. Another specimen of this period is noticed by the Abate Morcelli, (de Stylo Inscript. Latin, p. 476). He states, that in the possession of Sig. Annibale Maggiori, a nobleman of Fermo, he saw the picture of a Madonna, raising with both hands a veil of delicate texture from the holy Infant, as he lies in a cradle asleep. Nigh at hand is S. Joseph, whose eyes rest in contemplation on the happy scene, and on his staff the same writer detected an inscription in extremely minute characters, R. S. V. A. A. XVII. P. _Raphael Sanctius Urbinas an. aetatis 17 pinxit_. This must have been the first attempt of the design which he perfected at a more mature age, and which is in the Treasury of Loreto, where the holy Infant is represented, not in the act of sleeping, but gracefully stretching out his hand to the Virgin: of the same epoch I judge the _tondini_ to be, which I shall describe in the course of a few pages, when I refer to the Madonna della Seggiola.

Vasari informs us, that before executing these two pictures, he had already painted in Perugia an Assumption in the church of the Conventuals, with three subjects from the life of Christ in the grado; which may however be doubted, as it is a more perfect work. This picture possesses all the best parts of the style of Vannucci; but the varied expressions which the apostles discover on finding the sepulchre void, are beyond the reach of that artist's powers. Raffaello still further excelled his master, as Vasari observes, in the third picture painted for Citta di Castello. This is the marriage of the Virgin, in the church of S. Francesco. The composition very much resembles that which he adopted in a picture of the same subject in Perugia; but there is sufficient of modern art in it to indicate the commencement of a new style. The two espoused have a degree of beauty which Raffaello scarcely surpassed in his mature age, in any other countenances. The Virgin particularly is a model of celestial beauty. A youthful band festively adorned accompany her to her espousals; splendour vies with elegance; the attitudes are engaging, the veils variously arranged, and there is a mixture of ancient and modern drapery, which at so early a period cannot be considered as a fault. In the midst of these accompaniments the principal figure triumphantly appears, not ornamented by the hand of art, but distinguished by her native nobility, beauty, modesty, and grace. The first sight of this performance strikes us with astonishment, and we involuntarily exclaim, how divine and noble the spirit that animates her heavenly form! The group of the men of the party of S. Joseph are equally well conceived. In these figures we see nothing of the stiffness of the drapery, the dryness of execution, and the peculiar style of Pietro, which sometimes approaches to harshness: all is action, and an animating spirit breathes in every gesture and in every countenance. The landscapes are not represented with sterile and impoverished trees, as in the backgrounds of Pietro; but are drawn from nature, and finished with care. The round temple in the summit is ornamented with columns, and executed, Vasari observes, with such admirable art, that it is wonderful to observe the difficulties he has willingly incurred. In the distance are beautiful groups, and there is a figure of a poor man imploring charity depicted to the life, and, more near, a youth, a figure which proves the artist to have been master of the then novel art of foreshortening. I have purposely described these specimens of the early years of Raphael, more particularly than any other writer, in order to acquaint the reader with the rise of his divine talents. In the labours of his more mature years, the various masters whose works he studied may each claim his own; but in his first flight he was exclusively supported by the vigour of his own talents. The bent of his genius, which was not less voluptuous and graceful than it was noble and elevated, led him to that ideal beauty, grace, and expression, which is the most refined and difficult province of painting. To insure success in this department neither study nor art is sufficient. A natural taste for the beautiful, an intellectual faculty of combining the several excellences of many individuals in one perfect whole, a vivid apprehension, and a sort of fervour in seizing the sudden and momentary expressions of passion, a facility of touch, obedient to the conceptions of the imagination; these were the means which nature alone could furnish, and these, as we have seen, he possessed from his earliest years. Whoever ascribes the success of Raffaello to the effects of study, and not to the felicity of his genius, does not justly appreciate the gifts which were lavished on him by nature.[29]

He now became the admiration of his master and his fellow scholars; and about the same time Pinturicchio, after having painted with so much applause at Rome before Raffaello was born, aspired to become, as it were, his scholar in the great work at Siena. He did not himself possess a genius sufficiently elevated for the sublime composition which the place required; nor had Pietro himself sufficient fertility, or a conception of mind equal to so novel an undertaking. It was intended to represent the life and actions of AEneas Silvius Piccolomini, afterwards Pope Pius II.; the embassies entrusted to him by the council of Constance to various princes; and by Felix, the antipope, to Frederick III., who conferred on him the laurel crown; and also the various embassies which he undertook for Frederick himself to Eugenius IV., and afterwards to Callistus IV., who created him a Cardinal. His subsequent exaltation to the Papacy, and the most remarkable events of his reign, were also to be represented; the canonization of S. Catherine; his attendance on the Council of Mantua, where he was received in a princely manner by the Duke; and finally his death, and the removal of his body from Ancona to Rome. Never perhaps was an undertaking of such magnitude entrusted to a single master. The art itself had not as yet attempted any great flight. The principal figures in composition generally stood isolated, as Pietro exhibited them in Perugia, without aiming at composition. In consequence of this the proportions were seldom true, nor did the artists depart much from sacred subjects, the frequent repetition of which had already opened the way to plagiarism. Historical subjects of this nature were new to Raffaello, and to him, unaccustomed to reside in a metropolis, it must have been most difficult, in painting so many as eleven pictures, to imitate the splendour of different courts, and as we may say, the manners of all Europe, varying the composition agreeably to the occasion. Nevertheless, being conducted by his friend to Siena, he made the sketches and cartoons of _all_ these subjects, says Vasari in his life of Pinturicchio, and that he made the sketches of the whole is the common report at Siena. In the life of Raffaello he states that he made _some of the designs and cartoons for this work_, and that the reason of his not continuing them, was his haste to proceed to Florence, to see the cartoons of Da Vinci and Bonarruoti. But I am more inclined to the first statement of Vasari, than the subsequent one. In April, 1503, Raffaello was employed in the Library, as is proved by the will of Cardinal Francesco Piccolomini.[30] While the Library was yet unfinished, Piccolomini was elected Pope on the twenty-first day of September; and his coronation following on the eighth of October, Pinturicchio commemorated the event on the outside of the Library, in the part opposite to the duomo. Bottari remarks, that in this facade we may detect not only the design, but in many of the heads the colouring also of Raffaello. It appears probable therefore that he remained to complete the work, the last subject of which might perhaps be finished in the following year, 1504, in which he departed to Florence. We may here observe, that this work, which has maintained its colours so well that it almost appears of recent execution, confers great honour on a young artist of twenty years of age; as we do not find a composition of such magnitude, in the passage from ancient to modern art, conceived by any single painter. So that if Raffaello stood not entirely alone in this work, the best part of it must still be assigned to him, since Pinturicchio himself was improving at this time, and the works which he afterwards executed at Spello and Siena itself, incline more to the modern than any he had before done. This will justify us in concluding that Raffaello had already, at that early age, far outstripped his master; his contour being more full, his composition more rich and free, accompanied by an ornamental and grander style, and an ability unlimited, and capable of embracing every subject that was presented to him.

The works which he saw in Florence did not lead him out of his own path, as, to mention one instance, afterwards happened to Franco, who, coming from Venice, applied himself to a style of design and a career entirely new. Raffaello had formed his own system, and only sought examples, to enlarge his ideas and facilitate his execution. He therefore studied the works of Masaccio, an elegant and expressive painter, whose Adam and Eve he afterwards adopted in the Vatican. He also became acquainted with Fra Bartolommeo, who, about this time, had returned to the exercise of his profession. To this artist he taught the principles of perspective, and acquired from him, in return, a better style of colouring. We have not any record to prove that he made himself known to Da Vinci; and the portrait of Raffaello, in the ducal gallery in Florence, which is said to be by Lionardo, is an unknown head. I would willingly, however, flatter myself, that a congeniality of mind and an affinity of genius, emulous in the pursuit of perfection, must have produced a knowledge of each other, if it did not conciliate a mutual attachment. No one certainly was more capable than Da Vinci, of communicating to Raffaello a degree of refinement and knowledge, which he could not have received from Pietro; and to introduce him into the more subtle views of art. As to Michelangiolo, his pictures were rare, and less analogous to the genius of Raffaello. His celebrated Cartoon was not yet finished, in 1504, and that great master was jealous of its being seen, before its entire completion. He finished it some few years afterwards, when he returned to Florence on his flight from Rome, occasioned by the anger of Julius II. Raffaello therefore could not have had the opportunity of studying it at that time, nor did he then long remain in Florence, for, as Vasari states, he was soon obliged to return to his native place, in consequence of the death of his parents.[31] In 1505 we find him in Perugia: and to this year belongs the chapel of S. Severo, and the Crucifixion, which was severed from the wall, and preserved by the Padri Camaldolensi. From these works, which are all in fresco, we may ascertain the style which he acquired in Florence; and I think we may assert, that it was not anatomical, no traces of it being visible in the body of the Redeemer, which was an opportunity well adapted for the exhibition of it. Nor was it the study of the beautiful, of which he had previously exhibited such delightful specimens; nor that of expression, as there were not to be found in Florence, heads more expressive and lovely than those he had painted. But after his visit to Florence, we find his colouring more delicate, and his grouping and the foreshortening of his figures improved; whether or not he owed it to the example of Da Vinci or Bonarruoti, or both together, or to some of the older masters. He afterwards repaired to Florence, but soon quitted it again, in order to paint in the church of S. Francis, in Perugia, a dead Christ entombed, the cartoon of which he had designed at Florence; and which picture was first placed in the church of S. Francis, was afterwards, in the pontificate of Paul V., transferred to Rome, and is now in the Borghese palace. After this he returned again to Florence, and remained there until his departure for Rome, at the end of the year 1508. In this interval, more particularly, he executed the works which are said to be in his second style, though it is a very delicate matter to attempt to point them out. Vasari assigns to this period the Holy Family in the Rinuccini gallery, and yet it bears the date of 1506. Of this second style is undoubtedly the picture of the Madonna and the infant Christ and S. John, in a beautiful landscape, with ruins in the distance, which is in the gallery of the Grand Duke, and others, some of which are to be found in foreign countries. His pictures of this period are composed in the more usual style of a Madonna, accompanied by saints, like the picture of the Pitti palace, formerly at Pescia, and that of S. Fiorenzo in Perugia, which passed into England. The attitudes, however, the air of the heads, and smaller features of composition, are beyond a common style. The dead Christ above mentioned, is in a more novel and superior style. Vasari calls it a most divine picture; the figures are not numerous; but each fulfils perfectly the part assigned to it; the subject is most affecting; the heads are remarkably beautiful, and the earliest of the kind in the restoration of art, while the expression of profound sorrow and extreme anguish does not divest them of their beauty. After finishing this work, Raphael was ambitious of painting an apartment in Florence, one, I believe, of the Palazzo Pubblico. There remains a letter of his, in which he requests the Duke of Urbino to write to the Gonfaloniere Soderini, in April, 1508.[32] But his relative, Bramante, procured him a nobler employ in Rome, recommending him to Julius II. to ornament the Vatican. He removed thither, and was already established there in the September of the same year.[33]

We at length, then, behold him fixed in Rome, and placed in the Vatican at a period, and under circumstances calculated to render him the first painter in the world. His biographers do not mention his literary attainments; and, if we were to judge from his letter just cited, and now in the Museo Borgia, we might consider him grossly illiterate. But he was then writing to his uncle; and therefore made use of his native dialect, as is still done even in the public acts in Venice; though he might be master of, and might use on proper occasions, a more correct language. Raffaello, too, was of a family fully competent to afford him the necessary instructions in his early years. Other letters of his are found in the _Lettere Pittoriche_, in a very different style; and of his knowledge in matters of importance, it is sufficient to refer to what Celio Calcagnini, an eminent literary character of the age of Leo, states of him to Giacomo Zieglero: "I need not," he says, "mention Vitruvius, whose precepts he not only explains, but defends or impugns with evident justice, and with so much temper, that in his objections there does not appear the slightest asperity. He has excited the admiration of the Pontiff Leo, and of all the Romans, in such a way, that they regard him as a man sent down from heaven purposely to restore the eternal city to its ancient splendour."[34] This acknowledged skill in architecture must suppose an adequate acquaintance with the Latin language and geometry; and we know from other quarters, that he assiduously cultivated anatomy, history, and poetry.[35] But his principal pursuit in Rome was the study of the remains of Grecian genius, and by which he perfected his knowledge of art. He studied, too, the ancient buildings, and was instructed in the principles of architecture for six years by Bramante, in order that on his death he might succeed him in the management of the building of S. Peter.[36] He lived among the ancient sculptors, and derived from them not only their contours and drapery, and attitudes, but the spirit and principles of the art itself. Nor yet content with what he saw in Rome, he employed artists to copy the remains of antiquity at Pozzuolo and throughout all Italy, and even in Greece. Nor did he derive less assistance from living artists whom he consulted on his compositions. "The universal esteem which he enjoyed,"[37] and his attractive person and engaging manners, which all accounts unite in describing as incomparable, conciliated him the favour of the most eminent men of letters of his age; and Bembo, Castiglione, Giovio, Navagero, Ariosto, Aretino, Fulvio, and Calcagnini, set a high value on his friendship, and supplied him, we may be allowed to suppose, with hints and ideas for his works.

His rival Michelangiolo, too, and his party, contributed not a little to the success of Raffaello. As the contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius was beneficial to them both, so the rivalship of Bonarruoti and Sanzio aided the fame of Michelangiolo, and produced the paintings of the Sistine chapel; and at the same time contributed to the celebrity of Raffaello, by producing the pictures of the Vatican, and not a few others. Michelangiolo disdaining any secondary honours, came to the combat, as it were, attended by his shield bearer; for he made drawings in his grand style, and then gave them to F. Sebastiano, the scholar of Giorgione, to execute; and by these means he hoped that Raffaello would never be able to rival his productions either in design or colour. Raffaello stood alone; but aimed at producing works with a degree of perfection beyond the united efforts of Michelangiolo and Sebastian del Piombo, combining in himself a fertile invention, ideal beauty founded on a correct imitation of the Greek style, grace, ease, amenity, and an universality of genius in every department of the art. The noble determination of triumphing in such a powerful contest animated him night and day, and did not allow him any respite. It also excited him to surpass both his rivals and himself in every new work which he produced. The subjects, too, chosen for these chambers, aided him, as they were in a great measure new, or required to be treated in a novel manner. They did not profess to represent bacchanalian or vulgar scenes, but the exalted symbols of science; the sacred functions of religion; military actions, which contributed to establish the peace of the world; important events of former days, under which were typified the reigns of the Pontiffs Julius and Leo X.: the latter the most powerful protector, and one of the most accomplished judges of art. More favourable circumstances could not have conspired to stimulate a noble mind. The eulogizing of Augustus was a theme for the poets of his age, which produced the richest fruits of genius. Propertius, accustomed to sing only of the charms or the disdain of his Cinthia, felt himself another poet when called on to celebrate the triumphs of Augustus; and with newborn fervour invoked Jove himself to suspend the functions of his divinity whilst he sang the praises of the emperor.[38] It is certain that such elevated subjects, in minds richly stored, must excite corresponding ideas, and thus both in poets and painters, give birth to the sublime.

Raffaello, on his arrival in Rome, says Vasari, was commissioned to paint a chamber, which was at that time called La Segnatura, and which, from the subject of the pictures, was also called the chamber of the Sciences. On the ceiling are represented Theology, Philosophy, Poetry, and Jurisprudence. Each of them has on the neighbouring facade a grand historical piece illustrative of the subject. On the basement are also historical pieces which belong to the same sciences; and these smaller performances, and the caryatides and telamoni distributed around, are monocromati or chiaroscuri, an idea entirely of Raffaello, and afterwards, it is said, continued by Polidoro da Caravaggio. Raffaello commenced with Theology, and imitated Petrarch, who in one of his visions has assembled together men of the same condition, though living in different ages. He there placed the evangelists, whose volumes are the foundation of theology; the sacred writers, who have preserved its traditions; the theologists, S. Thomas, S. Bonaventura, Scotus, and the rest who have illustrated it by their arguments; above all, the Trinity in the midst of the beatified, and beneath on an altar the eucharist, as if to express the mystery of that doctrine. There are traces of the ancient style in this piece. Gold is made use of in the glories of the saints, and in other ornamental parts; the upper glory is formed on the plan of that of S. Severo, which I have already noticed: the composition is more symmetrical and less free than in other pieces; and the whole, compared with the other compositions, seems too minute. Nevertheless, whosoever regards each part in itself, will find it of such careful and admirable execution, that he will be disposed to prefer it to all other works. It has been observed, that Raffaello began this piece at the right side, and that by the time he had arrived at the left side portion, he had made rapid strides in the art. This work must have been finished about the year 1508: and such was the surprise and admiration of the Pope, that he ordered all the works of Bramantino, Pier della Francesca, Signorelli, l'Abate di Arezzo, and Sodoma (though some of the ornamental parts by this last are preserved) to be effaced, in order that the whole chamber might be decorated by Raffaello.

In the subsequent works of Raffaello, and after the year 1509, we do not find any traces of his first style. He had adopted a nobler manner, and henceforth applied all his powers to the perfecting of it. He had now to represent, on the opposite side, Philosophy. In this he designed a gymnasium in the form of a temple, and placed the learned ancients, some in the precincts of the building, some on the ascent of the steps, and others in the plain below. In this, more than on any other occasion, he was aided by his favourite Petrarch in the third capitolo of his Fame. Plato, "_che in quella schiera ando piu presso al segno_," is there represented with Aristotle, "_piu d'ingegno_," in the act of disputation; and they possess also in the composition, the highest place of honour; Socrates is represented instructing Alcibiades; Pythagoras is seen, and before him a youth holds a tablet with the harmonious concords; and Zoroaster, King of Bactriana, appears with an elementary globe in his hand. Diogenes is stretched near on the ground, with his wooden bowl in his hand, "_assai piu che non vuol vergogna aperto_:" Archimedes is seen "_star col capo basso_," and turning the compasses on the table, instructs the youth in geometry; and others are represented meditating, or in disputation, whose names and characters it would be possible, with careful observation, to distinguish more truly than Vasari has done. This picture is commonly called the School of Athens, which in my judgment is just as appropriate, as the name of the Sacrament bestowed on the first subject. The third picture, representing Jurisprudence, is divided into two parts. On the left side of the window stands Justinian, with the book of the Civil Law; Trebonian receives it from his hand with an expression of submission and acquiescence, which no other pencil can ever hope to equal. On the right side is seen Gregory IX. who delivers the book of the Decretals to an advocate of the Consistory, and bears the features of Julius II., who is thus honoured in the character of his predecessor. In the concluding picture, which is a personification of Poetry, is seen Mount Parnassus, where, in company of Apollo and the muses, the Greek, Roman, and Tuscan poets are represented in their own portraitures, as far as records will allow. Homer, seated between Virgil and Dante, is, perhaps, the most striking figure; he is evidently gifted with a divine spirit, and unites in his person the characters of the prophet and the poet. The historical pieces in chiaroscuro contribute, by their ornaments, to charm the sight, and preserve the unity of design. Beneath the Theology, for instance, is represented S. Augustine on the borders of the sea, instructed by the angels not to explore the mystery of the Trinity, incomprehensible to the human mind. Under the Philosophy, Archimedes is seen surprised and slain by a soldier, whilst immersed in his studies. This first chamber was finished in 1511, as that year appears inscribed near the Parnassus.

Vasari, until the finishing of the first chamber, does not speak of the improvement of his manner; on the contrary, in his life of Raffaello, he says, "although he had seen so many monuments of antiquity in that city, and studied so unremittingly, still his figures, up to this period, did not possess that breadth and majesty which they afterwards exhibited. For it happened, that the breach between Michelangiolo and the Pope, which we have before mentioned in his life, occurred about this time, and compelled Bonarruoti to flee to Florence; from which circumstance, Bramante obtaining possession of the keys of the chapel, exhibited it to his friend Raffaello, in order that he might make himself acquainted with the style of Michelangiolo;" and he then proceeds to mention the Isaiah of S. Agostino, and the Sibyls della Pace, painted after this period, and the Heliodorus. In the life of Michelangiolo, he again informs us of the quarrel which obliged him to depart from Rome, and proceeds to say, that when, on his return, he had finished one half of the work, the Pope suddenly commanded it to be exposed; "whereupon Raffaello d'Urbino, who possessed great facility of imitation, immediately changed his style, and at one effort designed the Prophets and Sibyls della Pace." This brings us to a dispute prosecuted with the greatest warmth both in Italy and other countries. Bellori attacked Vasari in a violent manner, in a work entitled: "_Se Raffaello ingrandi e miglioro la maniera per aver vedute le opere di Michelangiolo_," (Whether Raffaello enlarged and improved his style on seeing the works of Michelangiolo). Crespi replied to him in three letters, inserted in the Lettere Pittoriche,[39] and many other disputants have arisen and stated fresh arguments.

It is not, however, our province to engage the reader in these disputations. It was greatly to the advantage of Michelangiolo's fame to have had two scholars, who, while he was yet living, and after the death of Raffaello, employed themselves in writing his life; and a great misfortune to Raffaello not to have been commemorated in the same manner. If he had survived to the time when Vasari and Condivi wrote, he would not have passed over their charges in silence. Raffaello would then have easily proved, that when Bonarruoti fled to Florence, in 1506, he himself was not in Rome, nor was called thither until two years afterwards; and that he could not, therefore, have obtained a furtive glance of the Sistine chapel. It would have been proved too, that from the year 1508, when Michelangiolo had, perhaps, not commenced his work, until 1511, in which year he exhibited the first half of it,[40] Raffaello had been endeavouring to enlarge his style; and as Michelangiolo had before studied the Torso of the Belvidere, so Raffaello also formed himself on this and other marbles,[41] a circumstance easily discoverable in his style. He might too have asked Vasari, in what he considered grandeur and majesty of style to consist; and from the example of the Greeks, and from reason herself, he might have informed him, that the grand does not consist in the enlargement of the muscles, or in an extravagance of attitude, but in adopting, as Mengs has observed, the noblest, and neglecting the inferior and meaner parts;[42] and exercising the higher powers of invention. Hence he would have proceeded to point out the grandeur of style in the School of Athens, in the majestic edifice, in the contour of the figures, in the folds of the drapery, in the expression of the countenances, and in the attitudes; and he would have easily traced the source of that sublimity in the relics of antiquity. And if he appeared still greater in his Isaiah, he might have refuted Vasari from his own account, who assigns this work to a period anterior to 1511, and therefore contemporary as it were with the School of Athens: adding, that he elevated his style by propriety of character, and by the study of Grecian art. The Greeks observed an essential difference between common men and heroes, and again between their heroes and their gods; and Raffaello, after having represented philosophers immersed in human doubts, might well elevate his style when he came to figure a prophet meditating the revelations of God.[43] All this might have been advanced by Raffaello, in order to relieve Bramante and himself from so ill supported an imputation. As to the rest, I believe he never would have denied, that the works of Michelangiolo had inspired him with a more daring spirit of design, and that in the exhibition of strong character, he had sometimes even imitated him. But how imitated him? In rendering, as Crespi himself observes, that very style more beautiful and more majestic, (p. 344). It is indeed a great triumph to the admirers of Raffaello to be able to say, whoever wishes to see what is wanting in the Sibyls of Michelangiolo, let him inspect those of Raffaello; and let him view the Isaiah of Raffaello, who would know what is wanting in the prophets of Michelangiolo.

After public curiosity was gratified, and Raffaello had obtained a glimpse of this new style, Bonarruoti closed the doors, and hastened to finish the other half of his work, which was completed at the close of 1512, so that the Pope, on the solemnization of the Feast of Christmas, was enabled to perform mass in the Sistine chapel. In the course of this year, Raffaello was employed in the second chamber on the subject of Heliodorus driven from the Temple by the prayers of Onias the high priest, one of the most celebrated pictures of the place. In this painting, the armed vision that appears to Heliodorus, scatters lightnings from his hand, while the neighing of the steed is heard amidst the attendant thunder. In the numerous bands, some of which are plundering the riches of the Temple, and others are ignorant of the cause of the surprise and terror exhibited in Heliodorus, consternation, amazement, joy, and abasement, and a host of passions, are expressed. In this work, and in others of these chambers, Raffaello, says Mengs, gave to painting all the augmentation it could receive after Michelangiolo. In this picture he introduced the portrait of Julius II., whose zeal and authority is represented in Onias. He appears in a litter borne by his grooms, in the manner in which he was accustomed to repair to the Vatican, to view this work. The Miracle of Bolsena was also painted in the lifetime of Julius.

The remaining decorations of these chambers were all illustrative of the history of Leo X., whose imprisonment in Ravenna, and subsequent liberation, is typified by St. Peter released from prison by the angel. It was in this piece that the painter exhibited an astonishing proof of his knowledge of light. The figures of the soldiers, who stand without the prison, are illuminated by the beams of the moon: there is a torch which produces a second light; and from the angel emanates a celestial splendour, that rivals the beams of the sun. He has here, too, afforded another proof how art may convert the impediments thrown in her way to her own advantage; for the place where he was painting being broken by a window, he has imagined on each side of it a staircase, which affords an ascent to the prison, and on the steps he has placed the guards overpowered with sleep; so that the painter does not seem to have accommodated himself to the place, but the place to have become subservient to the painter. The composition of S. Leo the Great, who checks Attila at the head of his army, and that of the other chamber, the battle with the Saracens in the port of Ostium, and the victory obtained by S. Leo IV., justify Raffaello's claim to the epic crown: so powerfully has he depicted the military array of men and horse, the arms peculiar to each nation, the fury of the combat, and the despair and humiliation of the prisoners. Near this performance, too, is the wonderful piece of the Incendio di Borgo (a city enveloped in fire), which is miraculously extinguished by the same S. Leo. This wonderful piece alternately chills the heart with terror, or warms it with compassion. The calamity of fire is carried to its extreme point, as it is the hour of midnight, and the fire, which already occupies a considerable space, is increased by a violent wind, which agitates the flames that leap with rapidity from house to house. The affright and misery of the inhabitants is also carried to the utmost extremity. Some rush forward with water, but are driven back by the scorching flames; others seek safety in flight, with naked feet, robeless, and with dishevelled hair; women are seen turning an imploring look to the Pontiff; mothers, whose own terrors are absorbed in fear for their offspring; and here a youth, who bearing on his shoulders his aged and infirm sire, and sinking beneath the weight, collects his almost exhausted strength to place him out of danger. The concluding subjects refer to Leo III.; the Coronation of Charlemagne, by the hand of that Pontiff, and the Oath taken by the Pope on the Holy Evangelists, to exculpate himself from the calumnies laid to his charge. In Leo, is meant to be represented Leo X., who is thus honoured in the persons of his predecessors; and in Charlemagne is represented Francis I., King of France. Many persons of the age are also figured in the surrounding group, so that there is not an historical subject in these chambers that does not contain the most accurate likenesses. In this latter department of art, also, Raffaello may be said to have been transcendant. His portraits have deceived even persons the most intimately acquainted with the subjects of them. He painted a remarkable picture of Leo X., and on one occasion the Cardinal Datary of that time, found himself approaching it with a bull, and pen and ink, for the Pope's signature.[44]

The six subjects which relate to Leo, elected in 1513, were finished in 1517. In the nine years which Raphael employed on these three chambers, and also in the three following years, he made additional decorations to the Pontifical Palace; he observed the style of ornament suitable to each part of it, and thus made the Pope's residence a model of magnificence and taste for all Europe. Few have adverted to this instance of his merit. He superintended the new gallery of the palace, availing himself in part of the design of Bramante, and in part improving on him. "He then made designs for the stuccos, and the various subjects there painted, and also for the divisions, and he then appointed Giovanni da Udine to finish the stuccos and arabesques, and Giulio Romano the figures." The exposure of this gallery to the inclemencies of the air, has left little remaining besides the squalid grotesques; but those who saw it at an early period, when the unsullied splendor of the gold, the pure white of the stuccos, the brilliancy of the colours, and the newness of the marble, rendered every part of it beautiful and resplendent, must have thought it a vision of paradise. Vasari, in eulogizing it, says, "It is impossible to execute, or to conceive, a more exquisite work." The best which now remain are the thirteen ceilings, in each of which are distributed four subjects from holy writ, the first of which, the Creation of the World, Raffaello executed with his own hand as a model for the others, which were painted by his scholars, and afterwards retouched and rendered uniform by himself, as was his custom. I have seen copies of these in Rome, executed at great cost, and with great fidelity, for Catherine, Empress of Russia, under the direction of Mr. Hunterberger, and from the effect which was produced by the freshness of the colours, I could easily conceive how highly enchanting the originals must have been. But their great value consisted in Raffaello having enriched them by his invention, expression, and design, and every one is agreed that each subject is a school in itself. It appears certain too, that he was desirous of competing with Michelangiolo, who had treated the same subject in the Sistine chapel; and of appealing to the public to judge whether or not he had equalled him. To describe in a suitable manner the other pictures in chiaroscuro, and the numerous landscapes and architectural subjects, the trophies, imitations of cameos, masks, and other things which this divine artist either designed himself or formed into new combinations from the antique, is a task, says Taja, far above the reach of human powers. Taja has however himself given us a delightful description of these works.[45] It confers the highest honour on Raffaello, to whom we owe the fifty-two subjects, and all the ornamental parts.

Nor were the pavements, or the doors, or other interior works in the palace of the Vatican, completed without his superintendence. He directed the pavements to be formed of _terra invetriata_, an ancient invention of Luca della Robbia, which having continued for many generations as a family secret, was then in the hands of another Luca. Raffaello invited him to Florence to execute this vast work, employed him in the gallery, and in many of the chambers, which he adorned with the arms of the Pope. For the couches and other ornaments of the Camera di Segnatura he brought to Rome F. Giovanni da Verona, who formed them of mosaic with the most beautiful views. For the entablatures of the chambers, and for several of the windows and doors, he engaged Giovanni Barile, a celebrated Florentine engraver of gems. This work was executed in so masterly a manner, that Louis XIII., wishing to ornament the palace of the Louvre, had all these intaglios separately copied. The drawings of them were made by Poussin, and Mariette boasted of having them in his collection. Nor was there any other work either of stone or marble for which a design was required, which did not come under the inspection of Raffaello, and on which he did not impress his taste, which was consummate also in the sister art of sculpture. A proof of this is to be seen in the Jonah, in the church of the Madonna del Popolo, in the Chigi chapel, which was executed by Lorenzetto under his direction, and which, Bottari says, may assume its place by the side of the Greek statues. Among his most remarkable works may be mentioned his designs for the tapestry in the papal chapel, the subjects of which were from the lives of the Evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles. The cartoons for them were both designed and coloured by Raffaello; and after the tapestries were finished in the Low Countries, the cartoons passed into England, where they still remain. In these tapestries the art attained its highest pitch, nor has the world since beheld anything to equal them in beauty. They are exposed annually in the great portico of S. Peter, in the procession of the _Corpus Domini_, and it is wonderful to behold the crowds that flock to see them, and who ever regard them with fresh avidity and delight. But all these works of Raffaello would not have contributed to the extension of art at that period, beyond the meridian of Rome, if he had not succeeded in extending the fruits of his genius, by the means of prints. We have already noticed M. A. Raimondi, in the first book, and we have shewn that this great engraver was courteously received, and was afterwards assisted by Sanzio, whence an abundance of copies of the designs and the works of this master have been given to the world. A fine taste was thus rapidly propagated throughout Europe, and the beautiful style of Raffaello began to be justly appreciated. In a short time it became the prevailing taste, and if his maxims had remained unaltered, Italian painting would probably have flourished for as long a period as Greek sculpture.

In the midst of such a variety of occupations, Raffaello did not fail to gratify the wishes of many private individuals, who were desirous of having his designs for buildings, in which branch of art he was highly celebrated, and also of possessing his pictures. I need only to refer to the gallery of Agostini Chigi, which he ornamented with his own hand, with the well known fable of Galatea. He afterwards, with the assistance of his pupils, painted the Marriage of Psyche, at the banquet of which he assembled all the heathen deities, with such propriety of form, with their attendant symbols and genii, that in these fabulous subjects he almost rivalled the Greeks. These pictures, and those also of the chambers of the Vatican, were retouched by Maratta, with incredible care; and the method he adopted, as described by Bellori, may serve as a guide in similar cases. Raffaello also painted many altarpieces, with saints generally introduced; as that Delle Contesse at Foligno, where he introduced the Chamberlain of the Pope, alive, rather than drawn from the life: that for S. Giovanni in Monte, at Bologna, of S. Cecilia, who, charmed to rapture by a celestial melody, forgets her musical instrument, which falls neglected from her hands; that for Palermo, of Christ ascending Mount Calvary, called _dello Spasimo_, which, however much disparaged by Cumberland, for having been retouched, is a noble ornament of the royal collection at Madrid; and the others at Naples and at Piacenza, which are mentioned by his biographers. He also painted S. Michael for the King of France, and many other holy families[46] and devotional subjects, which neither Vasari nor his other biographers have fully enumerated.

But although the creation of these wonderful works was become a habit in this great artist, still every part of his productions cannot be considered as equally successful. It is known, that in the frescos of the palace, and in the Chigi gallery, he was censured in some naked figures for errors committed, as Vasari says, by some of his school. Mengs, who varied his opinions at different periods of his life, insinuates, that Raffaello for some time seemed to slumber, and did not make those rapid strides in the art, which might have been expected from his genius. This was, probably, when Michelangiolo was for some years absent from Rome. But when he returned, and heard it reported that many persons considered the paintings of Raffaello superior to his in colour, of more beauty and grace in composition, and of a correspondent excellence in design, whilst his works were said to possess none of these qualities except the last; he was stimulated to avail himself of the pencil of Fra Sebastiano, and at the same time supplied him with his own designs. The most celebrated work which they produced in conjunction, was a Transfiguration, in fresco, with a Flagellation, and other figures, in a chapel of S. Peter in Montorio. Raffaello being subsequently employed to paint a picture for the Cardinal Giulio de' Medici, afterwards Clement VII., Sebastiano, in a sort of competition, painted another picture of the same size. In the latter was represented the raising of Lazarus; in the former, with the master's accustomed spirit of emulation, the Transfiguration. "This is a picture which combines," says Mengs, "more excellences than any of the previous works of Raffaello. The expression in it is more exalted and more refined, the chiaroscuro more correct, the perspective better understood, the penciling finer, and there is a greater variety in the drapery, more grace in the heads, and more grandeur in the style."[47] It represents the mystery of the Transfiguration of Christ on the summit of Mount Tabor. On the side of the hill he has placed a band of his disciples, and with the happiest invention has engaged them in an action conformable to their powers, and has thus formed an episode not beyond the bounds of probability. A youth possessed is presented to them, that they may expel the evil spirit that torments him; and in the possessed, struggling with the presence of the demon, the confiding faith of the father, the affliction of a beautiful and interesting female, and the compassion visible in the countenances of the surrounding apostles, we are presented with perhaps the most pathetic incident ever conceived. Yet this part of the composition does not fix our regard so much as the principal subject on the summit of the mountain. There the two prophets, and the three disciples, are most admirably delineated, and the Saviour appears enveloped in a glory emanating from the fountain of eternal light, and surrounded by that chaste and celestial radiance, that is reserved exclusively for the eyes of the elect. The countenance of Christ, in which he has developed all his combined ideas of majesty and beauty, may be considered the masterpiece of Raffaello, and seems to us the most sublime height to which the genius of the artist, or even the art itself, was capable of aspiring. After this effort he never resumed his pencil, as he was soon afterwards suddenly seized with a mortal distemper, of which he died, in the bosom of the church, on Good Friday, (also the anniversary of his birthday,) 1520, aged thirty-seven years. His body reposed for some days in the chamber where he was accustomed to paint, and over it was placed this noble picture of the Transfiguration, previous to his mortal remains being transferred to the church of the Rotonda for interment. There was not an artist that was not moved to tears at this affecting sight. Raffaello had always possessed the power of engaging the affections of all with whom he was acquainted. Respectful to his master, he obtained from the Pope an assurance that his works, in one of the ceilings of the Vatican, should remain unmolested; just towards his rivals, he expressed his gratitude to God that he had been born in the days of Bonarruoti; gracious towards his pupils, he loved them, and intrusted them as his own sons; courteous even to strangers, he cheerfully lent his aid to all who asked his advice; and in order to make designs for others, or to direct them in their studies, he sometimes even neglected his own work, being alike incapable of refusing or delaying his inestimable aid. All these reflections forced themselves on the minds of the spectators, whose eyes were at one moment directed to the view of his youthful remains, and of those divine hands that had, in the imitation of her works, almost excelled nature herself; and at another moment, to the contemplation of this his latest production, which appeared to exhibit the dawn of a new and wonderful style; and the painful reflection presented itself, that, with the life of Raffaello, the brightest prospects of art were thus suddenly obscured. The Pope himself was deeply affected at his death, and requested Bembo to compose the epitaph which is now read on his tomb; and his loss was considered as a national calamity throughout all Italy. True indeed it is, that soon after his decease, Rome herself, and her territory, experienced such unheard of calamities, that many had just cause to envy him, not only the celebrity of his life, but the opportune period of his death. He was not doomed to see the illustrious Leo X., at a time when he extended the most exalted patronage to the arts, poisoned by a sacrilegious hand; nor Clement VII., pressed by an enraged enemy, seeking shelter in the Castle of S. Angelo, afterwards compelled to fly for his life, and obliged to purchase, at enormous sums, the liberty of his servants. Nor did he witness the horrors attending the sacking of Rome, the nobility robbed and plundered in their own palaces, the violation of hapless females in the convents; prelates unrelentingly dragged to the scaffold, and priests torn from the altars, and from the images of their saints, to whom they looked in vain for refuge, slaughtered by the sword, and their bodies thrown out of the churches a prey to the dogs. Nor did he survive to see that city, which he had so illustrated by his genius, and where he had for so many years shared the public admiration and esteem, wasted with fire and sword. But of this we shall speak in another place, and shall here adduce some observations on his style, selected from various authors, and more particularly from Mengs, who has ably criticised it in his works already enumerated by me, as well as in some others.

Raffaello is by common consent placed at the head of his art; not because he excelled all others in every department of painting, but because no other artist has ever possessed the various parts of the art united in so high a degree. Lazzarini even asserts, that he was guilty of errors, and that he is only the first, because he did not commit so many as others. He ought, however, to have allowed, that his defects would be excellences in any other artist, being nothing more in him than the neglect of that higher degree of perfection to which he was capable of attaining. The art, indeed, comprehends so many and such difficult parts, that no individual artist has been alike distinguished in all; even Apelles was said to yield to Amphion in disposition and harmony, to Asclepiadorus in proportion, and to Protogenes in application.

The style of design of Raffaello, as seen in those drawings, divested of colours, which now form the chief ornaments of cabinets, presents us, if we may use the term, with the pure transcript of his imagination, and we stand in amaze at the contours, grace, precision, diligence, and genius, which they exhibit. One of the most admired of his drawings I once saw in the gallery of the Duke of Modena, a most finished and superior specimen, uniting in style all the invention of the best painters of Greece, and the execution of the first artists of Italy. It has been made a question whether Raffaello did not yield to Michelangiolo in drawing; and Mengs himself confesses, that he did, as far as regards the anatomy of the muscles, and in strong expression, in which he considers Raffaello to have imitated Michelangiolo. But we need not say with Vasari, that in order to prove that he understood the naked figure as well as Michelangiolo, he appropriated to himself the designs of that great master. On the contrary, in the figures of the two youths in the Incendio di Borgo, criticised by Vasari, one of whom is in the act of leaping from a wall to escape the flames, and the other is fleeing with his father on his shoulders, he not only proved that he had a perfect knowledge of the action of the muscles and the anatomy requisite for a painter, but prescribed the occasion when this style might be used without impropriety, as in figures of a robust form engaged in violent action. He moreover commonly marked the principal parts in the naked figure, and indicated the others after the example of the better ancient masters, and where he wrought from his own ideas, his execution was most correct. On this subject Bellori may be consulted at page 223 of the work already quoted, and the annotations to vol. ii. of Mengs, (page 197,) made by the Cavaliere d'Azzara, minister of the king of Spain at Rome, an individual, who, in conferring honour on the artist, has by his own writing conferred honour on art itself.

In chasteness of design, Raffaello was by some placed on a level with the Greeks, though this praise we must consider as extravagant. Agostino Caracci commends him as a model of symmetry; and in that respect, more than in any other, he approached the ancients; except, observes Mengs, in the hands, which being rarely found perfect in the ancient statues, he had not an equal opportunity of studying, and did not therefore design them so elegantly as the other parts. He selected the beautiful from nature, and as Mariette observes, whose collection was rich in his designs, he copied it with all its imperfections, which he afterwards gradually corrected, as he proceeded with his work. Above all things, he aimed at perfecting the heads, and from a letter addressed to Castiglione on the Galatea of the Palazzo Chigi, or of the Farnesina, he discovers how intent he was to select the best models of nature, and to perfect them in his own mind.[48] His own Fornarina assisted him in this object. Her portrait, by Raffaello's own hand, was formerly in the Barberini palace, and it is repeated in many of his Madonnas, in the picture of S. Cecilia, in Bologna, and in many female heads. Critics have often expressed a wish that these heads had possessed a more dignified character, and in this respect he was, perhaps, excelled by Guido Reni, and however engaging his children may be, those of Titian are still more beautiful. His true empire was in the heads of his men, which are portraits selected with judgment, and depicted with a dignity proportioned to his subject. Vasari calls the air of these heads superhuman, and calls on us to admire the expression of age in the patriarchs, simplicity of life in the apostles, and constancy of faith in the martyrs; and in Christ in the Transfiguration, he says, there is a portion of the divine essence itself transferred to his countenance, and made visible to mortal eyes.

This effect is the result of that quality that is called expression, and which, in the drawing of Raffaello has attracted more admiration of late years than formerly. It is remarkable, that not only Zuccaro, who was indeed a superficial writer, but that Vasari, and Lomazzo himself, so much more profound than either of them, should not have conferred on him that praise which he afterwards received from Algarotti, Lazzarini, and Mengs. Lionardo was the first, as we shall see in the Milanese School, to lead the way to delicacy of expression; but that master, who painted so little, and with such labour, is not to be compared to Raffaello, who possessed the whole quality in its fullest extent. There is not a movement of the soul, there is not a character of passion known to the ancients, and capable of being expressed by art, that he has not caught, expressed, and varied, in a thousand different ways, and always within the bounds of propriety. We have no tradition of his having, like Da Vinci, frequented the public streets to seek for subjects for his pencil; and his numerous pictures prove that he could not have devoted so much time to this study, while his drawings clearly evince, that he had not equal occasion for such assistance. Nature, as I have before remarked, had endowed him with an imagination which transported his mind to the scene of the event, either fabulous or remote, in which he was engaged, and awoke in him the very same emotions which the subjects of such story must themselves have experienced; and this vivid conception assisted him until he had designed his subject with that distinctness which he had either observed in other countenances, or found in his own mind. This faculty, seldom found in poets, and still more rarely in painters, no one possessed in a more eminent degree than Raffaello. His figures are passions personified; and love, fear, hope, and desire, anger, placability, humility, or pride, assume their places by turns, as the subject changes; and while the spectator regards the countenances, the air, and the gestures of his figures, he forgets that they are the work of art, and is surprised to find his own feelings excited, and himself an actor in the scene before him. There is another delicacy of expression, and this is the gradation of the passions, by which every one perceives whether they are in their commencement or at their height, or in their decline. He had observed their shades of difference in the intercourse of life, and on every occasion he knew how to transfer the result of his observations to his canvas. Even his silence is eloquent, and every actor

"Il cor negli occhi, e nella fronte ha scritto:"

the smallest perceptible motion of the eyes, of the nostrils, of the mouth, and of the fingers, corresponds to the chief movements of every passion; the most animated and vivid actions discover the violence of the passion that excites them; and what is more, they vary in innumerable degrees, without ever departing from nature, and conform themselves to a diversity of character without ever risking propriety. His heroes possess the mien of valour; his vulgar, an air of debasement; and that, which neither the pen nor the tongue could describe, the genius and art of Raffaello would delineate with a few strokes of the pencil. Numbers have in vain sought to imitate him; his figures are governed by a sentiment of the mind, while those of others, if we except Poussin and a very few more, seem the imitation of tragic actors from the scenes. This is Raffaello's chief excellence; and he may justly be denominated the painter of mind. If in this faculty be included all that is difficult, philosophical, and sublime, who shall compete with him in the sovereignty of art?

Another quality which Raffaello possessed in an eminent degree was grace, a quality which may be said to confer an additional charm on beauty itself. Apelles, who was supremely endowed with it among the ancients, was so vain of the possession that he preferred it to every other attribute of art.[49] Raffaello rivalled him among the moderns, and thence obtained the name of the new Apelles. Something might, perhaps, be advantageously added to the forms of his children, and other delicate figures which he represented, but nothing can add to their gracefulness, for if it were attempted to be carried further it would degenerate into affectation, as we find in Parmegiano. His Madonnas enchant us, as Mengs observes, not because they possess the perfect lineaments of the Medicean Venus, or of the celebrated daughter of Niobe; but because the painter in their portraits and in their expressive smiles, has personified modesty, maternal love, purity of mind, and, in a word, grace itself. Nor did he impress this quality on the countenance alone, but distributed it throughout the figure in its attitude, gesture, and action, and in the folds of the drapery, with a dexterity which may be admired, but can never be rivalled. His freedom of execution was a component part of this grace, which indeed vanishes as soon as labour and study appear; for it is with the painter as with the orator, in whom a natural and spontaneous eloquence delights us, while we turn away with indifference from an artificial and studied harangue.

In regard to the province of colour, Raffaello must yield the palm to Titian and Correggio, although he himself excelled Michelangiolo and many others. His frescos may rank with the first works of other schools in that line: not so his pictures in oil. In the latter he availed himself of the sketches of Giulio, which were composed with a degree of hardness and timidity; and though finished by Raffaello, they have frequently lost the lustre of his last touch. This defect was not immediately apparent, and if Raffaello's life had been prolonged, he would have been aware of the injuries his pictures received from the lapse of time, and would not have finished them in so light a manner. He is on this account more admired in his first subject in the Vatican, painted under Julius II., than in those he executed under Leo X., for being there pressed by a multiplicity of business, and an idea of the importance of a grander style, he became less rich and firm in his colouring. That, however, he excelled in these respects is evinced by his portraits, when not having an opportunity of displaying his invention, composition, and beautiful style of design, he appears ambitious to distinguish himself by his colouring. In this respect his two portraits of Julius II. are truly admirable, the Medicean and the Corsinian: that of Leo X. between the two cardinals; and above all, in the opinion of an eminent judge, Renfesthein, that of Bindo Altoviti, in the possession of his noble descendants at Florence, by many regarded as a portrait of Raphael himself.[50] The heads in his Transfiguration are esteemed the most perfect he ever painted, and Mengs extols the colouring of them as eminently beautiful. If there be any exception, it is in the complexion of the principal female, of a greyish tint, as is often the case in his delicate figures; in which he is therefore considered to excel less than in the heads of his men. Mengs has made many exceptions to the chiaroscuro of Raffaello, as compared with that of Correggio, on which connoisseurs will form their own decision. We are told that he disposed it with the aid of models of wax; and the relief of his pictures, and the beautiful effect in his Heliodorus, and in the Transfiguration, are ascribed to this mode of practice. To his perspective, too, he was most attentive. De Piles found, in some of his sketches, the scale of proportion.[51] It is affirmed by Algarotti, that he did not attempt to paint _di sotto in su_. But to this opinion we may oppose the example we find in the third arch of the gallery of the Vatican, where there is a perspective of small columns, says Taja, imitated _di sotto in su_. It is true, that in his larger works he avoided it; and in order to preserve the appearance of nature, he represented his pictures as painted on a tapestry, attached by means of a running knot to the entablature of the room.

But all the great qualities which we have enumerated, would not have procured for Raffaello such an extraordinary celebrity, if he had not possessed a wonderful felicity in the invention and disposition of his subjects, and this circumstance is, indeed, his highest merit. It may with truth be said, that in aid of this object he availed himself of every example, ancient and modern; and that these two requisites have not since been so united in any other artist. He accomplishes in his pictures that which every orator ought to aim at in his speech--he instructs, moves, and delights us. This is an easy task to a narrator, since he can regularly unfold to us the whole progress of an event. The painter, on the contrary, has but the space of a moment to make himself understood, and his talent consists in describing not only what is passing, and what is likely to ensue, but that which has already occurred. It is here that the genius of Raffaello triumphs. He embraces the whole subject. From a thousand circumstances he selects those alone which can interest us; he arranges the actors in the most expressive manner; he invents the most novel modes of conveying much meaning by a few touches; and numberless minute circumstances, all uniting in one purpose, render the story not only intelligible, but palpable. Various writers have adduced in example the S. Paul at Lystra, which is to be seen in one of the tapestries of the Vatican. The artist has there represented the sacrifice prepared for him and S. Barnabas his companion, as to two gods, for having restored a lame man to the use of his limbs. The altar, the attendants, the victims, the musicians, and the axe, sufficiently indicate the intentions of the Lystrians. S. Paul, who is in the act of tearing his robe, shews that he rejects and abhors the sacrilegious honours, and is endeavouring to dissuade the populace from persisting in them. But all this were vain, if it had not indicated the miracle which had just happened, and which had given rise to the event. Raffaello added to the group the lame man restored to the use of his limbs, now easily recognized again by all the spectators. He stands before the apostles rejoicing in his restoration; and raises his hands in transport towards his benefactors, while at his feet lie the crutches which had recently supported him, now cast away as useless. This had been sufficient for any other artist; but Raffaello, who wished to carry reality to the utmost point, has added a throng of people, who, in their eager curiosity, remove the garment of the man, to behold his limbs restored to their former state. Raffaello abounds with examples like these, and he may be compared to some of the classical writers, who afford the more matter for reflection the more they are studied. It is sufficient to have noticed in the inventive powers of Raffaello, those circumstances which have been less frequently remarked; the movement of the passions, which is entirely the work of expression, the delight which proceeds from poetical conceptions, or from graceful episodes, may be said to speak for themselves, nor have any occasion to be pointed out by us.

Other things might contribute to the beauty of his works, as unity, sublimity, costume, and erudition; for which it is sufficient to refer to those delightful poetical pieces, with which he adorned the gallery of Leo X., and which were engraved by Lanfranco and Badalocchi, and are called the Bible of Raffaello. In the Return of Jacob, who does not immediately discover, in the number and variety of domestic animals, the multitude of servants, and the women carrying with them their children, a patriarchal family migrating from a long possessed abode into a new territory? In the Creation of the World, where the Deity stretches out his arms, and with one hand calls forth the sun and with the other the moon, do we not see a grandeur, which, with the simplest expression, awakes in us the most sublime ideas? And in the Adoration of the Golden Calf, how could he better have represented the idolatrous ceremony, and its departure from true religion, than by depicting the people as carried away by an insane joy, and mad with fanaticism? In point of erudition it is sufficient to notice the Triumph of David, which Taja describes and compares with the ancient bassirelievi, and is inclined to believe that there is not any thing in marble that excels the art and skill of this picture. I am aware that on another occasion he has not been exempted from blame, as when he repeated the figure of S. Peter out of prison, which hurts the unity of the subject; and in assigning to Apollo and to the muses instruments not proper to antiquity. Yet it is the glory of Raffaello to have introduced into his pictures numberless circumstances unknown to his predecessors, and to have left little to be added by his successors.

In composition also he is at the head of his art. In every picture the principal figure is obvious to the spectator; we have no occasion to inquire for it; the groups, divided by situation, are united in the principal action; the contrast is not dictated by affectation, but by truth and propriety; a figure absorbed in thought, often serves as a relief to another that acts and speaks; the masses of light and shade are not arbitrarily poised, but are in the most select imitation of nature; all is art, but all is consummate skill and concealment of art. The School of Athens, as it is called, in the Vatican, is in this respect amongst the most wonderful compositions in the world. They who succeeded Raffaello, and followed other principles, have afforded more pleasure to the eye, but have not given such satisfaction to the mind. The compositions of Paul Veronese contain a greater number of figures, and more decoration; Lanfranco and the machinists introduced a powerful effect, and a vigorous contrast of light and shade: but who would exchange for such a manner the chaste and dignified style of Raffaello? Poussin alone, in the opinion of Mengs, obtained a superior mode of composition in the groundwork, or economy of his subject; that is to say, in the judicious selection of the scene of the event.

We have thus concisely stated the perfection to which Raffaello carried his art, in the short space allotted him. There is not a work in nature or art where he has not practically illustrated his own axiom, as handed down to us by Federigo Zuccaro, that things must be represented, not as they are, but as they ought to be; the country, the elements, animals, buildings, every age of man, every condition of life, every affection, all was embraced and rendered more beautiful by the divine genius of Raffaello. And if his life had been prolonged to a more advanced period, without even approaching the term allowed to Titian or Michelangiolo, who shall say to what height of perfection he might not have carried his favourite art? Who can divine his success in architecture and sculpture, if he had applied himself to the study of them; having so wonderfully succeeded in his few attempts in those branches of art?

Of his pictures a considerable number are to be found in private collections, particularly on sacred subjects, such as the Madonna and Child, and other compositions of the Holy Family. They are in the three styles which we have before described: the Grand Duke has some specimens of each. The most admired is that which is named the Madonna della Seggiola.[52] Of this class of pictures it is often doubted whether they ought to be considered as originals, or copies, as some of them have been three, five, or ten times repeated. The same may be said of other cabinet pictures by him, particularly the S. John in the desart, which is in the Grand Ducal gallery at Florence, and is found repeated in many collections both in Italy and in other countries. This was likely to happen in a school where the most common mode was the following:--The subject was designed by Raffaello, the picture prepared by Giulio, and finished by the master so exquisitely, that one might almost count the hairs of the head. When the pictures were thus finished, they were copied by the scholars of Raffaello, who were very numerous, and of the second and third order; and these were also sometimes retouched by Giulio and by Raffaello himself. But whoever is experienced in the freedom and delicacy of the chief of this school, need not fear confounding his productions with those of the scholars, or of Giulio himself; who, besides having a more timid pencil, made use of a darker tint than his master was accustomed to do. I have met with an experienced person, who declared that he could recognize the character of Giulio in the dark parts of the flesh tints, and in the middle dark tints, not of a leaden colour as Raffaello used, nor so well harmonized; in the greater quantity of light, and in the eyes designed more roundly, which Raffaello painted somewhat long, after the manner of Pietro.

On this propitious commencement was founded the school which we call Roman, rather from the city of Rome itself, than from the people, as I have before observed. For as the inhabitants of Rome are a mixture of many tongues, and many different nations, of whom the descendants of Romulus form the least proportion; so the school of painting has been increased in its numbers by foreigners whom she has received and united to her own, and who are considered in her academy of S. Luke, as if they had been born in Rome, and enjoyed the ancient rights of Romans. Hence is derived the great variety of names that we find in the course of it. Some, as Caravaggio, derived no assistance from the study of the ancient marbles, and other aids peculiar to the capital; and these may be said to have been in the Roman School, but not to have formed a part of it. Others adopted the principles of the disciples of Raffaello, and their usual method was to study diligently both Raffaello and the ancient marbles; and from the imitation of him, and more particularly of the antique, resulted, if I err not, the general character, if I may so express it, of the Roman School: the young artists who were expert in copying statues and bassirelievi, and who had those objects always before their eyes, could easily transfer their forms to the panel or the canvas. Hence their style is formed on the antique, and their beauty is more ideal than that of other schools. This circumstance, which was an advantage to those who knew how to use it, became a disadvantage to others, leading them to give their figures the air of statues, beautiful, but isolated, and not sufficiently animated. Others have done themselves greater injury from copying the modern statues of saints; a practice which facilitated the representation of devout attitudes, the disposition of the folds in the garments of the monks and priests, and other peculiarities which are not found in ancient sculpture. But as sculpture has gradually deteriorated, it could not have any beneficial influence on the sister art; and it has hence led many into mannerism in the folds of their drapery, after Bernino and Algardi; excellent artists, but who ought not to have influenced the art of painting, as they did, in a city like Rome. The style of invention in this school is, in general, judicious, the composition chaste, the costume carefully observed, with a moderate study of ornament. I speak of pictures in oil, for the frescos of this later period ought to be separately considered. The colouring, on the whole, is not the most brilliant, nor is it yet the most feeble; there being always a supply of artists from the Lombards, or Flemings, who prevented it being entirely neglected.

We may now return to the original subject of our inquiry, examine the principles of the Roman School, and attend it to its latest epoch. Raffaello at all times employed a number of scholars, constantly instructing and teaching them; whence he never went to court, as we are assured by Vasari, without being accompanied by probably fifty of the first artists, who attended him out of respect. He employed every one in the way most agreeable to his talent. Some having received sufficient instruction, returned to their native country, others remained with him as long as he lived, and after his death established themselves in Rome, where they became the germs of this new school. At the head of all was Giulio Romano, whom, with Gio. Francesco Penni, Raffaello appointed his heir, whence they both united in finishing the works on which their master was employed at his death. They associated to themselves as an assistant Perino del Vaga, and to render the connexion permanent, they gave him a sister of Penni to his wife. To these three were also joined some others who had worked under Raffaello. On their first establishment they did not meet with any great success, for, as Vasari informs us, the chief place in art being by universal consent assigned to Fra Sebastiano, through the partiality of Michelangiolo, the followers of Raffaello were kept in the back ground. We may also add, as another cause, the death of Leo X., in 1521, and the election of his successor, Adrian VI., a decided enemy to the fine arts, by whom the public works contemplated, and already commenced by his predecessor, remained neglected; and many artists, in consequence of the want of employment, occasioned by this event, and by the plague, in 1523, were reduced to the greatest distress. But Adrian dying after a reign of twenty-three months, and Giulio de' Medici being elected in his place under the name of Clement VII., the arts again revived. Raffaello, before his death, had begun to paint the great saloon, and had designed some figures, and left many sketches for the completion of it. It was intended to represent four historical events, although the subjects of some of them are disputed. These were the Apparition of the Cross, or the harangue of Constantine; the battle wherein Maxentius is drowned, and Constantine remains victor; the Baptism of Constantine, received from the hands of S. Silvester; and the Donative of the city of Rome, made to the same pontiff. Giulio finished the two first subjects, and Giovanni Francesco the other two, and they added to them bassirelievi, painted in imitation of bronze under each of the same subjects, with some additional figures. They afterwards painted, or rather finished the pictures of the villa at Monte Mario, a work ordered by the Cardinal Giulio de' Medici, and suspended until the second or third year of his papal reign. This villa was afterwards called di Madama, and there still remain many traces, although suffering from time, of the munificence of that prince, and the taste of the school of Raffaello. Giulio meanwhile, with the permission of the pope, established himself in Mantua, Il Fattore went to Naples; and some little time afterwards, in 1527, in consequence of the sacking of Rome, and the unrestrained licence of the invading army, Vaga, Polidoro, Giovanni da Udine, Peruzzi, and Vincenzio di S. Gimignano left Rome, and with them Parmigianino, who was at this time in the capital, and passionately employed in studying the works of Raffaello. This illustrious school was thus separated and dispersed over Italy, and hence it happened that the new style was quickly propagated, and gave birth to the florid schools, which form the subjects of our other books. Although some of the scholars of Raffaello might return to Rome, yet the brilliant epoch was past. The decline became apparent soon after the sacking of the city, and from the time of that event, the art daily degenerated in the capital, and ultimately terminated in mannerism. But of this in its proper place. At present, after this general notice of the school of Raffaello, we shall treat of each particular scholar and of his assistants.

Giulio Pippi, or Giulio Romano, the most distinguished pupil of Raffaello, resembled his master more in energy than in delicacy of style, and was particularly successful in subjects of war and battles, which he represented with equal spirit and correctness. In his noble style of design he emulates Michelangiolo, commands the whole mechanism of the human body, and with a masterly hand renders it subservient to all his wishes. His only fault is, that his demonstrations of motion are sometimes too violent. Vasari preferred his drawings to his pictures, as he thought that the fire of his original conception was apt to evaporate, in some degree, in the finishing. Some have objected to the squareness of his physiognomies, and have complained of his middle tints being too dark. But Niccolo Poussin admired this asperity of colour in his battle of Constantine, as suitable to the character of the subject. In the picture of the church dell'Anima, which is a Madonna, accompanied by Saints, and in others of that description, it does not produce so good an effect. His cabinet pictures are rare, and sometimes too free in their subjects. He generally painted in fresco, and his vast works at Mantua place him at the head of that school, which indeed venerates him as its founder.

Gianfrancesco Penni of Florence, called Il Fattore, who when a boy was a servant in the studio of Raffaello, became one of his principal scholars, and assisted him more than any other in the cartoons of the tapestries: he painted in the gallery of the Vatican the Histories of Abraham and Isaac, noticed by Taja. Among other works left incomplete by his master, and which he finished, is the Assumption of Monte Luci in Perugia, the lower part of which, with the apostles, is painted by Giulio, and the upper part, which abounds with Raffaellesque grace, is ascribed to Il Fattore, although Vasari assigns it to Perino. Of the works which he performed alone, his frescos in Rome have perished, and so few of his oil pictures remain, that they are rarely to be found in any collection. He is characterised by fertility of conception, grace of execution, and a singular talent for landscape. He was joint heir of Raffaello with Giulio, and wished to unite himself with him in his profession; but being coldly received by Giulio in Mantua, he proceeded to Naples, where he, as we shall see, contributed greatly to the improvement of art, although cut off by an early death. Orlandi notices two Penni in the school of Raffaello, comprehending Luca, a brother of Gianfrancesco, a circumstance not improbable, and not, as far as I know, contradicted by history. We are also told by Vasari, that Luca united himself to Perino del Vaga, and worked with him at Lucca, and in other places of Italy; that he followed Rosso into France, as we have before observed; and that he ultimately passed into England, where he painted for the king and private persons, and made designs for prints.

Perino del Vaga, whose true name was Pierino Buonaccorsi, was a relation and fellow citizen of Penni. He had a share in the works of the Vatican, where he at one time worked stuccos and arabesques with Giovanni da Udine, at another time painted chiaroscuri with Polidoro, or finished subjects from the sketches and after the style of Raffaello. Vasari considered him the best designer of the Florentine School, after Michelangiolo, and at the head of all those who assisted Raffaello. It is certain, at least, that no one could, like him, compete with Giulio, in that universality of talent so conspicuous in Raffaello; and the subjects from the New Testament, which he painted in the papal gallery, were praised by Taja above all others. In his style there is a great mixture of the Florentine, as may be seen at Rome, in the Birth of Eve, in the church of S. Marcello, where there are some children painted to the life, a most finished performance. A convent at Tivoli possesses a S. John in the desart, by him, with a landscape in the best style. There are many works by him in Lucca, and Pisa, but more particularly in Genoa, where we shall have occasion again to consider him as the origin of a celebrated school.

Giovanni da Udine, by a writer of Udine called Giovanni di Francesco Ricamatore, (Boni, p. 25,) likewise assisted Sanzio in arabesques and stuccos, and painted ornaments in the gallery of the Vatican, in the apartments of the pope, and in many other places. Indeed, in the art of working in stucco, he is ranked as the first among the moderns,[53] having, after long experience, imitated the style of the baths of Titus, discovered at that time in Rome, and opened afresh in our own days.[54] His foliage and shells, his aviaries and birds, painted in the above mentioned places, and in other parts of Rome and Italy, deceive the eye by their exquisite imitation; and in the animals more particularly, and the indigenous and foreign birds, he seems to have reached the highest point of excellence. He was also remarkable for counterfeiting with his pencil every species of furniture; and a story is told, that having left some imitations of carpets one day in the gallery of Raffaello, a groom in the service of the Pope coming in haste in search of a carpet to place in a room, ran to snatch up one of those of Giovanni, deceived by the similitude. After the sacking of Rome he visited other parts of Italy, leaving wherever he went, works in the most perfect and brilliant style of ornament. This will occasion us to notice him in other schools. At an advanced age he returned to Rome, where he was provided with a pension from the Pope, till the time of his death.[55]

Polidoro da Caravaggio, from a manual labourer in the works of the Vatican, became an artist of the first celebrity, and distinguished himself in the imitation of antique bassirelievi, painting both sacred and profane subjects in a most beautiful chiaroscuro. Nothing of this kind was ever seen more perfect, whether we consider the composition, the mechanism, or the design; and Raffaello and he, of all artists, are considered in this respect to have approached nearest to the style of the ancients. Rome was filled with the richest friezes, facades, and ornaments over doors, painted by him and Maturino of Florence, an excellent designer, and his partner; but these, to the great loss of art, have nearly all perished. The fable of Niobe, in the Maschera d'Oro, which was one of their most celebrated works, has suffered less than any other from the ravages of time and the hand of barbarism. This loss has been in some measure mitigated by the prints of Cherubino Alberti, and Santi Bartoli, who engraved many of these works before they perished. Polidoro lost his comrade by death in Rome, as was supposed, by the plague, and he himself repaired to Naples, and from thence to Sicily, where he fell a victim to the cupidity of his own servant, who assassinated him. With him invention, grace, and freedom of hand, seem to have died. This notice of him as an artist may suffice for the present, as we shall again recur to him in the fourth book, as one of the masters of the Neapolitan School.

Pellegrino da Modena, of the family of Munari, of all the scholars of Raffaello, perhaps resembled him the most in the air of his heads, and a peculiar grace of attitude. After having painted in an incomparable manner the history of Jacob, before mentioned, and others of the same patriarch, and some from the life of Solomon, in the gallery of the Vatican, under Raffaello, he remained in Rome employed in the decoration of many of the churches, until his master's death. He then returned to his native place, where he became the head of a numerous succession of Raffaellesque painters, as we shall in due time relate.

Bartolommeo Ramenghi, or as he is sometimes named, Bagnacavallo, and by Vasari Il Bologna, is also included in the catalogue of those who worked in the gallery. There is not however any known work of his in Rome, and we may say the same of Biagio Pupini, a Bolognese, with whom he afterwards united himself to paint in Bologna. Vasari is not prodigal of praise towards the first, and writes with the most direct censure against the second. Of their merits we shall speak more fully in the Bolognese School, to which Bagnacavallo was the first to communicate a new and better style.

Besides these, Vasari mentions Vincenzio di S. Gimignano, in Tuscany, to whom, as a highly successful imitator of Raffaello, he gives great praise, referring to some facades in fresco by him, which have now perished. After the sacking of Rome he returned home, but so changed and dispirited, that he appeared quite another person, and we have no account of any of his subsequent works. Schizzone, a comrade of Vincenzio, a most promising artist, shared the same fate; and we find also, in the Bolognese School, Cavedone losing his powers by some great mental affliction. Among the subjects of the Vatican we do not find any ascribed to Vincenzio, but we may perhaps assign to him the history of Moses in Horeb, which Taja, on mere conjecture, ascribes to the bold pencil of Raffaele del Colle, who was employed by Raffaello in the Farnesina, and in the Hall of Constantine, under Giulio. Of this artist and his successors we have spoken in the first book, where we have made some additions to the account of Vasari.

Timoteo della Vite, of Urbino, after some years spent at Bologna in studying under Francesco Francia, returned to his native city, and from thence repaired to the academy which his countryman and relation Raffaello had opened in the Vatican. He assisted Raffaello at the Pace, in the fresco of the Sybils, of which he retained the cartoons; and after some time, from some cause or other, he returned to Urbino, and there passed the remainder of his days. He brought with him to Rome, a method of painting which partook much of the manner of the early masters, as may be seen in some of his Madonnas, at the palace Bonaventura, and the chapter of Urbino; and in a Discovery of the Cross in the church of the conventuals of Pesaro. He improved his style under Raffaello, and acquired much of his grace, attitudes, and colour, though he always remained a limited inventor, with a certain timidity of touch, more correct than vigorous. The picture of the Conception at the Osservanti of Urbino, and the Noli me Tangere, in the church of S. Angelo, at Cagli, are the best pieces that remain of Timoteo. Pietro della Vite, who is supposed to have been his brother, painted in the same style, but in an inferior manner. This Pietro is, perhaps, the relative and heir of Raffaello, whom Baldinucci mentions in his fifth volume. The same writer affirms, at the end of his fourth volume, that the artists of Urbino included amongst the scholars of Raffaello one Crocchia, and assign to him a picture at the Capuchins in Urbino, of which I have no further knowledge.

Benvenuto Tisi, of Ferrara, or as he is generally called, Il Garofalo, also studied only a little time under Sanzio; but it was sufficient to enable him to become, as we shall notice hereafter, the chief of the Ferrarese School. He imitated Raffaello in design, in the character of his faces, and in expression, and considerably also in his colouring, although he added something of a warmer and stronger cast, derived from his own school. Rome, Bologna, and other cities of Italy, abound with his pictures from the lives of the apostles. They are of various merit, and are not wholly painted by himself. In his large pictures he stands more alone, and many of these are to be found in the Chigi gallery. The Visitation in the Palazzo Doria, is one of the first pieces in that rich collection. This artist was accustomed, in allusion to his name, to mark his pictures with a violet, which the common people in Italy call garofalo. It does not appear from Vasari, Titi, and Taja, that Garofalo had any share in the works which were executed by Raffaello and his scholars.

Gaudenzio Ferrari is mentioned by Titi, as an assistant of Raffaello in the story of Psyche, and we shall advert to him again in another book as chief of the Milanese School. Orlandi, on the credit of some more modern writers, asserts, that he worked with Raffaello also at Torre Borgia; and before that time, he considers him to have been a scholar of Scotto and Perugino. In Florence, and in other places in Lower Italy, some highly finished pictures are attributed to him, which partake of the preceding century, though they do not seem allied to the school of Perugino. Of these pictures we shall resume our notice hereafter; at present it may be sufficient to remark, that in Lombardy, where he resided, there is not a picture in that style to be found with his name attached to it. He is always Raffaellesque, and follows the chiefs of the Roman School.

Vasari also notices Jacomone da Faenza. This artist assiduously studied the works of Raffaello, and from long practice in copying them, became himself an inventor. He flourished in Romagna, and it was from him that a Raffaellesque taste was diffused throughout that part of Italy. He is also mentioned by Baldinucci, and we shall endeavour to make him better known in his proper place.

Besides the above mentioned scholars and assistants of Raffaello, several others are enumerated by writers, of whom we may give a short notice. Il Pistoja, a scholar of Il Fattore, and probably employed by him in the works of Sanzio, as Raffaellino del Colle was with Giulio, is mentioned as a scholar of Raffaello by Baglione, and, on the credit of that writer, also by Taja. We mentioned him among the Tuscans, and shall further notice him in Naples, where we shall also find Andrea da Salerno, head of that school, whom Dominici proves to be a scholar of Raffaello.

In the _Memorie di Monte Rubbiano_, edited by Colucci, at page 10, Vincenzo Pagani, a native of that country, is mentioned as a pupil of the same master. There remains of him in the collegiate church there, a most beautiful picture of the Assumption; and the Padre Civalli points out another in Fallerone and two at Sarnano, in the church of his religious fraternity, much extolled, and in a Raffaellesque manner, if we are to credit report. This painter, of whom, in Piceno, I find traces to the year 1529, again appears in Umbria in 1553, where Lattanzio his son, being elected a magistrate of Perugia, he transferred himself thither, and was employed to paint the altarpiece of the Cappella degli Oddi, in the church of the Conventuals, as we have already mentioned. According to the conditions of the contract, Paparelli had a share with him in this work, and he must be considered as an assistant of Vincenzo, both because he is named as holding the second place, and because he is reported by Vasari on other occasions, as having been an assistant. But as history mentions nothing relative to this picture, except the contract, we shall content ourselves with observing, that this praiseworthy artist, who was passed over in silence for so many years, still painted in the year 1553. Whether he was a scholar of Raffaello, or whether this was a tradition which arose in his own country in progress of time, supported only on the consideration of his age and his style, is a point to be decided by proofs of more authority than those we possess. I agree with the Sig. Arciprete Lazzari, when, writing of F. Bernardo Catelani of Urbino, who painted in Cagli the picture of the great altar in the church of the Capucins, he says, that he had there exhibited the style of the school of Raffaello, but he does not consider him his scholar.

It has been asserted, that Marcantonio Raimondi painted some pictures from the sketches of Raffaello, in a style which excited the admiration of the designer himself; but this appears doubtful, and is so considered by Malvasia. L'Armenini also assigns to this school, Scipione Sacco, a painter of Cesena, and Orlandi, Don Pietro da Bagnaja, whom we shall mention in the Romagna School. Some have added to it Bernardino Lovino, and others Baldassare Peruzzi, a supposition which we shall shew to be erroneous. Padre della Valle has more recently revived an opinion, that Correggio may be ranked in the same school, and that he was probably employed in the gallery, and might have painted the subject of the Magi, attributed by Vasari to Perino. This is conjectured from the peculiar smile of the mother and the infant. But these surmises and conjectures we may consider as the chaff of that author, who has nevertheless presented us with much substantial information. We shall now advert to the foreigners of this school. Bellori has enumerated, among the imitators of Raffaello, Michele Cockier, or Cocxie, of Malines, of whom there remain some pictures in fresco in the church dell'Anima. Being afterwards in Flanders, where several works of Raffaello were engraved by Cock, he was accused of plagiarism, but still maintained a considerable reputation; as to a fertile invention he added a graceful style of execution. Many of his best pictures passed into Spain, and were there purchased at great prices. Palomino acquaints us with another excellent scholar of Sanzio, Pier Campanna, of Flanders, who, although he could not entirely divest himself of the hardness of his native school, was still highly esteemed in his day. He resided twenty years in Italy, and was employed in Venice by the Patriarch Grimani, for whom he painted several portraits, and the celebrated picture of the Magdalen led by Saint Martha to the Temple, to hear the preaching of Christ. This picture, which was bequeathed by the Patriarch to a friend, after a lapse of many years, passed into the hands of Mr. Slade, an English gentleman. Pier Campanna distinguished himself in Bologna, by painting a triumphal arch on the arrival of Charles V., by whom he was invited to Seville, where he resided a considerable time, painting and instructing pupils, among whom is reckoned Morales, who, from his countrymen, had the appellation of the divine. He was accustomed to paint small pictures, which were eagerly sought after by the English, and transferred to their country, where they are highly prized. Of his altarpieces, several remain in Seville, and we may mention the Purification, in the Cathedral, and the Deposition at S. Croce, as the most esteemed. Murillo, who was himself a truly noble artist, greatly admired and studied this latter picture, which, even after we have seen the masterpieces of the Italian School, still excites our astonishment and admiration. This artist, to some one, who, in his latter years, inquired why he so often repaired to this picture, replied, that he waited the moment when the body of Christ should reach the ground. Mention is also made of one Mosca, whether a native or foreigner I know not, as a doubtful disciple of this school. Christ on his way to Mount Calvary, now in the Academy in Mantua, is certainly a Raffaellesque picture, but we may rather consider Mosca an imitator and copyist, than a pupil of Raffaello. In the edition of Palomino, published in London, 1742, I find some others noticed as scholars of Raffaello, who being born a little before or after 1520, could not possibly belong to him; as Gaspare Bacerra, the assistant of Vasari; Alfonso Sanchez, of Portugal; Giovanni di Valencia; Fernando Jannes. It is not unusual to find similar instances in the history of painting, and the reports have for the most part originated in the last age. Whenever the artists of a country began to collect notices of the masters who had preceded them, their style had become the prevailing taste; and as if human genius could attain no improvement beyond that which it receives subserviently from another, every imitator was supposed to be a scholar of the artist imitated, and every school, arrogating to itself the names of the first masters, endeavoured to load itself with fresh honours.

[Footnote 26: Hist. Rom. vol. i. ad calcem.]

[Footnote 27: Besides his life by Vasari, another was published by Sig. Abate Comolli, which I consider posterior to that of Vasari. Memoirs of him were also collected by Piacenza, Bottari, and other authors whom I shall notice; and I shall also avail myself of the information derived from the inspection of his pictures, and their character, and the various dates of his works.]

[Footnote 28: We find his name written _Io. Sanctis_ in the Nunziata of Sinigaglia; and it appears that he was born of a father called, according to the expression of that age, _Santi_ or _Sante_; a name in common use in many parts of Italy. In support of the surname of Sanzio, Bottari produces a portrait of Antonio Sanzio, which exists in the Palazzo Albani, representing him holding in his hands a document, with the title of _Genealogia Raphaelis Sanctii Urbinatis_. Julius Sanctius is there named as the head of the family, _familiae quae adhuc Urbini illustris extat, ab agris dividendis cognomen imposuit_, and was the progenitor of Antonio. From the latter, and through a Sebastiano, and afterwards through a Gio. Batista, descends Giovanni, _ex quo ortus est Raphael qui pinxit a. 1519_. It is also recorded that Sebastiano had a brother, Galeazzo, _egregium pictorem_, and the father of three painters, Antonio, Vincenzio, and Giulio, called _maximus pictor_. Thus in this branch of the Sanzii are enumerated four painters, of whom I do not find any memorial in Urbino. The family also boasts of a Canon in divinity, and a distinguished captain of infantry. The anonymous writer of Comolli confirms this illustrious origin of Raffaello; but it is highly probable, that in that age, when the forgery of genealogies, as Tiraboschi observes, was a common practice, he may have adopted it without any examination. The portrait of Antonio is well executed, but it has been said that it would have been much more so, if Raffaello had painted it a year before his death, according to the inscription. If connoisseurs (who alone ought to decide this point) should be of this opinion, it may be suspected that the person that counterfeited the hand of the artist, might also substitute the writing; or we may at least conclude, that the etymology of Sanzio should be sought for in the word _Sanctis_, the name of the grandfather of Raffaello, not in _sancire_, (to divide fields or property). In tom. xxxi. of the Ant. Picene, a will is produced of Ser Simone di Antonio, in 1477, where a _Magister Baptista, qu. Peri Sanctis de Peris_, who is called _Pittor di grido e di eccellenza_, leaves his son Tommaso his heir, to whom is substituted a son of Antonio his brother, of the name of Francesco. I may remark, that in this _Batista di Pier Sante de' Pieri_, we may find the surname of a family different from that of Sanzia. But on this subject I hope we shall shortly be favoured with more certain information by the Sig. Arciprete Lazzari, who has obliged me with many valuable contributions to the present edition of this work.]

[Footnote 29: Condivi, in his Life of Bonarruoti, (num. 67.) assures us that Michaelangelo was not of a jealous temper, but spoke well of all artists, not excepting Raffaello di Urbino, "between whom and himself there existed, as I have mentioned, an emulation in painting; and the utmost that he said was, that Raffaello did not inherit his excellences from nature, but obtained them through study and application."]

[Footnote 30: See the Preface to the Life of Raffaello, by Vasari, _ediz. Senese_, p. 228, where the will is quoted.]

[Footnote 31: Vasari states, that that event occurred either whilst Michaelangelo was employed upon the Statues in S. Pietro in Vincoli, or whilst he was painting the vault of the Sistine Chapel, that is, some years afterwards, when Raffaello was in Rome. To this second opinion, which is the most common one, I formerly assented; but since, on perusal of a Brief of Julius II. (Lett. Pittoriche, tom. iii. p. 320) in which that Pope invites Michaelangelo back to Rome, and promises that _illaesus, inviolatusque erit_, I am inclined to believe that the Cartoon was finished in 1506, which is the date of the brief; so that Raffaello, if he could not see it on his first visit to Florence, might at least have done so on his second or third.]

[Footnote 32: See Vasari, ed. Sen. tom. v. p. 238, where we find the Letter written from him to one of his uncles, with all the provincialisms common to the inhabitants of Urbino and its neighbourhood.]

[Footnote 33: Malvasia, _Felsina Pittrice_, tom. i. p. 45. There are some facts, however, in opposition to this letter, and which seem to prove that Raffaello did not go to Rome until 1510. But the Sig. Abate Francesconi is now employed in rectifying the chronology of the Life and Works of Sanzio; and from his critical sagacity we may expect the solution of this difficulty.]

[Footnote 34: See Le Aggiunte al Vasari. Ed. Senese, p. 223.]

[Footnote 35: A sonnet by him is referred to by Sig. Piacenza, in his notes to Baldinucci, tom. xi. p. 371.]

[Footnote 36: In compliance with the wishes of Leo X. he made drawings of the buildings of Ancient Rome, and accompanied them with descriptions, employing the compass to ascertain their admeasurement. We owe this information to Sig. Abate Francesconi, who has restored to Sanzio a letter, formerly attributed to Castiglione. It is a sort of dedication of the work to Leo X.; but the work itself and the drawings are lost; and many of the edifices measured by Raffaello were destroyed in the following Pontificates. The Abate Morelli has made public a high eulogium on this work, by a contemporary pen, in the notes to the Notizia, page 210. It is written by one Marcantonio Michiel, who asserts, that Raffaello had drawn the ancient buildings of Rome in such a manner, and shewn their proportions, forms, and ornaments so correctly, that whoever had inspected them might be said to have seen Ancient Rome.]

[Footnote 37: In a brief of Leo X. 1514, mentioned by Sig. Piacenza, tom. ii. p. 321.]

[Footnote 38:

Caesaris in nomen ducuntur carmina: Caesar Dum canitur, quaeso, Jupiter ipse vaces. Prop. lib. iv. Eleg. vi.]

[Footnote 39: Vol. ii. p. 323 et seq.]

[Footnote 40: See the first letter of Crespi, Lettere Pittoriche, tom. ii. p. 338.]

[Footnote 41: Mengs has observed, that Raffaello diligently studied the bassirelievi of the arches of Titus and Constantine, which were on the arch of Trajan, and adopted from them his manner of marking the articulations of the joints, and a more simple and an easier mode of expressing the contour of the fleshy parts. Riflessioni sopra i tre gran Pittori, &c. cap. 1.]

[Footnote 42: Riflessioni su la bellezza e sul gusto della Pittura,