BOOK IV.

NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.

FIRST EPOCH.

We are now arrived at a school of painting which possesses indisputable proofs of having, in ancient times, ranked among the first in Italy; as in no part of that country do the remains of antiquity evince a more refined taste, no where do we find mosaics executed with more elegance,^[98] nor any thing more beautiful than the subterranean chambers which are ornamented with historical designs and grotesques. The circumstance of its deriving its origin from ancient Greece, and the ancient history of design, in which we read of many of its early artists, have ennobled it above all others in Italy; and on this account we feel a greater regret at the barbarism which overwhelmed it in common with other schools. We may express a similar sentiment with regard to Sicily, which from its affinity in situation and government, I shall include in this Fourth Book; but generally in the notes.^[99] That island, too, possessed many Greek colonies, who have left vases and medals of such extraordinary workmanship, that many have thought that Sicily preceded Athens in carrying this art to perfection. But to proceed to the art of painting in Naples, which is our present object, we may observe that Dominici and the other national writers, the notice of whom I shall reserve for their proper places, affirm, that that city was never wholly destitute of artists, not only in the ancient times, which Filostrato extols so highly in the proemium of his Immagini, but even in the dark ages. In confirmation of this, they adduce devotional pictures by anonymous artists, anterior to the year 1200; particularly many Madonnas in an ancient style, which were the objects of adoration in various churches. They subjoin moreover a catalogue of these early artists, and bitterly inveigh against Vasari, who has wholly omitted them in his work.

The first painter whom we find mentioned at the earliest period of the restoration of the art, is Tommaso de' Stefani, who was a contemporary of Cimabue, in the reign of Charles of Anjou.^[100] That prince, according to Vasari, in passing through Florence, was conducted to the studio of Cimabue, to see the picture of the Virgin, which he had painted for the chapel of the Rucellai family, on a larger scale than had ever before been executed. He adds, that the whole city collected in such crowds thither to view it, that it became a scene of public festivity, and that that part of the city in which the artist resided, received in consequence the name of Borgo Allegri, which it has retained to the present day. Dominici has not failed to make use of this tradition to the advantage of Tommaso. He observes that Charles would naturally have invited Cimabue to Naples, if he had considered him the first artist of his day; the king however did not do so, but at the same time employed Tommaso to ornament a church which he had founded, and he therefore must have considered him superior to Cimabue. This argument, as every one will immediately perceive, is by no means conclusive of the real merits of these two artists. That must be decided by an inspection of their works; and with regard to these, Marco da Siena, who is the father of the history of painting in Naples, declares, that in respect to grandeur of composition, Cimabue was entitled to the preference. Tommaso enjoyed the favour also of Charles II. who employed him, as did also the principal persons of the city. The chapel of the Minutoli in the Duomo, mentioned by Boccaccio, was ornamented by him with various pictures of the Passion of our Saviour. Tommaso had a scholar in Filippo Tesauro, who painted in the church of S. Restituta, the life of B. Niccolo, the hermit, the only one of his frescos which has survived to our days.

About the year 1325, Giotto was invited by King Robert to paint the church of S. Chiara in Naples, which he decorated with subjects from the New Testament, and the mysteries of the Apocalypse, with some designs suggested to him at a former time by Dante, as was currently reported in the days of Vasari. These pictures were effaced about the beginning of the present century, as they rendered the church dark; but there remains, among other things in good preservation, a Madonna called della Grazia, which the generous piety of the religious possessors preserved for the veneration of the faithful. Giotto painted some pictures also in the church of S. Maria Coronata; and others which no longer exist, in the Castello dell'Uovo. He selected for his assistant in his labours, a Maestro Simone, who, in consequence of enjoying Giotto's esteem, acquired a great name in Naples. Some consider him a native of Cremona, others a Neapolitan, which seems nearer the truth. His style partakes both of Tesauro and Giotto, whence some consider him of the first, others of the second master; and he may probably have been instructed by both. However that may be, on the departure of Giotto he was employed in many works which King Robert and the Queen Sancia were prosecuting in various churches, and particularly in S. Lorenzo. He there painted that monarch in the act of being crowned by the Bishop Lodovico, his brother, to whom upon his death and subsequent canonization, a chapel was dedicated in the Episcopal church, and Simone appointed to decorate it, but which he was prevented from doing by death. Dominici particularly extols a picture by him of a Deposition from the Cross, painted for the great altar of the Incoronata; and thinks it will bear comparison with the works of Giotto. In other respects, he confesses that his conception and invention were not equally good, nor did his heads possess so attractive an air as those of Giotto, nor his colours such a suavity of tone.

He instructed in the art a son, called Francesco di Simone, who was highly extolled for a Madonna in chiaroscuro, in the church of S. Chiara, and which was one of the works which escaped being effaced on the occasion before mentioned. He had two other scholars in Gennaro di Cola, and Stefanone, who were very much alike in their manner, and on that account were chosen to paint in conjunction some large compositions, such as the pictures of the Life of S. Lodovico, Bishop of Tolosa, which Simone had only commenced, and various others of the Life of the Virgin, in S. Giovanni da Carbonara, which were preserved for a long period. Notwithstanding the similarity of their styles, we may perceive a difference in the genius of the two artists; the first being in reference to the second, studied and correct, and anxious to overcome all difficulties, and to elevate the art; on which account he appears occasionally somewhat laboured: the second discovers more genius, more confidence, and a greater freedom of pencil, and to his figures he gives a spirit that might have assured him a distinguished place, if he had been born at a more advanced period of art.

Before Zingaro (who will very soon occupy our attention) introduced a manner acquired in other schools, the art had made little progress in Naples and her territories. This is clearly proved by Colantonio del Fiore, the scholar of Francesco, who lived till the year 1444, of whom Dominici mentions some pictures, though he is in doubt whether they should not be assigned to Maestro Simone; which is a tacit confession, that in the lapse of a century the art had not made any considerable progress. It appears, however, that Colantonio after some time, by constant practice, had considerably improved himself; having painted several works in a more modern style, particularly a S. Jerome, in the church of S. Lorenzo, in the act of drawing a thorn from the foot of a lion, with the date of 1436. It is a picture of great truth, removed afterwards, for its merit, by the P. P. Conventuali, into the sacristy of the same church, where it was for a long time the admiration of strangers. He had a scholar of the name of Angiolo Franco, who imitated better than any other Neapolitan the manner of Giotto; adding only a stronger style of chiaroscuro, which he derived from his master.

The art was, however, more advanced by Antonio Solario, originally a smith, and commonly called lo Zingaro. His history has something romantic in it, like that of Quintin Matsys, who, from his first profession, was called il Fabbro, and became a painter from his love to a young girl, who promised to marry him when he had made himself a proficient in the art of painting. Solario in the same manner being enamoured of a daughter of Colantonio, and receiving from him a promise of her hand in marriage in ten years, if he became an eminent painter, forsook his furnace for the academy, and substituted the pencil for the file. There is an idle tradition of a queen of Naples having been the author of this match, but that matter I leave in the hands of the narrators of it. It is more interesting to us to know that Solario went to Bologna, where he was for several years the scholar of Lippo Dalmasio, called also Lippo delle Madonne, from his numerous portraits of the Virgin, and the grace with which he painted them. On leaving Bologna he visited other parts of Italy in order to study the works of the best artists in the various schools; as Vivarini, in Venice; Bicci, in Florence; Galasso, in Ferrara; Pisanello, and Gentile da Fabriano, in Rome. It has been thought that he assisted the two last, as Luca Giordano affirmed that among the pictures in the Lateran he recognized some heads which were indisputably by Solario. He excelled in this particular, and excited the admiration of Marco da Siena himself, who declared that his countenances seemed alive. He became also a good perspective painter for those times, and respectable in historical compositions; which he enlivened with landscape in a better style than other painters, and distinguished his figures by drapery peculiar to the age, and carefully drawn from nature. He was less happy in designing his hands and feet, and often appears heavy in his attitudes, and crude in his colouring. On his return to Naples, it is said, that he gave proof of his skill, and was favorably received by Colantonio, and thus became his son-in-law nine years after his first departure; and that he painted and taught there under King Alfonso, until the year 1455, about which time he died.

The most celebrated work of this artist was in the choir of S. Severino, in fresco, representing, in several compartments, the life of S. Benedict, and containing an incredible variety of figures and subjects. He left also numerous pictures with portraits, and Madonnas of a beautiful form, and not a few others painted in various churches of Naples. In that of S. Domenico Maggiore, where he painted a dead Christ, and in that of S. Pier Martire, where he represented a S. Vincenzio, with some subjects from the life of that saint, it is said that he surpassed himself. Thus there commenced in Naples a new epoch, which from its original and most celebrated prototype, is called by the Cav. Massimo, the school of Zingaro, as in that city those pictures are commonly distinguished by the name of Zingaresque, which were painted from the time of that artist to that of Tesauro, or a little later, in the same way that pictures are every where called Cortonesque, that are painted in imitation of Berettini.

About this time there flourished two eminent artists, whom I deem it proper to mention in this place before I enter on the succeeding scholars of the Neapolitan School. These were Matteo da Siena, and Antonello da Messina. The first we noticed in the school of Siena, and mentioned his having painted in Naples the Slaughter of the Innocents. It exists in the church of S. Caterina a Formello, and is engraved in the third volume of the Lettere Senesi. The year m.cccc.xviii. is attached to it, but we ought not to yield implicit faith to this date. Il P. della Valle, in p. 56 of the above mentioned volume, observes, that Matteo, in the year 1462, when he painted with his father in Pienza, was young, and that in the portrait which he painted of himself in 1491, he does not appear aged. He could not therefore have painted in Naples in 1418. After this we may believe it very possible, that in this date an L has been inadvertently omitted, and that the true reading is m.cccc.lxviii. Thus the above writer conjectures, and with so much the more probability, as he advances proofs, both from the form of the letters and the absence of the artist from his native place. Whoever desires similar examples, may turn to page 141 of vol. i., and he will find that such errors have occurred more than once in the date of books. Guided by this circumstance we may correct what Dominici has asserted of Matteo da Siena having influenced the style of Solario. It may be true that there is a resemblance in the air of the heads, and the general style, but such similarity can only be accounted for by Matteo deriving it from Solario, or both, as often happens, deriving it from the same master.

Antonello, of the family of the Antonj, universally known under the name of Antonello da Messina, is a name so illustrious in the history of art, that it is not sufficient to have mentioned him in the first book and to refer to him here again, as he will claim a further notice in the Venetian School, and we must endeavour too to overcome some perplexing difficulties, to ascertain with correctness the time at which he flourished, and attempt to settle the dispute, whether he were the first who painted in oil in Italy, or whether that art was practised before his time. Vasari relates, that when young, after having spent many years in Rome in the study of design,^[101] and many more at Palermo, painting there with the reputation of a good artist, he repaired first to Messina, and from thence passed to Naples, where he chanced to see a large composition painted in oil by Gio. da Bruggia, which had been presented by some Florentine merchants to King Alfonso. Antonello, smitten with this new art, took his departure to Flanders, and there, by his affability, and by a present of some drawings of the Italian School, so far ingratiated himself with Giovanni, as to induce him to communicate to him the secret, and the aged painter dying soon afterwards, thus left him instructed in the new art. This must have happened about the year 1440, since that time is required to support the supposition that Giovanni, born about 1370, died at an advanced age, as the old writers assert, or exactly in 1441, as is asserted by the author of the Galleria Imperiale. Antonello then left Flanders, and first resided for some months in his native place; from thence he went to Venice, where he communicated the secret to Domenico Veneziano; and having painted there a considerable time, died there at the age of forty-nine. All this we find in Vasari, and it agrees with what he relates in the life of Domenico Veneziano, that this artist, after having learnt the new method from Antonello in Venice, painted in Loreto with Piero della Francesca, some few years before that artist lost his eyesight, which happened in 1458. Thus the arrival of Antonello in Venice must have occurred about the year 1450, or some previous year; but this conclusion is contrary to Venetian evidence. The remaining traces of Antonello, or the dates attached to his works there, commence in 1474, and terminate according to Ridolfi in 1490. There does not appear any reason whatever, why he should not have attached dates to his pictures, until after residing twenty-four years in Venice. Besides, how can it be maintained, that Antonello, after passing many years in Rome as a student, and many in Palermo as a master, and some years in Messina and Flanders, should not in Venice, in the forty-ninth year after the death of Giovanni, have passed the forty-ninth year of his age. Hackert quotes the opinion of Gallo, who in the Annali di Messina, dates the birth of Antonello in 1447, and his death at forty-nine years of age, that is, in 1496. But if this were so, how could he have known Gio. da Bruggia? Yet if such fact be denied, we must contradict a tradition which has been generally credited. I should be more inclined to believe that there is a mistake in his age, and that he died at a more advanced period of life. Nor on this supposition do we wrong Vasari; others having remarked what we shall also on a proper opportunity confirm; that as far as regards Venetian artists, Vasari errs almost in every page from the want of accurate information. I further believe that respecting the residence of Antonello in Venice, he wrote with inaccuracy. That he was there about the year 1450, and communicated his secret to Domenico, is a fact, which after so many processes made in Florence on the murder of Domenico, and so much discussion respecting him, must have been well ascertained, not depending on the report contained in the memoirs of the painters by Grillandajo, or any other contemporary, in whose writings Vasari might search for information. But admitting this, I am of opinion, that Antonello did not reside constantly in Venice from the year 1450 until his death, as Vasari insinuates. It appears that he travelled afterwards in several countries, resided for a long time in Milan, and acquired there a great celebrity; and that he repaired afresh to Venice, and enjoyed there for some years a public salary. This we gather from Maurolico, quoted by Hackert: Ob mirum hic ingenium Venetiis aliquot annos publicè conductus vixit: Mediolani quoque fuit percelebris, (Hist. Sican. pl. 186, prim. edit.), and if he was not a contemporary writer, still he was not very far removed from Antonello. This is the hypothesis I propose in order to reconcile the many contradictory accounts which we find on this subject in Vasari, Ridolfi, and Zanetti; and when we come to the Venetian School, I shall not forget to adduce further proofs in support of it. Others may perhaps succeed better than I have done in this task, and with that hope I shall console myself: as in my researches I have no other object than truth, I shall be equally satisfied whether I discover it myself, or it be communicated to me by others.

That therefore Antonello was the first who exhibited a perfect method of practising painting in oil in Italy, is an assertion that, it seems to me, may be with justice maintained, or at least it cannot be said that there is proof to the contrary. And yet in the history of the art in the Two Sicilies, this honour is strongly disputed. In that history we find the description of a chapel in the Duomo of Messina, called Madonna della Lettera, where it is said there exists a very old Greek picture of the Virgin, an object of adoration, which was said to be in oil. If this were even admitted, it could not detract from the merit of Antonello in having restored a beautiful art that had fallen into desuetude; but in these Greek pictures, the wax had often the appearance of oil, as we observed in vol. i. p. 89. Marco da Siena, in the fragment of a discourse which Dominici has preserved, asserts, that the Neapolitan painters of 1300 continued to improve in the two manners of painting in fresco and in oil. When I peruse again what I have written in vol. i. p. 90, where some attempt at colouring in oil anterior to Antonello is admitted, I may be permitted not to rely on the word of Pino alone. There exist in Naples many pictures of 1300, and I cannot imagine, why in a controversy like this, they are neither examined nor alluded to, and why the question is rested solely on a work or two of Colantonio. Some national writers, and not long since, Signorelli, in his Coltura delle due Sicili (tom. iii. p. 171), have pretended, that Colantonio del Fiore was certainly the first to paint in oil, and adduce in proof the very picture of S. Jerome, before mentioned, and another in S. Maria Nuova. Il Sig. Piacenza after inspecting them, says, that he was not able to decide whether these pictures were really in oil or not. Zanetti (P. V. p. 20) also remarks, that it is extremely difficult to pass a decided judgment on works of this kind, and I have made the same observation with respect to Van Eyck, which will I hope, convince every reader who will be at the trouble to refer to vol. i. p. 87. And unless that had been the case, how happened it that all Europe was filled with the name of Van Eyck in the course of a few years; that every painter ran to him; that his works were coveted by princes, and that they who could not obtain them, procured the works of his scholars, and others the works of Ausse, Ugo d'Anversa, and Antonello; and of Ruggieri especially, of whose great fame in Italy we shall in another place adduce the documents.^[102] On the other hand, who, beyond Naples and its territory, had at that time heard of Colantonio? Who ever sought with such eagerness the works of Solario? And if this last was the scholar and son-in-law of a master who painted so well in oil, how happened it that he was neither distinguished in the art, nor even acquired it? Why did he himself and his scholars work in distemper? Why did the Sicilians, as we have seen, pass over to Venice, where Antonello resided, to instruct themselves, and not confine themselves to Naples? Why did the whole school of Venice, the emporium of Europe, and capable of contradicting any false report, attest, on the death of Antonello, that he was the first that painted in oil in Italy, and no one opposed to him either Solario or Colantonio?^[103] They either could not at that time have been acquainted with this discovery, or did not know it to an extent that can contradict Vasari, and the prevailing opinions respecting Antonello. Dominici has advanced more on this point than any other person, asserting that this art was discovered in Naples, and was carried from thence to Flanders by Van Eyck himself, to which supposition, after the observations already made, I deem it superfluous to reply.^[104]

We shall now return to the scholars of Solario, who were very numerous. Amongst them was a Niccola di Vito, who may be called the Buffalmacco of this school, for his singular humour and his eccentric invention, though in other respects he was an inferior artist, and little deserving commemoration. Simone Papa did not paint any large composition in which he might be compared to his master; he confined himself to altarpieces, with few figures grouped in a pleasing style, and finished with exquisite care; so that he sometimes equalled Zingaro, as in a S. Michele, painted for S. Maria Nuova. Of the same class seems to have been Angiolillo di Roccadirame, who in the church of S. Bridget, painted that saint contemplating in a vision the birth of Christ; a picture which even with the experienced, might pass for the work of his master. More celebrated and more deserving of notice, are Pietro and Polito (Ippolito) del Donzello, sons-in-law of Angiolo Franco, and relatives of the celebrated architect Giuliano da Maiano, by whom they were instructed in that art. Vasari mentions them as the first painters of the Neapolitan school, but does not give any account of their master, or of what school they were natives, and he writes in a way that might lead the reader to believe that they were Tuscans. He says that Giuliano, having finished the palace of Poggio Reale for King Robert, the monarch engaged the two brothers to decorate it, and that first Giuliano dying, and the king afterwards, Polito returned to Florence.^[105] Bottari observes, that he did not find the two Donzelli mentioned by Orlandi, nor by any one else; a clear proof that he did not himself consider them natives of Naples, and on that account he did not look for them in Bernardo Dominici, who has written at length upon them, complaining of the negligence or inadvertent error of Vasari.

The pictures of the two brothers were painted, according to Vasari, about the year 1447. But as he informs us that Polito did not leave Naples until the death of Alfonso, this epoch should be extended to 1463, or beyond; as he remained for a year longer, or thereabouts, under the reign of Ferdinand, the son and successor of Alfonso. He painted for that monarch some large compositions in the refectory of S. Maria Nuova, partly alone and partly in conjunction with his brother, and both brothers combined in decorating for the king a part of the palace of Poggio Reale. We may here with propriety also mention, that they painted in one of the rooms the conspiracy against Ferdinand, which being seen by Jacopo Sannazzaro, gave occasion to his writing a sonnet, the 41st in the second part of his Rime. Their style resembles that of their master, except that their colouring is softer. They distinguished themselves also in their architectural ornaments, and in the painting of friezes and trophies, and subjects in chiaroscuro, in the manner of bassirilievi, an art which I am not aware that any one practised before them. The younger brother leaving Naples and dying soon afterwards, Pietro remained employed in that city, where he and his scholars acquired a great reputation by their paintings in oil and fresco. The portraits of Pietro had all the force of nature, and it is not long since, that on the destruction of some of his pictures on a wall in the palace of the Dukes of Matalona, some heads were removed with the greatest care, and preserved for their excellence.

We may now notice Silvestro de' Buoni, who was placed by his father in the school of Zingaro, and on his death attached himself to the Donzelli. His father was an indifferent painter, of the name of Buono, and from that has arisen the mistake of some persons, who have ascribed to the son some works of the father in an old style, and unworthy the reputation of Silvestro. This artist, in the opinion of the Cav. Massimo, had a finer colouring and a superior general effect to the Donzelli; and in the force of his chiaroscuro, and in the delicacy of his contours, far surpassed all the painters of his country who had lived to that time. Dominici refers to many of his pictures in the various churches of Naples. One of the most celebrated is that of S. Giovanni a Mare, in which he included three saints, all of the same name, S. John the Baptist, the Evangelist, and S. Chrysostom.

Silvestro is said to have had a disciple in Tesauro, whose Christian name has not been correctly handed down to us; but he is generally called Bernardo. He is supposed to have been of a painter's family, and descended from that Filippo who is commemorated as the second of this school, and father or uncle of Raimo, whom we shall soon notice. This Bernardo, or whatever his name may have been, made nearer approaches to the modern style than any of the preceding artists; more judicious in his invention, more natural in his figures and drapery; select, expressive, harmonized, and displaying a knowledge in gradation and relief, beyond what could be expected in a painter who is not known to have been acquainted with any other schools, or seen any pictures beyond those of his own country. Luca Giordano, at a time when he was considered the Coryphæus of painting, was struck with astonishment at the painting of a Soffitto by Tesauro at S. Giovanni de' Pappacodi, and did not hesitate to declare that there were parts in it, which in an age so fruitful in fine works, no one could have surpassed. It represents the Seven Sacraments. The minute description which the historian gives of it, shews us what sobriety and judgment there were in his composition; and the portraits of Alfonso II. and Ippolita Sforza, whose espousals he represented in the Sacrament of Marriage, afford us some light for fixing the date of this picture. Raimo Tesauro was very much employed in works in fresco. Some pictures by him are also mentioned in S. Maria Nuova, and in Monte Vergine; pictures, says the Cav. Massimo, "very studied and perfect, according to the latest schools succeeding our Zingaro."

To the same schools Gio. Antonio d'Amato owed his first instructions; but it is said, that when he saw the pictures which Pietro Perugino had painted for the Duomo of Naples, he became ambitious of emulating the style of that master. By diligence, in which he was second to none, he approached, as one may say, the confines of modern art; and died at an advanced period of the sixteenth century. He is highly extolled for his Dispute of the Sacrament, painted for the Metropolitan church, and for two other pictures placed in the Borgo di Chiaia, the one at the Carmine, the other at S. Leonardo. And here we may close our account of the early painters, scanty indeed, but still copious for a city harassed by incessant hostilities.^[106]

NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.

SECOND EPOCH.

Modern Neapolitan Style, founded on the Schools of Raffaello and Michelangiolo.

It has already been observed, that at the commencement of the sixteenth century, the art of painting seemed in every country to have attained to maturity, and that every school at that time assumed its own peculiar and distinguishing character. Naples did not, however, possess a manner so decided as that of other schools of Italy, and thus afforded an opportunity for the cultivation of the best style, as the students who left their native country returned home, each with the manner of his own master, and the sovereigns and nobility of the kingdom invited and employed the most celebrated strangers. In this respect, perhaps, Naples did not yield precedence to any city after Rome. Thus the first talents were constantly employed in ornamenting both the churches and palaces of that metropolis. Nor indeed was that country ever deficient in men of genius, who manifested every exquisite quality for distinction, particularly such as depended on a strong and fervid imagination. Hence an accomplished writer and painter has observed, that no part of Italy could boast of so many native artists, such is the fire, the fancy, and freedom, which characterizes, for the most part, the works of these masters. Their rapidity of execution was another effect of their genius, a quality which has been alike praised by the ancients,^[107] and the moderns, when combined with other more requisite gifts of genius. But this despatch in general excludes correct design, which from that cause is seldom found in that school. Nor do we find that it paid much attention to ideal perfection, as most of its professors, following the practice of the naturalists, selected the character of their heads and the attitudes of their figures from common life; some with more, and others with less discrimination. With regard to colour, this school changed its principles in conformity to the taste of the times. It was fertile in invention and composition, but deficient in application and study. The history of the vicissitudes it experienced will occupy the remainder of this volume.

The epoch of modern painting in Naples could not have commenced under happier auspices than those which it had the good fortune to experience. Pietro Perugino had painted an Assumption of the Virgin, which I am informed exists in the Duomo, or S. Reparata, a very ancient cathedral church, since connected with the new Duomo. This work opened the way to a better taste. When Raffaello and his school rose into public esteem, Naples was among the first distant cities to profit from it, by means of some of his scholars, to whom were also added some followers of Michelangiolo, about the middle of the century. Thus till nearly the year 1600, this school paid little attention to any other style than that of these two great masters and their imitators, except a few artists who were admirers of Titian.

We may commence the new series with Andrea Sabbatini of Salerno. This artist was so much struck with the style of Pietro, when he saw his picture in the Duomo, that he immediately determined to study in the school of Perugia. He took his departure accordingly for that city, but meeting on the road some brother painters who much more highly extolled the works of Raffaello, executed for Julius II., he changed his mind and proceeded to Rome, and there placed himself in the school of that great master. He remained with him however, only a short time, as the death of his father compelled him to return home, against his wishes. But he arrived a new man. It is related that he painted with Raffaello at the Pace, and in the Vatican, and that he became an accomplished copyist of his works, and successfully emulated the style of his master. Compared with his fellow scholars, although he did not rival Giulio Romano, he yet surpassed Raffaele del Colle, and others of that class. He had a correctness of design, selection in his faces and in his attitudes, a depth of shade, and the muscles rather strongly expressed; a breadth in the folding of his drapery, and a colour which still preserves its freshness after the lapse of so many years. He executed many works in Naples, as appears from the catalogue of his pictures. Among his best works are numbered some pictures at S. Maria delle Grazie; besides the frescos which he executed there and in other places, extolled by writers as miracles of art, but few of which remain to the present day. He painted also in his native city, in Gaeta, and indeed in all parts of the kingdom, both in the churches and for private collections, where many of his Madonnas, of an enchanting beauty, are still to be seen.^[108]

Andrea had several scholars, some of whom studied under other masters, and did not acquire much of his style. Such was Cesare Turco, who rather took after Pietro; a good painter in oil, but unsuccessful in fresco. But Andrea was the sole master of Francesco Santafede, the father and master of Fabrizio; painters who in point of colouring have few equals in this school, and possessing a singular uniformity of style. Nevertheless the experienced discover in the father more vigour, and more clearness in his shadows; and there are by him some pictures in the Soffitto of the Nunziata, and a Deposition from the Cross in the possession of the prince di Somma, highly celebrated. But of all the scholars of Andrea, one Paolillo resembled him the most, whose works were all ascribed to his master, until Dominici restored them to their right owner. He would have been the great ornament of this school had he not died young.

Polidoro Caldara, or Caravaggio, came to Naples in the year of the sacking of Rome, 1527. He was not, as Vasari would have us believe, in danger of perishing through want at Naples; for Andrea da Salerno, who had been his fellow disciple, generously received him into his house, and introduced him in the city, where he obtained many commissions, and formed several scholars before he went to Sicily. He had distinguished himself in Rome by his chiaroscuri, as we have related; and he painted in colours in Naples and Messina. His colour in oil was pallid and obscure, at least for some time, and in this style I saw some pictures of the Passion in Rome, which Gavin Hamilton had received from Sicily. In other respects they were valuable, from their design and invention. Vasari mentions this master with enthusiasm, calls him a divine genius, and extols to the skies a picture which he painted in Messina a little while before his death. This was a composition of Christ on his way to Mount Calvary, surrounded by a great multitude, and he assures us that the colouring was enchanting.

Giambernardo Lama was first a scholar of Amato, and afterwards attached himself to Polidoro, in whose manner he painted a Pietà at S. Giacomo degli Spagnuoli, which, from its conception, its correctness, and vigour of design, variety in attitude, and general style of composition, was by many ascribed to that master. In general however, he displayed a softer and more natural manner, and was partial to the style of Andrea di Salerno. Marco di Pino, an imitator of Michelangiolo, as we have observed, though sober and judicious, was held in disesteem by him. In the Segretario of Capece, there is an interesting letter to Lama, where amongst other things he says, "I hear that you do not agree with Marco da Siena, as you paint with more regard to beauty, and he is attached to a vigorous design without softening his colours. I know not what you desire of him, but pray leave him to his own method, and do you follow yours."

A Francesco Ruviale, a Spaniard, is also mentioned in Naples, called Polidorino, from his happy imitation of his master, whom he assisted in painting for the Orsini some subjects illustrative of the history of that noble family; and after the departure of his master, he executed by himself several works at Monte Oliveto and elsewhere. The greater part of these have perished, as happened in Rome to so many of the works of Polidoro. This Ruviale appears to me to be a different artist from a Ruviale, a Spaniard, who is enumerated among the scholars of Salviati, and the assistants of Vasari, in the painting of the Chancery; on which occasion Vasari says, he formed himself into a good painter. This was under Paul VII. in 1544, at which time Polidorino must already have been a master. Palomino has not said a word of any other Ruviale, a painter of his country; and this is a proof that the two preceding artists never returned home to Spain.

Some have included among the scholars of Polidoro an able artist and good colourist, called Marco Calabrese, whose surname is Cardisco. Vasari ranks him before all his Neapolitan contemporaries, and considers his genius a fruit produced remote from its native soil. This observation cannot appear correct to any one who recollects that the Calabria of the present day is the ancient Magna Græcia, where in former times the arts were carried to the highest pitch of perfection. Cardisco painted much in Naples and in the state. His most celebrated work is the Dispute of S. Agostino in the church of that saint in Aversa. He had a scholar in Gio. Batista Crescione, who together with Lionardo Castellani, his relative, painted at the time Vasari wrote, which was an excuse for his noticing them only in a cursory manner. We may further observe that Polidoro was the founder of a florid school in Messina, where we must look for his most able scholars.^[109]

Gio. Francesco Penni, or as he is called, il Fattore, came to Naples some time after Polidoro, but soon afterwards fell sick, and died in the year 1528. He contributed in two different ways to the advancement of the school of Naples. In the first place he left there the great copy of the Transfiguration of Raffaello, which he had painted in Rome in conjunction with Perino, and which was afterwards placed in S. Spirito degl'Incurabili, and served as a study to Lama, and the best painters, until, with other select pictures and sculptures at Naples, it was purchased and removed by the viceroy Don Pietro Antonio of Aragon. Secondly, he left there a scholar of the name of Lionardo, commonly called il Pistoja, from the place of his birth; an excellent colourist, but not a very correct designer. We noticed him among the assistants of Raffaello, and more at length among the artists of the Florentine state, where we find some of his pictures, as in Volterra and elsewhere. After he had lost his friend Penni in Naples, he established himself there for the remainder of his days, where he received sufficient encouragement from the nobility of that city, and painted less for the churches than for private individuals. He chiefly excelled in portrait.

Pistoja is said to have been one of the masters of Francesco Curia, a painter, who, though somewhat of a mannerist in the style of Vasari and Zucchero, is yet commended for the noble and agreeable style of his composition, for his beautiful countenances, and natural colouring. These qualities are singularly conspicuous in a Circumcision painted for the church della Pietà, esteemed by Ribera, Giordano, and Solimene, one of the first pictures in Naples. He left in Ippolito Borghese an accomplished imitator, who was absent a long time from his native country, where few of his works remain, but those are highly prized. He was in the year 1620 in Perugia, as Morelli relates in his description of the pictures and statues of that city, and painted an Assumption of the Virgin, which was placed in S. Lorenzo.

There were two Neapolitans who were scholars and assistants of Perino del Vaga in Rome; Gio. Corso, initiated in the art by Amato, or as others assert by Polidoro; and Gianfilippo Criscuolo, instructed a long time by Salerno. There are few remains of Corso in Naples, except such as are retouched; nor is any piece so much extolled as a Christ with a Cross painted for the church of S. Lorenzo. Criscuolo in the short time he was at Rome, diligently copied Raffaello, and was greatly attached to his school. He followed, however, his own genius, which was reserved and timid, and formed for himself rather a severe manner; a circumstance to his honour, at a time when the contours were overcharged and the correctness of Raffaello was neglected. He is also highly commended as an instructor.

From his school came Francesco Imparato, who was afterwards taught by Titian, and so far emulated his style, that a S. Peter Martyr by him in the church of that saint in Naples was praised by Caracciolo as the best picture which had then been seen in that city. We must not confound this Francesco with Girolamo Imparato, his son, who flourished after the end of the sixteenth century, and enjoyed a reputation greater than he perhaps merited. He too was a follower of the Venetian, and afterwards of the Lombard style, and he travelled to improve himself in colouring, the fruits of which were seen in the picture of the Rosario at S. Tommaso d'Aquino, and in others of his works. The Cav. Stanzioni, who knew him, and was his competitor, considered him inferior to his father in talent, and describes him as vain and ostentatious.

To these painters of the school of Raffaello, there succeeded in Naples two followers of Michelangiolo, whom we have before noticed. The first of these was Vasari, who was called thither in 1544, to paint the refectory of the P. P. Olivetani, and was afterwards charged with many commissions in Naples and in Rome. By the aid of architecture, in which he excelled more than in painting, he converted that edifice, which was in what is commonly called the Gothic style, to a better form; altered the vault, and ornamented it with modern stuccos, which were the first seen in Naples, and painted there a considerable number of subjects, with that rapidity and mediocrity that characterize the greater part of his works. He remained there for the space of a year, and of the services he rendered to the city, we may judge from the following passage in his life. "It is extraordinary," he says, "that in so large and noble a city, there should have been found no masters after Giotto, to have executed any work of celebrity, although some works by Perugino and by Raffaello had been introduced. On these grounds I have endeavoured, to the best of my humble talents, to awaken the genius of that country to a spirit of emulation, and to the accomplishment of some great and honourable work; and from these my labours, or from some other cause, we now see many beautiful works in stucco and painting, in addition to the before mentioned pictures." It is not easy to conjecture why Vasari should here overlook many eminent painters, and even Andrea da Salerno himself, so illustrious an artist, and whose name would have conferred a greater honour on his book, than it could possibly have derived from it. Whether self love prompted him to pass over that painter and other Neapolitan artists, in the hope that he should himself be considered the restorer of taste in Naples; or whether it was the consequence of the dispute which existed at that time between him and the painters of Naples; or whether, as I observed in my preface, it sometimes happens in this art, that a picture which delights one person, disgusts another, I know not, and every one must judge for himself. For myself, however much disposed I should be to pardon him for many omissions, which in a work like his, are almost unavoidable, still I cannot exculpate him for this total silence. Nor have the writers of Naples ever ceased complaining of this neglect, and some indeed have bitterly inveighed against him and accused him of contributing to the deterioration of taste. So true is it, that an offence against a whole nation is an offence never pardoned.

The other imitator, and a favourite of Michelangiolo (but not his scholar, as some have asserted) that painted in Naples, was Marco di Pino, or Marco da Siena, frequently before mentioned by us. He appears to have arrived in Naples after the year 1560. He was well received in that city, and had some privileges conferred on him; nor did the circumstance of his being a stranger create towards him any feeling of jealousy on the part of the Neapolitans, who are naturally hospitable to strangers of good character; and he is described by all as a sincere, affable, and respectable man. He enjoyed in Naples the first reputation, and was often employed in works of consequence in some of the greater churches of the city, and in others of the kingdom at large. He repeated on several occasions the Deposition from the Cross, which he painted at Rome, but with many variations, and the one the most esteemed was that which he placed in S. Giovanni de' Fiorentini, in 1577. The Circumcision in the Gesù Vecchio, where Parrino traces the portrait of the artist and his wife,^[110] the adoration of the Magi at S. Severino, and others of his works, contain views of buildings, not unworthy of him, as he was an eminent architect, and also a good writer on that art. Of his merit as a painter, I believe I do not err, when I say that among the followers of Michelangiolo, there is none whose design is less extravagant and whose colour is more vigorous. He is not however, always equal. In the church of S. Severino, where he painted four pictures, the Nativity of the Virgin is much inferior to the others. A mannered style was so common in artists of that age, that few were exempt from it. He had many scholars in Naples, but none of the celebrity of Gio. Angelo Criscuolo. This artist was the brother of Gio. Filippo, already mentioned, and exercised the profession of a notary, without relinquishing that of a miniature painter, which he had learnt in his youth. He became desirous of emulating his brother in larger compositions, and under the direction of Marco succeeded in acquiring his style.

These two painters laid the foundation of the history of the art in Naples. In 1568, there issued from the Giunti press in Florence, a new edition of the works of Vasari, in which the author speaks very briefly of Marco da Siena, in the life of Daniello da Volterra. He only observes that he had derived the greatest benefit from the instructions of that master, and that he had afterwards chosen Naples for his country, and settled and continued his labours there. Marco, either not satisfied with this eulogium, or displeased at the silence of Vasari with regard to many of the painters of Siena, and almost all those of Naples, determined to publish a work of his own in opposition to him. Among his scholars was the notary before mentioned, who supplied him with memoirs of the Neapolitan painters taken from the archives of the city, and from tradition; and from these materials Marco prepared a Discorso. He composed it in 1569, a year after the publication of this edition of Vasari's works, and it was the first sketch of the history of the fine arts in Naples. It did not, however, then see the light, and was not published until 1742, and then only in part, by Dominici, together with notes written by Criscuolo in the Neapolitan dialect, and with the addition of other notes collected respecting the subsequent artists, and arranged by two excellent painters, Massimo Stanzioni, and Paolo de' Matteis. Dominici himself added some others of his own collecting, and communicated by some of his learned friends, among whom was the celebrated antiquarian Matteo Egizio. The late Guida or Breve Descrizione di Napoli says, this voluminous work stands in need of more information, a better arrangement, and a more concise style. There might also be added some better criticisms on the ancient artists, and less partiality towards some of the modern. Still this is a very lucid work, and highly valuable for the opinions expressed on the talents of artists, for the most part by other artists, whose names inspire confidence in the reader. Whether the sister arts of architecture and sculpture are as judiciously treated of, it is not our province to inquire.

In the above work the reader may find the names of other artists of Naples who belong to the close of this epoch, as Silvestro Bruno, who enjoyed in Naples the fame of a good master; a second Simone Papa, or del Papa, a clever fresco painter, and likewise another Gio. Ant. Amato, who to distinguish him from the first is called the younger. He was first instructed in the art by his uncle, afterwards by Lama, and successively imitated their several styles. He obtained considerable fame, and the infant Christ painted by him in the Banco de' Poveri, is highly extolled. To these may be added those artists who fixed their residence in other parts of Italy, as Pirro Ligorio, honoured, as we have observed, by Pius IV. in Rome, and who died in Ferrara, engineer to Alfonso II.; and Gio. Bernardino Azzolini, or rather Mazzolini, in whose praise Soprani and Ratti unite. He arrived in Genoa about 1510, and there executed some works worthy of that golden age of art. He excelled in waxwork, and formed heads with an absolute expression of life. He extended the same energetic character to his oil pictures, particularly in the Martyrdom of S. Agatha in S. Giuseppe.

The provincial cities had also in this age their own schools, or at least their own masters; some of whom remained in their native places, and others resided abroad. Cola dell'Amatrice, known also to Vasari, who mentions him in his life of Calabrese, took up his residence in Ascoli del Piceno, and enjoyed a distinguished name in architecture and in painting, through all that province. He had somewhat of a hard manner in his earlier paintings, but in his subsequent works he exhibited a fulness of design and an accomplished modern style. He is highly extolled in the Guida di Ascoli for his picture in the oratory of the Corpus Domini, which represents the Saviour in the act of dispensing the Eucharist to the Apostles.

Pompeo dell'Aquila was a finished painter and a fine colourist, if we are to believe Orlandi, who saw many of his works in Aquila, particularly some frescos conducted in a noble style. In Rome in S. Spirito in Sassia, there is a fine Deposition from the Cross by him. This artist is not mentioned either by Baglione or any other writer of his time. Giuseppe Valeriani, another native of Aquila, is frequently mentioned. He painted at the same period and in the same church of S. Spirito, where there exists a Transfiguration by him. We perceive in him an evident desire of imitating F. Sebastiano, but he is heavy in his design, and too dark in his colours. He entered afterwards into the society of Jesuits, and improved his first manner. His best works are said to be a Nunziata in a chapel of the Gesù, with other subjects from the life of Christ, in which are some most beautiful draperies added by Scipio da Gaeta. This latter artist also was a native of the kingdom of Naples; but of him and of the Cav. di Arpino, who both taught in Rome, we have already spoken in that school.

Marco Mazzaroppi di S. Germano died young, but is known for his natural and animated colouring, almost in the Flemish style. At Capua they mention with applause the altarpieces and other pictures of Gio. Pietro Russo, who after studying in various schools returned to that city, and there left many excellent works. Matteo da Lecce, whose education is uncertain, displayed in Rome a Michelangiolo style, or as some say, the style of Salviati. It is certain that he had a strong expression of the limbs and muscles. He worked for the most part in fresco, and there is a prophet painted by him for the company of the Gonfalone, of such relief, that the figures, says Baglione, seem starting from the wall. Although there were at that time many Florentines in Rome, he was the only one who dared in the face of the Last Judgment of Michelangiolo, to paint the Fall of the Rebel Angels, a subject which that great artist designed to have painted, but never put his intentions into execution. He chose too to accompany it with the combat between the Prince of the Angels and Lucifer, for the body of Moses; a subject taken from the epistle of S. James, and analogous to that of the other picture. Matteo entered upon this very arduous task with a noble spirit; but, alas! with a very different result. He painted afterwards in Malta, and passing to Spain and to the Indies, he enriched himself by merchandise, until turning to mining, he lost all his wealth, and died in great indigence. We may also mention two Calabrians of doubtful parentage. Nicoluccio, a Calabrian, who will be mentioned among the scholars of Lorenzo Costa, but only cursorily, as I know nothing of this parricide, as he may be called, except that he attempted to murder his master. Pietro Negroni, a Calabrian also, is commemorated by Dominici as a diligent and accomplished painter. In Sicily, it is probable that many painters flourished belonging to this period, besides Gio. Borghese da Messina, a scholar also of Costa, and Laureti, whom I notice in the schools of Rome and Bologna, and others whose names I may have seen, but whose works have not called for my notice. The succeeding epoch we shall find more productive in Sicilian art.

NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.

THIRD EPOCH.

Corenzio, Ribera, Caracciolo, flourish in Naples. Strangers who compete with them.

About the middle of the sixteenth century, Tintoretto was considered one of the first artists in Venice; and towards the close of the same century Caravaggio in Rome, and the Caracci in Bologna, rose to the highest degree of celebrity. The several styles of these masters soon extended themselves into other parts of Italy, and became the prevailing taste in Naples, where they were adopted by three painters of reputation, Corenzio, Ribera, and Caracciolo. These artists rose one after the other into reputation, but afterwards united together in painting, and assisting each other interchangeably. At the time they flourished, Guido, Domenichino, Lanfranco, and Artemisia Gentileschi, were in Naples; and there and elsewhere contributed some scholars to the Neapolitan School. Thus the time which elapsed between Bellisario and Giordano, is the brightest period of this academy, both in respect to the number of excellent artists, and the works of taste. It is however the darkest era, not only of the Neapolitan School, but of the art itself, as far as regards the scandalous artifices, and the crimes which occurred in it. I would gladly pass over those topics in silence, if they were foreign to my subject, but they are so intimately connected with it, that they must, at all events, be alluded to. I shall notice them at the proper time, adhering to the relation of Malvasia, Passeri, Bellori, and more particularly of Dominici.

Bellisario Corenzio, a Greek by birth, after having passed five years in the school of Tintoretto, settled in Naples about the year 1590. He inherited from nature a fertile imagination and a rapidity of hand, which enabled him to rival his master in the prodigious number of his pictures, and those too of a large class. Four common painters could scarcely have equalled his individual labour. He cannot be compared to Tintoretto, who, when he restrained his too exuberant fancy, was inferior to few in design; and excelled in invention, gestures, and the airs of his heads, which, though the Venetians have always had before their eyes, they have never equalled. Corenzio successfully imitated his master when he painted with care, as in the great picture, in the refectory of the Benedictines, representing the multitude miraculously fed; a work he finished in forty days. But the greater part of the vault resembles in many respects the style of the Cav. d'Arpino,^[111]other parts partake of the Venetian School, not without some character peculiar to himself, particularly in the glories, which are bordered with shadowy clouds. In the opinion of the Cav. Massimo, he was of a fruitful invention, but not select. He painted very little in oil, although he had great merit in the strength and harmony of his colours. The desire of gain led him to attempt large works in fresco, which he composed with much felicity, as he was copious, varied, and energetic. He had a good general effect, and was finished in detail and correct, when the proximity of some eminent rival compelled him to it. This was the case at the Certosa, in the chapel of S. Gennaro. He there exerted all his talents, as he was excited to it by emulation of Caracciolo, who had painted in that place a picture, which was long admired as one of his finest works, and was afterwards transferred into the monastery. In other churches we find some sacred subjects painted by him in smaller size, which Dominici commends, and adds too, that he assisted M. Desiderio, a celebrated perspective painter, whose views he accompanied with small figures beautifully coloured and admirably appropriate.

The birthplace of Giuseppe Ribera has been the subject of controversy. Palomino, following Sandrart and Orlandi, represents him as a native of Spain, in proof of which they refer to a picture of S. Matteo, with the following inscription. Jusepe de Ribera espanol de la ciutad de Xativa, reyno de Valencia, Academico romano ano 1630. The Neapolitans, on the contrary, contend that he was born in the neighbourhood of Lecce, but that his father was from Spain; and that in order to recommend himself to the governor, who was a Spaniard, he always boasted of his origin, and expressed it in his signature, and was on that account called Spagnoletto. Such is the opinion of Dominici, Signorelli, and Galanti. This question is however now set at rest, as it appears from the Antologia di Roma of 1795, that the register of his baptism was found in Sativa (now San Filippo) and that he was born in that place. It is further said, that he learnt the principles of the art from Francesco Ribalta of Valencia, a reputed scholar of Annibale Caracci. But the History of Neapolitan Artists, which is suspicious in my eyes as relates to this artist, affirms also, that whilst yet a youth, or a mere boy, he studied in Naples under Michelangiolo da Caravaggio, when that master fled from Rome for homicide, and fixing himself there about 1606, executed many works both public and private.^[112] But wherever he might have received instruction in his early youth, it is certain that the object of his more matured admiration was Caravaggio. On leaving him, Ribera visited Rome, Modena, and Parma, and saw the works of Raffaello and Annibale in the former place, and the works of Coreggio in the two latter cities, and adopted in consequence a more graceful style, in which he persevered only for a short time, and with little success; as in Naples there were others who pursued, with superior skill, the same path. He returned therefore to the style of Caravaggio, which for its truth, force, and strong contrast of light and shade, was much more calculated to attract the general eye. In a short time he was appointed painter to the court, and subsequently became the arbiter of its taste.

His studies rendered him superior to Caravaggio in invention, selection, and design. In emulation of him, he painted at the Certosini that great Deposition from the Cross, which alone, in the opinion of Giordano, is sufficient to form a great painter, and may compete with the works of the brightest luminaries of the art. Beautiful beyond his usual style, and almost Titianesque, is his Martyrdom of S. Januarius, painted in the Royal Chapel, and the S. Jerome at the Trinità. He was much attached to the representation of the latter saint, and whole lengths and half figures of him are found in many collections. In the Panfili Palace in Rome we find about five, and all differing. Nor are his other pictures of similar character rare, as anchorets, prophets, apostles, which exhibit a strong expression of bone and muscle, and a gravity of character, in general copied from nature. In the same taste are commonly his profane pictures, where he is fond of representing old men and philosophers, as the Democritus and the Heraclitus, which Sig. March. Girolamo Durazzo had in his collection, and which are quite in the manner of Caravaggio. In his selection of subjects the most revolting were to him the most inviting, as sanguinary executions, horrid punishments, and lingering torments; among which is celebrated his Ixion on the wheel, in the palace of Buon Ritiro at Madrid. His works are very numerous, particularly in Italy and Spain. His scholars flourished chiefly at a lower period of art, where they will be noticed towards the conclusion of this epoch. With them we shall name those few who rivalled him successfully in figures and half figures; and we must not, at the same time, neglect to impress on the mind of the reader, that among so many reputed pictures of Spagnoletto found in collections, we may rest assured that they are in great part not justly entitled to his name, and ought to be ascribed to his scholars.

Giambatista Caracciolo, an imitator, first of Francesco Imparato, and afterwards of Caravaggio, attained a mature age without having signalised himself by any work of peculiar merit. But being roused by the fame of Annibale, and the general admiration which a picture of that master had excited, he repaired to Rome; where by persevering study in the Farnese Gallery, which he carefully copied, he became a correct designer in the Caracci style.^[113] Of this talent he availed himself to establish his reputation on his return to Naples, and distinguished himself on some occasions of competition, as in the Madonna at S. Anna de' Lombardi, in a S. Carlo in the church of S. Agnello, and Christ bearing his Cross at the Incurabili, paintings praised by connoisseurs as the happiest imitations of Annibale. But his other works, in the breadth and strength of their lights and shades, rather remind us of the school of Caravaggio. He was a finished and careful painter. There are however some feeble works by him, which Dominici considers to have been negligently painted, through disgust, for individuals who had not given him his own price, or they were perhaps executed by Mercurio d'Aversa his scholar, and an inferior artist.

The three masters whom I have just noticed in successive order, were the authors of the unceasing persecutions which many of the artists who had come to, or were invited to Naples, were for several years subjected to. Bellisario had established a supreme dominion, or rather a tyranny, over the Neapolitan painters, by calumny and insolence, as well as by his station. He monopolized all lucrative commissions to himself and recommended, for the fulfilment of others, one or other of the numerous and inferior artists that were dependant on him. The Cav. Massimo, Santafede, and other artists of talent, if they did not defer to him, were careful not to offend him, as they knew him to be a man of a vindictive temper, treacherous, and capable of every violence, and who was known through jealousy to have administered poison to Luigi Roderigo, the most promising and the most amiable of his scholars.

Bellisario, in order to maintain himself in his assumed authority, endeavoured to exclude all strangers who painted rather in fresco than in oil. Annibale arrived there in 1609, and was engaged to ornament the churches of Spirito Santo and Gesù Nuovo, for which, as a specimen of his style, he painted a small picture. The Greek and his adherents being required to give their opinion on this exquisite production, declared it to be tasteless, and decided that the painter of it did not possess a talent for large compositions. This divine artist in consequence took his departure under a burning sun for Rome, where he soon afterwards died. But the work in which strangers were the most opposed was the chapel of S. Gennaro, which a committee had assigned to the Cav. d'Arpino, as soon as he should finish painting the choir of the Certosa. Bellisario leaguing with Spagnoletto, (like himself a fierce and ungovernable man,) and with Caracciolo, who aspired to this commission, persecuted Cesari in such a manner, that before he had finished the choir he fled to Monte Cassino, and from thence returned to Rome. The work was then given to Guido, but after a short time two unknown persons assaulted the servant of that artist, and at the same time desired him to inform his master that he must prepare himself for death, or instantly quit Naples, with which latter mandate Guido immediately complied. Gessi, the scholar of Guido, was not however intimidated by this event, but applied for and obtained the honorable commission, and came to Naples with two assistants, Gio. Batista Ruggieri and Lorenzo Menini. But these artists were scarcely arrived, when they were treacherously invited on board a galley, which immediately weighed anchor and carried them off, to the great dismay of their master, who, although he made the most diligent inquiries both at Rome and Naples, could never procure any tidings of them.

Gessi also in consequence taking his departure, the committee lost all hope of succeeding in their task, and were in the act of yielding to the reigning cabal, assigning the fresco work to Corenzio and Caracciolo, and promising the pictures to Spagnoletto, when suddenly repenting of their resolution, they effaced all that was painted of the two frescos, and entrusted the decoration of the chapel entirely to Domenichino. It ought to be mentioned to the honor of these munificent persons, that they engaged to pay for every entire figure 100 ducats, for each half figure 50 ducats, and for each head 25 ducats. They took precautions also against any interruption to the artist, threatening the viceroy's high displeasure if he were in any way molested. But this was only matter of derision to the junta. They began immediately to cry him down as a cold and insipid painter, and to discredit him with those, the most numerous class in every place, who see only with the eyes of others. They harassed him by calumnies, by anonymous letters, by displacing his pictures, by mixing injurious ingredients with his colours, and by the most insidious malice they procured some of his pictures to be sent by the viceroy to the court of Madrid; and these, when little more than sketched, were taken from his studio and carried to the court, where Spagnoletto ordered them to be retouched, and, without giving him time to finish them, hurried them to their destination. This malicious fraud of his rival, the complaints of the committee, who always met with some fresh obstacle to the completion of the work, and the suspicion of some evil design, at last determined Domenichino to depart secretly to Rome. As soon however as the news of his flight transpired, he was recalled, and fresh measures taken for his protection; when he resumed his labours, and decorated the walls and base of the cupola, and made considerable progress in the painting of his pictures.

But before he could finish his task he was interrupted by death, hastened either by poison, or by the many severe vexations he had experienced both from his relatives and his adversaries, and the weight of which was augmented by the arrival of his former enemy Lanfranco. This artist superseded Zampieri in the painting of the catino of the chapel; Spagnoletto, in one of his oil pictures; Stanzioni in another; and each of these artists, excited by emulation, rivalled, if he did not excel Domenichino. Caracciolo was dead. Bellisario, from his great age, took no share in it, and was soon afterwards killed by a fall from a stage, which he had erected for the purpose of retouching some of his frescos. Nor did Spagnoletto experience a better fate; for, having seduced a young girl, and become insupportable even to himself from the general odium which he experienced, he embarked on board a ship; nor is it known whither he fled, or how he ended his life, if we may credit the Neapolitan writers. Palomino however states him to have died in Naples in 1656, aged sixty-seven, though he does not contradict the first part of our statement. Thus these ambitious men, who by violence or fraud had influenced and abused the generosity and taste of so many noble patrons, and to whose treachery and sanguinary vengeance so many professors of the art had fallen victims, ultimately reaped the merited fruit of their conduct in a violent death; and an impartial posterity, in assigning the palm of merit to Domenichino, inculcates the maxim, that it is a delusive hope to attempt to establish fame and fortune on the destruction of another's reputation.

The many good examples in the Neapolitan School increased the number of artists, either from the instructions of the above mentioned masters, or from an inspection of their works; for there is much truth in the observation of Passeri, "that a painter who has an ardent desire of learning, receives as much instruction from the works of deceased artists as from living masters." It was greatly to the honour of the Neapolitan artists, amidst such a variety of new styles, to have selected the best. Cesari had no followers in Naples, if we except Luigi Roderigo,^[114] who exchanged the school of Bellisario for his, but not without a degree of mannerism, although he acquired a certain grace and judgment, which his master did not possess. He initiated a nephew, Gianbernardino, in the same style; who, from his being an excellent imitator of Cesari, was employed by the Carthusian monks to finish a work which that master had left imperfect.

Thus almost all these artists trod in the steps of the Caracci, and the one that approached nearest to them was the Cav. Massimo Stanzioni, considered by some the best example of the Neapolitan School, of which, as we have observed, he compiled some memoirs. He was a scholar of Caracciolo, to whom he bore some analogy in taste, but he availed himself of the assistance of Lanfranco, whom in one of his MS. he calls his master, and studied too under Corenzio, who in his painting of frescos yielded to few. In portrait he adopted the principles of Santafede, and attained an excellent Titianesque style. Going afterwards to Rome, and seeing the works of Annibale, and, as some assert, making acquaintance with Guido, he became ambitious of uniting the design of the first with the colouring of the second, and we are informed by Galanti, that he obtained the appellation of Guido Reni di Napoli. His talents, which were of the first order, enabled him in a short time to compete with the best masters. He painted in the Certosa a Dead Christ, surrounded by the Maries, in competition with Ribera. This picture having become somewhat obscured, Ribera persuaded the monks to have it washed, and he purposely injured it in such a way with a corrosive liquid, that Stanzioni refused to repair it, declaring that such an instance of malice ought to be perpetuated to the public eye. But in that church, which is in fact a museum of art, where every artist, not to be surpassed by his rivals, seems to have surpassed himself, Massimo left some other excellent works, and particularly a stupendous altarpiece, of S. Bruno presenting to his brethren the rules of their order. His works are not unfrequent in the collections in his own country, and are highly esteemed in other places. The vaults of the Gesù Nuovo and S. Paolo entitle him to a distinguished place among fresco painters. His paintings were highly finished, and he studied perfection during his celibacy, but marrying a woman of some rank, in order to maintain her in an expensive style of living, he painted many hasty and inferior pictures. It may be said that Cocchi, in his Ragionamento del Matrimonio, not without good reason took occasion to warn all artists of the perils of the wedded state.

The school of Massimo produced many celebrated scholars, in consequence of his method and high reputation, confirming that ancient remark, which has passed into a proverb, primus discendi ardor nobilitas est Magistri. (The example of the master is the greatest incentive to improvement). Muzio Rossi passed from his school to that of Guido, and was chosen at the age of eighteen to paint in the Certosa of Bologna, in competition with the first masters, and maintained his station on a comparison; but this very promising artist was immaturely cut off, and his own country does not possess any work by him, as the Tribune of S. Pietro in Majella, which he painted a little time before his death, was modernized, and his labours thus perished. This is the reason that his works in the Certosa just mentioned, and which are enumerated by Crespi, are held in great esteem. Another man of genius of this school, Antonio de Bellis, died also at an early age; he painted several subjects from the life of S. Carlo, in the church of that saint, which were left imperfect by his death. His manner partakes somewhat of Guercino, but is in fact founded like that of all the scholars of Massimo, on the style of Guido.

Francesco di Rosa, called Pacicco, was not acquainted with Guido himself, but under the direction of Massimo, devoted himself to the copying of his works. He is one of the few artists commemorated by Paolo de' Matteis, in one of his MSS. which admits no artists of inferior merit. He declares the style of Rosa almost inimitable, not only from his correct design, but from the rare beauty of the extremities, and still more from the dignity and grace of the countenances. He had in his three nieces the most perfect models of beauty, and he possessed a sublimity of sentiment which elevated his mind to a high sense of excellence. His colouring, though conducted with exquisite sweetness, had a strong body, and his pictures preserve a clear and fresh tone. These are frequently to be found in the houses of the nobility, as he lived long. He painted some beautiful altarpieces, as S. Tommaso d'Aquino at the Sanità, the Baptism of S. Candida at S. Pietro d'Aram, and other pieces.

This artist had a niece of the name of Aniella di Rosa, who may be called the Sirani of the Neapolitan School, from her talents, beauty, and the manner of her death, the fair Bolognese being inhumanly poisoned by some envious artists, and Aniella murdered by a jealous husband. This husband was Agostino Beltrano, her fellow scholar in the school of Massimo, where he became a good fresco painter, and a colourist in oil of no common merit, as is proved by many cabinet pictures and some altarpieces. His wife also painted in the same style, and was the companion of his labours, and they jointly prepared many pictures which their master afterwards finished in such a manner that they were sold as his own. Some, however, pass under her own name, and are highly extolled, as the Birth and Death of the Virgin, at the Pietà, not however without suspicion that Massimo had a considerable share in that picture, as Guido had in several painted by Gentileschi. But at all events, her original designs prove her knowledge of art, and her contemporaries, both painters and writers, do not fail to extol her as an excellent artist, and as such Paolo de' Matteis, has admitted her name in his catalogue.

Three young men of Orta became also celebrated scholars in this academy, Paol Domenico Finoglia, Giacinto de' Popoli, and Giuseppe Marullo. By the first there remains at the Certosa at Naples, the vault of the chapel of S. Gennaro, and various pictures in the chapter house. He had a beautiful expression, fertility, correctness, a good arrangement of parts, and a happy general effect. The second painted in many churches, and is admired more for his style of composition, than for his figures. The third approached so near to his master in manner, that artists have sometimes ascribed his works to Massimo; and in truth he left some beautiful productions at S. Severino, and other churches. He had afterwards a dry style of colouring, particularly in his contours, which on that account became crude and hard, and he gradually lost the public favour. His example may serve as a warning to every one to estimate his own powers correctly, and not to affect genius when he does not possess it.

Another scholar who obtained a great name, was Andrea Malinconico, of Naples. There do not exist any frescos by him, but he left many works in oil, particularly in the church, de' Miracoli, where he painted almost all the pictures himself. The Evangelists, and the Doctors of the church, subjects with which he ornamented the pilasters, are the most beautiful pictures, says the encomiast, of this master; as the attitudes are noble, the conception original, and the whole painted with the spirit of a great artist, and with an astonishing freshness of colour. There are other fine works by him, but several are feeble and spiritless, which gave a connoisseur occasion to remark that they were in unison with the name of the painter.

But none of the preceding artists were so much favoured by nature as Bernardo Cavallino, who at first created a jealous feeling in Massimo himself. Finding afterwards that his talent lay more in small figures than large, he pursued that department, and became very celebrated in his school, beyond which he is not so well known as he deserves to be. In the galleries of the Neapolitan nobility are to be seen by him, on canvass and copper, subjects both sacred and profane, composed with great judgment, and with figures in the style of Poussin, full of spirit and expression, and accompanied by a native grace, and a simplicity peculiarly their own. In his colouring, besides his master and Gentileschi, who were both followers of Guido, he imitated Rubens. He possessed every quality essential to an accomplished artist, as even the most extreme poverty could not induce him to hurry his works, which he was accustomed frequently to retouch before he could entirely satisfy himself. Life was alone wanting to him, which he unfortunately shortened by his irregularities.^[115]

Andrea Vaccaro was a contemporary and rival of Massimo, but at the same time his admirer and friend, a man of great imitative powers. He at first followed Caravaggio, and in that style his pictures are frequently found in Naples, and some cabinet pictures, which have even imposed upon connoisseurs, who have bought them for originals of that master. After some time Massimo won him over to the style of Guido, in which he succeeded in an admirable manner, though he did not equal his friend. In this style are executed his most celebrated works at the Certosa, at the Teatini and Rosario, without enumerating those in collections, where he is frequently found. On the death of Massimo, he assumed the first rank among his countrymen. Giordano alone opposed him in his early years, when on his return from Rome he brought with him a new style from the school of Cortona, and both artists were competitors for the larger picture of S. Maria del Pianto. That church had been lately erected in gratitude to the Virgin, who had liberated the city from pestilence, and this was the subject of the picture. Each artist made a design, and Pietro da Cortona being chosen umpire, decided against his own scholar in favour of Vaccaro, observing, that as he was first in years, so he was first in design and natural expression. He had not studied frescos in his youth, but began them when he was advanced in life, in order that he might not yield the palm to Giordano, but by the loss of his fame, he verified the proverb, that ad omnem disciplinam tardior est senectus.

Of his scholars, Giacomo Farelli was the most successful, who by his vigorous talents, and by the assistance of his master, painted a picture in competition with Giordano. The church of S. Brigida has a beautiful picture of that saint by Farelli, and its author is mentioned by Matteis as a painter of singular merit. He declined however, in public esteem, from wishing at an advanced age to change his style, when he painted the sacristy of the Tesoro. He was on that occasion anxious to imitate Domenichino, but he did not succeed in his attempt, and indeed he never afterwards executed any work of merit.

Nor did Domenichino fail to have among the painters of Naples, or of that state, many deserving followers.^[116] Cozza, a Calabrian, who lived in Rome, I included in that school, as also Antonio Ricci, called il Barbalunga, who was of Messina, and well known in Rome. I may add, that he returned to Messina, and ornamented that city with many works; as at S. Gregorio, the saint writing; the Ascension at S. Michele; two Pietàs of different designs at S. Niccolo and the Spedale. He is considered as one of the best painters of Sicily, where good artists have abounded more than is generally imagined. He formed a school there and left several scholars.^[117]

I ought after him to mention another Sicilian, Pietro del Po da Palermo, a good engraver, and better known in Rome in that capacity, than as a painter. There is a S. Leone by him at the church of the Madonna di Costantinopoli; an altarpiece which however does not do him so much honour as the pictures which he painted for collections, some of which are in Spain; and particularly some small pictures which he executed in the manner of miniatures with exquisite taste. Two of this kind I saw in Piacenza, at the Sig. della Missione, a Decollation of S. John, and a Crucifixion of S. Peter in his best manner, and with his name. This artist, after working in Rome, settled in Naples with a son of the name of Giacomo, who had been instructed in the art by Poussin and himself. He also taught a daughter of the name of Teresa, who was skilled in miniatures. The two Pos were well acquainted with the principles of the art, and had taught in the academy of Rome. But the father painted little in Naples; the son found constant employ in ornamenting the halls and galleries of the nobility with frescos. His intimacy with letters aided the poetic taste with which his pictures were conceived, and his varied and enchanting colours fascinated the eye of every spectator. He was singular and original in his lights, and their various gradations and reflections. In his figures and drapery he became, as is generally the case with the machinists, mannered and less correct; nor has he any claim as an imitator of Domenichino, except from the early instructions of his father. In Rome there are two paintings by him, one at S. Angiolo in Pescheria, the other at S. Marta; and there are some in Naples; but his genius chiefly shines in the frescos of the gallery of the Marchese Genzano, and in the house of the Duke of Matalona, and still more in seven apartments of the Prince of Avellino.

A more finished imitator of Zampieri than the two Pos was a scholar of his, of the name of Francesco di Maria, the author of few works, as he willingly suffered those reproaches of slowness and irresolution which accompanied the unfortunate Domenichino to the grave. But his works, though few in number, are excellent, particularly the history of S. Lorenzo at the Conventuals in Naples, and also many of his portraits. One of the latter exhibited in Rome, together with one by Vandyke, and one by Rubens, was preferred by Poussin, Cortona, and Sacchi, to those of the Flemish artists. Others of his pictures are bought at great prices, and are considered by the less experienced as the works of Domenichino. He resembled that master indeed in every quality, except grace, which nature had denied him. Hence Giordano said of his figures, that when consumption had reduced the muscles and bones, they might be correct and beautiful, but still insipid. In return he did not spare Giordano; declaring his school "heretical, and that he could not endure works which owe all their merit to ostentatious colour, and a vague design," as Matteis, who is partial to the memory of Francesco, attests.

Lanfranco in Naples had contributed, as I have observed, to the instruction of Massimo, but that artist renounced the style of Lanfranco for that of Guido. The two Pos, however, were more attached to him, and imitated his colouring. Pascoli doubts whether he should not assign Preti to him, an error which we shall shortly confute. Dominici also includes among his countrymen Brandi, a scholar of Lanfranco; collecting from one of his letters that he acknowledged Gaeta for his native place. His family was probably from thence, but he himself was born in Poli.^[118] I included him among the painters of Rome, where he studied and painted; and I mentioned at the same time the Cav. Giambatista Benaschi, as he is called by some, or Beinaschi by others. This variation gave occasion to suppose, that there were two painters of that name; in the same way there may be a third, as the name is sometimes written Bernaschi. Some contradictions in his biographers, which it is not worth our while to enter on, have contributed to perpetuate this error. I shall only observe, that he was not born until 1636, and was not a scholar of Lanfranco, but of M. Spirito, in Piedmont, and of Pietro del Po, in Rome. Thus Orlandi writes of him, who had a better opportunity than Pascoli, or Dominici, of procuring information from Angela, the daughter of the Cavaliere, who lived in Rome in his time, and painted portraits in an agreeable style. He is considered both by Pascoli and Orlandi, as a painter of Rome, but he left very few works there, as appears from Titi. Naples was the theatre of his talents, and there he had numerous scholars, and painted many cupolas, ceilings, and other considerable works, and with such a variety of design, that there is not an instance of an attitude being repeated by him. Nor was he deficient in grace, either of form or colour, as long as he trod in the steps of Lanfranco, as he did in the S. M. di Loreto, and in other churches, but aspiring in some others to a more vigorous style, he became dark and heavy. He excelled in the knowledge of the sotto in su, and displayed extraordinary skill in his foreshortenings. The painters in Naples have often compared among themselves, says Dominici, the two pictures of S. Michael, the one by Lanfranco, and the other by Benaschi, in the church of the Holy Apostles, without being able to decide to which master they ought to assign the palm of merit.

Guercino himself was never in Naples, but the Cav. Mattia Preti, commonly called il Cav. Calabrese, allured by the novelty of his style, repaired to Cento, to avail himself of his instructions. This information we have from Domenici, who had heard him say, that he was in fact the scholar of Guercino, but that he had, moreover, studied the works of all the principal masters; and he had indeed visited almost every country, and seen and studied the best productions of every school, both in and beyond Italy. Hence in his painting he may be compared to a man whose travels have been extensive, and who never hears a subject started to which he does not add something new, and indeed the drapery and ornaments, and costume of Preti, are highly varied and original. He confined himself to design, and did not attempt colours until his twenty-sixth year. In design he was more vigorous and robust than delicate, and sometimes inclines to heaviness. In his colouring he was not attractive, but had a strong impasto, a decided chiaroscuro, and a prevailing ashy tone, that was well adapted for his mournful and tragical subjects; for, following the bent of his genius, he devoted his pencil to the representation of martyrdoms, slaughters, pestilence, and the pangs of a guilty conscience. It was his custom, says Pascoli, at least in his large works, to paint at the first conception, and true to nature, and he did not take much pains afterwards in correction, or in the just expression of the passions.

He executed some large works in fresco in Modena, Naples, and Malta. He had not equal success at S. Andrea della Valle, in Rome, where he painted three histories of that saint, under the tribune of Domenichino; a proximity from which his work suffers considerably, and the figures appear out of proportion, and not well adapted to the situation. His oil pictures in Italy are innumerable, as he lived to an advanced age; he had a great rapidity of hand, and was accustomed, wherever he went, to leave some memorial of his talents, sometimes in the churches, but chiefly in private collections, and they are, in general, figures of half size, like those of Guercino and Caravaggio. Naples, Rome, and Florence, all abound with his works, but above all Bologna. In the Marulli palace is his Belisarius asking alms; in that of Ratti, a S. Penitente, chained in a suffering position; in the Malvezzi palace, Sir Thomas More in prison; in that of the Ercolani, a Pestilence, besides many more in the same, and other galleries of the nobility. Amongst his altarpieces, one of the most finished is in the Duomo of Siena, S. Bernardino preaching to and converting the people. In Naples, besides the soffitto of the church de' Celestini, he painted not a little; less however than both he himself and the professors of a better taste desired, and in conjunction with whom he resisted the innovations of Giordano. But that artist had an unprecedented popularity, and in spite of his faults triumphed over all his contemporaries, and Preti was himself obliged to relinquish the contest, and close his days in Malta, of which order, in honour of his great merit as a painter, he was made a commendatore. He left some imitators in Naples, one of whom was Domenico Viola; but neither he, nor his other scholars passed the bounds of mediocrity. The same may be said of Gregorio Preti, his brother, of whom there is a fresco at S. Carlo de' Catinari, in Rome.

After this enumeration of foreign artists, we must now return to the national school, and notice some disciples of Ribera, It often happens that those masters who are mannerists, form scholars who confine their powers to the sole imitation of their master, and thus produce pictures that deceive the most experienced, and which in other countries are esteemed the works of the master himself. This was the case with Giovanni Do, and Bartolommeo Passante, in regard to Spagnoletto, although the first in progress of time softened his manner, and tamed his flesh tints; while the second added only to the usual style of Spagnoletto, a more finished design and expression. Francesco Fracanzani possessed a peculiar grandeur of style, and a noble tone of colour; and the death of S. Joseph, which he painted at the Pellegrini, is one of the best pictures of the city. Afterwards however his necessities compelled him to paint in a coarse manner in order to gratify the vulgar, and he fell into bad habits of life, and was finally, for some crime or other, condemned to die by the hands of the hangman, a sentence, which for the honour of the art, was compounded for his secret death in prison by poison.^[119]

Aniello Falcone and Salvator Rosa are the great boast of this school; although Rosa frequented it but a short time and improved himself afterwards by the instructions of Falcone. Aniello possessed an extraordinary talent in battle pieces. He painted them both in large and small size, taking the subjects from the sacred writings, from profane history, or poetry; his dresses, arms, and features, were as varied as the combatants he represented. Animated in his expression, select and natural in the figures and action of his horses, and intelligent in military affairs, though he had never been in the army, nor seen a battle; he drew correctly, consulted truth in every thing, coloured with care, and had a good impasto. That he taught Borgognone as some have supposed, it is difficult to believe. Baldinucci, who had from that artist himself the information which he published respecting him, does not say a word of it. It is however true, that they were acquainted and mutually esteemed each other; and if the battle pieces of Borgognone have found a place in the collections of the great, and have been bought at great prices, those of Aniello have had the like good fortune. He had many scholars, and by means of them and some other painters his friends, he was enabled to revenge the death of a relation and also of a scholar, whom the Spanish authorities had put to death. On the revolution of Maso Aniello, he and his partisans formed themselves into a company called the Band of Death; and, protected by Spagnoletto, who excused them to the Viceroy, committed the most revolting and sanguinary excesses; until the state was composed, and the people reduced to submission, when this murderous band fled, to escape the hands of justice. Falcone withdrew to France for some years, and left many works there; the remainder fled to Rome, or to other places of safety.