Book 2 — CHAPTER V.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH I.

Account of the Ancients until the time of Vinci.

If in each of our pictoric schools we have adhered to the plan of tracing back the memorials of more barbarous ages, and thence proceeding to more cultivated periods, Milan more especially as the capital of Lombardy, and the court of the Lombard kings, will afford us an epoch remarkable no less for its lofty character than for the grandeur of its monuments. When Italy passed from the dominion of the Goths to that of the Longobards, the arts, which invariably follow in the train of fortune, transferred their primary seat from Ravenna to Milan, to Monza, and to Pavia. Each of these places still retains traces of the sort of design now entitled, both on account of the place and the time, Longobardic, much in the same manner as in the diplomatic science we distinguish by the same name certain characters peculiar to that age, or rather to those ages, for after the Longobards were driven from Italy, the same taste in writing and sculpture continued to flourish during a great part of them. This style, as exhibited in works, both of metal and of marble, is coarse and hard beyond the example of any preceding age, and is seen most frequently and to most advantage in the representation of monsters, birds, and quadrupeds rather than of human figures. At the cathedral, at S. Michele, and at S. Giovanni in Pavia, appear some friezes over the gates, consisting of animals chained in a variety of ways to one another, sometimes in natural positions, and sometimes with the head turned behind. In the interior of the same churches, as well as in some others, we meet also with capitals, presenting similar figures, not unfrequently united to historical representations of men, differing so much from the human figure as to appear belonging to another species. The same kind of abuse of the art was practised in places under the sway of the Longobard dukes, one of which was the Friuli, which still preserves a number of these barbarous efforts. In Cividale there is a marble altar, first begun by Duke Pemmone, and completed by his son Ratchi, who lived during the eighth century. The bassi-relievi consist of Christ seated between different angels, his Epiphany, and the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin.[38] Art would appear scarcely capable of producing any thing more rude than these figures, yet whoever will be at the pains of examining the frieze on a gate at the same place, or the capitals of the pillars of S. Celso at Milan,[39] works of the tenth century, will admit that it was susceptible of still greater corruption when it added absurdity to its coarseness, and produced distorted and dwarfish figures, all hands and all heads, with legs and feet incapable of supporting them. There are an infinite number of similar marbles, and of like design, at Verona and other places. To these, nevertheless, are opposed other monuments which will not permit us to admit, as a general rule, that every trace of good taste was then extinct in Italy. I might easily adduce instances, drawn from different arts, and in particular from that of working in gold, which, during the tenth century, boasted its Volvino, who produced the very celebrated altar-piece at S. Ambrogio in Milan, a work which may be pronounced equal in point of style to the finest specimens of the dittici, or small ivory altar-pieces, that the museums of sacred art can boast.

Confining myself, however, to the subject before me, we know that Tiraboschi remarked in the palace of Monza, some of the most ancient pictures belonging to those ages, while other similar reliques are pointed out at S. Michele in Pavia, although placed in too elevated a situation to permit us to form an exact judgment of them. Others yet more extensive exist in Galliano, of which a description is given in the Opuscoli of P. Allegranza, (p. 193). Upon this point I may observe, that the Treatise upon Painting already mentioned, was discovered in a manuscript in the University of Cambridge to have had this title:—Theophilus Monachus (elsewhere qui et Rugerius), de omni scientiâ artis pingendi. Incipit Tractatus Lumbardicus qualiter temperantur colores, &c. This is a convincing proof, that if painting could then boast an asylum in Italy, it must have been more particularly in Lombardy. And in the church of S. Ambrogio, just mentioned, proofs of this are not wanting. Over the Confessional is seen a ceiling in terra cotta, with figures in basso-relievo, tolerably designed and coloured, resembling the composition of the best mosaic-workers in Ravenna and in Rome, supposed to be the work of the tenth century, or thereabouts. The figures of the Sleeping Saints are also seen near the gate, which must have been painted about the same time, and were at one time covered with lime, though they have since been brought to light and very carefully preserved by the learned ecclesiastics who are entrusted with the care of the temple. The portico has also a figure of the Redeemer, with a holy man worshipping at his feet, wholly in the Greek manner; besides a Crucifixion, which, to judge from the characters, might more suitably be ascribed to the thirteenth century than to the next. I omit the mention of several figures of the Crucified Saviour and of the Virgin, interspersed through the city and the state; contenting myself with referring to those of our Lady placed at S. Satiro and at Gravedona, which are of very ancient date.

From the period of these first efforts, I am of opinion that the art of painting continued to flourish throughout the state and city of Milan, though we are not fortunate enough to retain sufficient memorials of it to compile a full historical account. For little mention has been made by our oldest writers concerning the artists, except incidentally, as by Vasari in his Lives of Bramante, of Vinci, and of Carpi, and by Lomazzo, in his Treatise, and in his Temple, or Theatre[40] of Painting. As little likewise has been said by several of the more modern writers, nor that always with good authority, such as Torre, Latuada, Santagostini, whose narratives were collected by Orlandi, and inserted in his Dictionary. Some supplementary information has been supplied by Notices of the Paintings of Italy as to a variety of artists, and their exact age; and by the New Guide to Milan, truly new and unique until this period in Italy, and reflecting the highest credit upon the Ab. Bianconi, who not only points out every thing most rare in the city, but teaches us, by sound rules, how best to distinguish excellence from mediocrity and inferiority in the art. To this we may add the name of the Consiglier de' Pagave, who published very interesting notices relating to this school, in the third, fifth, and eighth volumes of the new Sienese edition of Vasari. I am also enabled to furnish considerable information in addition, politely transmitted to me in manuscript by the last writer, for the present work. From these I am happy to announce we may become acquainted with the names of new masters, along with much chronological information of a sounder kind, relating to those already known, frequently derived from the Necrologio of Milan, which had been carefully preserved by one of the public functionaries of that city.

By aid of these, and other materials I have to bring forward, I prepare to treat of the Milanese School from as early a date as 1335, when Giotto was employed in ornamenting various places in the city, which, down to the time of Vasari, continued to be esteemed as most beautiful specimens of the art. Not long subsequent to Giotto, an artist named Stefano Fiorentino was invited thither by Matteo Visconti, and is celebrated as one of the most accomplished pupils of the former. But he was compelled by indisposition to abandon the work he had undertaken in that city; nor do we know that at that period he had any successor in the Giotto manner. About the year 1370, Gio. da Milano, pupil to Taddeo Gaddi, arrived there, so able an artist that his master, at his death, entrusted to him the care of his son Angiolo, and another son, whom he was to instruct in a knowledge of the art. It is therefore evident that the Florentine early exercised an influence over the Milanese School. We are informed at the same time of two native artists, who, according to Lomazzo, flourished at the period of Petrarch and of Giotto. These are Laodicia di Pavia, called by Guarienti, pittrice, and Andrino di Edesia, also said to belong to Pavia, although both his name and that of Laodicia lead us to conjecture that they must have been of Greek origin. To Edesia and his school have been attributed some frescos which yet remain at S. Martino and other places in Pavia.[41] I cannot speak positively of the authors; their taste is tolerably good, and the colouring partakes of that of the Florentines of the age. Michel de Roncho, a Milanese, is another artist discovered by Count Tassi, at the same time that he gives some account of the two Nova who flourished at Bergamo. Michele is said to have assisted in their labours in the cathedral of that city, from the year 1376 to 1377, and remnants of these paintings survive, which shew that they approached nearer the composition of Giotto than the artists of Pavia. There are some pictures in Domodossola that also bring us acquainted with an able artist of Nova. They are preserved in Castello Sylva and elsewhere, and bear the following memorandum—Ego Petrus filius Petri Pictoris de Novariâ hoc opus pinxi, 1370. Without, however, going farther than Milan, we there find in the Sacristy of the Conventuali, as well as in different cloisters, paintings produced in the fourteenth century, without any indication of their authors, and most frequently resembling the Florentine manner, though occasionally displaying a new and original style, not common to any other school of Italy.

Among these anonymous productions in the ancient style, the most remarkable is what remains in the Sacristy of Le Grazie, where every panel presents us with some act from the Old or the New Testament. The author would appear to have lived during the latter part of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries; nor is it easy to meet with any other Italian production, conducted during that age by a single artist, so abundantly supplied with figures. The style is dry, but the colouring, where it has escaped the power of the sun, is so warm, so well laid on, so boldly relieved from its grounds, that it yields in nothing to the best Venetian or Florentine pieces of the time, insomuch that whoever be the artist he is fully entitled to all the praise of originality. Another Lombard artist, formerly believed to be a Venetian, is better known. His name has been incorrectly given by Vasari, in his life of Carpaccio, and in that of Gian Bellini, as well as by Orlandi and by Guarienti, in three articles inserted in the Dictionary of art. In one article, following Vasari, he is called by Orlandi, Girolamo Mazzoni, or Morzoni, and in the two others he is named Giacomo Marzone, and Girolamo Morzone, by Guarienti, a writer happier perhaps in adding to the errors and prejudices entertained about the old painters, than in correcting them. His real name is to be found upon an altar-piece which is still preserved at Venice, or in its island of S. Elena, a piece representing the Assumption of the Virgin, with the titular saint, S. Gio. Batista, S. Benedetto, and a holy Martyr, along with the following inscription—Giacomo Morazone à laurà questo lauorier. An. Dni. mccccxxxxi. The excellent critic Zanetti is persuaded, from its Lombard dialect, as well as from the fact of the artist having painted a good deal in different cities of Lombardy, as related by Vasari, that he does not belong to the Venetian, but to the Lombard School, and the more so as he took his name from Morazzone, a place in Lombardy. It is true, that granting this, there is no great sacrifice made, inasmuch as this Giacomo, who, when in Venice, was the competitor of Jacobello del Fiore, displayed little merit, at least in this picture, which cannot boast even a foot placed upon the ground according to the rules of perspective, nor any other merit that raises it much above the character of the thirteenth century.

Michelino was an artist who also retained the ancient style, and continued to the last the practice of making his figures large and his buildings small, a practice blamed by Lomazzo even in the oldest painters. He assigns to him a rank, however, among the best of his age on account of his designs of animals of every kind, which he painted, says Lomazzo, wonderfully well, and of the human figure, which he executed with effect, rather in burlesque than in serious subjects; and in this style was esteemed the model of his school. He would appear likewise to have been esteemed by foreigners, as we find in the Notizia Morelli, that in the house of the Vendramini at Venice there was preserved "a small book in 4to. bound in kid-skin, with figures of animals coloured" by this artist. At a little interval, according to Pagave, we are to place the period of Agostino di Bramantino, an artist unknown to Bottari, as well as to more recent investigators of pictorial history. I apprehend that an error committed by Vasari gave rise to an additional one in the mind of Pagave, a very accurate writer. Vasari, remarking that in a chamber of the Vatican, which was subsequently painted by Raffaello, the previous labours of Pier della Francesca, of Bramantino, of Signorelli, and of the Ab. di S. Clemente, were destroyed to accommodate the former, supposes that the two first of the artists, thus sacrificed, conducted them contemporaneously under Nicholas V. about 1450. Induced by the esteem he had for the same Bramantino, he collected notices also of his other works, and discovered him to be the author of the Dead Christ foreshortened, of the Family which deceived the horse at Milan, and of several perspectives; the whole of which account is founded in error, when attributed to a Bramantino, who flourished about 1450, yet the whole is true when we suppose them to have been the work of one Bramantino, pupil to Bramante, who lived in the year 1529. I cannot perceive, however, in what way the Consiglier Pagave could have detected Vasari's mistake in the Milanese works; whilst in those of the Vatican, which, according to Vasari himself, all belong to the same individual, he has taken occasion to repeat it. He had better have asserted that the historian had erred in point of chronology, in supposing that Bramantino painted under the pontificate of Nicholas V. than have ventured on the hypothesis of the existence of an ancient Bramantino, called Agostino, by whom a very beautiful work was to be seen in the papal palace, and no other specimen at Rome, at Milan, or elsewhere. I disclaim all belief then in this old artist until more authentic proofs are brought forward of his existence, and I shall be enabled to throw new light upon the subject before I conclude the present epoch.

In the time of the celebrated Francesco Sforza, and of the Cardinal Ascanio his brother, both desirous no less of enriching the city with fine buildings than these last with the most beautiful decorations; there sprung up a number of architects and statuaries, and, what is more to our purpose, of very able painters for the age. Their reputation spread through Italy, and induced Bramante to visit Milan, a young artist who possessed the noblest genius, both for architecture and painting, and who, after acquiring a name in Milan, taught the arts to Italy and to the world. The former had made little progress in point of colouring, which, though strong, was somewhat heavy and sombre, nor in regard to their drapery, which is disposed in straight, hard folds, until the time of Bramante, while they are also cold in their features and attitudes. They had improved the art, however, in regard to perspective, no less in execution than in writing on the subject; a circumstance that led Lomazzo to observe, that as design was the peculiar excellence of the Romans, and colouring of the Venetians, so perspective seemed to be the chief boast of the Lombards. It will be useful to report his own words, from his Treatise upon Painting, p. 405. "In this art of correctly viewing objects, the great inventors were Gio. da Valle, Costantino Vaprio, Foppa, Civerchio, Ambrogio and Filippo Bevilacqui, and Carlo, all of them belonging to Milan. Add to these Fazio Bembo da Valdarno, and Cristoforo Moretto of Cremona, Pietro Francesco of Pavia, and Albertino da Lodi;[42] who, besides the works they produced at other places, painted for the Corte Maggiore at Milan, those figures of the armed barons, in the time of Francesco Sforza, first duke of Milan:" that is to say, between the period of 1447 and 1466.

In treating of these artists, I shall observe nothing further in reference to the last four, having described those of Cremona in their own place, and not being aware that any thing more than the name of the other two survives at Milan; I say at Milan, because Pier Francesco of Pavia, whose surname was Sacchi, left, as we shall find, some fine specimens at Genoa, where he resided during some time. It is doubtful whether any altar-piece remains by the first of these, (Gio. della Valle,) it being impossible to ascertain the fact. Nor do I know of any genuine work belonging to Costantino Vaprio, though there is a Madonna painted by another Vaprio, surrounded by saints in different compartments, at the Serviti, in Pavia, with this inscription:—Augustinus de Vaprio pinxit 1498: a production of some merit.

Vincenzio Foppa, said by Ridolfi to have flourished about the year 1407, is esteemed almost the founder of the Milanese School, in which he distinguished himself during the sovereignty of Filippo Visconti, and that of Francesco Sforza. I alluded to his name in the Venetian School, to which he is referable from his being of Brescia, whatever Lomazzo may on the other hand contend. It is my wish to avoid all questions of nationality, and the compendious method of my work will be a sufficient apology in this respect, more particularly as far as relates to the names of less celebrated artists. But with the head of a school, such as Foppa, I cannot consider it a loss of time to investigate his real country, in particular as the elucidation of many confused and doubtful points in the history of the art is found to depend upon this. In Vasari's Life of Scarpaccia we find it mentioned, that about the middle of the century "Vincenzio, a Brescian painter, was held in high repute, as it is recounted by Filarete." And in the life of this excellent architect, as well as in that of Michelozzo, he says, that in some of their buildings, erected under Duke Francesco, Vincenzo di Zoppa (read Foppa), a Lombard artist, painted the interior, "as no better master was to be met with in the surrounding states." Now that there was a Vincenzo, a Brescian artist, who then and subsequently flourished, and who ranked among the best artists, is proved by Ambrogio Calepino, in his ancient edition of 1505, at the word pingo. There, after having applauded Mantegna beyond all other artists of his age, he adds:—Huic accedunt Jo. Bellinus Venetus, Leonardus Florentinus, et Vincentius Brixianus, excellentissimo ingenio homines, ut qui cum omni antiquitate de picturâ possint contendere. After so high a testimony to his merits, written, if I mistake not, while Foppa was still living, though edited after his decease, (as we noticed from the eulogy written by Boschini on Ridolfi, in its proper place); let us next attend to that found on his monument in the first cloister of S. Barnaba at Brescia, which runs as follows:—Excellentiss. ac. eximii. pictoris. Vincentii. de. Foppis. ci. Br. 1492. (Zamb. p. 32.) To these testimonials I may add that from the hand of the author, which I discovered in the Carrara Gallery at Bergamo, where, on a small ancient picture, conducted with much care, and a singular study of foreshortening, extremely rare for the period, representing Christ crucified between the two Thieves, is written:—Vincentius Brixiensis fecit, 1455.—What proof more manifest can be required for the identity of one and the same painter, recorded by various authors with so much contradiction with regard to name, country, and age?

It must therefore be admitted, after a comparison of the passages adduced, that there is only a single Brescian artist in question, that he is not to be referred to so remote a period as reported, and that he could not have painted in the year 1407 of the vulgar era, inasmuch as he very nearly reaches the beginning of the sixteenth century. We may for the same reasons dismiss from history those specious accounts interspersed by Lomazzo, asserting that Foppa drew the proportions of his figures from Lysippus; that Bramante acquired the art of perspective from his writings, out of which he composed a treatise of essential utility to Raffaello, to Polidoro, and to Gaudenzio; and that Albert Durer and Daniel Barbaro availed themselves, by plagiarism, of Foppa's inventions. Such assertions, already in a great measure refuted by the learned Consiglier Pagave in his notes to Vasari,[43] first took their rise in supposing that the age of Foppa was anterior to Piero della Francesca, from whom perspective in Italy may truly be said to have dated its improvement. Next to him Foppa was one of the first who cultivated the same art, as clearly appears from the little picture already mentioned at Bergamo. In Milan there are some of his works remaining at the hospital, executed upon canvass, and a martyrdom of S. Sebastiano, at Brera, in fresco, which, for design of the naked figure, for the natural air of the heads, for its draperies and for its tints, is very commendable, though greatly inferior in point of attitude and expression. I have frequently doubted whether there were two Vincenzi of Brescia, since Lomazzo, besides Vincenzo Foppa, whom, against the received opinion, he makes a native of Milan, marks down in his index a Vincenzio Bresciano, of whom I am not aware that he makes the slightest mention throughout the whole of his work. I am led to suspect, that meeting with some works bearing the signature of Vincenzio Bresciano, without the surname of Foppa, beyond the limits of Milan, the historian, fixed in his persuasion that Foppa must be a native of Milan, set down two artists of the name instead of a single one, and that this, moreover, was perhaps an old prejudice, prevailing in the Milanese School, and which Lomazzo was unable to dismiss. National errors and prejudices are always the last to be renounced. In the Notizia Morelli, a Vincenzo Bressano the elder is twice mentioned, an adjunct, which, if not a surname, as it was in the instance of Minzocchi, may have arisen from some false report connected with the two Vincenzi Bresciani. Indeed we have repeatedly observed that the names of artists have been very frequently drawn, not from authentic writings, but from common report, which generally presents us with a worse account of what has been ill heard or understood.

Vincenzo Civerchio, denominated by Vasari Verchio, to which Lomazzo, who asserts him to have been a Milanese, added the surname of Il Vecchio, is an artist whom we have recorded in the Venetian School, to which he is referred as a native of Crema, though he resided at Milan and educated several excellent pupils for that school, and with the exception of Vinci is the best entitled of any master to its gratitude. Vasari, when he praises his works in fresco, considers him in no way inferior to Foppa. In his figures he was extremely studied, and admirable in his method of grouping them in the distance, so as to throw the low grounds back, and bring down the higher parts with a gentle gradation. Of this he affords a model at S. Eustorgio in some histories of S. Peter Martyr, painted for a chapel of that name, which are highly commended by Lomazzo, though they have since been covered with plaister, there remaining only from the hand of Civerchio the summits of the cupola, which we trust will enjoy a longer date.[44] Ambrogio Bevilacqua is an artist known by a production at S. Stefano, representing S. Ambrogio with saints Gervasio and Protasio standing at his side. Other paintings procured for him the reputation of a fine drawer of perspective, though in the specimen here mentioned he has undoubtedly not adhered to its rules. The design, however, is such as approaches, with some slight traces of dryness, to a good style. Memorials of this artist are found as early as 1486; but of his brother Filippo, his assistant, and of Carlo, a native of Milan, mentioned by Lomazzo in the same work, I am able to find no account. There are two, however, who are referred by our already highly commended correspondent to this more remote epoch. These are Gio. de' Ponzoni, who left a picture of S. Cristoforo in a church near the city, called Samaritana, and a Francesco Crivelli, who is reported to have been the first who painted portraits in the city of Milan.

Of those who here follow, a part formed the body of painters under the government of Lodovico the Moor, during whose time Vinci resided at Milan, and others were gradually making progress during the following years, though not any wholly succeeded in freeing themselves from the old style. The first on the list are the two Bernardi, as frequently also called Bernardini, natives of Trevilio in the Milanese, the one of the family Butinoni, the other of that of Zenale, both pupils of Civerchio, and his rivals both in painting and in writing. Trevilio is a territory in the Milanese, at that period included in that of Bergamo, and for this reason comprehended by Count Tassi in its school. It is also a considerable distance from Trevigi, where he took advantage of the resemblance of the name to announce one Bernardino da Trevigi, a painter and architect, who never existed. Vasari mentions a Bernardino da Trevio (he meant to say Trevilio) who, in the time of Bramante, was an engineer at Milan, "a very able designer, and esteemed an excellent master by Vinci, though his manner was somewhat harsh and dry in his pictures;" and he then cites among his other works a picture of the Resurrection at the cloister of the Grazie, which presents some beautiful foreshortenings. It is surprising how Bottari should have changed Trevio into Trevigi, and how Orlandi should have understood Vasari as writing of Butinone, when, guided by Lomazzo, at page 271, and in other parts of the treatise, it was easy to conjecture that he was there speaking of Zenale of Trevilio. He was a distinguished character, in the confidence of Vinci,[45] and in the Treatise upon Painting compared with Mantegna, besides being continually referred to as an example in the art of perspective, on which, when old, in 1524, he composed a work, and put down a variety of observations. There, too, among others, he treated the question so long contested in those days, whether the objects represented small and in the distance ought to be less distinct in order to imitate nature, than those that are larger and more near, a question which he explained in the negative, contending rather that distant objects should be as highly finished and well proportioned as those more fully before the eye. This, then, is the Bernardino, so much commended by Vasari, whose opinion of this artist may be verified by viewing the Resurrection at Le Grazie, and a Nunziata at San Sempliciano, presenting a very fine piece of architecture, calculated to deceive the eye. This, however, is the best portion of the painting, as the figures are insignificant, both in themselves and in their drapery. In respect to Butenone, his contemporary, and companion also when he painted at San Pietro in Gessato, we may conclude that he displayed an excellent knowledge of perspective, since it is affirmed by Lomazzo. For the rest, his works, with the exception of a few pictures for rooms, better designed than coloured, have all perished. There is a Madonna represented between some saints, which I saw in possession of the Consiglier Pagave, at whose suggestion I add to the pupils of Civerchio, a Bartolommeo di Cassino of Milan, and Luigi de' Donati of Como, of whom authentic altar-pieces remain.

At the period when these artists were in repute, Bramante came to Milan. His real name, as reported to us by Cesariani his disciple and the commentator on Vitruvius, was Donato, and he was, as is supposed, of the family of Lazzari, though this has been strongly contested in the Antichità Picene, vol. x. There it is shewn, at some length, that his real country was not Castel Durante, now Urbania, as so many writers assert, but a town of Castel Fermignano. Both places are in the state of Urbino, whence he used formerly to be called Bramante di Urbino. There he studied the works of Fra Carnevale, though Vasari gives no further information respecting his education. He continues to relate that on leaving his native place he wandered through several cities in Lombardy, executing, to the best of his ability, small works, until his arrival at Milan, where, becoming acquainted with the conductors of the cathedral, and among these with Bernardo, he resolved to devote himself wholly to architecture, which he did. Before the year 1500 he went to Rome, where he entered the service of Alexander VI. and Julius II., and died there in his seventieth year, in 1514. We may here conjecture that the historian gave himself very little anxiety about investigating the memoirs of this great man. Sig. Pagave has proved to be a far more accurate inquirer into the truth. Animated by his love of this quality, the soul of all history, he at once renounced the honour his country would have derived from having instructed a Bramante; nor yet has he referred to[k] him as a pupil to Carnevale, or to Piero della Francesca, or to Mantegna, like some writers cited by Signor Colucci. He has properly noticed his arrival at Milan, already as a master, in 1476, after having erected both palaces and temples in the state of Romagna. From this period, until the fall of Lodovico, that is until 1499, he remained at Milan, where he executed commissions, with large salaries for the court, and was employed as well by private persons in works of architecture, and sometimes of painting.

Cellini in his second treatise denies Bramante the fame of an excellent painter, placing him in the middling class, and at this period he is known by few in lower Italy, where he is never named in collections, though he is very generally met with in the Milanese. Cesariano and Lomazzo had already asserted the same thing, the latter having frequently praised him in his work when giving an account of his pictures both sacred and profane, in distemper and in fresco, as well as of his portraits. His general manner, he observes, much resembles that of Andrea Mantegna. Like him he had employed himself in copying from casts, which led him to throw his lights with too much force on his fleshes. In the same manner also as Mantegna he covered his models with glued canvass, or with pasteboard, in order that in the curves and folds he might correct the ancients. And like him he employed for painting in distemper, a kind of viscous water, an instance of which is adduced by Lomazzo, who repaired one of the specimens. Most of Bramante's pictures in fresco, mentioned by Lomazzo and by Scaramuccia as adorning the public places in Milan, are now destroyed or defaced, if we except those that are preserved in the chambers of the Palazzi Borri and Castiglioni, which are pretty numerous. There is also a chapel in the Certosa at Pavia, said to have been painted by him. His proportions are square, and sometimes have an air of coarseness, his countenances are full, the heads of his old men grand, his colouring is very lively and well relieved from the ground, though not free from some degree of crudity. This character I have remarked in one of his altar-pieces, with various saints, and with fine perspective, in possession of the Cav. Melzi, and the same in a picture at the Incoronata in Lodi, a very beautiful temple erected by Gio. Bataggio, a native of the place, from the design of Bramante. His masterpiece, which is to be seen at Milan, is a S. Sebastiano, in that saint's church, where scarcely a trace of the style of the fourteenth century is perceptible. The Notizia Morelli points out his picture of a Pietà, at S. Pancrazio, in Bergamo, which Pasta had mistaken for one of Lotto, and mentions also his picture of the Philosophers, painted by Bramante in 1486, belonging to the same city.

He educated two pupils in Milan, whose names have survived. One of these is Nolfo da Monza, who is said to have painted from the designs furnished by Bramante, at S. Satiro and other places; an artist who, if not equal to the first painters, was nevertheless, it is remarked by Scanelli, of a superior character. In the sacristy also of S. Satiro, placed near the beautiful little temple of Bramante, are a number of old pictures, most probably from the hand of Nolfo. The other artist is Bramantino, supposed by Orlandi to have been the preceptor of Bramante, by others confounded with him, and finally discovered to have been his favourite disciple, from which circumstance he obtained his surname. His real name was Bartolommeo Suardi, an architect, and, what is more to my purpose, a painter of singular merit. In deceiving the eye of animals, he equalled the ancients, as we are acquainted by Lomazzo in the opening of his third book. During a period he followed his master; but on occasion of visiting Rome he improved his style, though not so much in regard to his figures and proportions, as in his colouring and his folds, which he made more wide and spacious. He was doubtless invited or conducted to Rome by Bramante, and there, under Pope Julius II., painted those portraits so highly praised by Vasari, and which, when about to be removed, to give place to Raffaello's, were first copied at the request of Jovius, who wished to insert them in his museum. It is certain that the Vatican paintings by Bramantino do not belong to the time of Nicholas V. as we have shewn. He returned from Rome to Milan, as we are informed by Lomazzo; and to this more favourable period we may refer his production of S. Ambrogio, and that of S. Michele, with a figure of the Virgin, coloured in the Venetian style, and recorded in the select Melzi gallery, and to be mentioned hereafter. There are also some altar-pieces both designed and coloured by him, in the church of S. Francesco, which display more elevation and dignity than belonged to his age. But his chief excellence was in perspective, and his rules have been inserted by Lomazzo in his work, out of respect to this distinguished artist. He likewise holds him up as a model, in his picture of the Dead Christ between the Maries, painted for the gate of S. Sepolcro, a work which produces a fine illusion; the legs of the Redeemer, in whatever point they are viewed, appearing with equal advantage to the eye. Other artists I am aware have produced the same effect: but it is a just, though a trite saying, that an inventor is worth more than all his imitators. The Cistercian fathers have a grand perspective in their monastery, representing the Descent of Christ into Purgatory, from his hand. It consists of few figures, little choice in the countenances, but their colouring is both powerful and natural; they are well placed, and well preserved in their distance, disposed in beautiful groups, with a pleasing retrocession of the pilasters, which serve to mark the place, united to a harmony that attracts the eye. He had a pupil named Agostin da Milano, well skilled in foreshortening, and who painted at the Carmine a piece that Lomazzo proposes, along with the cupola of Coreggio at the cathedral of Parma, as a model of excellence in its kind. His name is made very clear in the index of Lomazzo, as follows:—Agostino di Bramantino of Milan, a painter and disciple of the same Bramantino. I cannot imagine how such a circumstance escaped the notice of Sig. Pagave, and how he was led to present us with that more ancient Agostino Bramantino, (so called from his family name, not from that of his master) whose existence we have shewn to have been ideal, wholly arising out of a mistake of Vasari. The one here mentioned was real, though his name is so little known at Milan, as to lead us to suppose he must have passed much of his time in foreign parts. And we are even authorized to conjecture that he may be the same Agostino delle Prospettive whom we meet with in Bologna, in 1525. All the circumstances are so strong, that in a matter of justice, they would have proved sufficient to establish his identity; his name of Agostino, his age, suitable to the preceptorship of Suardi, his excellence in the art, which procured for him his surname, and the silence of Malvasia, who could not be ignorant of him, but who, because he was drawing up a history of the Bolognese School only, omitted to mention him.

There were other artists about 1500, who, as it is said, following Foppa, painted in the style which we now call antico moderno. Ambrogio Borgognone represented at S. Simpliciano the histories of S. Sisinio and some accompanying martyrs, which adorn one of the cloisters. The thinness of the legs, and some other remains of his early education, are not so displeasing in this work, as we find its accurate study, and the natural manner in which it is conducted, calculated to please. The beauty of his youthful heads, variety of countenance, simplicity of drapery, and the customs of those times, faithfully portrayed[l] in the ecclesiastical paraphernalia, and mode of living, together with a certain uncommon grace of expression, not met with in this or any other school, are sufficient to attract attention.

Gio. Donato Montorfano painted a Crucifixion, abounding with figures for the refectory of Le Grazie, where it is unfortunately thrown into the shade by the Grand Supper of Vinci. He cannot compete with a rival to whom many of the greatest masters are compelled to yield the palm. He excels only in his colouring, which has preserved his work fresh and entire, while that of Vinci shewed signs of decay in a few years. What is original in Montorfano is a peculiar clearness in his features, as well as in his attitudes, and which, if united to a little more elegance, would have left him but few equals in his line. He represents a group of soldiers seen playing, and in every countenance is depicted attention, and the desire of conquest. He has also some heads of a delicate air, extremely beautiful, though the distance in regard to their position is not well preserved. The architecture introduced, of the gates and edifices of Jerusalem, is both correct and magnificent, presenting those gradual retrocessions in perspective upon which this school at the time so much prided itself. He retained the habit which continued till the time of Gaudenzio at Milan, though long before reformed in other places, of mixing with his pictures some plastic work in composition, and thus giving in relief glories of saints, and ornaments of men and horses.

Ambrogio da Fossano, a place in the Piedmontese,[46] was an artist, who, at the grand Certosa in Pavia, designed the superb façade of the church, being an architect as well as a painter. In the temple before mentioned there is an altar-piece, which is ascribed either to him or his brother, not very highly finished, but in a taste not very dissimilar from that of Mantegna. Andrea Milanese, who has been confounded by one of Vasari's annotators with Andrea Salai, extorted the admiration of Zanetti, by an altar-piece he produced at Murano, executed in 1495, and it would appear that he studied in Venice. I cannot agree with Bottari that he is the same as Andrea del Gobbo, mentioned by Vasari in his life of Coreggio, since this last was a disciple of Gaudenzio.[47] About the same time flourished Stefano Scotto, the master of Gaudenzio Ferrari, much commended by Lomazzo for his art in arabesques, and of his family is perhaps a Felice Scotto, who painted a good deal at Como for private individuals, and left a number of pictures in fresco at S. Croce, relating to the life of S. Bernardino. His genius is varied and expressive, he displays judgment in composition, and is one of the best artists of the fourteenth century known in these parts. He was probably a pupil of some other school, his design being more elegant, and his colouring more clear and open than those of the Milanese. We might easily amplify the present list with other names, furnished by Morigia in his work on the Milanese nobility, where we find mentioned with praise Nicolao Piccinino, Girolamo Chiocca, Carlo Valli, or di Valle, brother to Giovanni, all of them Milanese, besides Vincenzo Moietta, a native of Caravaggio, who flourished in Milan about 1500, or something earlier, along with the foregoing. About the same period the study of miniature was greatly promoted by the two Ferranti, Agosto the son, and Decio the father, three works by whom are to be seen in the cathedral at Vigevano, consisting of a Missal, a book of the Evangelists, and one of the epistles illuminated with miniatures in the most exact taste.

Other professors then flourished throughout the state, of whom either some account remains in books, or some works with the signature of their names. At that period the Milanese was much more extensive than it has been since the cession of so large a portion to the house of Savoy. The artists belonging to the ceded portion will be considered by me in this school, to which they appertain, being educated in it, and instructing other pupils in it, in their turn. Hence besides those of Pavia, of Como, and others of the modern state, we shall in this chapter give some account of the Novarese and Vercellese artists (of whom I shall also give the information found in the prefaces to the tenth and eleventh volumes of Vasari, edited at Siena by P. della Valle), with others who flourished in the old state. Pavia boasted a Bartolommeo Bononi, by whom there is an altar-piece bearing the date of 1507, at San Francesco, and also one Bernardin Colombano who produced another specimen at the Carmine in 1515. In other churches I likewise met with some specimens by an unknown hand, (but perhaps by Gio. di Pavia, inserted by Malvasia in his catalogue of the pupils of Lorenzo Costa,) partaking a good deal of the Bolognese style of that age. At the same period flourished Andrea Passeri of Como, for whose cathedral he painted the Virgin among different apostles, in which the heads and the whole composition have some resemblance to the modern. But there is a dryness in the hands, with use of gilding unworthy of the age, (1505) in which his picture was painted. A Marco Marconi of Como, who flourished about 1500, displayed much of the Giorgione manner, and was probably a pupil of the Venetians. Troso da Monza was employed a good deal at Milan, and painted some pieces at S. Giovanni in his native place. Several histories of the Queen Teodelina, adorning the same church, executed in various compartments in 1444, are now also ascribed to him. It is not very easy to follow his inventions, somewhat confused and new in regard to the drapery and the Longobardish customs which he has there exhibited. There are some good heads, and colouring by no means despicable; for the rest, it is a mediocre production, and perhaps executed early in life. He is an artist much praised by Lomazzo for his other works which he left at the Palazzo Landi. They consist of Roman histories, a production, says Lomazzo, (p. 272) quite surprising for the figures as well as the architecture and the perspective, which is stupendous. Father Resta, cited by Morelli, who saw it in 1707, says that it almost astounded him by its surpassing excellence, beauty, and sweetness. (Lett. Pittor. tom. iii. p. 342.)

In the new state of Piedmont is situated Novara, where, in the archives of the cathedral, Gio. Antonio Merli painted in green earth Pietro Lombardo, with three other distinguished natives of Novara; an excellent portrait-painter for his age. In Vercelli, adjoining it, there flourished about 1460 Boniforte, Ercole Oldoni, and F. Pietro di Vercelli, of which last there is an ancient altar-piece preserved at S. Marco. Giovenone afterwards appeared, who is esteemed in that city as the first instructor of Gaudenzio, although Lomazzo is silent upon it. If he was not, he was worthy of the charge. The Augustin fathers possess a Christ risen from the Dead, between saints Margaret and Cecilia, with two angels, a picture of a noble character, in the taste of Bramantino and the best Milanese artists, and conducted with great knowledge of the naked figure and of perspective.

SCHOOL OF MILAN.

EPOCH II.

Leonardo da Vinci establishes an Academy of Design at Milan. His Pupils and the best native Artists down to the time of Gaudenzio.

In treating of the Florentine School we took occasion to enter into a brief examination of the pictoric education of Vinci, of his peculiar style, and of his residence in different cities, among which was mentioned Milan, and the academy which he there instituted. He arrived in that city, according to the testimony of Vasari, in the year 1594, the first of the reign of Prince Lodovico Il Moro; or rather he resided there, if not altogether, at least for the execution of commissions, from 1482, as it has been recently supposed,[48] and left it after its capture by the French in 1499. The years spent by Lionardo at Milan were, perhaps, the happiest of his life, and certainly productive of the most utility to the art of any in the whole period of his career. The duke had deputed him to superintend an academy of design, which, if I mistake not, was the first in Italy, which gave the law to the leading ones in other parts. It continued to flourish after the departure of Vinci, was much frequented, and formed excellent pupils, maintaining in the place of its first director, his precepts, his writings, and his models. No very distinct accounts indeed of his method have survived; but we are certain that he formed it on scientific principles, deduced from philosophical reasoning, with which Vinci was familiar in every branch. His treatise upon painting is esteemed, however imperfect, as a kind of second canon of Polycletes, and explains the manner in which Lionardo taught.[49] We may also gather some knowledge of it from his other numerous and various writings, which, having been left to the care of Melzi, and in the course of time distributed, now form the ornament of different cabinets. Fourteen volumes of these presented to the public, are in the Ambrosian collection, and many of them are calculated to smooth the difficulties of the art to young beginners. It is further known that the author, having entered into a familiar friendship with Marcantonio della Torre, lecturer of Pavia, united with him in illustrating the science of anatomy, then little known in Italy, and that he represented with the utmost exactness, in addition to the human figure, that of the horse, in a knowledge of which he was esteemed quite unrivalled. The benefit he conferred upon the art by the study of optics is also well known, and no one was better acquainted with the nature of aërial perspective,[50] which became a distinctive and hereditary characteristic of his school. He was extremely well versed in the science of music, and in playing upon the lyre, and equally so in poetry and history. Here his example was followed by Luini and others; and to him likewise it was owing that the Milanese School became one of the most accurate and observing in regard to antiquity and to costume. Mengs has noticed before me that no artist could surpass Vinci in the grand effect of his chiaroscuro. He instructed his pupils to make as cautious an use of light as of a gem, not lavishing it too freely, but reserving it always for the best place. And hence we find in his, and in the best of his disciples' paintings, that fine relief, owing to which the pictures, and in particular the countenances, seem as if starting from the canvass.

For a long period past, the art had become gradually more refined, and considered its subjects more minutely; in which Botticelli, Mantegna, and others had acquired great reputation. As minuteness, however, is opposed to sublimity, it ill accorded with that elevation in which the supreme merit of the art would seem to consist. In my opinion Lionardo succeeded in uniting these two opposite qualities, before any other artist. In subjects which he undertook fully to complete, he was not satisfied with only perfecting the heads, counterfeiting the shining of the eyes, the pores of the skin, the roots of the hair, and even the beating of the arteries; he likewise portrayed each separate garment and every accessary with minuteness. Thus, in his landscapes also, there was not a single herb or leaf of a tree, which he had not taken like a portrait, from the select face of nature; and to his very leaves he gave a peculiar air, and fold, and position, best adapted to represent them rustling in the wind. While he bestowed his attention in this manner upon the minutiæ, he at the same time, as is observed by Mengs, led the way to a more enlarged and dignified style; entered into the most abstruse inquiries as to the source and nature of expression, the most philosophical and elevated branch of the art; and smoothed the way, if I may be permitted to say so, for the appearance of Raffaello. No one could be more curious in his researches, more intent upon observing, or more prompt in catching the motions of the passions, as exhibited either in the features or the actions. He frequented places of public assembly, and all spectacles in which man gave free play to his active powers; and there, in a small book always ready at hand, he drew the attitudes which he selected; and these designs he preserved in order to apply them, with expressions more or less powerful, according to the occasion, and the degree of expression he wished to introduce. For it was his custom, in the same manner as he gradually strengthened his shadows until he reached the highest degree; so also in the composition of his figures, to proceed in heightening them until he attained the perfection of passion and of motion. The same kind of gradation he observed in regard to elegance, of which he was perhaps the earliest admirer; since previous artists appeared unable to distinguish grace from beauty, and still more so to adapt it to pleasing subjects in such a way as to rise from the less to the more attractive points, as was practised by Lionardo da Vinci. He even adhered to the same rule in his burlesques; always throwing an air of greater ridicule over one than another, insomuch that he was heard to say, that they ought to be carried to such a height, if possible, as even to make a dead man laugh.

The characteristic, therefore, of this incomparable artist, consists in a refinement of taste, of which no equal example, either preceding or following him, is to be found; if, indeed, we may not admit that of the old Protogenes, in whom Apelles was unable to find any reason why he himself should be preferred to him, except it were the superabundant industry of his competitor.[51] And, in truth, it would appear, that Vinci likewise, did not always call to mind the maxim of "ne quid nimis," in the observance of which, the perfection of human pursuits is to be found. Phidias himself, said Tully, bore in his mind a more beautiful Minerva and a grander Jove, than he was capable of exhibiting with his chisel; and it is prudent counsel, that teaches us to aspire to the best, but to rest satisfied with attaining what is good. Vinci was never pleased with his labours if he did not execute them as perfectly as he had conceived them; and being unable to reach the high point proposed with a mortal hand, he sometimes only designed his work, or conducted it only to a certain degree of completion. Sometimes he devoted to it so long a period as almost to renew the example of the ancient who employed seven years over his picture. But as there was no limit to the discovery of fresh beauties in that work, so, in the opinion of Lomazzo, it happens with the perfections of Vinci's paintings, including even those which Vasari and others allude to as left imperfect.

Before proceeding further, it becomes our historical duty, having here mentioned his imperfect works, to inform the reader of the real sense in which the words are to be taken when applied to Vinci. It is certain he left a number of works only half finished, such as his Epiphany, in the ducal gallery at Florence, or his Holy Family, in the archbishop's palace at Milan. Most frequently, however, the report is grounded upon his having left some portion of his pieces less perfectly finished than the rest; a deficiency, nevertheless, that cannot always be detected even by the best judges. The portrait, for instance, of M. Lisa Gioconda, painted at Florence in the period of four years, and then, according to Vasari, left imperfect, was minutely examined by Mariette, in the collection of the king of France, and was declared to be carried to so high a degree of finish, that it was impossible to surpass it. The defect will be more easily recognized in other portraits, several of which are yet to be seen at Milan; for instance, that of a lady belonging to the Sig. Principe Albani; and one of a man, in the Palazzo Scotti Gallerati. Indeed Lomazzo has remarked, that, excepting three or four, he left all the rest of his heads imperfect. But imperfections and faults like his would have been accounted distinguishing qualities in almost any other artist.

Even his grand Supper has been stated in history as an imperfect production, though at the same time all history is agreed in celebrating it as one of the most beautiful paintings that ever proceeded from the hand of man. It was painted for the refectory of the Dominican fathers, at Milan, and may be pronounced a compendium not only of all that Lionardo taught in his books, but also of what he embraced in his studies. He here gave expression to the exact point of time best adapted to animate his history, which is the moment when the redeemer addresses his disciples, saying, "One of you will betray me." Then each of his innocent followers is seen to start as if struck with a thunderbolt; those at a distance seem to interrogate their companions, as if they think they must have mistaken what he had said; others, according to their natural disposition, appear variously affected; one of them swoons away, one stands lost in astonishment, a third rises in indignation, while the very simplicity and candour depicted upon the countenance of a fourth, seem to place him beyond the reach of suspicion. But Judas instantly draws in his countenance, and while he appears as it were attempting to give it an air of innocence, the eye rests upon him in a moment as the undoubted traitor. Vinci himself used to observe, that for the space of a whole year, he employed his time in meditating how he could best give expression to the features of so bad a heart; and that being accustomed to frequent a place where the worst characters were known to assemble, he there met with a physiognomy to his purpose; to which he also added the features of many others. In his figures of the two Saints Jacopo, presenting fine forms, most appropriate to the characters, he availed himself of the same plan; and being unable with his utmost diligence to invest that of Christ with a superior air to the rest, he left the head in an unfinished state, as we learn from Vasari, though Armenini pronounced it exquisitely complete. The rest of the picture, the tablecloth with its folds, the whole of the utensils, the table, the architecture, the distribution of the lights, the perspective of the ceiling, (which in the tapestry of San Pietro, at Rome, is changed almost into a hanging garden) all was conducted with the most exquisite care; all was worthy of the finest pencil in the world. Had Lionardo desired to follow the practice of his age in painting in distemper, the art at this time would have been in possession of this treasure. But being always fond of attempting new methods, he painted this masterpiece upon a peculiar ground, formed of distilled oils, which was the reason that it gradually detached itself from the wall, a misfortune which had also nearly befallen one of his Madonnas, at S. Onofrio, at Rome, though it was preserved under glass. About half a century subsequent to the production of his great Supper, when Armenini then saw it, it was already half decayed; and Scanelli, who examined it in 1642, declares that it "was with difficulty he could discern the history as it had been." In the present century a hope had been indulged of this magnificent painting being restored by aid of some varnish, or other secret, as may be seen by consulting Bottari. In regard to this, however, and the other vicissitudes of this great picture, we ought also to consider what is stated in a tone of ridicule and reproach by Bianconi, in his New Guide.[52] It will be sufficient for my purpose to add, that nothing remains in the modern picture from the hand of Vinci, if we except three heads of apostles, which may be said to be rather sketched than painted. Milan boasts few of his works, as those which are ascribed to him are for the most part the productions of his school, occasionally retouched by himself, as in the altar-piece of S. Ambrogio ad nemus, which has great merit. A Madonna, however, and Infant, in the Belgioioso d'Este palace, as well as one or two other pictures in private possession, are undoubtedly from his hand. We are assured, indeed, that he left few pieces at Milan, as well from his known fastidiousness in painting, as from his having been diverted from it, both by inclination and by the commissions received from the prince, to conduct works connected with engineering, hydraulics, and machinery for a variety of purposes, besides those of architecture;[53] and especially in regard to that celebrated model of a horse, of which, owing to its size, as we are told by Vasari, no cast could be taken in bronze. And this writer is the more entitled to credit, as well because he flourished near the period of which he treats, as because he could hardly be ignorant of a work, which would almost have placed the fame of our Italian on an equality with that of Lysippus.[54]

Of all his labours in Milan, therefore, nothing is better deserving of our notice than the academy which he founded, whose pupils constitute the proudest and most flourishing epoch of this school. They are not all equally well known; and we often find, both in collections and in churches, that pictures are pointed out as being of the school of Vinci, without specifying the particular artists. Their altar-pieces seldom display composition, varying much from that common to other schools of the age; namely, figures of the Virgin with the Infant, upon a throne, surrounded by saints, chiefly in an erect posture, and a few cherubs on the steps. Vinci's disciples, however, if I mistake not, were the first who conferred on their figures some degree of unity in action, so as to give them the appearance of conversing with each other. In the remaining parts, also, they exhibit a pretty uniform taste; they represent the same faces, all somewhat oval, smiling lips, the same manner in their precise and somewhat dry outlines, the same choice of temperate colours, well harmonized, together with the same study of the chiaroscuro, which the less skilful artists overcharge with darkness, while the better ones apply it in moderation.

One who approached nearest to his style, at a certain period, was Cesar da Sesto, likewise called Cesare Milanese, though not recorded by Vasari, or Lomazzo, in the list of his disciples. Still he is generally admitted by more modern writers. In the Ambrosian collection is the head of an old man, so extremely clear and studied, in the Vinci manner, by this artist, as to surprise the beholder. In some of his other works he followed Raffaello, whom he knew in Rome; and it is reported, that this prince of painting one day said to him, "It seems to me strange that being bound in such strict ties of friendship as we two are, we do not in the least respect each other with our pencils," as if they had been rivals on a sort of equality. He was intimate too with Baldassar Peruzzi, and was employed with him in the castle of Ostia. In this work, which was one of the earliest efforts of Baldassare, Vasari seems inclined to yield the palm of excellence to the Milanese artist. He was esteemed Vinci's best pupil; and he is more than once held up by Lomazzo, as a model in design, in attitude, and more particularly in the art of using his lights. He cites an Herodias by him, of which I have seen a copy in possession of the Consiglier Pagave, and the countenance bore an extreme resemblance to the Fornarina of Raffaello. The Cav. D. Girolamo Melzi has likewise one of his Holy Families, in the Raffaello manner, which he obtained a few years ago at an immense sum, as well as that celebrated altar-piece painted for S. Rocco. It is divided into compartments; in the midst is seen the Titular Saint and the Holy Virgin, with the Infant, imitated from a figure by Raffaello, which is at Foligno. From his Dispute of the Sacrament he likewise borrowed the S. Gio. Batista seated on a cloud, which is accompanied with the figure of St. John the Evangelist, placed in the same position. These decorate the upper part of the picture; the lower being occupied by the figures of the two half-naked saints, Cristoforo and Sebastiano, both appropriately executed, and the last exhibiting a new and beautiful foreshortening. They are on a larger scale than the figures of Poussin, and with such resemblance to Coreggio's, that, in the opinion of the Ab. Bianconi, they might have been easily ascribed to him, in default of the artist's name; such is the softness, union, and brightness of the fleshes, such their beauty of colouring, and the harmony investing the whole painting. It used to be closed with two panels, where, with a certain correspondence of subjects, were drawn the two princes of the Apostles, with Saints Martino and Giorgio on horseback; all of which display the same maxims, though not equal diligence in the art. Hence we may infer that this artist did not, like Vinci, aspire at producing masterpieces as an invariable rule, but was content, like Luini, with occasional efforts of the kind.

At the church of Sarono, situated between Pavia and Milan, are seen the figures of four Saints, drawn on four narrow pilasters; the two equestrian saints, already mentioned, and Saints Sebastiano and Rocco, to whom especially invocations are made against the plague. They are inscribed with the name Cæsar Magnus, f. 1533: the foreshortening is well adapted to the place; and the figure of S. Rocco more especially displays a composition such as we have mentioned. The features are not very pleasing, with the exception of those of St. George, as they are somewhat too round and full. These pieces are in general assigned to the artist of whom we here treat, and many are inclined to infer, from the inscription, that he belonged to the family of the Magni. But it is doubted by others; the frescos not appearing to justify his high reputation, however excellent in their way. Besides, I find the death of Cesare da Sesto recorded, in a MS. communicated to me by Sig. Bianconi, as occurring in the year 1524, though not in such a manner as to remove all kind of doubt. I find some reason for inclining to an opposite opinion in the great diversity of style, remarkable in this artist, the conformity of various ideas in the frescos and in his altar-piece, together with the silence of Lomazzo, generally so exact in his mention of the best Lombards, and who records no other Cesare but da Sesto.

I ought not to separate the name of this noble figurist from that of Bernazzano the landscape painter, as they were united no less in interest than in friendship. It is uncertain whether he was instructed by Vinci; he doubtless availed himself of his models, and in drawing rural landscape, fruits, flowers, and birds, he succeeded so admirably as to produce the same wonderful effects as are told of Zeuxes and Apelles, in Greece. This indeed Italian artists have frequently renewed, though with a less degree of applause. Having represented a strawberry-bed in a court-yard, the peafowl were so deceived by its resemblance, that they pecked at the wall until the painting was destroyed. He painted the landscape part for a picture of the Baptism of Christ, and on the ground drew some birds in the act of feeding. On its being placed in the open air, the birds were seen to fly towards the picture, as if to join their companions. As this artist had the sense to perceive his own deficiency in figures, he cultivated an intimacy with Cesare, who added to his landscapes fables and histories, sometimes with a degree of license that is reprobated by Lomazzo. These paintings are held in high esteem, where the figure-painter has made a point of displaying his powers.

Gio. Antonio Beltraffio, as his name is written on his monument, was a gentleman of Milan, who employed only his leisure hours in painting, and produced some works at Milan, and other places; but the best is at Bologna. It is placed at the Misericordia, and bore his signature, with that of his master Vinci, and the date 1500, though these have been since erased. In it is represented the Virgin between Saints John the Baptist and Bastiano, while the figure of Girolamo da Cesio, who gave the commission for the picture, is seen kneeling at the foot of the throne. It forms the only production of Beltraffio placed in public, and is on that account esteemed the more valuable. The whole of it exhibits the exact study of his school in the air of the heads, judicious in composition, and softened in its outlines. His design, however, is rather more dry than that of his fellow pupils; the effect, perhaps, of his early education, under the Milanese artists of the fourteenth century, not sufficiently corrected.

Francesco Melzi was another Milanese of noble birth, enumerated among Lionardo's disciples, though he had only the benefit of his instructions in design during his more tender years. He approached nearest of any to Vinci's manner, conducting pieces that are frequently mistaken for those of his master; but he employed himself seldom, because he was rich.[55] He was greatly esteemed by Vinci, inasmuch as he united a very fine countenance to the most amiable disposition, his gratitude inducing him to accompany his master on his last visit into France. He was as generously rewarded for it, becoming heir to the whole of Vinci's designs, instruments, books, and manuscripts. He promoted as far as possible the reputation of his master, by furnishing both Vasari and Lomazzo with notices for his life; and by preserving for the eye of posterity the valuable collection of his writings. For as long as the numerous volumes deposited at the Ambrosian library continue to exist, the world must admit that he was one of the chief revivers, not only of painting but of statics, of hydrostatics, of optics, and of anatomy.

Andrea Salai, or Salaino, was, from similar qualities, a great favourite with Vinci, who chose him according to the language of the times, as his creato, using him as a model for beautiful figures, both of a human and angelic cast. He instructed him, as we are told by Vasari, in matters pertaining to the art, and retouched his labours, which I think must gradually have changed their name; as a Salai is not now esteemed like a Vinci. There is a St. John the Baptist pointed out as his, elegant, but rather dry, in the archbishop's palace; a very animated portrait of a man, in the Aresi palace; with a few other pieces. His picture in the sacristy of S. Celso, is more particularly celebrated. It was drawn from the cartoon of Lionardo, executed at Florence, and so greatly applauded, that the citizens ran to behold it, as they would have done some great solemnity. Vasari calls it the cartoon of St. Anna, who, with the Virgin, is seen fondling the Holy Child, while the infant John the Baptist is playing with him. Subsequently, this cartoon rose into such repute, that when Francis I. invited Vinci to his court, he entreated that he would undertake the colouring; but the latter, says Vasari, according to his custom, amused him a long while with words. It appears, moreover, from a letter of P. Resta, inserted in the third volume of the Lettere Pittoriche, that Vinci formed three cartoons of his St. Anna, one of which was coloured by Salai. This artist admirably fulfilled the design of the inventor, in the taste of his well harmonised and low colours, in the agreeable character of his landscape, and in grand effect. In the same sacristy, opposite to it, was placed, for some time, a Holy Family by Raffaello, now removed to Vienna; nor did it shrink from such competition. A similar copy of the same cartoon was obtained from Vienna for our reigning sovereign, Ferdinand III. and now adorns the ducal gallery at Florence, likewise, perhaps, from the hand of Salai.

Marco Uglone, or Uggione, or da Oggione, ought to be included among the best Milanese painters. He did not employ himself exclusively on favourite pictures, like most of the scholars of Vinci, who preferred to paint little and well; but was celebrated for his frescos; and his works at the Pace still maintain their outline entire, and their colours bright. Some of these are in the church, and a very magnificent picture of the Crucifixion is to be seen in the refectory; surprising for the variety, beauty, and spirit of its figures. Few Lombard artists attained the degree of expression that is here manifested; and few to such mastery of composition and novelty of costume. In his human figures, he aimed at elegance of proportion; and in those of horses he is seen to be the disciple of Vinci. For another refectory, that of the Certosa, in Pavia, he copied the Supper of Lionardo, and it is such as to supply, in some measure, the loss of the original. Milan boasts two of his altar-pieces, one at S. Paolo in Compito, and another at S. Eufemia, in the style of the school we have described, and both excellent productions; though the manner which he observed in his frescos, is more soft and analogous to modern composition.

In the historical memoirs of Vinci, written by Amoretti, one Galeazzo is mentioned as one of his pupils, though it is difficult to decide who he was, along with other artists recorded in the Vinci MSS. These are one Jacomo, one Fanfoia, and a Lorenzo, which might perhaps be interpreted to be Lotto, did not the epochs pointed out by Count Tassi and P. Federici, relating to this artist, appear inapplicable to the Lorenzo of Vinci, who was born in 1488, and came to Lionardo in April, 1505, and probably while Vinci was at Fiesole, since he was there in the month of March in that year; that is, a month before,[56] and continued to reside with him at least while he remained in Italy. I am inclined to believe he filled the place of his domestic.

Father Resta, in his "Portable Gallery," cited by me in the third chapter, inserts also, among Vinci's Milanese disciples, one Gio. Pedrini, and Lomazzo, a Pietro Ricci, of whom I can learn nothing farther. Some, indeed, include in the same list Cesare Cesariano, an architect and painter in miniature, whose life has been written by Poleni. Lattuada, too, mentions Niccola Appiano, and makes him the author of a fresco painting over the gate of the Pace, which is certainly in the Vinci manner. Cesare Arbasia, of whom we shall further treat in the sixth book of the fifth volume, under the head of Piedmont, was erroneously referred, at Cordova, to the school of Vinci, and is mentioned as his pupil by Palomino. This was impossible, if we consider the epochs of his life, together with the character of his paintings. Were a resemblance of style enough to decide the question of preceptorship, I might here add to Leonardo's school a number of other Milanese, both of the city and the state. I cannot, however, dispense with a maxim, which, under a variety of forms, I have recommended to my readers; that history alone can ascertain for us the real pupils, as style does such as are imitators. Being unable, therefore, to pronounce them disciples, I shall give to Vinci only as his imitators the names of Count Francesco d'Adda, who was accustomed to paint on panels and on slate for private cabinets; Ambrogio Egogui, of whom there remains at Nerviano a fine altar-piece, executed in 1527; Gaudenzio Vinci, of Nova, who is distinguished also for another altar-piece at Arona, with a date anterior to the preceding. I never saw any of these; but it is agreed by all, that they are in the Vinci manner; and that the last especially is an astonishing production. Another work, which made its appearance only a few years ago at Rome, representing the figure of the Virgin, and quite in Leonardo's composition, as I have heard, bears the following inscription: Bernardinus Faxolus de Papia fecit, 1518. It was purchased by the Sig. Principe Braschi, for his very choice gallery; and it appeared truly surprising at Rome, that such a painter should be presented to our age, as it were alone, and without a word of recommendation from any historian. Yet similar occurrences are not unknown in Italy, and it forms a portion of her fame to enumerate her celebrated artists by ranks and not by numbers.

It remains for us to do justice to Vinci's most distinguished imitator, Bernardin Lovino, as he writes it, or Luini, as it is generally expressed; a native of Luino, in the Lago Maggiore. Resta asserts, that he did not arrive at Milan until after the departure of Vinci, and that he was instructed by Scotto. The author of the Guide, (at page 120) includes him in the list of Lionardo's pupils, and this, from the period when he flourished, might, I think, have been the case. Because if Gaudenzio, born in 1484, was at once the disciple of Scotto and of Lovino, as we are informed in the treatise of Lomazzo, (p. 421) it follows, that Bernardino must already have been a master about 1500, the time when Vinci left Milan. To much the same period Vasari refers Bernardino da Lupino, (he should have said da Luino,) an artist who painted the Marriage and other histories of the Virgin in so highly finished a taste at Sarono. One of Vasari's annotators erroneously again changes the name of Lupino into Lanino, a pupil of Gaudenzio. My supposition respecting the age of Bernardino, is further confirmed by a portrait which he drew of himself at Sarono, in his Dispute of the child Jesus with the Doctors, where he appears then old, and this picture was executed in the year 1525, as appears from the date. Luini, therefore, may have been one of Vinci's disciples; and he certainly frequented his academy. Others indeed of the school surpassed him in delicacy of hand, and in the pleasing effect of the chiaroscuro, a quality for which Lomazzo commends Cesare da Sesto, declaring that Luini drew his shadows in too coarse a style. Notwithstanding this, no artist approached nearer Vinci, both in point of design and colouring than Bernardino, who very frequently composed in a taste so like that of his master, that out of Milan many of his pieces pass for those of Vinci. Such is the opinion of true connoisseurs, as reported and approved by the author of the New Guide, who is assuredly one belonging to this class. He adduces two examples in the pictures at the Ambrosiana; namely, the Magdalen, and the St. John, who is seen caressing his lamb, a piece which foreigners can hardly be persuaded is not from Vinci's own hand. I have seen other pictures of equal, or nearly equal, merit, in different Milanese collections which I have frequently mentioned.

We must, however, add what I observed in reference to Cesare da Sesto just before, that in some of his works there is great resemblance to the manner of Raffaello, such as in a Madonna, belonging to the Prince of Keweniller, and one or two others which I know were purchased under the impression of their being Raffaello's. Hence, I imagine, must have arisen the opinion, that he had visited Rome, which is very properly questioned by the Ab. Bianconi, (p. 391), who rather inclines to the negative. Nor can I myself admit it without some further proofs, a similarity of manner to me appearing far too weak an argument to decide the fact. The same point was discussed in the third chapter on the subject of Coreggio; and if we found reason to conclude, that Coreggio succeeded in enlarging and refining his divine genius to such a degree, without seeing either Raffaello or Michelangiolo at Rome, we may admit the same to have been the case in the instance of Luini. The book of nature is equally open to all artists; taste is a sure guide to selection; and, by degrees, practice leads to the complete execution of what is thus selected. Vinci's taste so nearly resembled that of Raffaello in point of delicacy, grace, and expression of the passions, that had he not been diverted by other pursuits, and had he sacrificed some degree of his high finish, for the sake of adding to his facility, amenity, and fulness of outline, his style would naturally have run into competition with that of Raffaello, with whom, as it is, in some of his heads especially, he has many points in common. It was the same with Bernardino, who had embued himself with the taste of Vinci, and nourished during a period that bordered on an improved degree of freedom and softness of manner. At first, indeed, he adopted a less full and somewhat dry style, such as we easily recognise in his Pietà, at the Passione; subsequently he proceeded gradually to modernize it. Even that fine little picture of the Ebriety of Noah, which is shewn at S. Barnaba, as one of his most exquisite pieces, retains a certain precision in its design, a hardness of drapery and a direction of folds, which remind us of the fourteenth century. He becomes more modern in his histories of S. Croce, executed about 1520, several of which he repeated at Sarono five years after, where he appears to surpass his own productions. These last are the works which most resemble Raffaello's composition; though they retain that minuteness in decoration, the gilding of glories, and the abundance of little ornament in the temples, such as we see in Mantegna and his contemporaries; all of which were abandoned by Raffaello, when he arrived at his best manner.

It is my opinion, in fact, that this artist was not so much indebted to Rome, from whose masters he probably only imitated some prints or copies, as to Vinci's academy, with whose maxims he became completely familiar; and more especially to his own genius, vast in its kind, and equalled by very few. I say in its kind; for I allude to all that is sweet, beautiful, pious, and sensitive in the art. In those histories of our Lady, at Sarono, her features present us with a lovely union of beauty, dignity, and modesty, such as approach to Raffaello, although they are not his. They are, moreover, always consistent with the history the artist represents, whether we behold the Virgin at the marriage, or listening with wonder to the prophecies of Simeon; when, penetrated with the grand mystery, she receives the wise men of the east; or when, with a countenance of mingled joy and sorrow, she inquires of her divine son, teaching in the temple, why he had thus left her. The other figures possess a corresponding beauty; the heads appear to live, the looks and motions seem to be expecting a reply; combined with variety of design, of drapery, and of passions, all borrowed from nature; a style in which every thing appears natural and unstudied, which gains at a first view, which compels the eye to study part by part, and from which it cannot withdraw itself without an effort: such is the character of Luini's style in that temple. We observe little variation in his other pictures, which he executed with more care, and at a more mature age, at Milan; nor can I imagine what could lead Vasari to assert that the whole of his works are tolerable; when we meet with so many calculated to excite our wonder. Let us consult his picture of Christ scourged, at S. Giorgio, and inquire by what hand the countenance of our Redeemer has been drawn more full of kindness, humility, and piety; or turn to his smaller cabinet paintings in the possession of the Signori Litta, and other noble houses, so beautifully finished, and inquire again how many artists in his own times could have equalled him in these? The genius of Luini does not, moreover, appear to have been at all fastidious or slow; at least in his fresco paintings. Thus his Crown of Thorns, placed at the college of S. Sepolcro, a picture abounding with figures, for which he received one hundred and fifteen lire, occupied him thirty-eight days, besides eleven more, during which one of his pupils was engaged on the work. He availed himself of similar aid, likewise, in painting the choir of Sarono, in the Monastero[m] Maggiore, at Milan, in several churches of Lago Maggiore, and in other places; and to these assistants we ought apparently to ascribe whatever parts we find less perfect.

Two only of his disciples, his own sons, as far as I can learn, are known. At the period when Lomazzo published his treatise, in 1584, they were both living, and both mentioned by him with commendation. Of Evangelista, the second brother, he remarks, that in the art of ornamenting and festooning, he was equally ingenious and fanciful, at the same time giving him a high rank in other branches of painting; though it is to be regretted that he did not point out any of his productions. Aurelio Luini is frequently praised in the same work, as well as in the Teatro, for his knowledge of anatomy, and for his skill in landscape and perspective. He is subsequently introduced in the Treatise upon Painting, among the most celebrated artists of Milan who then flourished, as a successful rival of Polidoro's style, of which a specimen is praised, consisting of a large fresco, on the façade of the Misericordia. After the lapse of two centuries, Bianconi has written of him with more freedom, declaring, that though the son, he was not the follower of Bernardino, the purity of whose style he was far from attaining. And, in truth, if we except his composition, there is not much calculated to please in this artist. We may, indeed, often trace the paternal manner, much deteriorated however, and tainted with mannerism; his ideas are common, his attitudes less natural, the folds of his drapery are minute, and drawn in a mechanical manner. This character prevails in some genuine pieces of his that I have seen; among which is one in the Melzi Collection, with his name and the date of 1570. Others, however, which I have examined at Milan, are in a better taste, especially at S. Lorenzo, where an altar-piece with the Baptism of Christ, is ascribed to him, that would have done credit to Bernardino. Aurelio instructed in the art Pietro Gnocchi; and, if I mistake not, he was surpassed by his pupil, both in selection and in good taste. A Pietro Luini, having the reputation of a soft and accurate hand, and esteemed the last of the Luini, being admitted in history, I doubt whether he be not the Pietro of whom we here treat, occasionally surnamed from the house of his master, as we find in the case of Porta, and others of the sixteenth century. To him was ascribed the S. Pietro, painted for S. Vittore, seen in the act of receiving the Keys; but in the New Guide it is correctly given to the hand of Gnocchi.

Having thus shewn, as in a family tree, the regular successors of Leonardo at Milan, we must prepare to examine the other school, that traces its origin to Foppa, and other artists of the fourteenth century, who are mentioned in their place. It is not to be confounded with that of Vinci, and is separately considered by writers on the subject, though it is known to have derived great advantage from his models, and, I believe, from his discourse, inasmuch as he is allowed, like Raffaello, to have been extremely courteous and agreeable in his reception of every one, and in communicating his knowledge to all who desired it without any feeling of jealousy. If we take the pains to examine Bramantino and the rest of the Milanese artists, subsequent to the middle of the sixteenth century, we shall find them all more or less imitators of Vinci, aiming at his mode of chiaroscuro and his expression, rather dark in their complexions, and addicted to colour rather with force than with amenity. They are, however, less studious of ideal beauty, less noble in their conceptions, less exquisite in their taste, with the exception of Gaudenzio, who in every thing rivals the first artists of his age; and he is the only one of the ancient school who inculcated its maxims by teaching as well as by example.

Gaudenzio Ferrari da Valdugia is called by Vasari Gaudenzio Milanese. We mentioned him among Raffaello's assistants, referring to the account of Orlandi, who gives him as a pupil to Pietro Perugino, and noticing certain pictures that are attributed to him in lower Italy. But in those parts, where he only tarried a short time, or attempted some new method, he can scarcely be recognized, the information regarding it being very doubtful, which will be further shewn under the Ferrarese School. In Lombardy we may now treat of him with more certainty, many of his works being met with, and many particulars of him from the pen of Lomazzo, his successor in the art, as we shall shortly shew. He mentions Scotto as his master, and next to him Luini; and that previous to either of these he studied with Giovanone, is a current tradition at Vercelli. Novara is thought to be in possession of one of his first paintings, an altar-piece with various divisions at the cathedral, in the taste of the fourteenth century, and with the gilt decorations then so much in request. Vercelli possesses at S. Marco his copy of the cartoon of S. Anna, to which are added the figures of S. Joseph and some other saints. It is a youthful production, but which shews Gaudenzio to have been an early imitator of Vinci, from whom, says Vasari, he derived great assistance. He went young to Rome, where he is said to have been employed by Raffaello, and acquired a more enlarged manner of design, and greater beauty of colouring than had been practised by the Milanese artists. Lomazzo, against the opinion of Scannelli, ranks him among the seven greatest painters in the world, among whom he erred in not including Coreggio. For whoever will compare the cupola of S. Giovanni at Parma with that of S. Maria near Sarono, painted by Gaudenzio about the same period, must admit that there are a variety of beauties in the former, we may in vain seek for in the latter. Although we must admit that it abounds with fine, varied, and well expressed figures, yet Gaudenzio will be found in this, as in some other of his works, to retain traces of the old style; such as a degree of harshness; too uniform a disposition of his figures; his draperies, particularly of his angels, some of them drawn in lines like Mantegna's; with figures occasionally relieved in stucco, and then coloured, a practice he observed also in his trappings of horses, as well as in other accessaries in the manner of Montorfano.

With the exception of these defects, which he wholly avoided in his more finished pieces, Gaudenzio must be pronounced a very great painter, and one who approached nearest of any among Raffaello's assistants to Perino and to Giulio Romano. He displays also a vast fund of ideas, though of an opposite cast, Giulio having frequently directed his genius to profane and licentious subjects, while the former confined himself to sacred compositions. He appears truly unequalled in his expression of the divine majesty, the mysteries of religion, and all the feelings of piety, of which he himself offered a laudable example, receiving the title of Eximie pius in one of the Novarese assemblies. He was excellent in strong expression; not that he aimed at exhibiting highly wrought muscular powers, but his attitudes were, as Vasari entitles them, wild, that is, equally bold and terrible where his subjects admitted of them. Such is the character of his Christ's Passion, at the Grazie in Milan, where Titian was his competitor; and his Fall of S. Paul, at the Conventual friars in Vercelli, a picture approaching the nearest of any to that of Michelangiolo in the Pauline chapel. In the rest of his pictures he shews great partiality for the most difficult foreshortenings, which he introduces very frequently. If he fails in reaching the peculiar grace and beauty of Raffaello, he at least greatly partakes of that character, as we observe in his S. Cristoforo, at Vercelli, where, in addition to the picture of the titular saint, he painted upon the walls various histories of Jesus Christ, and others of Mary Magdalen. In this great work he appears more perhaps than in any other, in the character of a beautiful painter, presenting us with the most lovely heads, and with angels as lively in their forms as spirited in their attitudes. I have heard it praised as his masterpiece, though Lomazzo and the author of the Guide both agree in asserting that the manner he adopted in the Sepolcro of Varallo surpassed all he had elsewhere produced.

If we examine into further particulars of his style, we shall find Ferrari's warm and lively colouring so superior to that of the Milanese artists of his day, that there is no difficulty in recognizing it in the churches where he painted; the eye of the spectator is directly attracted towards it; his carnations are natural, and varied according to the subjects; his draperies display much fancy and originality, as varied as the art varies its draperies; with middle tints, blended so skilfully as to equal the most beautiful produced by any other artist. And if we may so say, he represented the minds even better than the forms of his subjects. He particularly studied this branch of the art, and we seldom observe more marked attitudes or more expressive countenances. Where he adds landscape or architecture to his figures, the former chiefly consists of very fanciful views of cliffs and rocks, which are calculated to charm by their novelty; while his edifices are conducted on the principles of the best perspective. As Lomazzo, however, has dwelt so much at length on his admirable skill both in painting and modelling, it would be idle to insist upon it further. But I ought to add, that it is a great reflection upon Vasari that he did not better know, or better estimate such an artist; so that foreigners, who form their opinions only from history, are left unacquainted with his merit, and have uniformly neglected to do him justice in their writings.

Ferrari's disciples for a long period maintained the manner of their master, the first in succession with more fidelity than the second class, and the second than the third. The chief part were more eager to imitate his expression and his facility than the elegance of his design and colouring, even so far as to fall into the bordering errors of negligence and of caricature. The less celebrated scholars of Gaudenzio were Antonio Lanetti da Bugnato, of whom I know of no remaining genuine production; Fermo Stella da Caravaggio, and Giulio Cesare Luini Valsesiano, who are still to be met with in some of the chapels at Varallo. Lomazzo, in the thirty-seventh chapter of his Treatise, besides Lanino, to come shortly under consideration, mentions, as imitators of Gaudenzio, Bernardo Ferrari of Vigevano, where two sides of the cathedral organ are painted by his hand; and Andrea Solari, or del Gobbo, or Milanese, as he is called by Vasari at the close of his life of Coreggio, in whose age he flourished. He says he was "a very excellent and beautiful painter, and attached to the labours of the art," adducing some of his pictures in private, and an Assumption at the Certosa in Pavia, in which Torre (p. 138) gives him Salaino as a companion. His two most distinguished pupils were Gio. Batista della Cerva and Bernardino Lanino, from whom sprung two branches of the same school, the Milanese and that of Vercelli.