The History Of Painting In Italy Volume Iii Part 1

The History of Painting in Italy.

Vol. 3.

by Luigi Antonio Lanzi.

BOOK I.

VENETIAN SCHOOL.

This School would have required no farther ill.u.s.tration from any other pen, had Signor Antonio Zanetti, in his highly esteemed work upon Venetian Painting, included a more ample consideration of the artists of the state, instead of confining his attention wholly to those, whose productions, ornamenting the churches and other public places, had all been completed in the city of Venice alone. He has, nevertheless, rendered distinguished service to any one ambitious of succeeding him, and of extending the same subject beyond these narrower limits; since he has observed the most lucid order in the arrangement of epochs, in the description of styles, in estimating the merits of various painters, and thus ascertaining the particular rank as well as the age belonging to each. Those artists then, whom he has omitted to commemorate, may be easily reduced under one or other of the divisions pointed out by him, and the whole history enlarged upon the plan which he first laid down.

In cultivating an acquaintance with these additional names, the memorials collected by Vasari; afterwards, on a more extensive scale, by the Cavaliere Ridolfi, in his Lives of the Venetian Painters; and by Boschini, in the _Miniere della Pittura_, in the _Carta del Navegar Pittoresco_, and in other works: materials drawn from all parts of the Venetian state--will be of signal advantage to us. No one, it is hoped, will feel displeased at the introduction of the name of Vasari, against whom the historians of the Venetian School were louder in their complaints than even those of the Roman, the Siennese, and the Neapolitan Schools; all whose causes of difference I have elsewhere recounted, adding to them, whenever I found them admissible, my own refutations. These it would be needless now to repeat, in reply to the Venetian writers. I shall merely observe that Vasari bestowed very ample commendations upon the Venetian professors, in different parts of his history, and more particularly in the lives of Carpaccio, of Liberale, and of Pordenone. Let me add that if he was occasionally betrayed into errors, either from want of more correct information, or from a degree of jealousy or spirit of patriotic rivalry, which probably may have secretly influenced him in his opinions, it will be no difficult task in the present enlightened period,[1] to subst.i.tute the real names, more exact accounts, and more impartial examinations of the earlier professors of the school.[2]

In respect to the more modern, up to whose period he did not reach, I possess historical matter, which, if not very copious, is certainly less scanty than such as relates to many of the other Schools of Italy.

Besides Ridolfi, Boschini, and Zanetti, it includes the historians of the particular cities, the same from whom Orlandi selected his various notices of artists; and among whom none is to be preferred to Signor Zamboni for the fulness and authenticity of his materials, in his work, ent.i.tled _Fabbriche di Brescia_. I am, moreover, in possession of several authors who have distinctly treated of the lives, or published other accounts of those who flourished in their own cities;--such as the Commendatore del Pozzo, in his notice of the Veronese,[3] Count Ta.s.si of those of Bergamo, and Signor Verci of the Ba.s.sanese artists. And no slight a.s.sistance may also be drawn from the different "_Guides_," or descriptions of paintings, exhibited in many cities of the state, although they are far from being all of equal merit. There is the "Guida Trevigiana," of Rigamonti, that of Vicenza printed by Vendramini Mosca, that of Brescia by Carboni, and that of Verona, expressly drawn from the "_Verona Ill.u.s.trata_" of the Marquis Maffei, with the still more valuable one of Venice, dated 1733, from the able pen of Antonio M.

Zanetti. To these we may likewise add that first published by Rossetti, now revised and improved by Brandolese, abounding with historical memoirs of the painters of Padua; and the Guide of Rovigo by Bartoli, communicating much new and interesting information, which serves to point out more accurately certain eras among the professors of the art, while the same may, in part, be observed of that of Bergamo, by the Dottore Pasta. Nor are these all; for I am not a little indebted to several notices published in the "Elogj" of Signor Longhi, and in some of the catalogues of private collections; besides other anecdotes, in part collected by myself, in part[4] communicated by my friends, and in particular by the very accomplished Sig. Gio. Maria Sa.s.so,[5] who has already promised to gratify us with his "Venezia Pittrice," accompanied with designs of the most esteemed paintings of this school, accurately engraved.

[Footnote 1: It is observed by Signor Bottari, that Giorgio, in his life of Franco, was too sparing of his praises of Tintoret and Paul Veronese; and the same might be said also of Gambera, and many others, who flourished at the same period, or were already deceased when he wrote.

To his opinions have succeeded those of the Caracci, and of many other distinguished professors of the art, which may be safely relied upon.]

[Footnote 2: There very opportunely appeared, in the year 1800, at Ba.s.sano, a "Notizia d'Opere di Disegno"--"Upon works of Design," the anonymous production, apparently, of some inhabitant of Padua, about 1550. It was published and ill.u.s.trated by the learned Abbate Morelli, and contains several anecdotes, relating more particularly to the Venetian School.]

[Footnote 3: The celebrated painter, Cignaroli, besides drawing up a complete _Catalogue raisonne_, of the painters of Verona, already published in the Chronicle of Zagata, vol. iii., left behind him MS.

notes upon the entire work of Pozzo, in the margin.]

[Footnote 4: I have been enabled in this edition, by means of Count Cav.

de Lazzara, to avail myself of a MS. from the pen of Natal Melchiori, ent.i.tled, "_Lives of the Venetian Painters_," drawn up in 1728. The author is deserving of credit, no less on account of having been himself a painter, than from his personal acquaintance with the chief part of those whose lives he commemorated.]

[Footnote 5: This excellent man is now no more, and his work has not hitherto appeared. That, however, by the Sig. Co. Canonico de Rinaldis, on the painters of Friuli, we have received. It embraces a much more correct and enlarged view of that n.o.ble school, than we before possessed in the scantier notices from the pen of Altan. Still he is not always exact, and he would undoubtedly have written better, had he seen more.

At length, however, we are in possession of the work of Padre M.

Federici, in two volumes, relating to the artists of the "Marca Trevigiana," accompanied by doc.u.ments; a work better calculated than the former to satisfy the expectations of a reader of taste. But, as is generally the case, when an author hazards new opinions, we are sometimes compelled to suspend our a.s.sent to his conclusions.]

VENETIAN SCHOOL.

EPOCH I.

_The Ancients._

If in the outset of each school of painting I were to pursue the example held up in the _Etruria Pittrice_, of introducing the account of its pictures by that of some work in mosaic, I ought here to mention those of Grado, wrought in the sixth century, distinguished by the name of the Patriarch Elia, those of Torcello, and a few other specimens that appeared at Venice, in the islands, and in Terra Firma, produced at periods subsequent to the increase of the edifices, together with the grandeur of the Venetian state. But admitting that these mosaics, like many at Rome, may really be the production of the Greeks; the t.i.tle of my work, confined as it is to painting, and to the period of its revival in Italy, leads me to be little solicitous respecting those more ancient monuments of the fine arts, remnants of which are to be found scattered here and there, without any series of a school. I shall still, however, occasionally allude to them, according as I find needful, were it only for the sake of ill.u.s.tration and comparison, as I proceed. But such information ought to be sought for in other works; mine professes only to give the history of painting from the period of its revival.

The most ancient pictorial remains in the Venetian territories I believe to be at Verona, in a subterraneous part of the nunnery of Santi Nazario and Celso, which, however inaccessible to the generality of virtuosi, have, nevertheless, been engraved on a variety of plates by order of the indefatigable Signor Dionisi. In this, which was formerly the Chapel of the Faithful, are represented several mysteries of our redemption; some apostles, some holy martyrs, and in particular the transit of one of the righteous from this life, on whom the archangel, St. Michael, is seen bestowing his a.s.sistance. Here the symbols, the workmanship, the design, the att.i.tudes, the drapery of the figures, and the characters united, permit us not to doubt that the painting must be much anterior to the revival of the arts in Italy. But most writers seem to trace the rudiments of Venetian painting from the eleventh century, about the year 1070, at the period when the Doge Selvo invited the mosaic workers from Greece to adorn the magnificent temple, consecrated to St. Mark the Evangelist. Such artificers, however rude, must have been acquainted, in some degree, with the art of painting; none being enabled to work in mosaic who had not previously designed and coloured, upon pasteboard or cartoon, the composition they intended to execute.

And these, observe the same writers, were the first essays of the art of painting in Venice. However this may be, it speedily took root, and began to flourish after the year 1204, when Constantinople being taken, Venice was in a short time filled, not indeed with Grecian artists, but with their pictures, statues, and ba.s.si relievi.[6] Had I not here restricted my observations to existing specimens of the art, bestowing only a rapid glance upon the rest, along with their authors, I might prove, that from the above period, the city was no longer dest.i.tute of artists; and was enabled, in the thirteenth century, to form a company of them with their appropriate laws and inst.i.tutions.

But of these elder masters of the art, there remains either only the name, as of a Giovanni da Venezia and a Martinello da Ba.s.sano, or some solitary relic of their labours without a name, as in the sarcophagus, in wood, of the Beata Giuliana, painted about the year 1262, the same in which she died. This monument remains in her own monastery of San Biagio alla Guidecca, long held in veneration, even after the body of the blessed saint had been removed, in the year 1297, into an urn of stone.

There are there represented San Biagio, the t.i.tular saint of the church, San Cataldo, the bishop, and the blessed Giuliana, the two former in an upright, the latter in a kneeling posture; their names are written in Latin, and the style, although coa.r.s.e, is nevertheless not Greek.

Probably that of the painter is also in the same corner, a picture of whom, a Pieta, has recently been discovered by the Ab. Boni, who considers him a new Cimabue of the Venetian art. As it has already been described by him in his Florentine collection of "Opuscoli Scientifici,"[7] I shall not extend my account of it; for the reader will there find other names, as will afterwards be shewn, recently discovered by the indefatigable author of some early Venetian writers, until this period unknown to history. Among these are Stefano Pievano, of S. Agnese, a picture by whom, dated 1381, is described; Alberegno, belonging to the fifteenth century, and one Esegrenio, who flourished somewhat later, to which time we may refer two fine and highly valued figures of holy virgins, not long since discovered, of Tommaso da Modena, and which, from the disputes they have elicited, have been subjected to experiments at Florence, to ascertain whether they are painted in oil or distemper--experiments that tend only to prove that this Tommaso was unacquainted with the art of colouring in oil.

It was only subsequent to the year 1300, that the names, united to the productions of the Venetians, began to make themselves manifest; when, partly by the examples held out by Giotto, partly by their own a.s.siduity and talent, the painters of the city and of the state visibly improved, and softened the harshness of their manner. Giotto, according to a MS.

cited by Rossetti,[8] was at Padua in 1306; according to Vasari, he returned from Avignon in 1316; and a little while afterwards he was painting at Verona, in the palace of Can della Scala, and at Padua, employed on a chapel in the church of the t.i.tular saint. He adds, that towards the close of his days he was again invited there, and embellished other places with his pieces. Nothing, however, remains of him in Verona; but in Padua there still exists the chapel of the Nunziata all'Arena, divided all round into compartments, in each of which is represented some scriptural event. It is truly surprising to behold, not less on account of its high state of preservation, beyond any other of his frescos, than for its full expression of native grace, together with that air of grandeur which Giotto so well knew how to unite. With respect to the chapel, it is believed that Vasari was less accurately informed, inasmuch as Savonarola, who has been cited by Sig.

Morelli,[9] relates that Giotto ornamented the little church of the Arena, _capitulumque Antonii nostri_, and the chapter _of our St.

Antony_. And in fact, in the apartment of the chapter house, there yet remain several traces of ancient painting, though turned white with age.

In a very ancient MS., of the year 1312,[10] there is made mention of his also having been employed _in Palatio Comitis_, which others suppose ought to be read _Communis_, intended to apply to the Saloon, of which I shall shortly have to give some account.

To Giotto succeeded Giusto Padovano, so called from the place of his naturalization and usual residence; being, in truth, a Florentine, sprung from the family of the Menabuoi. As a disciple of Giotto, Vasari attributes to him the very extensive work which adorns the church of St.

John the Baptist. In the picture over the altar, if it be his, Giusto has exhibited various histories of St. John the Baptist; on the walls are represented both scriptural events and mysteries of the Apocalypse; and on the cupola he has drawn a Choir of Angels, where we behold, as if in a grand consistory, the blessed arrayed in various garments, seated upon the ground; simple, indeed, in its conception, but executed with an incredible degree of diligence and felicity. It is mentioned in the _Notizia Morelli_, that formerly there was to be read there an inscription over one of the gates--_Opus Johannis et Antonii de Padua_,--probably companions of Giusto, and, probably, as is conjectured by the author of the MS. above alluded to, the painters of the whole temple. This would seem to augment the number of the Paduan artists, no less than the imitators of Giotto; since the works, already described, are equally as much in his manner as those by Taddeo Gaddi, or any other of his fellow pupils in Florence. The same commendation is bestowed upon Jacopo Davanzo, of whom I treat more at length in the school of Bologna.

A less faithful follower of Giotto was Guariento, a Paduan, held in high esteem about the year 1360, as appears from the honourable commissions he obtained from the Venetian senate. One of his frescos and a crucifixion yet remain at Ba.s.sano;[11] and in the choir of the Eremitani, at Padua, there are many of his figures now retouched, from which Zanetti took occasion to commend him for his rich invention, the spirit of his att.i.tudes, and the felicity with which, at so early a period, he disposed his draperies. At Padua there is an ancient church, dedicated to St. George, erected about 1377, which boasts some history pieces of St. James, executed by the hand of Alticherio, or Aldigieri, da Zevio in the Veronese; and others of St. John, the work of one Sebeto,[12] says the historian, a native of Verona. These, likewise, approach pretty nearly the style of Giotto, and more especially the first, who painted also a good deal in his native place.

To these two I may add Jacopo da Verona, known only by his numerous paintings in fresco at San Michele of Padua, which remain in part entire; and Taddeo Bartoli, of Siena, who has shewn himself ambitious at the Arena, of emulating the contiguous labours of Giotto, without attaining the object in view. Another production of the same period is seen in the great hall at Padua, reported to be one of the largest in the world, consisting, as it does, of a mixture of sacred historic pieces, of celestial signs borrowed from Igino, and of the various operations carried on during the respective months of the year, besides several other ideas certainly furnished by some learned man of that age.

It is partly the work, says Morelli in his _Notizia_, upon the authority of Campagnuola, of an artist of Ferrara, and partly that of Gio.

Miretto, a Paduan. This recent discovery justifies my own previous opinions, having been unable to prevail upon myself to ascribe such a production to Giotto, although it partakes strongly of his style, which appears to have spread pretty rapidly throughout the territories of Padua, of Verona, of Bergamo, and great part of the Terra Ferma.

Besides this manner, which may be, in some measure, p.r.o.nounced foreign, there are others equally observable in Venice, no less than in Treviso, in the Chapter of the Padri Predicatori, and in other of the subject cities, and these might more accurately be termed national, so remote are they from the style of Giotto, and that of his disciples before mentioned. I have elsewhere pointed out how far the miniature painters contributed to this degree of originality, a cla.s.s of artists, with whom Italy, at no time dest.i.tute, more fully abounded about that period, while they still continued to improve by employing their talents in drawing objects from the life, and not from any Greek or Italian model.

Indeed they had already made no slight advances in every branch of painting, when Giotto first arrived in those parts. I have myself seen, in the grand collection of MSS., made in Venice, by the Abbate Canonici, a book of the Evangelists, obtained in Udine, ill.u.s.trated with miniatures in pretty good taste for the thirteenth century, in which they were produced; and similar relics are by no means rare throughout the libraries of the state. I suspect, therefore, that many of those new painters, either having been pupils of the miniaturists, or induced to imitate them from the near connexion between the arts, attempted to vie with them in design, in the distribution of their colours, and in their compositions. Hence, it is clearly accounted for, why they did not become the disciples, though acquainted with the works of Giotto, but produced several respectable pieces of their own.

To this cla.s.s belongs M. Paolo, whom Zanetti found recorded in an ancient parchment, bearing the date of 1346. He is the earliest in the national manner, of whom there exists a work with the indisputable name of its author. It is to be seen in the great church of St. Mark, consisting of a tablet, or, as it is otherwise called, _Ancona_, divided into several compartments, representing the figure of a dead Christ, with some of the Apostles, and historic incidents from the holy Evangelist. There is inscribed underneath--_Magister Paulus c.u.m Jacobo, et Johanne filiis fecit hoc opus_; and Signor Zanetti, page 589, observes in regard to it as follows:--_Among the specimens of simple painting, in St. Mark's, the ball centre of the great altar is remarkable for several small tablets of gold and silver, on which are painted several figures in the ancient Greek manner. San Pietro Urseolo had it constructed about the year 980, at Constantinople, and it was removed to this place in the time of the Doge Ordelafo Faliero, in 1102, though it was afterwards renovated by command of the Doge Pietro Ziani, in 1209._ This historian did not discover the inscription which I found upon it in the year 1782. The artist is sufficiently distinguished for the period in which he flourished, although the stiffness in the design, false action, and expression, beyond those of the best followers of Giotto, are perceptible, so much as to remind us of the Greek specimens of art.[13]

There can, likewise, be no doubt, that a painter of the name of Lorenzo, was one of these Venetians, whose altarpiece in St. Antony of Castello, to which is attached his name, with the date of 1358, _paid him three hundred gold ducats_, has been commended by Zanetti. Besides, we read inscribed on a picture belonging to the n.o.ble house of Ercolani, at Bologna, the words MANU LAURENTII DE VENETIIS, 1368; and there is every appearance of his being the author of the fresco in the church of Mezzaratta, not far from Bologna, representing Daniel in the lions' den; and bearing the signature of _Laurentius, P._ It is a work that bears no resemblance to the style of Giotto, and appears to have been completed about the year 1370. It is equally certain that Niccolo Semitecolo was a Venetian, he having also inscribed his name as we find it written upon a TRINITY, which represents the Virgin, along with some histories of St.

Sebastian, still preserved in the chapter library of Padua:--"Nicoleto Semitecolo da Veniexia impense, 1367." The work is an excellent specimen of this school; the naked parts are tolerably well drawn, and the proportions of the figures, though sometimes extravagantly so, are bold and free; and what is more important to our present purpose, it discovers no resemblance to the style of Giotto, being inferior in point of design, though equal to him in regard to the colouring. Two other painters, whose style betrays nothing of Giotto, were discovered by Signor Sa.s.so, in Venice, upon the strength of two altarpieces, to which they had affixed their names. Upon one, found in the convent of _Corpus Domini_, he read _Angelus pinxit_; and upon the other, also in the same place, _Katarinus pinxit_. While on this subject, I ought not to pa.s.s over the opinion of Baldinucci himself, who always appears to have respected the freedom and independence of the Venetian as opposed to the Florentine school, by refusing to insert the name of a single Venetian in his tree of Cimabue. He merely maintained, that the Venetian painters had improved their style by the labours of Angiol Gaddi, and of one Antonio, a Venetian, whom, in spite of the authority of Vasari, he has declared to be a Florentine; on which point we must refer to what has already been stated in the first volume (p. 61) of this work. Moreover, he a.s.serts of the same Antonio, that he took up his residence at Venice, and thence acquired the appellation of Veneziano; but that he took his departure again, owing to the intrigues of the national professors, as much as to say, of a school formed anterior to his arrival. And so long anterior was it, indeed, that the whole state, as well as the adjacent places, abounded not less with pictures than with pupils, although few of their names with their productions have survived.[14]

Among these few is a Simon da Cusighe, who painted an altarpiece and a fresco, still remaining in his native parish, situated near the city of Belluno, where there exist memorials of one Pietro, and other artists of the thirteenth century, along with some very tolerably executed figures, bearing the epigraph of _Simon pinxit_. To these I add a native of Friuli, of whom there are no authentic remains beyond Gemona, where he painted the facade of the dome, and under a picture of the martyrdom of I know not what saint, appears his name written, MCCCx.x.xII. MAGISTER NICOLAUS PINTOR ME FECIT. To this artist is ascribed, by some writers, that vast and meritorious production, still in such a fine state of preservation, ornamenting the dome of Venzone, and which represents the solemn scene of the Consecration; but its author is a matter of mere conjecture, founded in this instance upon the vicinity of the place and time, and resemblance of manner. There are also Pecino and Pietro de Nova, who employed their talents, during a period of many years subsequent to 1363, in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, at Bergamo.

But these, like the artist of Padua before mentioned, approach very nearly the composition of Giotto, and possibly might have imbibed such a taste at Milan.[15]

The splendor of Venetian painting becomes more strikingly manifest in the fifteenth century; a period that was gradually preparing the way for the grand manner of the t.i.tians and the Giorgioni. The new style took its rise in one of the islands called Murano; but it was destined to attain its perfection in Venice. I first recognized the work of one of the oldest of these artists, subscribing himself, _Quiricius de Muriano_, in the studio of Signor Sa.s.so. It represents our Saviour in a sitting posture, at whose feet stands a veiled devotee; but there is no mark by which to ascertain its age. There is, likewise, of uncertain date, yet still very ancient, a Bernardino da Murano, of whose productions Zanetti saw nothing more than a rude altarpiece. An Andrea da Murano flourished about the period 1400, whose style, whatever it may retain of harsh and dry, neither superior in composition, nor in choice of features to that of his predecessors, discovers him to have been tolerably skilful in design, even in regard to the extremities, and in placing his figures well in the canva.s.s.

There remains in his native place, at San Pier Martire, an altarpiece painted by his hand, in which a St. Sebastian forms so conspicuous a figure for the beauty of its torso, that Zanetti suspects it must have been copied from some ancient statue. It is he who introduced the art into the house of the Vivarini, his compatriots, who in a continued line of succession preserved the school of Murano for nearly a century; and who produced as rich a harvest of their labours in Venice, as did the Campi afterwards in the city of Cremona, or the Procaccini in Milan. I shall treat of them with brevity, but with such new sources of information, as will at once serve to correct and amplify what has already been written.

The first among the Vivarini mentioned by historians is Luigi, of whom a painting at Santi Giovanni e Paolo, has been cited by them, which represents our Redeemer bearing the cross upon his shoulders. The work has been a good deal retouched, and there has been added to it another portion, which gives the name of the author, dated 1414. Not being an autograph, we are led to suspect some kind of mistake attaching either to the name or the date; there having been another Luigi Vivarini, as we shall shew, towards the close of the century. The one in question, then, might probably be an ancestor of the latter, though it be difficult to persuade ourselves of it, as there remains no other superscription, or notice of any of that name so ancient.

Next to this artist, according to Ridolfo and Zanetti, are to be enumerated Giovanni and Antonio Vivarini, who flourished about the year 1440. The authority they adduce for this, is an altarpiece in San Pantaleone, which bears the inscription of _Zuane e Antonio da Muran pense 1444_. But this Giovanni,[16] if I mistake not, is the same who signs his name on another picture in Venice, _Joannes de Alemania et Antonius de Muriano pinxit_; or as it is thus written in Padua, _Antonio de Muran e Zohan Alama.n.u.s pinxit_. Giovanni, therefore, was a companion of Antonio, a German by birth; and traces of a foreign style are clearly perceptible in his paintings. The reason of his omitting to insert his birthplace in the picture at San Pantaleone, arose, I suspect, from the fact of his name and acquaintance with Antonio being too well known to admit of doubt. After the year 1447 there is no more mention made of Giovanni, but only of Antonio; sometimes alone, sometimes together with some other of the Vivarini. Thus, his name is subscribed alone in San Antonio Abate di Pesaro, upon an altarpiece of the t.i.tular saint, surrounded by the figures of three young martyrs, with some smaller paintings attached; the production of a very animated colourist, and displaying forms inferior to none in the school of Murano. I have seen two other specimens, in which he is mentioned together with a second Vivarino. The least excellent of these is to be found in San Francesco Grande, at Padua, consisting of a Madonna, with some saints, in various compartments; and, at the foot of it, is the following memorandum, _Anno 1451, Antonius et Bartholomeus fratres de Murano pinxerunt hoc opus_.

Similar to this, the two brothers had produced another the year preceding, in the Certosa of Bologna, where it is still in a high state of preservation, beyond any other specimen I have seen belonging to this family. There is much worthy of commendation in each figure of the whole piece; features dignified and devout; appropriate dresses; care in the disposition of the hair and beards, united to a colouring warm and brilliant.

According to what appears, Bartolommeo must have been held of less account than Antonio, until the discovery of painting in oil being introduced into Venice, he became one among the first to profit by it, and, towards the period in which the two Bellini appeared, was held in pretty high repute.

The first specimen of his painting in oil exists at S. Giovanni e Paolo, not far from the gate, and exhibits, among other saints, P. San Agostino, with an indication of the year 1473. From that period he continued to distinguish himself, producing a great number of pieces both in oil and in water colour, sometimes with more, and sometimes with less care, but always in the ancient taste for subdividing the altarpiece into several parts, in each of which he represented separate heads or entire figures. In these he often marked the name of Vivarino, with the year of their production; and occasionally he has added a finch or linnet by way of allusion to his family name. His last work, bearing the date of the year, is a Christ risen from the dead, at San Giovanni, in Bragora, where Boschini read the date of 1498, which is now no longer apparent; but it is a piece which, in every part, may be said to vie with that of the best Venetian artists who flourished during the same period.

Contemporary with him was a Luigi of the same name, one of whose productions was seen by Zanetti, in a collection of paintings, with the date of 1490, and as appeared to him, strongly approaching, in point of taste, to the best style of Bartolommeo. To Luigi, also, must undoubtedly be ascribed the altarpiece, which, in San Francesco di Trevigi, bears his name. There is another at the Battuti, in Belluno, representing the saints Piero, Girolamo, and some others, a work which cost that school 100 gold ducats, besides the expenses of the artist, who has attached to it his name. But superior to every other of his existing specimens, is that fine picture in the school of San Girolamo, at Venice, in which he represented a history of the t.i.tular saint, in emulation of Giovanni Bellino, whom he here equalled, and of Carpaccio, whom he surpa.s.sed. He has drawn the saint in the act of caressing a lion, while several monks are seen flying in terror at the sight. The composition is very fine; the pa.s.sions are tolerably well pourtrayed, the colours as soft and delicate as in any other of the Vivarini; the architecture solid, and in the ancient taste, while the epoch is more modern than that which could be ascribed to the supposed Luigi, the elder. Such is our exposition of the whole series of the School of Murano, up to the period of its greatest improvement, so as to bring it under one point of view. I shall now, therefore, resume the thread of my narrative, relating to the elder artists of the fourteenth century, who competed with the oldest of the school of Murano, until the era of painting in oil; and I shall afterwards proceed to treat apart of the more modern.

In the early part of the century, an artist of the name of Gentile da Fabriano, had been employed in the public palace at Venice, highly distinguished in his time, but of whom I must not here repeat what has been said in the first volume of this work. He there depicted a naval battle scene, a production greatly extolled in former times, which has long since perished. He produced, also, some disciples, as we find mention of a Jacopo Nerito, from Padua, who, in a painting at San Michele di Padova, according to Rossetti, subscribes himself one of his pupils. Nasocchio di Ba.s.sano, the elder, is to be ranked also, either as one of his scholars or his imitators, if, indeed, a small picture pointed out to me by the late Signor Verci was by his hand.

Among other Venetians, Jacopo Bellini, at once the father and the master of Gentile and Giovanni of the same name, of whom more hereafter, was certainly a pupil of Gentile da Fabriano. Jacopo, however, is better known by the celebrity of his sons, than by his own works, at this time either destroyed or unknown. He had painted in the school of S. Giovanni Evangelista at Venice, and in the chapel of the Gatta Melata, at the Santo di Padova, about 1456; but these labours survive only in history, nor have I met with any other specimen besides a Madonna, discovered by Sig. Sa.s.so, bearing the signature of its author. The style appears taken from that of Squarcione, to which he is supposed to have applied himself in his more advanced years.

There was also another Jacopo in very high repute,[17] called Jacobello del Fiore, who has been falsely accused by Vasari, of having drawn his figures all resting on the tip of their toes, in the manner of the Greeks. His father, Francesco, was considered in the light of a Coryphaeus of the art, and his tomb is still to be seen at Santi Giovanni e Paolo, with a figure of him in his toga, and a commendatory epitaph in Latin verse. No works of his, however, are to be seen in Venice,[18] a dittico, or small altar, with his name having been conveyed to London, bearing the date of 1412. It was obtained by the Chevalier Strange, together with some other productions of the old Venetian artists. The son of Francesco rose to a still higher degree of celebrity. He began to make himself known as early as 1401, by producing an altarpiece at San Ca.s.siano di Pesaro, in which city I discovered another, with the date of 1409, and both bear the signature of _Jacometto de Flor_. A much n.o.bler work is a coronation of the Virgin, in the cathedral of Ceneda, extremely rich in figures, insomuch as to have deserved the name of the "Painting of Paradise," in a MS. of the lives of the bishops of that place, which is preserved in the episcopal residence, and declares the work to have been executed, _ab eximio illius temporis pictore Jacobello de Flore_, 1432, at the expense of the bishop, Ant. Correr. There is a Madonna, indisputably by his hand, in possession of Sig. Girolamo Manfrini, painted in 1436, besides the _Giustizia_, drawn between two archangels, in the _Magistrato del Proprio_, bearing the date of 1421. I may venture to say that few artists of that time equalled him; both on account of his having few rivals who had so early ventured to attempt drawing figures as large as the life, and because of his power of conferring upon them a certain grace and dignity, and, where called for, a vigour and ease rarely to be met with in other paintings. The two lions which he represented as symbols of his _Giustizia_ (Justice), are truly grand, though the rest of the figures would have appeared to more advantage had they been less loaded with ornaments, and in particular the draperies glowing with gold lace, according to the custom of his age. He had a rival in Giacomo Morazone, known by an altarpiece seen in the island of St. Elena, of which I shall have to speak elsewhere.