The Scholars of Pietro da Cortona, from an injudicious imitation of their Master, deteriorate the art. Maratta and others support it.
It may with equal justice be asserted of the fine arts, as of the belles lettres, that they never long remain in the same state, and that they experience often great changes even in the common period assigned to the life of man. Many causes contribute to this; public calamities, such as I mentioned to have occurred after the death of Raffaello; the instability of the human mind, which in the arts as in dress is guided by fashion and the love of novelty; the influence of particular artists; the taste of the great, who from their selection or patronage of particular masters, silently indicate the path to those artists who seek the gifts of fortune. These and other causes tended to produce the decline of painting in Rome towards the close of the seventeenth century, at a time too when literature began to revive; a clear proof that they are not mutually progressive. This was in a great measure occasioned by the calamitous events which afflicted Rome and the state, about themiddle of that century; by the feuds of the nobles, the flight of the Barberini family, and other unfortunate circumstances, which, during the pontificate of Innocent X., as we are informed by Passeri, (p. 321,) rendered the employment of artists very precarious; but more than all the dreadful plague of 1655, under Alexander VII. To this state of decay too the evil passions of mankind contributed in no small degree, and these indeed in all revolutions are among the most active and predominant sources of evil, and often even in a prosperous state of things sow the seeds of future calamities.
The Cav. Bernini, a man of more talents as an architect than as a sculptor, was under Urban VIII. and Innocent X., and also until the year 1680, in which he died, the arbiter of the public taste in Rome. The enemy of Sacchi and the benefactor of Cortona, he obtained more employ for his friend than for his rival; and this was easily accomplished, as Cortona was rapid as well as laborious, while Sacchi was slow and irresolute, qualities which rendered him unacceptable even to his own patrons. In course of time Bernini began to favour Romanelli, to the prejudice of Pietro; and, instructing that artist and Baciccio in his principles, he influenced them to the adoption of his own style, which, though it possessed considerable beauty, was nevertheless mannered, particularly in the folds of the drapery. The way being thus opened to caprice, they abandoned the true, and substitutedfalse precepts of art, and many years had not elapsed before pernicious principles appeared in the schools of the painters, and particularly in that of Cortona. Some went so far as to censure the imitation of Raffaello, as Bellori attests in the Life of Carlo Maratta, (p. 102,) and others ridiculed, as useless, the study of nature, preferring to copy, in a servile manner, the works of other artists. These effects are visible in the pictures of the time. All the countenances, although by different artists, have a fulness in the lips and nose like those of Pietro, and have all a sort of family resemblance, so much are they alike; a defect which Bottari says is the only fault of Pietro, but it is not the only fault of his school. Every one was anxious to avoid the labour of study, and to promote facility at the expense of correct design; the errors in which they endeavoured to conceal by overcharging rather than discriminating the contours. No one can be desirous that I should enter into further particulars, when we are treating of matters so very near our own times, and whoever is free from prejudice may judge for himself. I now return to the state of the Roman School about one hundred and twenty years back.
The schools most in repute, after the death of Sacchi, in 1661, and of Berrettini, in 1670, when the best scholars of the Caracci were dead, were reduced to two, that of Cortona supported by Ciro, and that of Sacchi, by Maratta. The first of these expanded the ideas, but induced negligence; the secondenforced correctness, but fettered the ideas. Each adopted something from the other, and not always the best part; an affected contrast pleased some of the scholars of Maratta, and the drapery of Maratta was adopted by some of the followers of Ciro.[85]The school of Cortona exhibited a grand style in fresco; the other school was restricted to oils. They became rivals, each supported by its own party, and were impartially employed by the pontiffs until the death of Ciro, that is, until 1689. From that time a new tone was given to art by Maratta, who, under Clement XI., was appointed director of the numerous works which that pontiff was carrying on in Rome and in Urbino. Although this master had many able rivals, as we shall see, he still maintained his superiority, and on his death, his school continued to flourish until the pontificate of Benedict XIV., ultimately yielding to the more novel style of Subleyras, Batoni, and Mengs. Thus far of the two schools in general: we shall now notice their followers.
Besides the scholars whom Pietro formed in Tuscany, as Dandini of Florence, Castellucci of Arezzo, Palladino of Cortona, and those whom he formed in other schools, where we shall see them as masters, he educated others in the Roman state, of whom it is now time to speak. The number of his scholars is beyond belief. They were enumerated by Sig. Cav. Luzi, a nobleman of Cortona, who composed a life of Berrettini with more accuracy than had been before done, but his death prevented the publication of it. Pietro continued to teach to the close of his life, and the picture of S. Ivo, which he left imperfect, was finished by Gio. Ventura Borghesi, of Città di Castello. Of this artist there are also at S. Niccola, two pictures, the Nativity, and the Assumption of the Virgin, and I am not acquainted with any other public specimens of his pencil in Rome. His native place possesses many of his performances, and the most esteemed are four circles of the History of S. Caterina, V. M., in the church of that saint. Many of his works are to be found also in Prague, and the cities of Germany. He follows Pietro with sufficient fidelity in design, but does not display so much vigour of colour. Carlo Cesi, of Rieti, or rather of Antrodoco, in that neighbourhood, was also a distinguished scholar of Pietro. He lived in Rome, and in the Quirinal gallery, where the best artists of the age painted under Alexander VII., he has left a large picture of the Judgment of Solomon.He worked also in other places; as at S. M. Maggiore, at the Rotunda, and was patronized by several cardinals. He was correct in his design, and opposed, both in person and by his precepts and example, the fatal and prevailing facility of his time. Pascoli has preserved some of his axioms, and this among others, that the beautiful should not be crowded, but distributed with judgment in the composition of pictures; otherwise they resemble a written style, which by the redundancy of brilliant and sententious remarks fails in its effect. Francesco Bonifazio was of Viterbo, and from the various pictures by him, which Orlandi saw in that city, I do not hesitate to rank him among the successful followers of Pietro. We may mention Michelangiolo Ricciolini, a Roman by birth, although called of Todi, whose portrait is in the Medici gallery, where is also that of Niccolo Ricciolini, respecting whom Orlandi is silent. Both were employed in decorating the churches of Rome; the second had the reputation of a better designer than the first, and in the cartoons painted for some mosaics for the Vatican church, he competed with the Cav. Franceschini. Paolo Gismondi, called also Paolo Perugino, became a good fresco painter, and there are works remaining by him in the S. Agata, in the Piazza Nova, and at S. Agnes, in the Piazza Navona. Pietro Paolo Baldini, of whose native place I am ignorant, is stated by Titi to have been of the school of Cortona. Ten pictures by him are countedin the churches of Rome, and in some of them, as in the Crucifixion of S. Eustace, a precision of style derived from another school is observable. Bartolommeo Palombo has only two pictures in the capital. That of S. Maria Maddelena de' Pazzi, which is placed at S. Martino a' Monti, entitles him to rank with the best of his fellow scholars, the picture possesses so strong a colouring, and the figures are so graceful and well designed. Pietro Lucatelli, of Rome, was a distinguished painter, and is named in the catalogue of the Colonna gallery, as the scholar of Ciro, and in Titi, as the disciple of Cortona. He is a different artist from Andrea Lucatelli, of whom we shall shortly speak. Gio. Batista Lenardi, whom, in a former edition, I hesitated to place in the list of the pupils of Pietro, I now consider as belonging to that school, though he was instructed also by Baldi. In the chapel of the B. Rita, at S. Agostino, he painted two lateral pictures as well as the vault; he also ornamented other churches with his works, and particularly that of Buonfratelli, at Trastevere, where he painted the picture of S. Gio. Calibita. That of the great altar was ascribed to him, probably from a similarity of style; but is by Andrea Generoli, called Il Sabinese, a pupil either of Pietro himself, or of one of his followers.
Thus far of the less celebrated of this school. The three superior artists, whose works still attract us in the galleries of princes, are Cortesi, and the two elder scholars of the academy ofPietro, Romanelli and Ferri. Nor is it improbable that having competitors in some of his first scholars, he became indisposed to instruct others with the same degree of good will, as those noble minds are few, in whom the zeal of advancing the art exceeds the regret at having produced an ingrate or a rival.
Guglielmo Cortesi, the brother of P. Giacomo, like him named Il Borgognone, was one of the best artists of this period; and a scholar rather than an imitator of Pietro. His admiration was fixed on Maratta, whom he followed in the studied variety of his heads, and in the sobriety of the composition, more than in the division of the folds of his drapery or in colour; in which latter he manifested a clearness partaking of the Flemish. His style was somewhat influenced by that of his brother, whose assistant he was, and by his study of the Caracci. He often appears to have imitated the strong relief and azure grounds of Guercino. His Crucifixion of S. Andrea, in the church of Monte Cavallo, the Fight of Joshua in the Quirinal palace, and a Madonna attended by Saints, in the Trinità de' Pellegrini, merit our attention. In these works there is a happy union of various styles, exempt from mannerism.
Francesco Romanelli was born at Viterbo, and, as well as Testa, studied some time under Domenichino. He afterwards placed himself with Pietro, whose manner he imitated so successfully, that on Pietro going on a journey into Lombardy, he left him, together with Bottalla (called Bortelli by Baldinucci)to supply his place in decorating the Barberini palace. It is reported that the two scholars, in the absence of their master, endeavoured to have the work transferred to themselves, and were on that account dismissed. It was at this time that Romanelli, assisted by Bernini, changed his style, and adopted by degrees a more elegant and a seductive manner in his figures, but possessing less grandeur and science than that of Pietro. He used more slender proportions, clearer tints, and a more minute taste in folding his drapery. His Deposition in S. Ambrogio, which was extolled as a prodigy, stimulated Pietro to paint opposite to it that wonderful picture of S. Stephen, on seeing which Bernini exclaimed, that he then perceived the difference between the master and the scholar. Romanelli was twice in France, having found a patron in the Cardinal Barberini, who had fled to Paris; and he participated in the spirited manner of that country, which gave an animation before unknown to his figures. This at least is the opinion of Pascoli. He decorated a portico of Cardinal Mazarine with subjects from the metamorphoses of Ovid, and afterwards adorned some of the royal saloons with passages from the Æneid. He was preparing to return to France with his family for the third time, when he was intercepted by death at Viterbo. He left in that city, at the grand altar of the Duomo, the picture of S. Lorenzo, and in Rome, and in other cities of Italy, numerous works both public and private, although he died at about forty-five years of age.He had the honour of painting in the church of the Vatican. The presentation which he placed there is now in the church of the Certosa, the mosaic in S. Peter. He did not leave behind him any scholars who inherited his reputation. Urbano, his son, was educated by Ciro after the death of his father. He is known for his works in the cathedral churches of Velletri and Viterbo: those in Viterbo are from the life of S. Lorenzo, the patron saint of the church, and prove him to have been a young man of considerable promise, but he was cut off prematurely.
Ciro Ferri, a Roman by birth, was, of all the disciples of Cortona, the one the most attached in person, and similar to him in style; and not a few of the works of Pietro were given to him to complete, both in Florence and in Rome. There are indeed some pictures so dubious, that the experienced are in doubt whether to assign them to the master or the scholar. He displays generally less grace in design, a less expansive genius, and shuns that breadth of drapery which his master affected. The number of his works in Rome is not proportioned to his residence there, because he lent much assistance to his master. There is a S. Ambrogio in the church of that saint just mentioned, and it is a touchstone of merit for whoever wishes to compare him with the best of his fellow scholars, or with his master himself. His works in the Pitti palace have been already mentioned in another place, and we ought not to forget another grand composition by him inS. M. Maggiore in Bergamo, consisting of various scriptural histories painted in fresco. He speaks of them himself in some letters inserted in the Pittoriche, (tom. ii. p. 38,) from which we gather, that he had been reprehended for his colouring, and contemplated visiting Venice in order to improve himself. He did not leave any scholar of celebrity in Rome. Corbellini, who finished the Cupola of S. Agnes, the last work of Ciro, which has been engraved, would not have found a place in Titi and Pascoli, if it had not been to afford those writers an opportunity of expressing their regret at so fine a composition being injured by the hand that attempted to finish it.
But another scion of the same stock sprung up to support the name and credit of the school of Ciro, transferred from Florence to Rome. We mentioned in the first book, that when Ciro was in Florence he formed a scholar in Gabbiani, who became the master of Benedetto Luti. Ciro was only just dead when Luti arrived in Rome, who not being able to become his scholar, as he had designed when he left his native place, applied himself to studying the works of Ciro, and those of other good masters, as I have elsewhere remarked. He thus formed for himself an original style, and enjoyed in Rome the reputation of an excellent artist in the time of Clement XI., who honoured him with commissions, and decorated him with the cross. It is to be regretted that he attached himself so much to crayons, with which he is saidto have inundated all Europe. He was intended by nature for nobler things. He painted well in fresco, and still better in oils. His S. Anthony in the church of the Apostles, and the Magdalen in that of the Sisters of Magnanapoli, which is engraved, are highly esteemed. Nor would it add a little to his reputation, if we had engravings of his two pictures in the Duomo of Piacenza, S. Conrad penitent, and S. Alexius recognised after death; where, amidst other excellences, a fine expression of the pathetic predominates. Of his profane pieces, his Psyche in the Capitoline gallery, is the most remarkable, and breathes an elegant and refined taste. Of the few productions which Tuscany possesses by him, we have written in the school of Gabbiani. We shall here mention a few of his scholars, who remained in Rome, noticing others in various schools.
Placido Costanzi is often mentioned with approbation in the collections of Rome for the elegant figures he inserted in the landscapes of Orizzonte; he also painted some altarpieces in a refined style. In the church of the Magdalen is a picture of S. Camillo attended by Angels, so gracefully painted, that he seems to have aspired to rival Domenichino. He also distinguished himself in fresco, as may be seen in the S. Maria in Campo Marzio, where the ceiling in the greater tribune is the work of Costanzi.
Pietro Bianchi resembled Luti more than any of his scholars in elegance of manner, and excelledhim in large compositions, which he derived from his other master, Baciccio. His extreme fastidiousness and his early death prevented him from leaving many works. A very few of his pictures are found in the churches of Rome. At Gubbio is his picture of S. Chiara, with the Angel appearing, a piece of grand effect, from the distribution of the light. The sketch of this picture was purchased by the King of Sardinia at a high price. He painted for the church of S. Peter a picture, which was executed in mosaic in the altar of the choir: the original is in the Certosa, in which the Cav. Mancini had the greatest share, as Bianchi did little more than furnish the sketch.
Francesco Michelangeli, called l'Aquilano, is known to posterity from a letter written by Luti himself, (Lett. Pitt. tom. vi. p. 278,) where the annotator informs us, that his master frequently employed him in copying his works, and that he died young. This notice is not without its use, as it acquaints us with the origin of the beautiful copies of Luti which are so frequently met with.
We may lastly notice an artist of mediocrity of this school, who is nevertheless said to be the painter of some beautiful pictures; the two pictures of S. Margaret, in Araceli; S. Gallicano, in the church of that saint; and the Nativity, in the church of the Infant Jesus. His name was Filippo Evangelisti, and he was chamberlain to the Cardinal Corradini, through whose influence he obtained many commissions. Being himself incapableof executing these well, (if we may rely on a letter in thePittoriche) he engaged Benefial, whom we shall shortly notice, to assist him. They thus painted in partnership, the gain was divided between them, but the celebrity was the portion of the principal; and if any piece came out under the name of the assistant, it was rather censured than praised. The poor artist at last became impatient of this treatment, and disdaining any longer to support a character which did him no honour, he left his companion to work by himself; and it was then that Evangelisti, in his picture of S. Gregory, in the church of the Saints Peter and Marcellino, appeared in his true colours, and the public thus discovered that he was indebted to Benefial for genius as well as labour.
The school of Sacchi may boast of one of the first artists of the age in Francesco Lauri, of Rome, in whom his master flattered himself he had found a second Raffaello. The disciple himself, in order to justify the high expectation which the public had conceived of him, before opening a school in Rome, travelled through Italy, and from thence visited Germany, Holland, and Flanders, and resided for the space of a year in Paris; thus adding greatly to the funds of knowledge and experience already obtained by him in his native place. He was, however, cut off very early in life, leaving behind him, in the Sala de' Crescenzi, three figures of Goddesses painted in the vault in fresco; but no other considerable work, as far as my knowledgeextends. This artist must not be confounded with Filippo, his brother, and scholar in his early years, who was afterwards instructed by Caroselli, who espoused his sister. He was not accustomed to paint large compositions; and the Adam and Eve, which are seen in the Pace, it should seem, he represented on so much larger a scale, lest any one should despise his talent, as only capable of small works, on which he was always profitably employed. We meet with cabinet pictures by him in the Flemish style, touched with great spirit, and coloured in good taste, evincing a fund of lively and humorous invention. He sometimes painted sacred subjects, and at S. Saverio, in the collection of the late Monsignor Goltz, I saw an enchanting picture by him, a perfect gem, and greatly admired by Mengs. He painted in the Palazzo Borghese some beautiful landscapes in fresco, in which branch his family was already celebrated, as his father, Baldassare, of Flanders, who had been a scholar of Brill, and lived in Rome in the time of Sacchi, was ranked among the eminent landscape painters, and is commemorated by Baldinucci.
The immature death of Lauri was compensated for by the lengthened term of years accorded to Luigi Garzi and Carlo Maratta, who continued to paint to the commencement of the eighteenth century; enemies to despatch, correct in their style, and free from the corrupt prejudices which afterwards usurped the place of the genuine rules of art. The first, who is called a Roman by Orlandi,was born in Pistoja, but came while yet young to Rome. He studied landscape for fifteen years under Boccali, but being instructed afterwards by Sacchi, he discovered such remarkable talents, that he became highly celebrated in Naples and in Rome in every class of painting. In the former city, his decoration of two chambers of the royal palace is greatly extolled; and in the latter, where he ornamented many churches, he seemed to surpass himself in the Prophet of S. Giovanni Laterano. He is praised in general for his forms and attitudes, and for his fertile invention and his composition. He understood perspective, and was a good machinist, though in refinement of taste he is somewhat behind Maratta. In his adherence to the school of Sacchi we may still perceive some imitation of Cortona, to whom some have given him as a scholar, as well in many pictures remaining in Rome, as in others sent to various parts; among which is his S. Filippo Neri, in the church of that saint at Fano, which is a gallery of beautiful productions. But on no occasion does he seem more a follower of Cortona, or rather of Lanfranco, than in the Assumption in the Duomo of Pescia, an immense composition, and which is considered his masterpiece. It is mentioned in theCatalogo delle migliori Pitture di Valdinievole, drawn up by Sig. Innocenzio Ansaldi, and inserted in the recent History of Pescia. Mario, the son of Luigi Garzi who is mentioned twice in theGuida di Roma,died young. We may here also mention the name of Agostino Scilla of Messina, whom we shall hereafter notice more at length.
Carlo Maratta was born in Camurano, in the district of Ancona, and enjoyed, during his life, the reputation of one of the first painters in Europe. Mengs, in a letter "On the Rise, Progress, and Decline of the Art of Design," assigns to Maratta the enviable distinction of having sustained the art in Rome, where it did not degenerate as in other places. The early part of his life was devoted to copying the works of Raffaello, which always excited his admiration, and his indefatigable industry was employed in restoring the frescos of that great master in the Vatican and the Farnesina, and preserving them for the eyes of posterity; a task requiring both infinite care and judgment, and described by Bellori. He was not a machinist, and in consequence neither he nor his scholars distinguished themselves in frescos, or in large compositions. At the same time he had no fear of engaging in works of that kind, and willingly undertook the decoration of the Duomo of Urbino, which he peopled with figures. This work, with the Cupola itself, was destroyed by an earthquake in 1782; but the sketches for it are preserved in Urbino, in four pictures, in the Albani palace. He was most attached by inclination to the painting of cabinet pictures and altarpieces. His Madonnas possess a modest, lively, and dignified air; his angels are graceful; and his saintsare distinguished by their fine heads, a character of devotion, and are clothed in the sumptuous costume of the church. In Rome his pictures are the more prized the nearer they approach to the style of Sacchi, as the S. Saverio in the Gesù, a Madonna in the Panfili palace, and several others. Some are found beyond the territories of the church, and in Genoa is his Martyrdom of S. Biagio, a picture as to the date of which I do not inquire, but only assert that it is worthy of the greatest rival of Sacchi. He afterwards adopted a less dignified style, but which for its correctness is worthy of imitation. Though he had devoted the early part of his life to the acquisition of a pure style of design, he did not think himself sufficiently accomplished in it, and again returned, when advanced in years, to the study of Raffaello, of whose excellences he possessed himself, without losing sight of the Caracci and Guido. But many are of opinion that he fell into a style too elaborate, and sacrificed the spirit of his compositions to minute care. His principal fault lay in the folding of his drapery, when through a desire of copying nature he too frequently separates its masses, and neglects too much the naked parts, which takes away from the elegance of his figures. He endeavoured to fix his principal light on the most important part of his composition, subduing rather more than was right, the light in other parts of his picture, and his scholars carried this principle afterwards so far as to produce an indistinctnesswhich became the characteristic mark of his school.
Though not often, he yet painted some few pictures of an extraordinary magnitude, as the S. Carlo in the church of that saint at the Corso, and the Baptism of Christ in the Certosa, copied in mosaic in the Basilica of S. Peter. His other pictures are for the most part on a smaller scale; many are in Rome, and amongst them the charming composition of S. Stanislaus Kostka, at the altar where his ashes repose; not a few others in other cities, as the S. Andrea Corsini in the chapel of that noble family in Florence, and the S. Francesco di Sales at the Filippini di Forli, which is one of his most studied works. He contributed largely, also, to the galleries of sovereigns and private individuals. There is not a considerable collection in Rome without a specimen of his pencil, particularly that of the Albani, to which family he was extremely attached. His works are frequently met with in the state. There is a valuable copy of the Battle of Constantine, in possession of the Mancinforti family in Ancona. It is related, that, being requested to copy that picture, he proposed the task to one of his best scholars, who disdained the commission. He therefore undertook the work himself, and on finishing it, took occasion to intimate to his pupils, that the copying such productions might not be without benefit to the most accomplished masters. He had a daughter whom he instructed in his own art; and her portrait,executed by herself, in a painting attitude, is to be seen in the Corsini gallery at Rome.
Maratta, in his capacity of an instructor, is extolled by his biographer, Bellori (p. 208); but is by Pascoli accused of jealousy, and of having condemned a youth of the most promising talents in his school, Niccolo Berrettoni di Montefeltro, to the preparation of colours. This artist, however, from the principles which he imbibed from Cantarini, and from his imitation of Guido and Coreggio, formed for himself a mixed style, delicate, free, and unconstrained, and the more studied, as that study was concealed under the semblance of nature. He died young, leaving very few works behind him, almost all of which were engraved, in consequence of his high reputation. The Marriage of the Virgin Mary, which he executed for S. Lorenzo in Borgo, was engraved by Pier Santi Bartoli, a very distinguished engraver of those times, an excellent copyist, and himself a painter of some merit.[86]Another of his pictures, a Madonna, attendedby saints at S. Maria di Monte Santo, and the lunettes of the same chapel, were engraved by Frezza. An account of this artist may be found in the Lettere Pitt. tom. v. p. 277.
Giuseppe Chiari of Rome, who finished some pictures of Berrettoni and of Maratta himself, was one of the best painters of easel pictures of that school. Many of his works found their way to England. He painted some pictures for the churches of Rome, and probably the best is the Adoration of the Magi in the church of the Suffragio, of which there is an engraving. He also succeeded in fresco. Those works in particular, which he executed in the Barberini palace, under the direction of the celebrated Bellori, and those also of the Colonna gallery, will always do him credit; he was sober in his colours, careful and judicious; rare qualities in a fresco painter. He did not inherit great talents from nature, but by force of application became one of the first artists of his age. Tommaso Chiari, a pupil also of Maratta, and whose designs he sometimes executed, did not pass the bounds of mediocrity. The same may be observed of Sigismond Rosa, a scholar of Giuseppe Chiari.
To Giuseppe Chiari, who was the intimate friend of Maratta, we may add two others, who were, accordingto Pascoli, the only scholars whom he took a pleasure in instructing; Giuseppe Passeri, the nephew of Giambatista, and Giacinto Calandrucci of Palermo. Both were distinguished as excellent imitators of their master. Passeri worked also in the state. In Pesaro is a S. Jerome by him, meditating on the Last Judgment, which may be enumerated among his best works. In the church of the Vatican, he painted a pendant to the Baptism of Maratta, S. Peter baptizing the centurion, which after being copied in mosaic, was sent to the church of the Conventuals in Urbino. This picture, which was executed under the direction of Maratta, is well coloured; but in many of his works his colouring is feeble, as in the Conception at the church of S. Thomas in Parione, and in other places in Rome. Calandrucci, after having given proof of his talents in the churches of S. Antonio de' Portoghesi, and S. Paolino della Regola, and in other churches of Rome, and after having been creditably employed by many noble persons, and by two pontiffs, returned to Palermo, and there, in the church del Salvatore, placed his large composition of the Madonnas, attended by S. Basil and other saints, which work he did not long survive. He left behind him in Rome a nephew, who was his scholar, called Giambatista; and he had also a brother there of the name of Domenico, a disciple of Maratta and himself; but there are no traces of their works remaining.
Andrea Procaccini and Pietro de' Petri, alsohold a distinguished place in this school, although their fortunes were very dissimilar. Procaccini, who painted in S. Giovanni Laterano, the Daniel, one of the twelve prophets which Clement XI. commanded to be painted as a trial of skill by the artists of his day, obtained great fame, and ultimately became painter to the court of Spain, where he remained fourteen years, and left some celebrated works. Petri on the contrary continued to reside in Rome, and died there at a not very advanced age. He was employed there in the tribune of S. Clement, and in some other works. He did not, however, obtain the reputation and success that he deserved, in consequence of his infirm health and his extreme modesty. He is one of those who engrafted on the style of Maratta, a portion of the manner of Cortona. Orlandi calls him a Roman, others a Spaniard, but his native place in fact was Premia, a district of Novara. Paolo Albertoni and Gio. Paolo Melchiorri, both Romans, flourished about the same time; less esteemed, indeed, than the foregoing, but possessing the reputation of good masters, particularly the second.
At a somewhat later period, the last scholar of Maratta, Agostino Masucci presents himself to our notice. This artist did not exhibit any peculiar spirit, confining himself to pleasing and devout subjects. In his representations of the Virgin he emulated his master, who from his great number of subjects of that kind, was at one time called Carlo dalle Madonne; as he himself has commemoratedin his own epitaph. Like Maratta he imparted to them an expression of serene majesty, rather than loveliness and affability. In some of his cabinet pictures I am aware that he occasionally renounced this manner, but it was only through intercession and expostulation. He was a good fresco painter, and decorated for pope Benedict XIV. an apartment in a casino, erected in the garden of the Quirinal. He painted many altarpieces, and his angels and children are designed with great elegance and nature, and in a novel and original style. His S. Anna at the Nome S. S. di Maria, is one of the best pictures he left in Rome; there is also a S. Francis in the church of the Osservanti di Macerata, a Conception at S. Benedetto di Gubbio, in Urbino a S. Bonaventura, which is perhaps his noblest composition, full of portraits (in which he was long considered the most celebrated painter in Rome), and finished with exquisite care. Lorenzo, his son and scholar, was very inferior to him.
Stefano Pozzi received his first instructions from Maratta, and afterwards became a scholar of Masucci. He had a younger brother, Giuseppe, who died before him, ere his fame was matured. Stefano lived long, painting in Rome with the reputation of one of the best masters of his day; more noble in his style of design than Masucci, and if I err not, more vigorous, and more natural in his colouring. We may easily estimate their merits in Rome in the church just mentioned, where we find the Transito di S. Giuseppe of Pozzi, near the S.Anna of Masucci. Of the Cav. Girolamo Troppa, I have heard from oral tradition that he was the scholar of Maratta. He was certainly his imitator, and a successful one too, although he did not live long. He left works both in oil and fresco in the capital, and in the church of S. Giacomo delle Penitenti, he painted in competition with Romanelli. I have found pictures by him in the state; and in S. Severino is a church picture very well conducted. Girolamo Odam, a Roman of a Lorena family, is reckoned among the disciples of the Cav. Carlo, and is eulogized in a long and pompous article by Orlandi, or perhaps by some friend of Odam, who supplied Orlandi with the information. He is there described as a painter, sculptor, architect, engraver, philosopher, mathematician, and poet, and accomplished in every art and science. In all these I should imagine he was superficial, as nothing remains of him except some engravings and a very slender reputation, not at all corresponding to such unqualified commendation.
Of other artists who are little known in Rome and its territories, such as Jacopo Fiammingo, Francesco Pavesi, Michele Semini, there is little information that can be relied on. Respecting Subissati, Conca is silent, though information might possibly be obtained of him in Madrid, at which court he died. In Urbino, which was his native place, I find no picture of him remaining, except the head of a sybil: Antonio Balestra of Verona and Raffaellino Bottalla will be found in their nativeschools, but I must not here omit one, a native of the state, who after being educated in the academy, returned to his native country, and there introduced the style of Carlo, at that time so much in vogue. Orlandi mentions with applause Gioseffo Laudati of Perugia, as having contributed to restore the art, which after the support it had found in Bassotti and others, had fallen into decay.
Lodovico Trasi, of Ascoli, is deserving of particular notice. He was for several years a fellow disciple of Maratta in the school of Sacchi, and was afterwards desirous of becoming his scholar. After studying some time in his academy, he returned to Ascoli, where he has left a great number of works both public and private, in various styles. In some of his smaller pictures he discovers a good Marattesque style; but in his fresco and altarpieces he is negligent, and adheres much to Sacchi, yet in a manner that discovers traces of Cortona. His picture of S. Niccolo at the church of S. Cristoforo is beautiful, and is one of the pieces which he finished with more than usual care. He has there represented the enfranchisement of a slave, at the moment the pious youth is serving at his master's table. There are some remarkable pictures of this artist in the cathedral, painted in distemper, particularly that of the martyrdom of S. Emidio. Trasi was the instructor of D. Tommaso Nardini, who continued on his master's death the decoration of the churches of the city, and his best work is perhaps in S. Angelo Magno, a churchof the Olivetani. The perspective was by Agostino Collaceroni of Bologna, a scholar of Pozzi. Nardini supplied the figures, representing the mysteries of the Apocalypse and other scriptural events. It displays great spirit and harmony, richness of colouring and facility, which are the distinguishing characteristics of this master, and are perhaps better expressed in this picture than in any other. We may add to the two before mentioned painters, Silvestro Mattei, who studied under Maratta, Giuseppe Angelini, the scholar of Trasi, and Biagio Miniera, also of Ascoli, whom Orsini has noticed in hisGuida.
There flourished about the same time in the neighbouring city of Fermo, two Ricci, scholars of Maratta, who were probably instructed before going to Rome by Lorenzino di Fermo, a good artist, though doubtful of what school, and who is said to have painted the picture of S. Catharine at the church of the Conventuals, and other pictures in the adjoining territories. The one was named Natale, the other Ubaldo; the latter was superior to the former, and is much extolled for his S. Felice, which he painted for the church of the Capucins, in his native place. He did not often pass the bounds of mediocrity, which is frequently the case with artists residing at a distance from a capital, and who have not the incitement to emulation and an opportunity of studying good examples. The same observation is, I think, applicable also to another scholar of Maratta, Giuseppe Oddi, of Pesaro,where one of his pictures remains in the church della Carità. We shall now return to the metropolis.
A fresh reinforcement to support the style of the Caracci in Rome, was received from the school of Bologna. I speak only of those who established themselves there. Domenico Muratori had been the scholar of Pasinelli, and painted the great picture in the church of the Apostles, which is probably the largest altarpiece in Rome, and represents the martyrdom of S. Philip and S. James. The grandeur of this composition, its judicious disposition and felicity of chiaroscuro, though its colouring was not entirely perfect, gave him considerable celebrity. He was also employed in many smaller works, in which he always evinced an equally correct design, and perhaps better colouring. He was chosen to paint one of the prophets in the Basilica Lateranense, and was employed also in other cities. In the cathedral of Pisa, he painted a large picture of S. Ranieri, in the act of exorcising a demon, which is esteemed one of his most finished works. Francesco Mancini di S. Angiolo in Vado, and Bonaventura Lamberti di Carpi, had better fortune in Bologna, in having for their master Carlo Cignani. Mancini, when he came to Rome, did not adhere exclusively to his master's manner, as he was rather more attached to the facility and freedom of Franceschini, his fellow scholar, whom he somewhat resembles in style. He seems, however, to have had less despatch, and certainly painted less. He waschaste in his invention, and followed the example of Lazzarini; he designed well, coloured in a charming manner, and was numbered among the first artists of his age in Rome. He painted the Miracle of S. Peter at the beautiful gate of the temple, a picture which is preserved in the palace of Monte Cavallo, and is copied in mosaic in S. Peter's. This picture, which is a spirited composition, and well arranged in the perspective, is his principal work, and does not suffer from a comparison with those mentioned in the Guida di Roma, and others scattered through the dominions of the church. Such are pictures with various saints in the church of the Conventuals of Urbino, and in that of the Camaldolesi of Fabriano; the appearing of Christ to S. Peter in that of the Filippini, in Città di Castello, and the various works executed in oil and in fresco at Forli and at Macerata. He painted many pictures for foreign collections, and was commended for his large compositions. From his studio issued the Canonico Lazzarini before named, whom, as he lived amongst other followers of Cignani, I shall reserve with them to the close of the Bolognese school. Niccola Lapiccola, of Crotone, in Calabria Ultra, remained in Rome; and a cupola of a chapel in the Vatican painted by him, was copied in mosaic. There are some pictures by him in other churches; the best are, perhaps, in the state, particularly in Velletri. I have heard that he was a disciple of Mancini, though in his colouring he somewhat adhered to his native school.
Bonaventura Lamberti is numbered by Mengs among the latest of the successful followers of the school of Cignani, whose style he preserved more carefully than Mancini himself. He did not give many works to the world. He had, however, the honour of having his designs copied in mosaic by Giuseppe Ottaviani, in S. Peter's, and one of his pictures engraved by Frey. It is in the church of the Spirito Santo de' Napolitani, and represents a miracle of S. Francesco di Paola. The Gabrieli family, which patronised him in an extraordinary manner, possesses a great number of historical pictures by him, which are in themselves sufficient to engage the attention of an amateur for several hours. Lamberti had the honour of giving to the Roman School the Cav. Marco Benefial, born and resident in Rome, a painter of great genius, though not always equal to himself, rather perhaps from negligence, than deficiency of powers.
The Marchese Venuti[87]extols this master above all others of his time for his accurate design, and his Caracciesque colouring. His monument is placed in the Pantheon, among those of the most celebrated painters, and to his bust is attached the eulogy bestowed on him by the Abate Giovenazzo, where he is particularly commended for his power of expression. The factions to which he gave rise still subsist, as if he were yet living. His admirers not being able to defend all his works, have fixed onthe Flagellation at the Stimmate, painted in competition with Muratori,[88]and S. Secondino at the Passionisti, as the subjects of their unqualified approbation; pictures indeed, of such science, that they may challenge any comparison. To these may be added his S. Lorenzo and S. Stefano, in the Duomo of Viterbo, and a few others of similar merit, in which he evidently imitated Domenichino and his school. His enemies have designated him as an inferior artist, and adduce several works feeble in expression and effect. The impartial consider him an eminent artist, but his productions vary, being occasionally in a grand style, and at other times not passing the bounds of mediocrity. This is a character which has been ascribed to many poets also, and even to Petrarch himself.
Our obligations are due to the Sig. Batista Ponfredi, his scholar, for the memoirs of this eminent man. They were addressed to the Count Niccola Soderini, a great benefactor of Benefial, and more rich in his works than any other Roman collector. His letter is in the fifth volume of thePittoriche, and is one of the most instructive in the collection, although altered by the editor in some points. I shall transcribe a passage from it, as it may be satisfactory to see the actual state of theart at that time, and the way in which Marco contributed to its support. "He was so anxious to revive the art, and so grieved to see it fall into decay, that he frequently consumed several hours in the day in declaiming against the prevailing conception of style, and urging the necessity of shunning mannerism, and adopting a style founded in truth, which few did, or if they did, attempted not to imitate its simplicity, but adapted it to their own manner. He directed the particular attention of his pupils to the difference between the production of a mannerist, and one which was studied and simple, and founded in nature; that the first, if it were well designed, and had a good chiaroscuro, had at first sight a striking effect from the brilliancy of its colours, but gradually lost ground at every succeeding view, while the other appeared the more excellent the longer it was inspected."—These and other precepts of the same kind he delivered in terms perhaps too cynical; not only in private, but in the school of design at the Campidoglio, at the time that he presided there; the consequence was that the inferior artists combined against him, deprived him of his employment, and suspended him from the academy. Some further information respecting Benefial was communicated to the public in theRisposta alle Lett. Perugine, p. 48.
From a scholar also of Cignani, (Franceschini,) Francesco Caccianiga received instructions in Bologna, whence he came to Rome, where he perfectedhis style and established himself. He was a painter to whom nothing was wanting, except that natural spirit and vigour which are not to be supplied by industry. He was employed by several potentates, and two of his works executed for the king of Sardinia were engraved by himself. Ancona possesses four of his altarpieces, among which are the Institution of the Eucharist, and the Espousals of the Virgin; pictures coloured in a clear, animated, and engaging style, and easily distinguished among a thousand. Rome has few public works by him. In the Gavotti palace is a good fresco, and there are others in the palace and villa of the Borghesi, who generously extended to him a permanent and suitable provision, when overtaken by poverty and age.[89]
From the school of Guercino came Sebastiano Ghezzi of Comunanza, not far from Ascoli. He was eminent both in design and colouring, and at the church of the Agostiniani Scalzi di Monsammartino is a S. Francesco by him, which is esteemed an exquisite picture, and wants only the finishing hand of the artist. He was the father and teacher of Giuseppe Ghezzi, who studied in Rome, and was also a tolerable writer, considering the period at which he wrote. In his painting he seemedto adopt the style of Cortona. His name is frequently mentioned in the Guida di Roma, and more than once in theAntichità Picene, where it is stated that he was held in great esteem by Clement XI., and that he died secretary to the academy of S. Luke, (tom. xxv. p. 11). Pascoli, who has written his life, extols him for his skill in restoring pictures, in which capacity the queen of Sweden employed him exclusively on all occasions.
Pierleone, his son and scholar, possessed a style similar to that of his father, but less hurried, and became a more distinguished artist. He was selected with Luti and Trevisani, and other eminent masters, to paint the prophets of the Lateran, as well as other commissions. But for his chief reputation he is indebted to the singular talent he possessed in designing caricatures, which are to be found in the cabinets of Rome and other places. In these he humourously introduced persons of quality, a circumstance particularly gratifying in a country where the freedom of the pencil was thought a desirable addition to the licence of the tongue.
Other schools of Italy also contributed artists to the Roman School, who however did not produce any new manner, except that in respect of the two principal masters then in vogue, Cortona and Maratta, they have afforded an occasional modification of those two styles.
Gio. Maria Morandi came whilst yet a youth from Florence, and forsaking the manner of Bilivert, his first instructor, formed for himself a new style.This was a mixture of Roman design and Venetian colouring (for in travelling through Italy, he resided some time at Venice, and copied much there), while some part of it partakes of the manner of Cortona, and was esteemed in Rome. He established himself in this latter city, in the Guida of which he is often mentioned, and his works are not unfrequently found in collections. His Visitation at the Madonna del Popolo is a fine composition; and still more highly finished, and full of grand effect, is his picture of the death of the Virgin Mary, in the church della Pace. This may indeed be considered his masterpiece, and it has been engraved by Pietro Aquila. He was also celebrated for his historical pictures, which he sometimes sent into foreign countries, and more than in any other branch, he acquired a reputation in portraits, in which he was constantly employed by persons of quality in Rome and Florence, and was also called to Vienna by the emperor. There, besides the imperial family, he painted also the portraits of many of the lesser princes of Germany. Odoardo Vicinelli, a painter of considerable merit in these latter times, in vol. vi. of the Lett. Pitt. is said to have been a scholar of Morandi, and Pascoli does not hesitate to assert that he conferred greater honour than any other of his scholars on his master; I believe, in Rome, where Pietro Nelli alone could dispute precedence with him.
Francesco Trevisani, a native of Trevigi, was educated by Zanchi in Venice, where, in order todistinguish him from Angiolo Trevisani, hewascalled Il Trevisani Romano. In Rome, he abandoned his first principles, and regulated his taste by the best manner then in vogue. He possessed a happy talent of imitating every manner, and at one time appears a follower of Cignani, at another of Guido; alike successful whichever style he adopted. The Albiccini family, in Forli, possess many of his pictures in various styles, and amongst them a small Crucifixion, most spirited and highly finished, which the master esteemed his best work, and offered a large sum to obtain back again. His pictures abound in Rome, and in general exhibit an elegance of design, a fine pencil, and a vigorous tone of colour. His S. Joseph dying, in the church of the Collegio R., is a remarkably noble production. A subject painted by him to accompany one by Guido in the Spada palace is also highly esteemed. He enjoyed the patronage of Clement XI. by whom he was not only commissioned to paint one of the prophets of the Lateran, but was also employed in the cupola of the Duomo in Urbino, in which he painted the four quarters of the world; a work truly estimable for design, fancy, and colouring. In other cities of the state we find pictures by him painted with more or less care, in Foligno, at Camerino, in Perugia, at Forli, and one of S. Antonio at S. Rocco in Venice, of a form more elegant than robust.
Pasquale Rossi, better known by the name of Pasqualino, was born in Vicenza, and from longcopying the best Venetian and Roman pictures, attained without the instruction of a master, a natural mode of colour, and a good style of design. Few of his public works remain in Rome; Christ praying in the garden in the church of S. Carlo al Corso, the Baptism also of our Saviour at the Madonna del Popolo. The Silvestrini of Fabriano have several pictures by him, and among them a Madonna truly beautiful. His S. Gregory, in the Duomo of Matelica, in the act of liberating souls from purgatory, is in the style of Guercino, and is one of his best works. In private collections we find his cabinet pictures representing gaming parties, conversations, concerts, and similar subjects, carefully finished on a small scale, and little inferior to Flemish pictures. I have met with numerous specimens of them in various places; but in no place have I admired this artist so much as in the royal gallery at Turin, in which are some ornaments over doors, and pictures of considerable size by him, chiefly scriptural subjects, executed in an animated and vigorous style, and with so much imitation of the Roman School, that we should think them to be by some other master.
Giambatista Gaulli, commonly called Baciccio, studied first in Genoa. Whilst still young he went to Rome, where under the direction of a Frenchman, and by the more valuable aid of Bernino, he formed himself on the style of the great machinists. As he was endowed by nature with a ready genius and a dexterity of hand, he could nothave chosen any branch of the art more adapted to his talent. The vault of the Gesù is his most conspicuous work. The knowledge of thesotto in su, the unity, harmony, and correct perspective of its objects, the brilliancy and skilful gradation of the light, rank it among the best, if indeed it be not his best picture in Rome. It must, however, be confessed, that we must inspect it with an eye to the general effect, rather than to the local tints, or the drawing of the figures, in which he is not always correct. His faults in his easel pictures, which are very numerous in Italy and in foreign countries, are less obtrusive, and are abundantly atoned for by their spirit, freshness of tints, and engaging countenances. He varies his manner with his subject, assigning to each a peculiar style. There is a delightful picture in his best manner, gracefully painted in the church of S. Francesco a Ripa, representing the Madonna with the divine Infant in her arms, and at her feet S. Anna kneeling, surrounded by Angels. In a grave and pathetic style on the contrary, is the representation of S. Saverio dying in the desert island of Sanciano, which is placed near the altar of S. Andrea at Monte Cavallo. His figures of children are very engaging and highly finished, though after the manner of Fiammingo, more fleshy and less elegant than those of Titian or the Greeks. He painted seven pontiffs, and many persons of rank of his day, and was considered the first portrait painter in Rome. In this branch of his art he followed a custom of Bernino, that of engaging the person he painted in an animatedconversation, in order to obtain the most striking expression of which the subject was susceptible.
Giovanni Odazzi, his first scholar, was ambitious of emulating him in celerity, but not possessing equal talent, he did not attain the same distinction. He is the most feeble, or at all events, the least eminent of the painters of the prophets of the Lateran, where his Hosea is to be seen; and indeed, in every corner of Rome, his pictures are to be met with, as he never refused any commission. Pascoli has preserved the memory of another of his scholars, a native of Perugia, in the lives of the painters of his native country. This was Francesco Civalli, initiated in the art by Andrea Carlone; he was a youth of talent, but impatient of instruction. He painted in Rome and other places, but did not pass the bounds of mediocrity. The Cav. Lodovico Mazzanti, was the scholar of Gaulli, and emulated his manner to the best of his ability; but his talents were not commanding, nor were his powers equal to his ambition. Gio. Batista Brughi, a worker in mosaic, rather than a painter, left notwithstanding some public pictures in Rome. He is called in the Guida sometimes Brughi, and sometimes Gio. Batista, the disciple of Baciccio, which makes it there appear as if they had been distinct individuals. I do not recollect any other artist contributed by Gaulli to the Roman School.
The Neapolitan School, which was in the beginning of this age supported by Solimene, sent some scholars to Rome, who adopted a Roman style.Sebastiano Conca was the first that arrived there with an intention of seeing it, but he established himself there, together with Giovanni, his brother, to meliorate his style of design. Resigning the brush, he returned at forty years of age to the pencil, and spent five years in drawing after the antique, and after the best modern productions. His hand, however, had become the slave of habit in Naples, and would not answer to his own wishes; and he was kept in constant vexation, as he could appreciate excellence, but found himself incapable of attaining it. The celebrated sculptor, Le Gros, advised him to return to his original style, and he then became in Rome an eminent painter, in the manner of Pietro da Cortona, with considerable improvements on his early manner. He possessed a fertile invention, great facility of execution, and a colour which enchanted by its lucidness, its contrast, and the delicacy of the flesh tints. It is true, that on examination we find that he was not in reality a profound colourist, and that to obtain a grandeur of tone, he adopted in the shadows a green tint, which produced a mannerism. He distinguished himself in frescos, and also in pictures in the churches, decorating them with choirs of angels, happily disposed in a style of composition that may be called his own, and which served as an example to many of the machinists. He was indefatigable too in painting for private individuals, and in the states of the church there is scarcely a collection without its Conca. His most studied, finished,and beautiful work is the Probatica at the hospital of Siena. Of great merit in Rome is the Assumption at S. Martina, and the Jonah among the prophets in the S. Giovanni Laterano. His works were in high esteem in the ecclesiastical state; his best appear to be the S. Niccolo at Loreto, S. Saverio in Ancona, S. Agostino at Foligno, S. Filippo in Fabriano, and S. Girolamo Emiliano at Velletri. Giovanni, his brother, assisted Sebastiano in his commissions, had an equal facility, a similar taste, though less beautiful in his heads, and of not so fine a pencil. He shewed great talent in copying the pictures of the best masters. In the church of the Domenicans of Urbino are the copies which he made of four pictures to be executed in mosaic; they were by Muziani, Guercino, Lanfranco, and Romanelli. Conca is eulogized by Rossi with his usual intelligence and discrimination (v. tom. ii. of hisMemorie, p. 81.)
Mengs perhaps censures him too severely, where he says, that by his precepts he contributed to the decay of the art. He had his followers, but they were not so numerous as to corrupt all the other schools of Italy. Every school, as we have seen, had within itself the seeds of its own destruction, without seeking for it elsewhere. It is true, indeed, that some of his scholars inherited his facility and his colouring, and left many injurious examples in Italy. Nor shall I give myself much trouble to enumerate his disciples, but shall content myself with the names of the most celebrated.Gaetano Lapis di Cagli was one of these, and brought with him good principles of design when he came to study under Conca. He was a painter of an original taste, as Rossi describes, not very spirited, but correct. Many of his works are found in the churches of his native place, and in the Duomo are two highly prized pieces on each side the altar, a Supper of our Lord, and a Nativity. In the various pictures I have seen of him at S. Pietro, S. Niccolo, and S. Francesco, I generally found the same composition of a Madonna of a graceful form, attended by Saints in the act of adoring her and the Holy Infant. We find some of his works also in Perugia and elsewhere. The Prince Borghese, in Rome, has a Birth of Venus by him, painted on a ceiling, with a correctness of design, and a grace superior to any thing that remains of him, and no one can justly appreciate his talents, who has not seen this work. It should seem, that a timidity and diffidence of his own powers, prevented his attaining that high station which his genius seemed to have intended for him. Salvator Monosilio, who resided much in Rome, was of Messina, and trod closely in the footsteps of his master. In a chapel of S. Paolino della Regola, where Calandrucci furnished the altarpiece, he painted the vault in fresco; and others of his works are to be seen at the S. S. Quaranta, and at the church of the Polacchi. In Piceno, where Conca was in great reputation, Monosilio was held in high esteem, and was employedboth in public and in private. At S. Ginesio is a S. Barnabas by him, in the church of that saint, which in theMemorieso often quoted by us, is designated as an excellent work. Conca educated another Sicilian student, the Abbate Gaspero Serenari, of Palermo, who was considered a young man of talents in Rome, and painted in the church of S. Teresa, in competition with the Abate Peroni of Parma. On his return to Palermo he became a celebrated master, and besides his oil pictures he executed some vast works in fresco, particularly the cupola of the Gesù, and the chapel of the monastery of Carità.
Gregorio Guglielmi, a Roman, is not much known in his native place, although his fresco pictures in the hospital of the S. Spirito in Sassia, intitle him to be numbered amongst the most eminent young artists who painted in Rome in the pontificate of Benedict XIV. He left Rome early and went to Turin, where, in the church of S. S. Solutore e Comp. is a small picture of the Tutelar Saints. He was afterwards in Dresden, Vienna, and St. Petersburgh, where he painted in fresco with much applause, for the respective sovereigns of those cities. He was facile in composition, pleasing in his colour, and attached to the Roman style of design, which, like Lapis, he seemed to have carried from some other school into that of Conca. Among his most esteemed works is a ceiling, painted in the university of Vienna, and another in the imperial palace at Schoenbrunn.He did not succeed so well in oils, in which his efforts are mostly feeble; a proof that he belongs more to the school of Conca than that of Trevisani, to which some have assigned him.
Corrado Giaquinto was another scholar of Solimene. He came from Naples to Rome, where he attached himself to Conca to learn colouring, in which he chiefly followed his master's principles, though he was less correct and more of a mannerist, and was accustomed to repeat himself in the countenances of his children, which resemble the natives of his own country. He was not, however, without merit, as he possessed facility as well as vigour, and was known in the ecclesiastical state for various works executed in Rome, Macerata, and other places. He went afterwards to Piedmont, as we shall mention at the proper time; then to Spain, where he was engaged in the service of the court, and gave satisfaction to the greater part of the native artists. The public taste in Spain, which had for a long time retained the principles of the school founded by Titian, had been changed within a few years. Luca Giordano was become the favorite, and they admired his spirit, his freedom, and his despatch; qualities which were combined in Corrado. This partiality lasted even after Mengs had introduced his style, which in consequence appeared at first meagre and cold to many of the masters and connoisseurs of the day, when compared with that of LucaGiordano; until prejudice there, as in Italy, ultimately yielded to truth.
Some other artists flourished in Rome at the commencement, and as far as the middle of the century, and somewhat beyond, who may perhaps have a claim to be remembered. Of Francesco Fernandi, called L'Imperiali, the Martyrdom of S. Eustachio in the church of the saint of that name, is well conceived and scientifically coloured. Antonio Bicchierai, a fresco painter, is more particularly known at S. Lorenzo in Panisperna, in which church he painted a sfondo which did him honour. Michelangiolo Cerruti, and Biagio Puccini, a Roman, about the time of Clement XI. and Benedict XIII., were esteemed artists of good execution. Of others who acquired some reputation in the following pontificate, I shall write in other schools, or if I should not mention them, they may be found in the Guida of the city.
I shall now pass from native to foreign artists, and shall take a brief notice of them, since my work has grown upon me with so many new Italian names, which are its proper object, that I have not much spare room for foreigners, and a sufficient notice of them may be found in their own country. Not a fewoltremontipainted at this period in Rome, celebrated for the most part in the inferior branches of painting, where they deserve commemoration. Some of them were employedin the churches, as Gio. Batista Vanloo di Aix, a favorite scholar of Luti, who painted the picture of the Flagellation at S. Maria in Monticelli. But he did not remain in Rome, but passed to Piedmont, and from thence to Paris and London, and was celebrated for his historical compositions, and highly esteemed in portrait. Some years after Vanloo, Pietro Subleyras di Gilles settled in Rome, and conferred great benefit on the Roman School; for whilst it produced only followers of the old manner, and thus fell gradually into decay, he very opportunely appeared and introduced an entirely new style. An academy had been founded in Rome by Louis XIV., about the year 1666. Le Brun had there cooperated, the Giulio Romano of France, and the most celebrated of the four Carli, who were at that time considered the supporters of the art; the others were Cignani, Maratta, and Loth. It had already produced some artists of celebrity, as Stefano Parocel, Gio. Troy, Carlo Natoire, by whom many pictures are to be found in the public edifices in Rome. There prevailed, however, in the style of this school a mannerism, which in a few years brought it into disrepute. Mengs designated it by the epithet ofspiritoso, and it consisted, according to him, in overstepping the limits of beauty and propriety, overcharging both the one and the other, and aiming at fascinating the eyes rather than conciliating the judgment. Subleyras, educated in this academy, reformed this taste, retaining the good, andrejecting the feeble part, and adding from his own genius what was wanting to form a truly original manner. There was an engaging variety in the air of his heads, and in his attitudes, and he had great merit in the distribution of his chiaroscuro, which gives his pictures a fine general effect. He painted with great truth; but the figures and the drapery, under his pencil, took a certain fulness which in him appears easy, because it is natural; it remained his own, for although he left some scholars, none of them ever emulated the grandeur of style which distinguished their master.
He was mature in talent when he left the academy, and the portrait which he in preference to Masucci, painted of Benedict XIV., established his reputation as the first painter in Rome. He was soon afterwards chosen to paint the history of S. Basil, for the purpose of being copied in mosaic for the church of the Vatican. The original is in the church of the Carthusians, and astonishes, by the august representation of the Sacrifice solemnly celebrated by the saint in the presence of the emperor, who offers bread at the altar. The countenances are very animated, and there is great truth in the drapery and accompaniments, and the silks in their lucid and light folds appear absolutely real. From this production, and others of smaller size, and particularly the Saint Benedict at the church of the Olivetani di Perugia, which is perhaps his masterpiece, he deserves a place in the first collections, where, indeed,his pictures are rare and highly prized. Further notices of this artist may he found in the second volume of theGiornale delle belle Arti.
Egidio Alè, of Liege, studied in Rome, and became a spirited, pleasing, and elegant painter. His works in the sacristy dell'Anima, in fresco and oil, painted in competition with Morandi, Bonatti, and Romanelli, do him honour. Ignazio Stern was a Bavarian, who was instructed by Cignani in Bologna, and worked in Lombardy. An Annunciation in Piacenza, in the church of the Nunziata, exhibits a certain grace and elegance, which is peculiar to him, as is observed in the description of the public pictures in that city. Stern afterwards established himself in Rome, where he painted in fresco the sacristy of S. Paolino, and left some oil pictures in the church of S. Elisabetta, and in other churches. He was more particularly attached to profane history, conversations, and similar subjects, which have a place even in royal collections. Spain possessed a disciple of the school of Maratta, in Sebastiano Mugnoz, but dying young he left few works behind him.
In this place I ought to notice an establishment designedto revive the art in that quarter, where it seemed to have so much declined, as D. Francesco Preziado, of that country, says, in a letter which we shall shortly have occasion to mention with commendation. "The royal academy of S. Ferdinand, in Madrid, which owed its origin to PhilipV., and was completed and endowed by Ferdinand VI., sent several students to Rome, and provided for their maintenance." They there selected the master the most agreeable to their genius, and had, in addition, a director, who was employed to superintend their studies; as I am informed by Sig. Bonaventura Benucci, a Roman painter, educated in that academy. Bottari and all Rome called it the Spanish academy, and I myself, in a former edition, followed the common report, and the two above named sovereigns I described as the founders of the academy. Having been censured for this statement, I have here thought proper to specify my authorities. It may without dispute be asserted, that the Spanish students have left in Rome many noble specimens of their talents and taste. D. Francesco Preziado was for many years the director of this academy, and painted a Holy Family at the S. S. Quaranta, in a good style. He made also a valuable communication to the Lettere Pittoriche (tom. vi. p. 308), on the artists of Spain, very useful to any one desiring information respecting this school, which is less known than it deserves to be.
An institution very much on the plan of the French academy was founded in Rome a few years ago, by his most faithful majesty, for Portuguese students, to the promotion of which, two celebrated Portuguese, the Cav. de Manique, intendant general of the police in Lisbon, and the Count de Souza, minister of that court in Rome, hadthe merit of contributing their assistance; the one having projected, and the other executed, the plan in the year 1791. The government of the academy was entrusted to the Sig. Gio. Gherardo de' Rossi, known for his very numerous and able writings, to which he has recently added an ingenious little work, intitled,Scherzi poetici e pittorici, with engravings by a celebrated academician. These establishments are of too recent a date to allow me to speak further respecting their productions.
The provincial painters have been occasionally noticed in connexion with their masters. I here add a supplement, which may be useful in the way of completion. Foligno possessed a Fra Umile Francescano, a good fresco painter, engaged in Rome by Cardinal Castaldi, to ornament the tribune of S. Margaret, while Gaulli and Garzi were commanded to paint the pictures for it. The Abbate Dondoli lived at Spello at the beginning of this century. He was more to be commended for his design than for his colouring. Marini has some celebrity in S. Severino, his native place. He was the scholar of Cipriano Divini, whom he surpassed in his art. Marco Vanetti, of Loreto, is known to me more from his life of Cignani, who was his master, than from his own works. Antonio Caldana, of Ancona, painted a very large composition in Rome, in the sacristy of S. Niccola da Tolentino, from the life of that saint. I do not know whether there remain any works of his in his native place;but there are a great number by a respectable artist, one Magatta, whose name was Domenico Simonetti, and who painted the gallery of the Marchesi Trionfi; he furnished many churches with his paintings, and distinguished himself in that of the church of the Suffragio, which is his most finished production. Anastasi di Sinigaglia was a painter less elegant and finished, but free and spirited. His works are not scarce in that city, and his best are the two historical subjects in the church della Croce. Three pictures by him also in S. Lucia di Monte Alboddo, are highly prized, and are called by the writer of theGuida, "Capi d'opera dell'Anastasi." Camillo Scacciani, of Pesaro, called Carbone, flourished at the beginning of the age we are writing on, and had a Caracciesque style allied to the modern. There is a S. Andrea Avellino by him in the Duomo of Pesaro; his other works are in private collections. This notice I deem sufficient, always excepting the living artists, whom I of course omit.[90]