Chapter XV: Book IV: Neapolitan School (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 107: _Plin. Hist. Nat._ lib. XXXV. cap. 11. _Nec ullius velocior in pictura manus fuit._]

[Footnote 108: The style of Raffaello found imitators also in Sicily, and the first to practise it was Salvo di Antonio, the nephew of Antonello, by whom there is, we are told, in the sacristy of the cathedral, the death of the Virgin, "_in the pure Raffaellesque style_," although Salvo is not the painter who has been called the Raffaello of Messina: this was Girolamo Alibrandi. A distinguished celebrity has of late been attached to this artist, whose name was before comparatively unknown. Respectably born, and liberally educated, instead of pursuing the study of the law, for which he was intended, he applied himself to painting, and having acquired the principles of the art in the school of the Antonj of Messina, he went to perfect himself in Venice. The scholar of Antonello, and the friend of Giorgione, he improved himself by the study of the works of the best masters. After many years residence in Venice he passed to Milan, to the school of Vinci, where he corrected some dryness of style which he had brought thither with him. Thus far there is no doubt about his history; but we are further told, that being recalled to his native country, he wished first to see Coreggio and Raffaello, and that he repaired to Messina about the year 1514; a statement which is on the face of it incorrect, since Lionardo left Milan in 1499, when Raffaello was only a youth, and Coreggio in his infancy. But I have before observed, that the history of art is full of these contradictions; a painter resembling another, he was therefore supposed his scholar, or at all events acquainted with him. On this subject I may refer to the Milanese School in regard to Luini, (Epoch II.) and observe that a follower of the style of Lionardo almost necessarily runs into the manner of Raffaello. Thus it happened to Alibrandi, whose style however bore a resemblance to others besides, so that his pictures pass under various names. There remains in his native place, in the church of Candelora, a Purification of the Virgin, in a picture of twenty-four Sicilian palms, which is the chef d'oeuvre of the pictures of Messina, from the grace, colouring, perspective, and every other quality that can enchant the eye. Polidoro was so much captivated with this work, that he painted in distemper a picture of the Deposition from the Cross, as a precious covering to this picture, in order that it might be transmitted uninjured to posterity. Girolamo died in the plague of 1524, and at the same time other eminent artists of this school; a school which was for some time neglected, but which has, through the labours of Polidoro, risen to fresh celebrity.]

[Footnote 109: I here subjoin a list of them. Deodato Guinaccia may be called the Giulio of this new Raffaello, on whose death he inherited the materials of his art, and supported the fame of his school: and like Giulio, completed some works left unfinished by his master; as the Nativity in the church of Alto Basso, which passes for the best production of Polidoro. In this exercise of his talents he became a perfect imitator of his master's style, as in the church of the Trinita a' Pellegrini, and in the Transfiguration at S. Salvatore de' Greci. He imparted his taste to his scholars, the most distinguished of whom for works yet remaining, are Cesare di Napoli, and Francesco Comande, pure copyists of Polidoro. With regard to the latter, some errors have prevailed; for having very often worked in conjunction with Gio. Simone Comande, his brother, who had an unequivocal Venetian taste, from having studied in Venice, it not unfrequently happens, that when the pictures of Comande are spoken of, they are immediately attributed to Simone, as the more celebrated artist; but an experienced eye cannot be deceived, not even in works conjointly painted, as in the Martyrdom of S. Bartholomew, in the church of that saint, or the Magi in the monastery of Basico. There, and in every other picture, whoever can distinguish Polidoro from the Venetians, easily discovers the style of the two brothers, and assigns to each his own.

Polidoro had in his academy Mariano and Antonello Riccio, father and son. The first came in order to change the manner of Franco, his former master, for that of Polidoro; the second to acquire his master's style. Both succeeded to their wishes; but the father was so successful a rival of his new master, that his works are said to pass under his name. This is the common report, but I think it can only apply to inexperienced purchasers, since if there be a painter, whose style it is almost impossible to imitate to deception, it is Polidoro da Caravaggio. In proof, the comparison may be made in Messina itself, where the Pieta of Polidoro, and the Madonna della Carita of Mariano, are placed near each other.

Stefano Giordano was also a respectable scholar of Caldara, and we may mention, as an excellent production, his picture of the Supper of our Lord in the monastery of S. Gregory, painted in 1541. With him we may join Jacopo Vignerio, by whom we find described, as an excellent work, the picture of Christ bearing his Cross, at S. Maria della Scala, bearing the date of 1552.

We may close this list of the scholars of Polidoro with the infamous name of Tonno, a Calabrian, who murdered his master in order to possess himself of his money, and suffered for the atrocious crime. He evinced a more than common talent in the art, if we may judge from the Epiphany which he painted for the church of S. Andrea, in which piece he introduced the portrait of his unfortunate master.

Some writers have also included among the followers of Polidoro, Antonio Catalano, because he was a scholar of Deodato. We are informed he went to Rome and entered the school of Barocci; but as Barocci never taught in Rome, we may rather imagine that it was from the works of that artist he acquired a florid colouring, and a _sfumatezza_, with which he united a portion of the taste of Raffaello, whom he greatly admired. His pictures are highly valued from this happy union of excellences; and his great picture of the Nativity at the Capuccini del Gesso is particularly extolled. We must not mistake this accomplished painter for Antonio Catalano _il Giovane_, the scholar of Gio. Simone Comande, from whose style and that of others he formed a manner sufficiently spirited, but incorrect, and practised with such celerity, that his works are as numerous as they are little prized.]

[Footnote 110: These traditions are frequently nothing more than common rumour, to which, without corroborating circumstances, we ought not to give credit. It has happened more than once, that such portraits have been found to belong to the patrons of the church.]

NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL.

THIRD EPOCH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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