Chapter V: School of Milan (2)

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

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

Footnote 51: Plin. lib. xxxv. c. 10. Uno se praestare, quod
manum ille de tabula nesciret tollere. This he said in
reference to that Jalysus, on which Protogenes had bestowed
no less than seven years.

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

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

Footnote 52: (Page 329.) The Sig. Baldassare Orsini has
likewise inveighed against the inconsiderate retouchings of
old paintings, in his _Risposta_, p. 77; where he also
alludes to a letter of Hakert's, in defence of varnishes,
and to another in reply, in which the use of them is
disapproved by force of examples. He moreover cites a
Supplementary Letter drawn from the Roman Journal of Fine
Arts, for December, 1788.

Footnote 53: A number of designs are to be seen in his MS.
volumes belonging to the Ambrosian collection. See
Mariette's letter, in vol. ii. of Lett. Pittoriche, p. 171;
and, also, "Observations upon the Designs of Lionardo," by
the Ab. Amoretti, Ed. of Milan, 1784.

Footnote 54: It was intended for the equestrian statue of
Francesco Sforza, father of Lodovico. The Cav. Fr. Sabba da
Castiglione has mentioned in his Ricordi, No. 109, that this
very ingenious model, so greatly celebrated in the annals of
the arts, which cost Vinci sixteen years to complete, was
seen by the writer in 1499, converted into a target for the
Gascon bowmen in the service of Louis XII. when he became
master of Milan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 55: Amoretti, Mem. Stor. del Vinci, p. 130.

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

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

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

Footnote 56: See Amoretti, p. 90.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cerva took up his abode at Milan, and if he painted every picture like that which adorns San Lorenzo, representing the Apparition of Jesus Christ to S. Thomas and the other Apostles, he is entitled to rank with the first of his school, such is the choice and spirited character of the heads, such the warmth and distribution of his colouring, and so truly noble and harmonious is its effect as a whole. He must have been deeply versed in the art, though we possess no more of his public works, as he became the master of Gio. Paolo Lomazzo of Milan, who acquired from him the maxims he afterwards published in his Treatise upon Painting in 1584, and which he condensed in his Idea of the Temple of Painting, printed in 1590, to say nothing of his verses, for the most part connected with the same profession.

In his account of this writer Orlandi inserted several erroneous epochs of his life, subsequently cleared up by Bianconi, who fixes that of his loss of sight about 1571, in the thirty-third year of his age. Until this misfortune he had continued to cultivate all the knowledge he could derive from those times, which indeed in certain branches are in some measure undervalued. He took a tour through Italy, attaching himself to polite letters and to the sciences, for which he indulged such an enthusiasm, in his ill placed ambition to appear a philosopher, astrologer, and mathematician, that he treated matters even the most obvious in an abstruse and often false manner, as mistaken as the principles of the current astrology itself. This defect is very perceptible in his larger work, though being dispersed scantily here and there, it is the more easily excused. But it is more serious in his compendium, or Idea of the Temple of Painting, where it is presented to us in a point of view truly repugnant to common sense. Whilst engaged in teaching an art which consists in designing and colouring well, he flies from planet to planet; to each of the seven painters, whom he calls principals, he assigns one of these celestial bodies, and afterwards one of the metals to correspond. Extravagant as this idea is, he gave scope to still more strange fancies; so that with this method, combined with a most fatiguing prolixity, and the want of an exact index, his treatises have been little read. It would be well worth while to re-model this work, and to separate the fruit from the husk, as it abounds not only with much pleasing historical information, but with the best theories of art heard from the lips of those who knew both Leonardo and Gaudenzio, as well as with excellent observations upon the practice of the best masters, and much critical knowledge relating to the mythology, history, and customs of the ancients. His rules of perspective are particularly valuable. They were compiled from the MSS. of Foppa, of Zenale, of Mantegna, and of Vinci, (Tratt. p. 264); in addition to which he has preserved some fragments of Bramantino, who was extremely ingenious in this art, (p. 276). By these qualities, united to a certain ease of style, not so agreeable perhaps as that of Vasari, yet not so mysterious and obscure as that of Zuccaro, nor so mean as that of Boschini, the treatise of Lomazzo is deserving of attention, even from confessed masters, and of their selection of some of the best chapters for the benefit of their oldest pupils. I know of no other better adapted to furnish youthful genius with fine pictoric ideas on every theme, none more likely to attach him, and to instruct him how to treat questions upon ancient art, none that displays a more extensive acquaintance with the human heart--what are its passions, and by what signs they are manifested, and how they assume a different dress in different countries, with their appropriate limits; and no writer, finally, includes, in a single volume, more useful precepts for the formation of a reflecting artist, a fine reasoner, in a spirit congenial to Vinci, at once the father of the Milanese School, and I may add of pictoric philosophy, which consists in sound reflection upon each branch of the profession.