The History of Painting in Italy. Luigi Lanzi
Читать онлайн книгу.
Florence, was written in the beginning of the thirteenth century, and exhibits initial letters, surrounded with illuminations of little stories and ornaments of animals. They are painted in vermilion, in a very hard and meagre style; but they are valuable on account of their era, 1213, in which they were executed by Oderico Canonico of Siena.[250] Similar books were ornamented by the same painter in the parchment of the leaves, and painted on the covers without;[251] and afford a proof that thus the art of ornamenting with miniatures might lead to large compositions. All, however, more or less, savour of the Greek design; either because the Italians were originally disciples of the Greeks, dispersed over Italy, or because they regarded the Grecian masters as models, and ventured not to attempt much beyond them.
The most ancient pictures in the city, the Madonna of the Graces, the Madonna of Tressa, the Madonna of Bethlehem, a S. Peter in the church dedicated to that saint, and a S. John the Baptist, surrounded by many small historical representations at S. Petronilla, are believed to be older than 1200; but it is by no means clear that they are the works of Italians, though often believed such from their initial characters, plaister, and design. On the two last the names of the saints near the figures are in Latin characters; a circumstance, however, which does not prove an Italian painter. On the mosaic works at Venice, on the Madonna of Camerino, brought from Smyrna,[252] and on other pictures executed by the Greeks for Italian cities, ignorant of their language, they wrote, or got others to write, inscriptions in Latin; and they did the same on statues.[253] The method of painting on gilt plaister, which we observe in some old pictures, decidedly Italian, is no argument; for I have several times observed a similar practice in what was unquestionably the work of a Greek artist. The drawing of the features in those pictures, the grimness of the aspect, and the composition of the stories, all accord with the productions of the Greeks. They may, therefore, have been painted by Greek artists, or by a scholar, or, at least, by an imitator of the Greeks. Who, then, can determine whence the artist came, whether he was a restorer of painting, and whether he executed those paintings at Siena, or sent them from some other place? This is certain, that painting quickly established itself at Siena, sent out roots, and rapidly multiplied its blossoms.
The series of painters known by name commences with Guido, or Guidone, already noticed in the beginning of this volume. He flourished before Cimabue of Florence saw the light; and seems to have been at the same time an illuminator of manuscripts and a painter. The writers of Siena have declaimed against Vasari and Baldinucci for omitting this artist; notices of whom could not have escaped the former, who was many times at Siena; nor the latter, who was made acquainted with them before the publication of his Decennali. Cav. Marmi, a learned and celebrated Florentine, thus notices the omission in one of his letters.[254] "Baldinucci laboured to make us credit the restoration of painting by Cimabue and Giotto; and to give stability to his hypothesis, it is probable that he omitted to make any mention of the painters who, independent of the two just named, departed from the raw and feeble manner of the Greeks." And Guido certainly left it not a little behind, in his picture of the Virgin, now hung up in the Malevolti chapel in the church of S. Domenico. On it he has thus inscribed his name and the date:
Me Guido de Senis diebus depinxit amenis Quem Christus lenis nullis velit agere poenis. An. 1221.
And this example was often followed by the masters of this school, to the great benefit of the history of painting. The countenance of the Virgin is lovely, and participates not in the stern aspect that is characteristic of the Greeks; we may discover some trace of a new style in the drapery. The Madonnas of Cimabue which are at Florence, the one in the church of the Trinity, the other in S. Maria Novella, are not, however, inferior. In them we may discern the improvement of the art; a more vivid colouring, flesh tints more true; a more natural attitude of the head of the infant, while the accompaniments of the throne, and of the glory of angels, proclaim a superior style.
On this subject I make two remarks, in which I widely dissent from the opinion of the author of the Sienese Letters, without committing any breach of our long established friendship. The one is, that to prove Guido superior to Cimabue, he frequently compares the Madonna of S. Domenico, which is the only one of his pictures which he mentions,[255] with the paintings of Cimabue, which are numerous, and full of subject; and without setting any value on the colouring, the fertility of invention, and the various other qualities in which the Florentine surpassed the artist of Siena, he dwells on certain little particulars, in which it appears that Guido was superior. An artist of whom it is not known that he ever attempted any picture but Madonnas, might become more or less perfect in this subject; but painting is not so much indebted to him, as to one who has carried it to the higher walks of the art; a merit which Marco of Siena, a writer not inclined to favour the Florentines, denies not to Cimabue, as we shall find in the fourth book. The other circumstance alluded to is, that when he mentions a picture which does honour to the fame of Cimabue, he attempts to discredit its history, and the tradition; as I have already observed with regard to the two large pictures in the church of Assisi, and am now under the necessity of remarking with regard to the two Madonnas at Florence above mentioned. He "strongly suspects"[256] them to be the work of Mino da Turrita, since mosaic, in which Mino was expert, is there represented by a skilful hand; and Cimabue was not dexterous in that art; as if a painter could not represent buildings without being an architect, or garments without knowing how to cut them out, or drapery without being versed in the art of weaving. He even doubts whether Giotto visited France, for, had this been the case, he, and not Simone da Siena, would have painted the portrait of Laura, as if history did not inform us that Giotto visited that country about 1316, long before the period when Petrarca first became enamoured of that beauty. He has introduced some other speculations, which he would not have admitted, had he not been betrayed into it, almost involuntarily, by a system which has some probable foundation, but is carried to an extravagant length. I should have been silent on this subject; but when writing of these artists it became me to recollect that the unicuique suum was no less the duty of the historian than the judge.
The authors of chronicles require correction on the era of this painter. The most undoubted picture of Guido is that bearing the date 1221, for the other in the church of S. Bernardino, dated 1262, is ascribed to him without sufficient evidence. It is hardly probable that he who was so eminent in a new art in 1221, was still alive in 1295, as is affirmed by some,[257] on the faith of a sum of money paid to one Guido, a painter. The celebrated Guido must then have been at least 105 years of age: it is more probable that he was dead, and the name applied to another Guido, without any danger of a mistake.
It is generally believed that the elder Guido instructed F. Mino, or Giacomino da Turrita, the celebrated artist in mosaic, of whom we have spoken in the first book. On the era of Mino also much has been written without sufficient authority. Baldinucci says he died about 1300; and omits to mention in his life that he was employed in 1225; although this date is legible on the mosaic of Mino in the church of S. Giovanni at Florence, in letters a cubit in length.[258] This circumstance has likewise escaped the historians of Siena, some of whom have prolonged his life to the year 1298, on the authority of payment made to Minuccio, a painter; and others have extended it to about 1200, on account of the tomb of Boniface VIII. which is said to be the work of Turrita. The utmost period that can be granted them is about 1290: for Titi observes, in his Description of the Paintings in Rome, that Mino finished the mosaic of S. Maria Maggiore in 1289, and died, after beginning another in S. Giovanni Laterano, which was completed by Gaddo Gaddi in 1292. This renders it extremely doubtful that F. Mino was taught painting by Guido, that he imparted it not only to Giotto, whom, for other reasons, we have excluded from his school (p. 20) but to the Sienese artists, Memmi and Lorenzetti,