The History of Italian Painting. Luigi Lanzi
Читать онлайн книгу.
a mode, as Teofilo confesses, infinitely tedious: "quod in imaginibus diuturnum et tædiosum nimis est;" (cap. 23); to which I may add, that the colours in this way could never perfectly harmonize. Van Eych saw this difficulty, and he became more truly sensible of it, from the circumstance of having exposed one of his paintings to the sun, in order to harden, when the excess of heat split the panel. Being at that period sufficiently skilled both in philosophical and philological inquiries, he began to speculate on the manner of applying oils, and of their acquiring a proper consistency without the aid of the sun. "By uniting it with other mixtures he next produced a varnish, which, dried, was water proof, and gave a clearness and brilliancy, while it added to the harmony of his colours." Such are the words of Vasari; and thus, in a very few words, we may arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question. Before the time of Van Eych, some sort of method of painting in oil was known, but so extremely tedious and imperfect, as to be scarcely applicable to the production of figure pieces. It was practised beyond the Alps, but is not known to have been in use in Italy. Giovanni carried the first discovery to its completion; he perfected the art, which was afterwards diffused over all Europe, and introduced into Italy, by means of Antonio, or Antonello da Messina.
Here again we are met by another class of objectors, who enter the lists against Van Eych, against Antonello, and more decidedly against Vasari, not with arguments from books, but in the strength of pictorial skill, and chemical experiments.
Malvasia, upon the authority of Tiarini, maintains, that Lippo Dalmasio painted in oil; the Neapolitans, relying upon Marco da Siena, and other men of skill, assert the same of their artists in the thirteenth century; while a few have pretended that some of the pictures[77] produced in the fourteenth century, to be seen at Siena and Modena, in particular that from the hand of Tommaso da Modena, belonging to the Imperial cabinet, and described by me in the native school of that artist, are also coloured in oil; because, after being exposed to water, and analyzed, the colours discovered their elements, and were pronounced oil. In spite, however, of so much skill, and so many experiments, I cannot see that Vasari has yet been detected in an error. It would not be difficult to oppose other experiments and opinions, that might throw light upon the question. To begin with Tuscany:—an analysis of several Tuscan paintings was made at Pisa by the very able chemist Bianchi; and though apparently coloured in oil, the most lucid parts were found to give out particles of wax; a material employed in the encausti, and not forgotten by the Greeks, who instructed Giunta and his contemporaries. It would appear that they applied it as a varnish, to act as a covering and protection from humidity, as well as to give a lucid hue and polish to the colours. It has been observed, that the proportion of wax employed greatly decreased during the fourteenth century; and after the year 1360 fell into disuse, and was succeeded by a vehicle, that carries no gloss. But in these experiments oil was never elicited, if we except a few drops of essential oil, which the learned professor conjectures was employed at that early period to dissolve the wax made use of in painting.
Besides this material, certain gums, and yolks of eggs, which easily deceive the eye of the less skilful, were also used, and very nearly resemble those pictures that display a scanty portion of oil, as is observed by Zanetti, in his account of Venetian painting (p. 20); and the analysis of Tommaso da Modena's picture has tended to confirm his opinion. This information I owe to the late Count Durazzo, who, in 1793, assured me, when at Venice, that he had himself beheld, at Vienna, the process of analyzing such pictures, by very skilful hands, at the command, and in the presence of Prince Kaunitz; and that it was the unanimous opinion of those professors, that no traces of oil were to be found. The colours consisted of the finest gums, mixed with the yolk and white of eggs, a fact that afforded just ground for a like conclusion in regard to similar works by the ancients. I fully appreciate, likewise, the opinion of Piacenza upon the celebrated picture of Colantonio; this I reserve, however, together with some further reflections of my own, for the school of Naples.
I shall here merely inform the reader, that, in regard to the chemical experiments employed on these paintings, Sig. da Morrona[78] observes, that old pictures are often believed to be in a state of purity, when they have been retouched with oil colours at a subsequent period: the use of wax, and of essential oils, or of some such old methods, may frequently give rise to doubt, as I shall soon shew.
Having removed the objections brought against the opinion of Vasari, I must add a few words in regard to a passage where he seems to have forgotten what he had said in the life of Angiol Gaddi, but which will in fact throw further light upon the question. He is giving an account of the paintings and writings of Andrea Cennini, a scholar of Angelo. This person, in 1437, that is, long before the arrival of Domenico, composed a work on painting, which is preserved in MS. in the library of S. Lorenzo. He there treated, says Vasari, of grinding colours with oil, for making red, blue, and green grounds; and various new methods and sizes for gilding, but not figures. Baldinucci examined the same manuscript, and found these words in the 89th chapter:—"I wish to teach thee how to paint in oil on walls, or on panel, as practised by many Germans;" and on consulting the manuscript, I find, after that passage, "and by the same method on iron and on marble; but I shall first treat of painting on walls." In the succeeding chapters he says, that this must be accomplished "by boiling linseed oil." This appears not to accord with the assertion of Vasari, that John of Bruges, after many experiments, "discovered that linseed oil and nut oil were the most drying. When boiled with his other ingredients they formed the varnish so long sought after by him and all other painters." On weighing the evidence, we should, in my opinion, take three circumstances into consideration: The first is, that Vasari does not deny that oil was employed in painting; since he affirms that it was long a desideratum, and consequently had been often attempted; but that alone is perfect which, "when dry, resists water; which brightens the colours, makes them clear, and perfectly unites them." 2. The oil of Cennini might not be of this sort, either because it was not boiled with the ingredients of Van Eych, or because it was intended only for coarse work; a circumstance rendered probable by the fact, that though he painted the Virgin, with several Saints, in the hospital of Bonifazio, at Florence, "in a good style of colouring," yet he never excited the admiration nor the envy of artists. 3. The above remarks forbid us to give implicit confidence to every relation that is given of ancient oil pictures; but we are not blindly to reject all accounts of imperfect attempts of that nature. After this digression we return to our narrative.
The painters that remain to be noticed, approach the golden age of the art, of which their works in some degree participate, notwithstanding the dryness of their design, and the general want of harmony in their colouring. The vehicle of their colours was commonly water, very rarely oil. They flourished in the time of Sixtus IV., who, having erected the magnificent chapel that retains his name, invited them from Florence. Their names are Botticelli, Ghirlandaio, Rosselli, Luca da Cortona, and D. Bartolommeo d'Arezzo; whom I shall here introduce, together with their followers. Manni, the historian of some of these artists,[79] conjectures that this work was executed about the year 1474. They were desired to pourtray the history of Moses on one part of the chapel, and that of Christ on the other: thus the old law was confronted by the new, the shade by the light, and the type by the person typified. The pontiff was unskilled in the fine arts, but covetous of the glory they confer on the name and actions of princes. To superintend the work, he made choice of Sandro Filipepi, from his first master, a goldsmith, surnamed Botticelli, and the pupil of F. Filippo; a celebrated artist at that time, and distinguished by his pictures containing a great number of small figures in which he strongly resembled Andrea Mantegna; though his heads were less beautiful. Vasari says, that his little picture of the Calumny of Apelles, is as fine a production as possible, and he pronounces the Assumption, painted for the church of S. Pier Maggiore, to be so excellent, that it ought to silence envy. The former is in the royal gallery, the latter in a private house. What he painted in the Sistine Chapel, however, surpasses all his other works. Here we scarcely recognize Sandro of Florence. The Temptation of Christ, embellished with a magnificent temple, and a crowd of devotees in the vestibule; Moses assisting the daughters of Jethro against the Midianite shepherds, in which there is great richness of drapery, coloured in a new manner; and other subjects, treated with