The History of Italian Painting. Luigi Lanzi
Читать онлайн книгу.
by natives and foreigners, but, if I mistake not, it has scarcely been treated with that accuracy which is necessary for the attainment of truth. That it is quite requisite to divide this branch of art into three several states or stages, I trust I have already sufficiently shewn. In following up this division we shall have a better chance of ascertaining what portion of merit ought to be awarded to each country. Vasari, together with Cellini, in his "Treatise upon the Goldsmith's art," as well as most other writers, are inclined to refer its commencement to Florence, and to the artist Finiguerra. Doubts have since arisen; while so recent an author as Bottari, himself a Florentine, mentions it as a circumstance not yet ascertained. The epoch of Maso was altered through mistake, by Manni, who speaks of his decease as happening previous to 1424.[105] This has been corrected by reference to the authentic books of the Arte de' Mercanti, in which the pace already cited is mentioned as being paid for in the year 1452. About the same time, Antonio Pollaiuolo, still a youth, as we learn from Vasari, in his life, was the rival of Finiguerra in the church of S. Giovanni; and as Maso had at that period already acquired great celebrity, we may conclude that he was of a mature age, and experienced in the art. We have further a right to suppose, with Gaburri and Tiraboschi, that having then taken proofs "of all the subjects which he had engraved on silver," he had observed this custom from the year 1440, and perhaps earlier; and we thus discover the elements of chalcography in Florence, satisfactorily deduced from history.[106] For neither with the aid of history, monuments, nor reasoning, am I enabled to discover an epoch equally remote belonging to any other country; as we shall shew, in the first place, in regard to Germany. It possesses no annals so far back as that period. The credulity of Sandrart[107] led him to question the truth of this, by referring to a small print of uncertain origin, on which he believed he could read the date 1411, and upon another that of 1455. At this period, however, when the authority of Sandrart is of small account, no less from his frequent contradictions than his partiality, which has rendered him suspected even by his own countrymen, we may receive his two engravings as false coin, not valuable enough to purchase the credit of the discovery from us. Those two distinguished writers, Meerman,[108] and the Baron Heineken,[109] were equally bent upon refuting him. They do not pretend to trace any earlier engraver in Germany than Martin Schön, called by others Bonmartino, and by Vasari, Martino di Anversa,[110] who died in 1486. Some are of opinion that he had two brothers, who assisted him, but who are unknown; and not long after appear the names of Israel Meckeln,[111] Van Bockold, Michael Wolgemuth, master to Albert Durer, with many others who approached the sixteenth century. It is contended, however, that engraving on copper was known in Germany anterior to these; as there exist specimens by doubtful hands, which have the appearance of being much earlier. Meerman, on the authority of Christ,[112] adduces one with the initials C. E. and the date 1465, besides two described by Bar. Heineken, dated 1466, the first of which is signed f.
The cause is well pleaded, but it is not carried. Let us try to confront reasons with reasons. The Italians have the testimony of history in their favour; the Germans have it against them. The former, without any attempt at exaggeration, proceed as far back as 1440, and even farther;[113] the latter, by dint of conjecture, reach as far as 1450, and are only tempted to anticipate it by ten years date. The Italians commence the art with Maso, not from his master; the Germans are not content to date from Schön, but from his master, an advantage they either deny to Italy, and thus fail to draw an equal comparison; or if they concede the master, we still anticipate by ten years their origin of chalcography. The Italians, again, confirm the truth of their history by a number of authentic documents, proofs in niello, first impressions, and the progress of the art from its earliest stages to maturity. The Germans supply their historic deficiency by monuments, in part proved to be false, in part doubtful, and which are easily convicted of insufficiency for the proposed object. Because who can assure us that the prints of 1465 or 66, are not the production of the brothers or the disciples of Schön, since Heineken himself confesses that they were possibly the work of some contemporary artists, his inferiors? Do we not find in Italy that the followers of Botticelli are inferior to him, and appear to be of earlier date? Moreover, who can assure us that Schön was instructed by a master of his own nation; when all his engravings that have been hitherto produced, appear already perfect in their kind;[114] nor do we find mentioned in Germany either proofs in niello, or first essays in metals of a softer temper? The fact therefore, most probably is, what has invariably obtained credit—that the invention was communicated from Italy to Germany, and as a matter not at all difficult to the goldsmiths, was speedily practised there with success; I might even add, was greatly improved. For both the press and printer's ink being well known there, artists were enabled to add to the mechanic part of the art, improvements with which Italy was unacquainted; I will produce an example of what I mean, that cannot fail to convince. Printing of books was discovered in Germany: history and monuments alike confirm it, which are to be traced gradually from tabular prints to moveable types, still of wood, and from these to characters of metal. In such state was the invention brought to Italy, where, without passing through these intermediate degrees, books were printed not only in moveable characters of metal, but with tables cut in copper, thus adding to the art a degree of perfection which it wanted. Heineken objects that the Germans at that period had very little correspondence with the cities of Italy, with the exception of Venice, (p. 139). To this I answer that our universities of Pisa and Bologna, besides several others, were much frequented by young men from Germany, at that period; and that for the convenience both of strangers and of natives, a Dictionary of the German language was printed at Venice, in 1475, and in 1479, at Bologna; a circumstance sufficient of itself to prove that there was no little communication between the two nations. There are, besides, so many other reasons to believe that a great degree of intercourse subsisted, more particularly between Germany and Florence,[115] during the period we treat of; that we ought not to be at all surprised at the arts belonging to the one being communicated to the other. Hitherto I have pleaded, as far as lay in my power, the cause of my country; though without having been able, I fear, to bring the question to a close. Some time, it is possible, that those earliest essays and proofs of the art, which have hitherto eluded research, may be discovered: it is possible that some one of their writers, who are at once so truly learned and so numerous, may improve upon the hint thrown out by Heineken (p. 139), that the Germans and the Italians, without any kind of corresponding knowledge on the subject, struck out simultaneous discoveries of the modern art. However this may chance to be, it is my part to write from the information and authorities which I have before me.
It remains to be seen whether, on the exclusion of Germany, there is any other part of Italy that may have anticipated the discovery of Finiguerra at Florence. Some of his opponents have ventured to question his title on the strength of metallic impressions of seals, which are met with on Italian parchments from the earliest periods. This shews only that the art advanced during several ages on the verge of