Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects/Introduction to Third Part
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD PART.[1]
Truly important was the progress towards perfection which was secured to the arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture, by means of the excellent masters whose works we have described in the second part of these Lives. Eule, order, proportion, design, and manner, have all been added by them to the characteristics exhibited by those of the first period, if not in the utmost perfection, yet making so near an approach to the truth, that the masters of the third period, of which we are henceforward to treat, have been enabled, by the light thus afibrded them, to reach that summit which the best and most renowned of modern works prove them to have attained.
But to the end that the character of the amelioration effected bv the above-mentioned artists, the masters of the second period, namely, may be more clearly understood, it may not be out of place to describe, in few words, the five distinctive properties, or characteristics, which I have just enumerated, and briefly to declare the origin of that truly good manner, which, surpassing that of the older period, has contributed to render the modern era so glorious. To begin with the first-mentioned, therefore;[2] the Rule in architecture was the process of measuring works of antiquity, and considering the plans and ground-work of ancient edifices in the construction of modern buildings. Order was the division of one mode from another, to the end that each might have the parts appropriate to itself, and that the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Tuscan might no longer be mingled and interchanged. Proportion was the universal law prevailing in architecture as in sculpture, which demanded that all bodies should be exact and correct in form with all the members justly and duly organized: this was equally enforced in painting. Design was the imitation of the most beautiful parts of nature in all figures, whether sculptured or painted, and this requires that the hand and mind of the artist should be capable of reproducing, with the utmost truth and exactitude, on paper, panel, or such other level surface as may be used, whatever the eye beholds—a remark that also applies to works of relief in sculpture. Finally, Manner attained its highest perfection from the practice of frequently copying the most beautiful objects, and of afterwards combining the most perfect, whether the hand, head, torso, or leg, and joining them together to make one figure, invested with every beauty in its highest perfection: to do this in every figure for all the works executed, is what is called fine manner.[3] These things neither Giotto, nor any other of the early masters, treated of in the first period, had done, although they had discovered the sources of all the difficulties in art, and even attained to a superficial knowledge thereof: thus their drawing was more correct, and made a closer approach to nature than had previously been seen; they displayed more harmony in colouring, and a better disposition of their figures in historical composition, with many other qualities of which we have sufficiently discoursed. The masters of the second period, although they effected very important ameliorations in art, as to all the characteristics described above, were yet not so far advanced as to be capable of conducting it to its ultimate perfection; there was yet wanting to their rule a certain freedom which, without being exactly of the rule is directed by the rule, and is capable of existing without causing confusion or disturbing the order, which last demanded a rich variety in invention, ever ready for all points, with a certain perception of beauty, even in the most trifling accessories, which amply secures the order and adds a higher degree of ornament. In proportion, there was still wanting that rectitude of judgment which, without measurement, should give to every figure, in its due relation, a grace exceeding measurement. In drawing, the highest eminence had not been attained; for although the arm was made round and the leg straight, there was yet not that judicious treatment of the muscles, nor that graceful facility, which holds the medium between suffering them to be seen but not displaying them, which is apparent in the life: the masters, on the contrary, had, in this respect, something crude and excoriated in their practice, producing an efiect that was displeasing to the eye and which gave hardness to the manner. This last wanted the grace which imparts lightness and softness to all forms, more particularly to those of women and children, which should be represented with as much truth to nature as those of men, but with a roundness and fulness, never bordering on coarseness, as may sometimes happen in nature, but which in the drawing should be refined and ennobled by the judgment of the artist. Variety and beauty in the vestments were also wanting, with many other rich and multiform fancies. The charm of colouring, namely, the diversity of buildings, the distance and changeful character of landscape; for although many did begin—as, for example, Andrea Verrocchio, Antonio del Pollaiuolo, and many still later—to give more study to their figures, to improve the drawing, and to increase their similitude to nature; they had, nevertheless, not succeeded fully, although they had attained to greater firmness, and were proceeding in a direction tending towards the right path. That this last assertion is true may be seen even by a comparison with the antique, as is proved by the figure of Marsyas, of which Andrea Verrocchio[4] executed the legs and arms for the palace of the Medici, in Florence: but there is still Avanting a certain delicacy of finish, and that ultimate charm of perfection in the feet, hands, hair, and heard, which alone can fully satisfy the cultivated judgment and the refined taste of the master in art; even though the limbs are, upon the whole, in just accord with the part of the antique statue still remaining, and although there is without doubt a certain harmony in the proportions.
Had these masters attained to that minuteness of finish which constitutes the perfection and bloom of art, they would also have displayed power and boldness in their works, when the result would have been a lightness, beauty, and grace which are not now to be found, although we perceive proofs of diligent endeavour, but which are, nevertheless, always secured to beautiful figures by the highest efforts of art, whether in sculpture or painting. Nor could this last perfection—this certain somewhat thus wanting—be readily obtained, seeing that, from much study, the manner derives a sort of dryness, when it is from study alone that men are labouring to force that highest finish. But to those who came after, success was rendered possible, from the time when they beheld those works of ancient art, which Pliny enumerates as among the most justly celebrated drawn forth from the recesses of the earth for their benefit. The Laocoon namely, the Hercules, the mighty Torso of the Belvedere, with the Venus, the Cleopatra, the Apollo, and many others, in which softness and power are alike visible, which display roundness and fulness justly restrained, and which, reproducing the most perfect beauty of nature, with attitudes and movements wholly free from distortion, but turning or bending gracefully in certain parts, exhibit everywhere the flexibility and ease of nature, with the most attractive grace. These statues caused the disappearance of that hard, dry sharpness of manner which had been still left in art, by the too anxious study of Piero della Francesco, Lazzaro Vasari, Alesso Baldovinetti, Andrea dal Castagno, Pesello, Ercole Ferrarese, Giovan Bellini, Cosimo Roselli, the Abbot of San Clemente, Domenico Ghirlandajo, Sandro Botticelli, Andrea Mantegna,[5] Filippo Lippi, and Luca Signorelli.
These masters had laboured by unremitting effort to produce the impossible in art, more especially in foreshortenings or in objects displeasing to the sight, and which, as they were difficult in the execution, so are they unattractive to those who behold them. It is true that the greater part of their works were well drawn and free from errors, but there were wanting to them that certainty and firmness of handling, that harmony in the colouring, which may be perceived in the works of Francia, of Bologna, and of Pietro Perugino, but are never to be found in those of which we have now been speaking. When the last-mentioned masters commenced this new treatment, people rushed like madmen to behold that unwonted and life-like beauty, believing then that it would be absolutely impossible ever to do better; but the error of this judgment was clearly demonstrated soon after by the w^orks of Leonardo da Vinci, with whom began that third manner, which we will agree to call the modern; for, in addition to the power and boldness of his drawing, and to say nothing of the exactitude with which he copied the most minute particulars of nature exactly as they are, he displays perfect rule, improved order, correct proportion, just design, and a most divine grace; abounding in resource, and deeply versed in art, he may be truly said to have imparted to his figures, not beauty only, but life and movement.
After Leonardo there followed, even though somewhat distantly, Giorgione da Castel Franco, whose pictures are painted with much delicacy, and who gave extreme force and animation to his works by a certain depth of shadow, very judiciously managed; nor are the works of Fra Bartolommeo di San Marco less worthy of commendation, for the force, relief, and softness imparted to them bj the master. But above all is to be distinguished the most graceful Raffaello da Urbino, who, examining and studying the works both of the earlier and later masters, took from all their best qualities, and, uniting these, enriched the domain of art with paintings of that faultless perfection ancientfy exhibited by the figures of Apelles and Zeuxis; nay, we might even say more perchance, could the works of Ralfaello be compared or placed together with any by those masters: nature herself was surpassed by the colours of Raphael, and his invention was so easy and original, that the historical pieces of his composition are similar to legible writings, as all may perceive who examine them: in his works, the buildings, with their sites and all surrounding them, are as the places themselves, and whether treating our own people or strangers, the features, dresses, and every other peculiarity were at pleasure represented, with equal ease. To the countenances of his figures Raphael imparted the most perfect grace and truth; to the young as to the old, to men as to women; each and all have their appropriate character, for the modest he reserved an expression of modesty, to the licentious he imparted a look of licentiousness; his children charm us, now by the exquisite beauty of the eyes and expression, now by the spirit of their movement and the grace of their attitudes; his draperies are neither too rich and ample, nor too simple and meagre in their folds, still less are they complicated or confused, but all are so arranged and ordered in such a manner, that they appear to be indeed what they represent.
In the same manner, but softer in colouring and evincing less force, there followed Andrea del Sarto, who may be said to have been remarkable, were it only because his works were free from errors. It would be easy to describe the charming vivacity imparted to his paintings by Antonio Correggio; this master painted the hair of his figures in a manner altogether peculiar, separating the waves or tresses, not in the laboured, sharp, and dry manner practised before his time, but with a feathery softness, permitting each hair, in the light and easily flowing masses, to be distinguished, while the whole has a golden lustre, more beautiful than that of life itself, insomuch that the reality is surpassed by his colours.
Similar effects were produced by Francesco Mazzola, of Parma (Parmigianino), who was superior even to Correggio, in many respects excelling him in grace, in profusion of ornament, and in beauty of manner;[6] this may be seen in many of his pictures, wherein the countenances smile, as in nature, while the eyes look forth with the most life-like animation, or in other cases wherein the spectator perceives the pulses actually beating, accordingly as it pleased the pencil of the artist to portray them.
But whoever shall examine the mural paintings of Polidoro and Maturino, will see figures in such attitudes as it would seem almost impossible to represent, and will inquire, with amazement, how they have found means, not to describe in discourse, which might easily be done, but to depict with the pencil, all the extraordinary circumstances exhibited by them with so much facility; nor can we sufficiently marvel at the skill and dexterity with which they have represented the deeds of the Romans, as they really happened.
Many others have there been who have given life to the figures depicted by them, but are now themselves numbered with the dead, as for example, II Rosso, Fra Sebastiano, Giulio Romano, and Perin del Yaga; of living artists, who are rendering themselves most widely known by their own acts, it needs not that I should now speak, but a fact which belongs to the universal history of our art may be here mentioned, namely, that the masters have now brought it to a degree of perfection which renders it possible for him who possesses design, invention, and colouring, to produce six pictures in one year, whereas formerly those earlier masters of our art, could produce one picture only in six years; to the truth of this I can bear indubitable testimony, both from what I have seen and from what I have done,[7] while the paintings are nearer to perfection, and more highly finished, than were formerly those of the most distinguished masters.
But he who bears the palm from all, whether of the living or the dead; he who transcends and eclipses every other, is the divine Michelagnolo Buonarotti, who takes the first place, not in one of these arts only, but in all three. This master surpasses and excels not only all those artists who have well nigh surpassed nature herself, hut even all the most famous masters of antiquity, who did, beyond all doubt, vanquish her most gloriously: he alone has triumphed over the later as over the earlier, and even over nature herself, which one could scarcely imagine to be capable of exhibiting any thing, however extraordinary, however difficult, that he would not, by the force of his most divine genius, and by the power of his art, design, judgment, diligence, and grace, very far surpass and excel;[8] nor does this remark apply to painting and the use of colours only, wherein are, nevertheless, comprised all corporeal forms, all bodies, direct or curved, palpable or impalpable, visible or invisible, but to the exceeding roundness and relief of his statues also. Fostered by the power of his art, and cultivated by his labours, the beautiful and fruitful plant has already put forth many and most noble branches, which have not only filled the world with the most delicious fruits, in unwonted profusion, but have also brought these three noble arts to so admirable a degree of perfection, that we may safely affirm the statues of this master to be, in all their parts, more beautiful than the antique.[9] If the heads, hands, arms, or feet of the one be placed in comparison with those of the other, there will be found in those of the modern a more exact rectitude of principle, a grace more entirely graceful, a much more absolute perfection, in short, while there is also in the manner, a certain facility in the conquering of difficulties, than which it is impossible even to imagine any thing better; and what is here said applies equally to his paintings, for if it v/ere possible to place these face to face with those of the most famous Greeks and Romans, thus brought into comparison, they would still further increase in value, and be esteemed to surpass those of the ancients in as great a degree as his sculptures excel all the antique.[10]
But if the most renowned masters of old times, who, stimulated as they were by excessive rewards, produced their works amidst all the delights that fortune can bestow, obtain so large a share of our admiration, how much more highly should we not celebrate and extol even to the heavens, those most wonderful artists, who not only without reward, but iu miserable poverty, bring forth fruits so precious? It is therefore to be believed and may be affirmed, that if, in this our day, the due remuneration were accorded to upright effort, there would be still greater and much better works executed than were ever produced by the ancients. But since artists have now rather to combat with, and struggle against poverty, than to strive after, and labour for fame, so is their genius miserably crushed and buried, nor does this state of things permit them (reproach and shame to those who could bring the remedy, but who give themselves no trouble concerning the matter), to make their true value adequately known. But we have said enough on that subject, and it is time that we return to the Lives, proposing to treat circumstantially of all those who have performed celebrated works in the third manner; the first of whom was Leonardo da Vinci, with whom we will therefore begin.
- ↑ Bottari, in his first edition of our author (Rome, 1759), has displaced this introduction simply for the purpose of equalizing the form of his work, but he has thereby deprived it of a portion of its significance and propriety, since Vasari divides his work into three parts, to each of which he has prefixed its appropriate introduction. In the first of these Proemia, for example, he treats of the revival of art from Cimabue to Masaccio and his contemporaries; in the second, of its development from Masaccio to Luca Signorelli; and in the third, he finally describes the period of that high cultivation and triumphant reign of art, which from the time of Leonardo da Vinci to the middle of the sixteenth century, was rendered memorable by the production of the most valuable works whereby the domain of the arts has yet been enriched.
- ↑ The following definitions are far from possessing the clearness and precision that might be desired, but the student of art will know how to supply all the deficiencies of our author; and the reader who may desire to be further enlightened, will find ample materials, in the rich variety of authors who have treated the subject, for the rectifications that cannot here find place.
- ↑ The dangers incident to this mode of seeking the attainment of fine manner,” are too obvious to need mention here, even could the enumeration of them find place within the narrow limits assigned to a note.
- ↑ See his iife, ante, p. 256.
- ↑ Fra Filippo Lippi. An Italian commentator, who is repeated by the German editor, remarks that Vasari has forgotten to mention Masaccio, and exclams, “Woe to him, if Masaccio had not been a Tuscan!” But may not this omission be intentional on the part of Vasari, who may thus have proposed to exempt Masaccio from the partial censure under which he is placing the earlier masters generally, when comparing them with those of the third period, how^ever approvingly he may have spoken of each individually in his own point of time?
- ↑ is
- This judgment will not be approved by all readers, since Parmigianino,
- ↑ It is precisely this rapidity of production that was the misfortune or Vasari and of his contemporaries.— Ibid,
- ↑ “Grace,” remarks an Italian commentator, “is by common consent admitted to be not among the qualities for which the works of Buonarroti are appreciated.” The German translator repeats this observation, but neither enters a protest against the extravagance of our author’s assertion that Michael Angelo very far surpasses” the perfection of nature.
- ↑ The enthusiasm of Vasari for his master is declared by more than one of his commentators to have here led him into an error of judgment as well as into the confusion of figures perceptible in his style.
- ↑ On this passage Italian annotators make comments to the following effect:—“Among the high qualities which render the sculptured works of Michael Angelo so admirable, Ave have to remark the softness of the flesh, which is such, that one cannot but fancy the muscles of his figures ready to yield to the pressure of the hand. For this, for his knowledge of anatomy, for his energetic treatment, &c., the statues of Michael Angelo may be preferred to many of the antique: but Vasari declares them to be superior to all, and in all respects; and he has said too much." In the opinion conveyed by the last sentence Ave think our readers Avill fully concur. “Messer Giorgio was a partizan,” as the same commentators further remark, and it is certain tliat the admirable impartiality usually displayed by him, but for which he has obtained so little credit from certain of his compatriots, has somewhat failed him here. The enthusiasm of the disciple has for a moment obscured the vision of the judge.