esteemed to surpass those of the ancients in as great a degree as his sculptures excel all the antique.[1]
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.
- ↑ 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.
