300

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND PART.

WHEN I first undertook to write these lives, it was not my purpose to make a mere list of the artists, or to give an inventory, so to speak, of their works. Nor could I by any means consider it a worthy end of my-I will not say satisfactory -but assuredly prolonged and fatiguing labours, that I should content myself with merely ascertaining the number, names, and country of the artists, or with informing my reader in what city or borough precisely, their paintings, sculptures, or buildings, were to be found. This I could have accomplished by a simple register or table, without the interposition of my own judgment in any part. But I have remembered that the writers of history,-such of them, that is to say, as by common consent are admitted to have treated their subject most judiciously,—have in no case contented themselves with a simple narration of the occurrences they describe, but have made zealous enquiry respecting the lives of the actors, and sought with the utmost diligence to investigate the modes and methods adopted by distinguished men for the furtherance of their various undertakings. The efforts of such writers have, moreover, been further directed to the examination of the points on which errors have been made, or, on the other hand, by what means successful results have been produced. to what expedients those who govern have had recourse, in what manner they have delivered themselves from such embarrassments as arise in the management of affairs; of all that has been effected, in short; whether sagaciously or injudiciously, whether by the exercise of prudence, piety, and greatness of mind, or by that of the contrary qualities, and with opposite results; as might be expected from men who are persuaded that history is in truth the mirror of human life. These writers have not contented themselves with a mere dry narration of facts and events, occurring under this prince or in that republic, but have set forth the grounds of the various opinions, the motives of the different resolutions, and

the character of the circumstances by which the prime movers have been actuated; with the consequences, beneficial or disastrous, which have been the results of all. This is, without doubt, the soul of history. From these details it is that men learn the true government of life; and to secure this effect, therefore, with the addition of the pleasure which may be derived from having past events presented to the view as living and present, is to be considered the legitimate aim of the historian.

Moved by these considerations, I determined, having undertaken to write the history of the noblest masters in our arts, to pursue the method observed by these distinguished writers, so far as my powers would permit; imitating these ingenious men, and desiring, above all things, to honour the arts, and those who labour in them. I have endeavoured, not only to relate what has been done, but to set forth and distinguish the better from the good, and the best from the better, the most distinguished from the less prominent qualities and works, of those who belong to our vocation. I have further sought, with diligence, to discriminate between the different methods, manners, and processes adopted and displayed by the different painters and sculptors, not omitting to notify their various phantasies, inventions, and modes of treatment, all which I have investigated to the best of my ability, that I might the better make known to those who could not pursue the enquiry for themselves, the sources and causes of the different methods, as well as of that amelioration and deterioration of the arts which have been seen to take place at different periods, and by the agency of different persons.

In the First Part of these Lives I have spoken of the nobility and antiquity of these our arts, as at that point of our work was desirable, omitting many remarks by Pliny, and other writers, of which I might have availed myself, if I had not preferred-perhaps in opposition to the opinion of many readers-rather to permit that each should remain free to seek the ideas of others in their original sources. And this I did to avoid that prolixity and tediousness which are the mortal enemies of attention. But on this occasion it appears to me beseeming that I should do what I did not then permit myself-namely, present a more exact and definite

explication of my purpose and intention, with the reasons which have led me to divide this collection of Lives into Three Parts.

It is an indubitable fact, that distinction in the arts is attained by one man through his diligent practice; by another, from his profound study; a third seeks it in imitation; a fourth, by the acquirement of knowledge in the sciences, which all offer aid to the arts; others arrive at the desired end by the union of many of these; some by the possession of all united. But as I have sufficiently discoursed, in the lives of various masters, of the modes, processes, and causes of all sorts, which have contributed to the good, the better, or the excellent results of their labours, so I will here discuss these matters in more general terms, and insist, rather, on the qualities which characterize periods, than on those which distinguish individuals. To avoid a too minute inquiry, I adopt the division into three parts, or periods-if we so please to call them-from the revival of the arts, down to the present century, and in each of these there will be found a very obvious difference. In the first, and most ancient, of these periods, we have seen that the three formative arts were very far from their perfection; and that, if it must be admitted that they had much in them that was good, yet this was accompanied by so much of imperfection, that those times certainly merit no great share of commendation. Yet, on the other hand, as it is by them that the commencement was made; as it was they who originated the method, and taught the way to the better path, which was afterwards followed, so, if it were but for this, we are bound to say nothing of them but what is good-nay, we must even accord to them a somewhat larger amount of glory than they might have the right to demand, were their works to be judged rigidly by the strict rules of art.*

In the second period, all productions were, obviously, much ameliorated; richer invention was displayed, with more correct drawing, a better manner, improved execution, and more careful finish. The arts were, in a measure, delivered from that rust of old age, and that coarse disproportion, which the

*The praises which the author had previously bestowed on the works of the first period, and which might seem excessive, are here justified, and moderated at the same time.-Ed. Flor. of 1832-8.

;

rudeness of the previous uncultivated period had left still clinging to them. But who will venture to affirm that there could yet be found an artist perfect at all points? or one who had arrived at that position, in respect of invention, design, and colour, to which we have attained in the present day? Is there any one who has been able so carefully to manage the shadows of his figures, that the lights remain only on the parts in relief? or who has, in like manner, effected those perforations, and secured those delicate results, in sculpture, which are exhibited by the statues and rilievi of our own day? The credit of having effected this is certainly due to the third period only; respecting which it appears to me that we may safely affirm the arts to have effected all that it is permitted to the imitation of nature to perform, and to have reached such a point, that we have now more cause for apprehension lest they should again sink into depression, than ground for hope that they will ever attain to a higher degree of perfection.

Reflecting attentively within myself on all these things, I conclude that it is the peculiar nature, and distinctive characteristic of these arts, that, rising from mean beginnings, they should proceed to elevate themselves, by gradual effort, and should finally attain to the summit of perfection; and I am confirmed in this opinion by the perception of an almost similar mode of progression in others of the liberal arts. And since there is a close relationship between them all, I am strengthened in the conviction that this, my view, is the just one. With respect to painting and sculpture more especially, their fate, in older times, must have been so exactly alike, that we have only to make a certain change in the names, when the same facts might be related of each. For if the writers who lived near to those times, and who could see and judge of their works, be worthy of credit, the statues of Canacus were stiff, hard, without life or movement of any kind, and therefore very unlike the reality. The same thing has been affirmed respecting the works of Calamis, although they are described as possessing somewhat more of softness than those of the first-named artist. Then came Miron, who, if he did not very closely approach to the successful imitation of nature, did yet impart to his works such an amount of grace, and correct proportion, that

they could be justly called beautiful. In the third degree, there followed Policletus, with the other masters so highly celebrated, and by whom, as is affirmed-and we are bound to believe-the art was carried to its entire perfection. A similar progress must have been perceived in painting also. Writers declare, and it is reasonable to suppose that they do so on just grounds, that the works of those artists who painted with one colour only, and from that circumstance were called Monochromatists, did not display a very high degree of perfection. In respect to the works of Zeuxis, Polygnotus, Timanthes, and others, who used only four colours, the outlines, contours, and lineaments of their figures were inva riably commended; yet there doubtless remained something still to be desired. But in the works of Erion,* Nicomacus, Protogenes, and Apelles, everything was seen to be perfect, and most beautiful; nothing better could be even imagined, these masters having not only depicted the forms, attitudes, and movements of their figures most admirably, but also attained the power of eloquently expressing the affections and passions of the soul.

But, to leave these masters, respecting whom we are compelled to confide in the opinions of others, who do not always agree among themselves; nay, what is worse, whose testimony, even as to the periods, is frequently at variance;-let us come to our own times, wherein we have the guidance of our eyes—a much safer and better conductor and judge than hearsay. Do we not clearly see to what extent architecture had been ameliorated, from the Greek Buschetto-to begin with one of the most distinguished masters-to the German Arnolfo,† and to Giotto? For our perfect conviction of this truth, we need only to glance at the fabrics of the earlier period: the pilasters, the columns, the bases, the capitals, and the cornices, with their ill-formed members, as we see them, for example, in Santa Maria del Fiore, in Florence; in the exterior incrustations of San Giovanni; at San Miniato al Monte; in the cathedral of Fiesole: the Duomo of

* This name is not to be found among the Greek Painters enumerated by Pliny, and by his copyist Adriani. There is, indeed, an "Echion." Erion," therefore, is to be accounted an error of the press.

66

† It has already been shown that Buschetto was not a Greek, and Arnolfo not a German.