as a clear demonstration? And then, on what does this perhaps rest? Is it not more probable that Arnolfo, and Cimabue himself, imitated them? That Fra Mino da Turrita should appear in his tree as a scholar of Tafi, and as posterior to Cimabue, is no less absurd. In 1225, a date omitted by Baldinucci, Mino wrought in mosaic at Florence, fifteen years before Cimabue was born. In his old age he commenced a similar work in the cathedral of Pisa, "in the same style in which he had executed his other labours," says Vasari, who adds, that Tafi and Gaddi (both his inferiors in age and reputation) assisted him. The work was "little more than begun," from which we may infer that they were not long associated. It seems to me extraordinary how Baldinucci could assert, "it appears that Vasari imagined that Mino was the pupil of Andrea Tafi," which is contrary to fact: instead of the "clear demonstration," which he promised, he has amused us with "it appears," which is evident only to himself. At length, wishing to make us believe that Giovanni Pisano the sculptor is a pupil of Giotto the painter, he again turns to Vasari, from whom he brings evidence that Giovanni, having completed his work in the cathedral of Arezzo, and being then established at Orvieto, came to Florence to examine the architecture of S. Maria del Fiore, and to become acquainted with Giotto: he further notices two pieces which he executed at Florence, the one a Madonna between two little angels, over the gate of the cathedral; the other a small baptism of St. John; this happened in 1297. Here Baldinucci hazards a reflection, that "if one compares the other works of this artist with the above mentioned figure of the Virgin Mary … we may recognize in it such improvement … and so much of the manner of Giotto, that there cannot remain a doubt but he is to be reckoned a disciple of this master, both in respect of his imitation of him, and his observance of his precepts, which he followed during so many years in the exercise of the profession." Every attentive reader will discover here not a clear demonstration of the assumption, but a mass of difficulties. He compares this to the other figures made by Pisano at Florence, before he was acquainted with Giotto; and yet this was the first which he there executed. He wishes to make Giovanni, already sixty years of age, an imitator of Giotto, then twenty-one, when it is much more probable that Giotto would follow him, the best sculptor of the age. There is no foundation for the supposed instruction which Giovanni received from Giotto, who, shortly after, departed for Rome; where, after some other works, he executed the mosaic of the boat in 1298. In short, the whole question of preceptorship rests on no better authority than a single figure. How great are the inconsistencies in this account, and how absurd the explanations and repetitions which are offered! What further shall we say? Is it not lamentable thus to see so many old and honoured artists compelled, in spite of history, to become pupils to masters so much younger and less celebrated than themselves? I know that various writers have censured Baldinucci as an historian of doubtful fidelity, artful in concealing or misrepresenting facts, captious in expounding the opinions of Vasari, and more intent on captivating than instructing his readers. I am not ignorant that his system was controverted even in his own country, as appears from his work published there, entitled Delle Veglie; and that Signor Marmi, a learned Florentine, strongly suspected his fair dealing, of which we shall adduce a proof under the Sienese school. Nevertheless I take into account that he wrote in an age less informed in regard to the history of painting, and that he defended an opinion then much more common in Italy than at present. He had promised Cardinal Leopoldo de' Medici to demonstrate it incontrovertibly for the honour of his country, and of the house of Medici, and had received advice and assistance from him in order to encourage him to defend it, and to refute the contrary opinion. Under the necessity of answering Malvasia,[52] a severe writer against Vasari, and of proving his assertion, that the people of Bologna, no less than those of Siena, of Pisa, and other places, had learned the art from the Florentines, he formed a false system, the absurdity of which he did not immediately perceive; but he at last discovered it, as Signor Piacenza observes, and succeeded in escaping from its trammels. The most ingenious builders of systems have subjected themselves very frequently to the same disadvantage, and the history of literature abounds with similar instances.
Having examined this sophism, I cannot subscribe to the opinion of Baldinucci; but shall comprise my own opinion in two propositions:—The first is, That the improvement of painting is not due to Florence alone. It has been remarked, that the career of human genius, in the progress of the fine arts, is the same in every country. When the man is dissatisfied with what the child learned, he gradually passes from the ruder elements to what is less so, and from thence, to diligence and precision; he afterwards advances to the grand, and the select, and at length attains facility of execution.
Such was the progress of sculpture among the Grecians, and such has been that of painting in our own country. When Correggio advanced from laborious minuteness to grandeur, it was not necessary for him to know that such was the progress of Raffaello, or, at any rate, to have witnessed it: in like manner, nothing more was wanting to the painters of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, than to learn that hitherto they had pursued a wrong path; this was sufficient to guide them into a better path, and it was not then untried; for sculpture had already improved design. We have, in fact, seen the Pisani, and their scholars, preceding the Florentines; and, as their precursors, diffusing a new system of design over Italy. It would be injustice to overlook them in the improvement of painting, in which design is of such importance; or to suppose that they did not signally contribute to its improvement. But if Italy be indebted solely to Cimabue and Giotto for its progress, all the good artists should have come from Florence. And yet, in the cathedral of Orvieto (to instance the finest work, perhaps, of that age), we find, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, many artists from various other places, who would not have been called to ornament such a building, had they not previously enjoyed the reputation of able masters.[53] Add to this, if we are to derive all painters from those two masters, every style of painting should resemble that of their Florentine disciples. But on examining the old paintings of Siena, of Venice, of Bologna, and of Parma, they are found to be dissimilar in idea, in choice of colouring, and in taste of composition. All, then, are not derived from Florence.
My second proposition is, That no people then excelled in, nor contributed, by example, so much to the progress of art as the Florentines. Rival cities may boast artists of merit, even in the first era of painting; their writers may deny the fame of Giotto and his disciples; but truth is more powerful than declamation. Giotto was the father of the new method of painting, as Boccaccio was called the father of the new species of prose composition. After the time of the latter, any subject could be elegantly treated of in prose; after the former, painting could express all subjects with propriety. A Simon da Siena, a Stefano da Firenze, a Pietro Laurati, added charms to the art; but they and others owe to Giotto the transition from the old to a new manner. He essayed it in Tuscany, and while yet a young man, greatly improved it, to the general admiration of all classes. He did not leave Assisi until called to Rome by Boniface VIII., nor did he take up his residence at Avignon, until invited to France by Clement V. Before going there, he was induced to stop at Padua, and on returning some years after, he again resided at the same place. At that time many parts of Italy were under a republican form of government; but abounded in potent families, that bore sway in various quarters, and which, while adorning their country, aimed at its subjugation. Giotto, beyond every other, was in universal request, both at home and abroad. The Polentani of Ravenna, the Malatesti of Rimino, the Estensi of Ferrara, the Visconti of Milan, the Scala of Verona, Castruccio of Lucca, and also Robert, king of Naples, sought to engage him with eagerness, and for some period retained him in their service. Milan, Urbino, Arezzo, and Bologna, were desirous to possess his works; and Pisa, that, in her Campo Santo, afforded an opportunity for the choicest artists of Tuscany to vie with one another,[54] as of old they contended at Corinth, and in Delphi, [55] obtained from him those historic paintings from the life of Job, which are greatly admired, though they are amongst his early productions. When Giotto was no more, similar applause was bestowed on his disciples: cities contended for the honour of inviting them, and they were even more highly estimated than the native artists themselves. We shall find Cavallini and Capanna in the Roman School; in that of Bologna
