restoration of painting by Cimabue and Giotto; and to give stability to his hypothesis, it is probable that he omitted to make any mention of the painters who, independent of the two just named, departed from the raw and feeble manner of the Greeks." And Guido certainly left it not a little behind, in his picture of the Virgin, now hung up in the Malevolti chapel in the church of S. Domenico. On it he has thus inscribed his name and the date:
Me Guido de Senis diebus depinxit amenis Quem Christus lenis nullis velit agere poenis. An. 1221.
And this example was often followed by the masters of this school, to the great benefit of the history of painting. The countenance of the Virgin is lovely, and participates not in the stern aspect that is characteristic of the Greeks; we may discover some trace of a new style in the drapery. The Madonnas of Cimabue which are at Florence, the one in the church of the Trinity, the other in S. Maria Novella, are not, however, inferior. In them we may discern the improvement of the art; a more vivid colouring, flesh tints more true; a more natural attitude of the head of the infant, while the accompaniments of the throne, and of the glory of angels, proclaim a superior style.
On this subject I make two remarks, in which I widely dissent from the opinion of the author of the Sienese Letters, without committing any breach of our long established friendship. The one is, that to prove Guido superior to Cimabue, he frequently compares the Madonna of S. Domenico, which is the only one of his pictures which he mentions,[255] with the paintings of Cimabue, which are numerous, and full of subject; and without setting any value on the colouring, the fertility of invention, and the various other qualities in which the Florentine surpassed the artist of Siena, he dwells on certain little particulars, in which it appears that Guido was superior. An artist of whom it is not known that he ever attempted any picture but Madonnas, might become more or less perfect in this subject; but painting is not so much indebted to him, as to one who has carried it to the higher walks of the art; a merit which Marco of Siena, a writer not inclined to favour the Florentines, denies not to Cimabue, as we shall find in the fourth book. The other circumstance alluded to is, that when he mentions a picture which does honour to the fame of Cimabue, he attempts to discredit its history, and the tradition; as I have already observed with regard to the two large pictures in the church of Assisi, and am now under the necessity of remarking with regard to the two Madonnas at Florence above mentioned. He "strongly suspects"[256] them to be the work of Mino da Turrita, since mosaic, in which Mino was expert, is there represented by a skilful hand; and Cimabue was not dexterous in that art; as if a painter could not represent buildings without being an architect, or garments without knowing how to cut them out, or drapery without being versed in the art of weaving. He even doubts whether Giotto visited France, for, had this been the case, he, and not Simone da Siena, would have painted the portrait of Laura, as if history did not inform us that Giotto visited that country about 1316, long before the period when Petrarca first became enamoured of that beauty. He has introduced some other speculations, which he would not have admitted, had he not been betrayed into it, almost involuntarily, by a system which has some probable foundation, but is carried to an extravagant length. I should have been silent on this subject; but when writing of these artists it became me to recollect that the unicuique suum was no less the duty of the historian than the judge.
The authors of chronicles require correction on the era of this painter. The most undoubted picture of Guido is that bearing the date 1221, for the other in the church of S. Bernardino, dated 1262, is ascribed to him without sufficient evidence. It is hardly probable that he who was so eminent in a new art in 1221, was still alive in 1295, as is affirmed by some,[257] on the faith of a sum of money paid to one Guido, a painter. The celebrated Guido must then have been at least 105 years of age: it is more probable that he was dead, and the name applied to another Guido, without any danger of a mistake.
It is generally believed that the elder Guido instructed F. Mino, or Giacomino da Turrita, the celebrated artist in mosaic, of whom we have spoken in the first book. On the era of Mino also much has been written without sufficient authority. Baldinucci says he died about 1300; and omits to mention in his life that he was employed in 1225; although this date is legible on the mosaic of Mino in the church of S. Giovanni at Florence, in letters a cubit in length.[258] This circumstance has likewise escaped the historians of Siena, some of whom have prolonged his life to the year 1298, on the authority of payment made to Minuccio, a painter; and others have extended it to about 1200, on account of the tomb of Boniface VIII. which is said to be the work of Turrita. The utmost period that can be granted them is about 1290: for Titi observes, in his Description of the Paintings in Rome, that Mino finished the mosaic of S. Maria Maggiore in 1289, and died, after beginning another in S. Giovanni Laterano, which was completed by Gaddo Gaddi in 1292. This renders it extremely doubtful that F. Mino was taught painting by Guido, that he imparted it not only to Giotto, whom, for other reasons, we have excluded from his school (p. 20) but to the Sienese artists, Memmi and Lorenzetti,[259] and even that he was a painter; all which is founded on the following memorandum, under the year 1289, in a manuscript in the library of Siena: "Paid on the twelfth day of August, nineteen lire to Master Mino, the painter, who painted the Virgin Mary, and other SS. in the council room of the public palace, the balance, &c."
He who is here denominated Maestro Mino, not Fra Mino; who is sometimes called Minuccio, a diminutive not fitted for an old monk; and appears to have been employed in Siena when Fra Mino was at Rome, is another artist. Thus we discover another eminent painter of the name of Mino, or Minuccio, who seems to be in reality the author of the picture of 1289, above alluded to, which remained in the council hall even within my memory, and of others, down to 1298. He there represented the Virgin and Child, surrounded by angels, and under a canopy, supported by Apostles and the patron saints of the city. The size of the figures, the invention and the distribution of the work, are surprising for that age; of the other qualities one cannot speak with certainty; for it was repaired in 1321 by Simone da Siena, and there are beauties in the features and the drapery that can be ascribed only to the restorer. The mistake thus occasioned by the same name being cleared up, the system of the learned author of the Lettere Sanesi, is in part confirmed, and in part falls to the ground. He is right in refusing to Giotto certain Sienese pupils, referred to him only from traces of a more modern style; for we here discover an artist who made some advances towards the new manner even previous to Giotto, who, in 1289, was only thirteen years of age. Now this Mino, and Duccio, of whom we shall soon treat, might certainly have formed pupils able to compete with the school of Giotto, and even in length of years to surpass Giotto himself. There is no reason, however, to prefer the Sienese painters to Cimabue, on the strength of this painting, as the author in question has so often done. Comparison ought to be employed between painter and painter, between contemporary and contemporary. F. Mino, to whom this single picture was attributed, is now shewn to have been merely a mosaic worker: Mino or Minuccio began to be known when Cimabue was fifty years of age; and is the author of a single work, not so free from retouches, nor so large as that of Assisi, already described. The comparison then is not just.
Every school thinks itself sufficiently honoured when it can produce two or three painters of the thirteenth century: the school of Siena is peculiarly rich in them, and these are recorded in the twenty-fifth letter On the disciples of Guido. As usual I shall omit the names of those least entitled to recollection. I will not affirm that all of them proceeded from the school of Guido; for in a city where the fine arts flourished so rapidly, masters unknown to us may have been produced. Much less will I ascribe artists of other cities to this school. In the manuscripts of Mancini, one Bonaventura da Lucca is mentioned, who is the Berlingieri already mentioned.[260] I neither assign him to Guido nor to Giunta. Who can tell whether Lucca had not also in those early times an original school, now unknown to us? Setting aside uncertain points therefore, we can only assert, that after the middle of the century,
