ones may suffice; wherefore these also produce some advantage.
[12] Like one who thinks of some other person than he that is before him.
[13] For the improvement of my latest edition, I am greatly indebted to the Prince Filippo Ercolani, who, having purchased from the heirs of Signor Marcello Oretti fifty-two manuscript volumes, which that indefatigable amateur, in the course of his studies, journeys, and observations, had compiled respecting the professors of the fine arts, their eras, and their labours, allowed materials to be drawn from them for various notes, by the Sig. Lazara, who superintended the edition. To the devoted attachment of these gentlemen to the fine arts, the public are indebted for much information, either wholly new, or hitherto little known.
[14] Vasari, from whom several epochs are taken, is full of errors in dates, as may be every where perceived. See Bottari's note on tom. ii. p. 79. The same observation applies generally to other authors, as Bottari remarks in a note on Lettere Pittoriche, tom. iv. p. 366. A similar objection is made to the Dictionary of P. Orlandi in another letter, tom. ii. p. 318, where it is termed "a useful work, but so full of errors, that one can derive no benefit from it without possessing the books there quoted." After three editions of this work, a fourth was printed in Venice, in 1753, corrected and enlarged by Guarienti, "but enough still remains to be done after his additions, even to increase it twofold." Bottari, Lett. Pitt. tom. iii. p. 353. See also Crespi Vite de' Pittori Bolognesi, p. 50. No one, who has not perused this book, would believe how often he defaces Orlandi in presuming to correct him; multiplying artists for every little difference with which authors wrote the name of the same man. Thus Pier Antonio Torre, and Antonio Torri, are with him two different men. Many of the articles, however, added by him, relating to artists unknown to P. Orlandi, are useful; so that this second Dictionary ought to be consulted with caution, not altogether rejected. The last edition, printed at Florence, in two volumes, contains the names of many painters, either lately dead, or still living, and often of very inferior merit, and on this account is little noticed in my history. This Dictionary, moreover, affords little satisfaction to the reader concerning the old masters, unless he possess a work printed at Florence in twelve volumes, entitled Serie degli Uomini più illustri in Pittura, to which the articles in it often refer. The Dizionario Portatile, by Mr. La Combe, is also a book of reference, not very valuable to those who look for exact information. We give a single instance of his inaccuracy in regard to the elder Palma; but our emendations have been chiefly directed towards the writers of Italy, from whom foreigners have, or ought to have borrowed, in writing respecting our artists.
[15] See Mr. Richardson's Treatise on Painting, tom. ii. p. 58; and M. D'Argenville's Abrégé de la Vie des plus fameux Peintres, tom. i. p. 65.
[16] "Some made use of pure colours, without blending one with the other; a practice well understood in the age of Titiano: others, as Coreggio, adopted a method totally opposite: he laid on his admirable colours in such a manner, that they appear as if they had been breathed without effort on the canvas; so soft and so clear, without harshness of outline, and so relieved, that he seems the rival of nature. The elder Palma and Lorenzo Lotto coloured freshly, and finished their pictures as highly as Giovanni Bellini; but they have loaded and overwhelmed them with outline and softness in the style of Titiano and Giorgione. Some others, as Tintoretto, to a purity of colour not inferior to the artists above mentioned, have added a boldness as grand as it is astonishing;" &c. Baldinucci, Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 126.
[17] See Baldinucci in Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 126, and one by Crespi, tom. iv. lett. 162.
[18] We must recollect that "de pictore, sculptore, fusore, judicare nisi artifex non potest," (Plin. Jun. i. epist. 10); which must be understood of certain refinements of the art that may escape the eye of the most learned connoisseur. But have we any need of a painter to whisper in our ear whether the features of a figure are handsome or ugly, its colouring false or natural, whether it has harmony and expression, or whether its composition be in the Roman or Venetian taste? And where it is really expedient to have the opinion of an artist, which we therefore report as we have either read it or heard it, will that opinion have less authority in my pages than on his own tongue?
[19] Abundance of quotations, and descriptions of the minutest particulars from rarer works is a characteristic of the present day, to which I think I have sufficiently conformed in my second Index. But in a history expressly composed to instruct and please, I have judged it right not to interrupt the thread of the narrative too frequently with different authorities. The works from which I draw my account of each artist are indicated in the body of the history and in the first index: to make continual allusion to them might please a few, but would prove very disagreeable to many.
[20] Pietro da Cortona told Falconieri that when the celebrated picture of S. Girolamo della Carità was exhibited, "it was so abused by all the eminent painters, of whom many then flourished, that he himself joined in its condemnation, in order to save his credit." See Falconieri, Lett. Pittor. tom. ii. lett. 17. He continues: "Is not the tribune of the church of S. Andrea della Valle, ornamented by Domenichino, among the finest specimens of painting in fresco? and yet they talked of sending masons with hammers to knock it down after he had displayed it. When Domenichino afterwards passed through the church, he stopped with his scholars to view it; and, shrugging up his shoulders, observed, 'After all, I do not think the picture so badly executed.'"
[21] The most singular and novel opinions concerning our painters are contained in the volumes published by M. Cochin, who is confuted in the Guides to the cities of Padua and Parma, and is often convicted of erroneous statements in matter of fact. He is reproved, with regard to Bologna, by Crespi, in Lett. Pittor. tom. vii.; and for what he has said of Genoa, by Ratti, in the lives of the painters of that city. Commencing with his preface, they point out the grossest errors in Cochin. It is there also observed that his work was disapproved of by Watellet, by Clerisseau, and other French connoisseurs then living: nor do I believe it would have pleased Filibien, De Piles, and such masters of the critical art. Italy also, at a later period, has produced a book, which aims at overturning the received opinions on subjects connected with the fine arts. It is entitled Arte di vedere secondo i principii di Sulzer e di Mengs. The author, who in certain periodical works at Rome, was called the modern Diogenes, has been honoured with various confutations. (See Lettera in Difesa del Cav. Ratti, p. 11.) Authors like these launch their extravagant opinions, for the purpose of attracting the gaze of the world; but men of letters, if they cannot pass them over in silence, ought not to be very anxious to gratify their wishes—"Opinionum commenta delet dies." Cicero.
[22] Of Apelles himself Pliny observes, "Vulgum diligentiorem judicem quam se præferens." Examine also Carlo Dati in Vite de' Pittori Antichi, p. 99, where he proves, by authority and examples, that judgment, in the imitative arts, is not confined to the learned. See also Junius, De Pictura Veterum, lib. i. cap. 5.
[23] See Mons. Agucchi, in a fragment preserved by Bellori, in Vite de' Pittori, Scultori, e Architetti moderni, p. 190.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE. [24]
