commerce, and to the cunning with which the clergy and monks drew advantage from them. In the year 1082, the church of the cloister of Cava was repaired, and agreeably adorned with paintings and Mosaics, by the then abbot. At the beginning of the twelfth century, Grimuald, abbot of the cloister at Casaunia, had the rooms where he lived adorned with many paintings.* John, abbot of Subiato, had a church painted about the same time.t Many similar notices of works of arts, bespoken by clergymen, are found in the Chronicles of Monte Casino, written by Leo of Ostia, and continued by the monk Liutius, and by the abbots Athenolfus, Theobald, Desiderius and Oderisius. This Desiderius, afterwards pope Victor III. sent also for artists from Constantinople, who were experienced in the Ars musiara et quadrataria, that is to say, who understood how to work in Mosaic and to lay out the foot-floor with marble of different colours. Few records have been preserved of the works made in those times by command of the popes. Callistus II. had some paintings executed, and when he seized (1121) the opposing pope, Bondino, he immortalized this deed in one of the rooms of the Vatican, by a painting which represents this act. At the time of the emperor Frederick the Red-beard, and Pope Adrian IV. was seen in the Lateran a picture of the emperor Lotharius with some verses beneath it, which showed that he had submitted to the pope, of which humiliation Frederick complained before Adrian. Clemens III. had the Lateran palace repaired and adorned it with pictures.|| In the year 1070, Pantaleone Castelli, the Roman Consul at Constantinople, had doors of bronze, with bas-relievo, made for St. Paul's church, at Rome. Towards the middle of the twelfth century, William, king of Sicily, adorned the chapel of St. Peter in his palace, with extraordinary Mosaics. In the year 1200, mention is made of a Greek painter of the name of Theophanes, who settled at Venice, and opened there a school. Among his scholars is also mentioned a certain Galasio, of Ferrara; we also find noticed a painter Tullius, of Perugia, who painted, (1219) the likeness of St. Franciscus of Assisi. Another likeness of the same saint is seen at the castle of the marquises of Montecuculi; it is attributed to a certain painter, Bonaventura Beringieri, in the year 1235. We finally approach the time when the history of the arts exhibits to us living and speaking monuments. Of this kind are the works of Guido of Siena, Andrea Tafi, Buffalmacco, Giotto of Pisa, Margaritone, born in Arezzo; finally, by Cimabue who acquired the appellation of the father of modern painting. He really was the first who deviated from the harshness, commonly, but falsely, called the Greek style, commenced to exhibit study in his paintings, and to infuse into them a little chiaro-oscuro. We may properly say, that the style of the Italian painters, in the thirteenth century, was best at Florence; but the character of the art, at that time was the same at Bologna, Venice, Rome, and the whole of Italy. The modern history of the arts ought, according to our views, to be divided into three periods, viz: 1. From Cimabue to Raphael. 2. From Raphael to the Carracci, and 3. From the Carracci to Mengs. Cimabue may be considered as the originator of the whole system of modern painting, yet, let us not be so understood as to suppose as many authors did, misrepresenting even Vasari-that there were, before Cimabue, no Italian painters, for we have shown in the preceding pages the error of that opinion. Nobody had, at that time, as yet, discovered ancient paintings and statues; they lay neglected under the ground; consequently nobody could think of forming himself after the models left by the ancients; the sole subject of study for the painter was nature. We perceive in the works of Giotto, a pupil of Cimabue, that he consulted nature very diligently. His course, which prepared for the study of antiquity and approached it more closely, was followed by almost all; and thus we may call Giotto, with more justice, the father of Italian painting. With his predecessors, Cimabue, Andrea Tafi, Gaddo Gaddi, and their contemporaries, expired the hard and harsh taste which is even now supposed to be of Greek origin, and with Giotto commenced the Italian taste. Towards the end of the thirteenth century there existed, in many parts of Italy, societies and corporations of painters, mostly under the patronage of the evangelist Luke. Some of them were metamorphosed, afterwards, into schools and academies. The most renowned painter who appeared after Giotto, was Masaccio, born at St. Giovanni, in Valdarno, and flourished 1400. His contemporaries were Domenico of Venice, Vittore Pisano, called Pisanello, Franc. Squarcione, and others, who, by models and instruction, reared up the heroes of the six teenth century, (called, by the Italians, Cinquecentisti) when sculpture and architecture attained the same high degree as painting. The art of painting, which was before in infancy, enslaved, ignorant, unformed, and almost deformed, may be said to have attained, under the direction of Cimabue, its boyhood, since he was the first who changed its rude character, introduced more suitable drawing, and gave some attitude to his figures. Under Giotto it grew to adolescence; we mark grace in the countenance, delicacy in the colouring, motion in the figures, which commenced to be conspicuous, since he dared to foreshorten some limbs in his paintings. Under Masaccio the art finally attained its manhood; we see in his paintings, not only the body which is set in action, but also the motions of the soul which shine through those of the body; and this speaking and expressive painting is still more elevated by a good drawing and correctly diffused light and shade. In this way the art of painting progressed, together with her kindred arts, gradually, to the highest perfection, which we admire in Raphael and Michel Angelo. The above division of the general history of European painting into three periods-we ask pardon of our author, if we must conscientiously disagree with him-is founded upon the true capital revolutions in the course of its cultivation. The first contains the history of the revival and correction. This period, in which the art made uninterrupted progress, may be called its most glorious epoch. Although this art commenced to rise in different parts of Europe at a later period than in Italy, we may still date its commencement from Cimabue, because incontestable proofs exist, that painting was at that time no where uncultivated. The second period from Raphael to the Carracci, was of a very short duration; yet, during that period, the Italian taste was not only extended through the whole of Europe, but it was also enriched by a number of different styles and manners. But this variety was rather disadvantageous to the art, for it lost by it much of its purity, sunk with rapidity, and would almost have relapsed into its former ignorance, had it not been restored to its perfection by the Carracci and their school. The third period is more difficult to treat, on account of the innumerable varieties of styles and manners which issued from the different schools formed in that period. And since we are unable to bring this period down to our still living artists, we cannot conclude it more gloriously than by stopping with the immortal Mengs. Our author has followed the plan and method of the celebrated Zanetti*. However excellent these two works may be, coming from the pens of authors we highly esteem, and who have acquired a great reputation by their still more distinguished and learned works, we cannot be blind to defects, which could, in our opinion, have been avoided. Zanetti treats of the Venetian painting only. He is precise, and his remarks betray a very substantial and correct judgment, but he has fallen into the error of naming all the painters of whose pencils there are any specimens, however mediocre, at Venice. His description reminds us of some genealogical gallery, where appear the portraits alike of all, whether wise or foolish, noble or ignoble, in whose veins has circled the sacred blood. Moreover, he was not satisfied with citing the best productions of each artist, but he gives a complete catalogue of all their works, without any exception, whereby his book is rendered exceedingly tiresome. The author under review has fallen into the contrary error, and has sinned, in that he is too brief and general in his records, not mentioning even the dates of the births and deaths of the greatest masters, not connecting the history of the arts with that of politics, and being too summary in his details. Yet these deficiencies may be excused from the destination of the work, since he dedicated it to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Maria Louisa of Bourbon, wishing to furnish that lady with a history of the arts, which might be read, pleasantly, like a novel or play. He, himself,† says, in his preface, that he intended to write but a pocket manual for travellers; we can, consequently, not expect from such a work, any profound analysis of difficult points, or any penetration into the depths of the arts. Besides, Lanzi himself was no artist, and was obliged, as he himself acknowledges, to have recourse to the judgments of some artists who were his friends. Our author's divisions and arrangement into schools and epochs, do not please us. The accession of a monarch to his crown, or his death, and the period when an artist flourishes * Della Pitturna Veneziana, &c. Lanzi says himself, in his preface to the new edition; but with all deference for him, we must confess that we do not find it so; for Zantti has treated the history of Venetian painting more as an artist than a scholar; he has mingled the masters of the Venetian provinces with those of the capital town; nay, he even makes us acquainted with the foreigners who lived and established schools at Venice. Lanzi has observed the same method in the Venetian schools, but in the Lombardic he does nothing but relate the history of the artists in the different towns; he could thus have increased the number of schools with those of Reggio, Cento, Imola Forli, &c. + In the Origin. Ital. La storia pittorina della Italia, &c. or dies have a very different influence upon the arts. In the former case, it is manifested in civil, religious, military and foreign affairs, and there may be drawn a distinct line separating the eras; but the death of an artist, however renowned and excellent he may be, does, by no means, cause an immediate revolution in the art, for he leaves behind him, not only works for imitation, but pupils who have caught the spirit and character of his style. There are also some defects in chronological arrangement. If an artist studied under many masters, as was often the case, he ought to be classed with him whose characteristics of style and manner he principally adopted. The connexion and mutual co-operation of the schools ought also to be shown, since we well know, how ambiguous, and little precise the term "school" is. ART. VI.-1. Popular Lectures on the Steam-Engine. By the 2. Treatise on the Steam-Engine. By JAMES RENWICK, L.L.D. Professor of Natural experimental Philosophy and Chemistry, in Columbia College, New-York. 8vo. 1830. 3. Report to the Directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, on the comparative merits of Locomotive and Fixed Engines, as a moving power. By JAMES WALKER, Civil Engineer. Observations on the comparative merits of Locomotive and Fixed Engines, as applied to Railways. By ROBERT STEPHENSON and JOSEPH LOCKE, Civil Engineers. An Account of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. BY HENRY BOOTH, Treasurer of the Company. Ivol. 8vo. Philadelphia. 1831. |