Preface by the Cavaliere Giuseppe Tambroni
Girogio Vasari is the first author who has mentioned Cennino, son of Andrea Cennini da Colle di Valdelsa, a painter, who was the disciple of Agnolo, son of Taddeo Gaddi, the scholar of Giotto. In the life of Agnolo Gaddi the following passage occurs:
“ Cennini, son of Drea Cennini, of Colle di Valdelsa, who studied painting under the same Agnolo, being very fond of the art, wrote with his own hand, in a book, directions for painting in fresco and in distemper, with glue and with gum, also how to paint in miniature, and various ways of laying on gold; which book is in the hands of Giuliano, a goldsmith of Siena, an excellent master and friend to the arts. And in the beginning of his book, he treats of the nature of colours, mine¬ral as well as those prepared from earths, as he was taught by Agnolo his master, being desirous (although perhaps he did not succeed in learning to paint perfectly) to know the different kinds of colours, vehicles (tempera*),w glues, and plaster (geeeo); also what colours to avoid, as being injurious when mixed with others; and much information besides, of which it is not necessary to speak, all these things being now well understood, although in his time they were considered great secrets, and were known only to a few persons.
“ We must not omit to state, that he does not mention (and perhaps they were not in use) certain colours prepared from earths, such as dark red earth (terre roeee ecure), cinabrese, and certain vitreous greens. Umber, which is an earth, has
xxvi
also been found since his time;(3) also yellow lake (giallo santo), smalts, used both in oil and fresco, and some vitreous yellows and greens, which were not known to the painters of that age. He also treats of mosaic painting,(4) of grinding colours in oil to make grounds of red, blue, green, &c., and mordants for laying on gold, but not for painting figures. Besides the works that he painted in Florence, in conjunction with his master, he painted with his own hand, under the loggia of the Hospital of Bonifacio Lupi, a picture of the Virgin with certain saints, so well coloured that it is at this day in good preservation.(5) This Cennino, in the first chapter of his book, makes use of these words: ‘ Cennino di Drea Cennino,’ &c. [here Vasari quotes from the beginning of the work to the end of the first paragraph; he then adds:]
“ These are Cennino’s own words; to which (as those who translate books from the Greek into Latin, for the use of those who do not understand Greek, confer a great benefit on the arts) we add what was accomplished by Giotto, who advanced the art of painting, from a manner not understood or known to any one (unless perhaps for its barbarism), to an easy aud most pleasant manner, known and approved of by persons of judgment and information.”
This is all that is said about this painter and writer ;(6) and we now despair of finding any notices of his life and works; for whoever has since written concerning him, has copied from Vasari; as Baldinucci confesses, in his short note entitled the Life of Cennino.
I am firmly of opinion, as I shall hereafter shew, that Vasari never read the work of this artist; and although he transcribed a few lines of the first chapter, he either did not set any value on the remainder, or read so little of it that he did not understand it. Nor shall we hesitate to believe, that his knowledge of it was limited to what he was told by the goldsmith Giuliano; whence the serious mistakes he made, and the many errors into which he fell, especially concerning the mode of colouring in oil.(7) But we shall speak here¬after on this subject.
xxvii
And I believe that the reason why the work of Cennino is now published for the first time is to be attributed to the small value set on it by this same Vasari, who here says, u and in short, many other recipes of which it is not necessary to speak, these things, being now well known, although they were considered great secrets in his days, and were* known but to few persons.”
Those two learned men, Bandini and Bottari, however, thought differently. For the first, in his catalogue of Italian manuscripts of the Library Mediceo-Laurenziana, shewed a great desire that the manuscript of Cennino should be tho¬roughly examined: " quum male,” said he,(8) “ compactus sit codex ac multa secreta contineat non contemnenda, dignus est qui ab aliquo bonarum artium cultore diligenti examine perpendatur.” And the second, in his notes to Vasari’s Lives of the Painters, where, in that of Agnolo Gaddi, speaking of Cennino, he says, “ it would be very useful to publish this book on the arts, since we have so few writers in the Tuscan language on the arts in comparison with the Greeks.”
These remarks of Bottari long since awakened in my mind a great desire to become acquainted with this work, in which I hoped to find some information relative to the mode of colouring practised in that age, and also relative to the nature of the colours, which we see still existing in great brilliancy, to the extreme regret of the painters of the present day, who have lost all remembrance of the vehicles and of the mode of using them.
And it was a great source of wonder to me to see, that, among so many writers, who either combated or defended the assertion of Vasari, giving to John Van Eyck (Giovanni da Bruggia) the honour of having first invented the art of paint¬ing in oil, after having said that Cennino had shewn in his book how to grind colours in oil, it never entered the mind of any of them to read attentively the manuscript which had caused so many disputes. Nor can we help believing that Borghini knew the work of Cennino, although he does not mention either him or John Van Eyck, and likewise omits
xxviii
any notice of Agnolo Gaddi. This silence, I am led to be¬lieve, was wilful; because, in reading his second book Del Hiposo, I found in many passages a literal copy of the work of Cennino, principally where he speaks of drawing pictures with a silver stile, of bones for rubbing on pictures (inossare), of making crayons, of tinting paper, or making transparent paper, of glues, of painting in fresco and distemper, and also of colours; and among other things which induced me to sus¬pect his artifice, was his mentioning paper made of cotton (carta bambagina), which was no longer used in his time. And where he speaks of cinabrese, he says that it was made of sinopia; but he does not tell the nature of the colour, nor does he place it in the number of dark reds. He also erred in calling porporino a perfect red colour, whereas it is the oro musivo, as I have remarked in the note to chap. 159 of the book of Cennino. Whoever reads both books attentively will see whether I am deceived.
Baldinucci, at the instigation of Antonio Maria Salvini, as he himself declares in the above-cited life of Cennino, seems to have investigated the manuscript with greater curiosity; for besides having repeated the part transcribed by Vasari, he added the title and the last rules of the work. He then touches slightly upon the question of painting in oil; and transcribes part of chap. 89, in order to shew that in Italy this art was derived from the Germans. He then discusses two other pas¬sages of the treatise, namely, those on the lapis amatito and acquerelle (water-colours), to which words he gives the pre¬ference over matita and acquarelli, which were in use both in his own time and since that period. But he either did not understand, or he concealed, what he had read, that he might not contradict Vasari; or he quoted these few passages on which he has remarked, to induce the belief that he had examined the whole manuscript.
Bandini alone, as appears from his Catalogue, gives proofs of having minutely examined this work; because, besides having diligently transcribed it from beginning to end, he says, as we have before noticed, “ ac multa secrete contineat
xxix
non contemnenda.” These words are an incontestable proof that he had studied it more thoroughly than any other person.
The celebrated Abate Lanzi at length induced the Abate Moreni to consult the treatise of Cennino. But it appears that he did not examine it very minutely; for, except having copied the end of chap. 89, of which Baldinucci had written only part, Lanzi makes no other reference than the following passage: “ In the subsequent chapters he says that this ought to be done by boiling the linseed-oil.”(l0) And thence Lanzi (who was himself mistaken) drew the conclusion, that the mode described by Cennino could not have been that of John of Bruges, and was fit only for coarse works. This very learned author could not, then, have been perfectly acquainted with this book on the art.
Of the remaining writers who have had occasion to quote the book of Cennino, all have done so on the authority of the above-named authors, without having felt themselves stimu¬lated by the just and laudable curiosity of examining the work itself.
I was mentioning this circumstance one day to that ever- increasing light of Italian literature, Signor Angelo Mai, praefect of the Vatican Library, of whom it is difficult to decide whether his learning, his courtesy, or his love for the glory of our name, is most eminent; and I respectfully en¬treated him to search whether the precious treatise of Cennino might not perchance be found concealed among the immense treasures of the Vatican manuscripts. But a short time elapsed before he announced to me that he had discovered it among the Ottobonian manuscripts, numbered 2974.
I immediately began to read the most ancient written monument of the fine arts since their revival ;(11) and finding that it contained many things highly useful, but now lost, I requested permission of Monsignore to publish it for the benefit of the world at large; and he, who is all politeness, graciously acceded to my request. For this he deserves the thanks of all Italy, and of all artists, as well as of myself, who will study carefully to make known the name and work of
XXX
Cennino, and rescue in some measure this worthy Italian from the ungrateful oblivion in which he has been left for about four centuries.
I shall, in the first place, make such remarks on this ma-nuscript, as that all who feel the inclination may consult and examine it.
It is registered, as I have said, among the Ottobonian manuscripts, and numbered 2974; and from the coat of arms affixed to it, is known to have belonged formerly to Baron Slosch. It is on paper, and was recopied less than a century ago from some old manuscript, because it bears in front the date 1737. From the initial letters of the name of the amanu¬ensis, P. A. W., it appears that he was not of Italian origin. In the first two pages, and in part of the third, are transcribed the notices which P. Orlandi and Giorgio Vasari left of Cen¬nino. The writing is that of the last century, very clear and large. But whether it was that the amanuensis was not very learned, or that he had but little knowledge of the things belonging to painting, or that the manuscript, from which the present is transcribed, was written in characters difficult to in¬terpret, as manuscripts of the fifteenth century generally are, —it has occasioned much labour to bring it into a legible state. For this reason I determined to recopy it entirely with my own hand, to examine and study it diligently, endeavouring to supply, in the best way I possibly could, the ignorance or absolute negligence of the foreign transcriber. And but for this care my labour would have been in vain, because, as may be seen, the order and arrangement of the precepts are con-fused, and the orthography incorrect. In settling the read¬ing, therefore, I found the works and advice of the Abate Girolamo Amati and Salvatore Betti,—names dear to the re¬public of letters and my intimate friends,—extremely useful. Nor shall I suppress that, from the notes both on the margin and the text, it is known that this copy was taken from ano¬ther, which perhaps was examined with and corrected from the original manuscript. And yet the greatest difficulties are not removed; for either the difficulty of the original writing,
xxxi
or the ignorance of the amanuensis, is perceptible. And because I wished to profit by the observations of others, I must add that it was the opinion of the before-mentioned Salvatore Betti, that we should consider as interpolations of the amanuensis the repetition of words or synonymes which are met with at every page; as, for example, miolo over bicchiere, sinopio over porfido, cotta over tempera, &c. although I do not entirely agree with him on this point; for I think that, as Cennino wrote in the dialect of his native place, he wished to explain the provincialisms which escaped from his pen by words then in use in polite Florentine con-versation ; and I am the more inclined to this belief by re¬marking how many times he repeats, and how minute he is in his writing.
However this may be, with some study and diligence it is possible to render our text intelligible. I shall say, in fine, that it contains 142 folio pages; that the whole work is divided into one hundred and seventy-one chapters, and these into books as far as chap. 113, where the fifth book termi¬nates, after which there are no more divisions; and I strongly suspect that the divisions into books, chapters, and rubrics of this manuscript, were not originally made by Cennino, but by the amanuensis. And my reason for this is, that some rubrics are begun in the third person, as in chap. 36: “ come ti di- mostra i colori naturali,” And at chap. 116 these rubrics are found no longer; and I have thought proper to supply them, for the convenience of the studious, and to facilitate the un¬derstanding of the work. It is nevertheless true, that such omissions are met with in many ancient manuscripts; because the letters being either illuminated, or the titles written in red characters, the amanuenses omitted them, that they might afterwards add them at their leisure, or that others more expert in these arts might do them. And it might happen, that sometimes being prevented by various causes from doing this, the books remained imperfect.
But let these things which we now discuss be as they may, they are of little or no importance to the arts, and no
xxxii
defect to the work, which makes us intimately acquainted with the state of the art of painting in the days of Cennino, the nature of the colours, and the manner in which these old masters executed those works which astonish us, considering the age in which they were painted. And we desire anxiously to know how they laid gold on pictures and books, what glues they used, what vehicles and mordants, since they have re¬sisted the accidents of many centuries, and the gold and colours preserve still such great freshness on pictures and on walls.
I have not yet been able to ascertain that there are more than three copies of this work. The first is in the Biblioteca Laurenziana at Florence, mentioned by Baldinucci, Bandini, and Bottari, banco lxxviii. n. 24. The second is in the man¬sion of the Beltramini of Colle, as we collect from a note to the index of the works of Baldinucci (Florentine edition), under the word Cennino, unless this should have passed into the B. Laurenziana, of which Bandini, in his Catalogue, does not inform us; and from the preceding note it appears that this last is the autograph that Vasari says he found in the hands of Giuliano the goldsmith of Siena. The third is in fact the Ottobonian manuscript.
This book of Cennino’s is of use not only to the arts, but it is also useful to the language. For although the style be unstudied, and without any ornaments, and is such as a writer ignorant of the belles lettres, and even of the language, might use, and is besides full of common expressions and provincial¬isms, it is nevertheless good upon the whole, and contains many new and excellent words, especially in the arts, as Signor Bottari has wisely remarked. I shall give an index of these words at the end of the book, for the use of the compilers of dictionaries, and also that philologists may employ them in elucidating some of those questions which relate to the formation and origin of the language/18*
Nor will there be, in my opinion, any one who, on account of the language, can deny Cennino the authority of a writer of the fourteenth century. For although he wrote his book
xxxiii
in the year 1437, it is certain that he was born soon after 1350. It is true that Vasari does not name the year of his nativity; but it seems to me there is no difficulty in forming an approximation to it in the following manner.
Cennino finished writing his book on the arts the 31st day of July 1437. In this he says, that he was for twelve years the disciple of Agnolo Gaddi, who died in 1387. Sup¬posing that he was with his master at the moment of his death, he must then have been in his service in the year 1375; the period at which he began to reside with Agnolo, between the twelfth and eighteen years of his age, will deter¬mine the period of his birth about 1360. And if we allow some years to elapse between the termination of the pupilage of Cennino and the death of his master Agnolo, we shall soon arrive at 1350. Consequently he lived at least forty years in that golden age of our language. Men do not, at such an advanced age, change the mode of speaking which they have learned in their infancy, and confirmed in their youth and manhood. And we know it by experience, be¬cause we hear from our old men expressions which were used in the days of their youth, and which are now obsolete.
For this cause, then, we esteem it a labour of general utility to publish the book of Cennino.
As in passing through life we learn many new things, so do we forget many old things, and gradually the remembrance of them is lost from among men. Therefore those persons do not reason well who do not study to perpetuate useful things by writing; because in such case posterity will hereafter seek in vain for their origin, perfection, and use. This would have been the case with the method of painting in the four¬teenth century, which followed soon after the revival of the fine arts, if Cennino had not preserved a complete and pre¬cious memorial of it in his book.
It was, then, very fortunate that our author conceived the idea of writing a work on his art, which he had been taught, and which had descended directly to him from Giotto, through Taddeo Gaddi, and Agnolo his son; and this he did with so
xxxiv
much love, so much order, and with such minute particularity, that our astonishment is excited. For, as is apparent to every one, the most ignorant person in the art of painting could by himself, assisted only by this book (except as to the practical part of the art), become expert and familiar with all the modes of painting used by the masters of those times, of whose method, and that of those who succeeded them, Cen- nino has composed the most complete treatise that has ever been written. For, not content with teaching minutely all those things which ought to be acquired, he also adds those which should be avoided; and he discourses con amore, not only of causes, but also of their effects. Nor is it enough for him to have demonstrated how things are to be done, but he condescends to specify how the means of doing them are to be prepared. He prescribes the quality of the materials, the dimensions of the instruments; and he advises the reader at every step as to what, according to his doctrine, he should prefer. But not tenacious of his own precepts, he quotes also the practice of the old masters, although he did not con¬sider it good, nor did he adopt it himself.
Among all those who have written treatises on the art of painting, Gio. Battista Armenini of Faenza (who was a painter, and who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century), was the only one who approached Cennino in giving precepts concerning the practical parts of painting. Vasari touches briefly on these subjects; and all the others, endeavouring to subtilise and mystify, enter into disputes concerning ideas, and lose sight of the principal objects. Therefore we may say, that in proportion to their endeavours to speak of sub¬lime and fantastic subjects, did the art, which owed its im¬provement more to practice than to theory, become lost. For we know that Raffaello and many others of the great masters drank at no other fountain than that of nature and practice; and that so many treatises of the beautiful and the ideal have not been able to produce one single great man.
We return from our digression, by observing of Armenini, that he certainly did not know Cennino’s book, because he
XXXV
says, in the preface to his work, “ the art of painting has not yet had any one who has collected instructions and precepts for the utility of mankind, or published them in a single volumeand elsewhere, “ this I do the more willingly, because no one that I am aware of, previously to myself, has distinctly and fully made these things known in writing.” And to speak the truth, he deserves .much praise for his work, although it may not he so easy, and clear, and full of precepts as the book of our author. I cannot, however, pardon him two things. The first is, for having ungratefully and harshly spoken of those old and venerable masters who flourished between Giotto and Pietro Perugino; and for having entangled himself in the metaphysics of the arts, and having clothed a few ideas with a great many words.
We shall not stay to say more respecting the treatise of Francesco Bisagni, than that his own work chiefly consisted of a compendium of that of Armenini. And I must here observe, that I intend to speak of Italian writers only.
In reading the book of Cennino, we acknowledge the truth of what Vasari asserted, namely, that the things comprised in it were considered great secrets in those ancient times; for in every page we find proofs of the great jealousy with which the masters concealed their knowledge, which they communicated only step by step to their disciples. And this mode of instruc¬tion, by placing students in a state of servitude, as is observed in the second chapter, was well adapted to youths desirous of learning. The word creato has no other origin than that given by Vasari and other writers to the disciples of the old masters, and which, being derived from the Spanish, was adopted into the Italian language as the synonyme of servant. Cennino repeats in two places that Taddeo Gaddi was the disciple of Giotto for twenty-four years, and that he himself was that of Agnolo for twelve years. In chap. 104, he afterwards discourses on the time in which he thought the art might be acquired, and he determines on thirteen years; namely, one whole year to be devoted to drawing; then six years to learning the mechani¬cal and more common parts of the art; and another six years
xxxvi
to practising colouring, adorning with mordants, making dra-peries of gold, and practising painting on walls. And for this reason I think that the discipline of the art was taught to the disciples with great caution and by gradual steps, the masters being always the depositories of the old traditions of practice. Hence the laboratory of a painter must have been of difficult access to all those who were not initiated in the school; and to this they were led, not only by the works of design and of colouring, but they were also prepared for them by the preparation of those things which at present are sub¬servient to painting, and are now supplied by various arts.
For this cause we should not be surprised to observe, that our author employs the two chapters, 12 and 14, in teaching how to efface, with a piece of crumb of bread, the marks made by the leaden stile, and how to make a pen; because it is necessary to return in thought to that period of the infancy of painting, and to remember that all the parts of the art were concealed with the greatest care.
In chap. 60, for example, Cennino says, “ Cinnabar is a colour which is made by alchemy, prepared in an alembic, of which, &c. . . because if you choose to fatigue yourself, you will find plenty of recipes, and especially among the monks/’ And in chap. 44, in speaking of lac, he says, “ which is an artificial colour. There are many recipes for making it.” In chap. 62, where he discourses on the mode of preparing ultra- marine, he recommends keeping the secret, saying, “And keep it to yourself, for it is a great acquirement to know how to make it well.”
But I am also led to believe that the same Cennino was very ignorant of many things relating to the nature and origin of the colours; and for this reason, that he sometimes evaded the question, and more frequently recommended his readers to purchase the article ready made. In chap. 46, treating of the colour giallorino, he gives evident proof that he did not know how it was made, and that he only judged of it by the weight. w And I believe,” says he, “ that this colour is a true stone, produced in volcanic districts; for this reason I
xxxvii
say that it is an artificial colour, but not prepared by alchemy/’ Nor can we wonder at his ignorance respecting many colours; because the Venetians, who alone navigated the eastern seas, had the right to distribute over Europe the merchandise of Asia; and no inconsiderable portion of this consisted of co¬lours, which were afterwards made in the laboratories of Venice, where even at that early period some colours were prepared, and from whence the apothecaries throughout Italy (of whom the painters purchased their pigments) were sup¬plied. And in fact, in chap. 10, Cennino mentions the colour called pezzuole, which was then, and now is, used by minia¬ture-painters, and which is at present called pezzette di Le- vante; it is of a red colour like carmine, and is used by women to increase the beauty of their faces.
In order to prove that Vasari had never read the whole of Cennino’s book, as I have before asserted, I shall allege some reasons, which I believe cannot be controverted. He says, in the first place, “ he (Cennino) does not mention (and perhaps they were not in use) certain colours prepared from earths, such as terre rosse scure, cinabrese,” &c. Now, chapters 38 and 39 are devoted to sinopia, or terre rosse scure, and cina¬brese. In the second place, Vasari continues, “ he also treats of mosaic paintingand Cennino has not a single word on this manner of painting. In the third place, the same Vasari asserts that Cennino treats of grinding colours in oil to make red, blue, green, and other kinds of grounds (campi), and of mordants for laying on gold, but not for figures; while six entire chapters, that is, from 89 to 94, are all employed in de¬scribing the mode of preparing good oil for mordants, not only boiled on the fire, but baked in the sun, for painting on walls, on pictures, on iron, on stone, and on glass; and also of grinding colours with the same oil to paint flesh, draperies, mountains, trees, and whatever you please. Nor is that suffi¬cient; for although Cennino has written at the end of the book nine whole chapters on the manner of casting, in plaster, heads and entire figures from the life, coins, and seals, and of making casts in metal, Vasari does not make the least mention
xxxviii
of these subjects. Whence we are constrained to believe, that he merely glanced lightly over the titles to the chapters of part of the manuscript; and that thinking it useless, he did not care to examine and investigate the whole work. For this reason it cannot be supposed that this noble-minded man, so zealous for the honour of his country, and whose every effort had been directed to make it pre-eminent, would with¬hold from one of his fellow-countrymen the just fame which, he deserved by so valuable a work. Nor do I here intend to reprove him, or to lessen his glory. I shall say only, that he committed a great error in not having examined the work of this old master; for then perhaps he would not so easily have given the credit of those things to strangers which certainly were known in his own beautiful Tuscany, and in all Italy, as I shall hereafter study to prove.
We must now speak of the work. I think it would be superfluous to enter too minutely into it, since it would de¬prive the reader of the pleasure of studying it himself; be¬sides, it is not difficult to understand, but, on the contrary, is quite simple, plain, and clear. Where I have thought it right to illustrate and make the text more clear by annotations, I have endeavoured to be moderate and brief; and I have sought to lead the readers, as much as I possibly could, to the customs, the practice of the arts, and to the forms of expres¬sion of that period. Nor do I consider that I have commented upon every point: many new lights may yet be thrown upon this precious and unique treatise on painting.
In the introduction to his book, Cennino shews that he was but little acquainted with literature; for, desirous of imi- tating the writers of his times, who began all their works with the creation of the world, he entangles himself in a thorny labyrinth, from which he issues with weariness, and in a weak and obscure manner; nevertheless, he deserves much credit for the reverence with which he speaks of Giotto, of Taddeo, and of Agnolo Gaddi, whose praises he repeats in many places, —in chap. 4, for example, saying, " and this is the precept of the great masters, among whom/* &c. And in chap. 67,
xxxix
he says, “ Giotto, the great master.” And when an oppor¬tunity occurs of rendering homage to these ancients, he never defrauds them of the gratitude he owes them. I think I ought to present to the minds of modem students of the noble arts of design these facts, whence they may learn the great utility of those lessons of love, and fear, and obedience towards their masters, of which our author speaks in chap. 3.
The whole of the first part of the book, consisting of thirty- four chapters, is dedicated by Cennino to the first rudiments of design. After having enumerated all the parts into which the art of painting is divided, he proceeds to describe the manner of drawing pictures, of which he prescribes the dimen¬sions. He then directs how to use bone-dust {inossare), and what stiles should be used. He gives the rules of light, of chiaro and scuro, and relievos. From pictures he proceeds to parchment and paper made of cotton {carta bambagind); the latter, at that time much used, was imported into Italy from the Levant previous to the paper made of rags, now in use, becoming common.
And the varnish used by writers {vemice da zcrivere), which he mentions in chap. 10, was that with which they rubbed over the paper made of cotton in order to prepare it for writ¬ing on; it was a kind of resin, powdered very fine, which is still in use.(14) He then teaches how to draw with a pen on paper; and then, advancing progressively, he shews how to tint paper of all colours, and to make transparent paper for tracing the designs of the best masters, and strongly recom¬mends drawing from nature.
He then advises his pupil, and admonishes him as to living temperately; what company to select; and how he should first draw with charcoal, and then fix his drawing with the stile. He next directs how to determine the proportions of things seen at a distance; and concludes with instructions for paint¬ing in water-colours, and for making charcoal crayons.
These things should be borne in mind by modem artists, as they cannot deny that many of them, useful and deserving praise for their simplicity, are now wholly lost.
xl
In the second part of the book, which terminates at chap. 66, Cennino teaches first how to grind colours; then their names and properties; and points out which are durable, and which fugacious; which should be used on pictures, on walls, in fresco, and in secco, and which on paper: and he is so exact in the most minute particulars as to excite surprise. He then directs how to unite one colour with another, so as to form a third. He next shews how to make pencils of minever and of hog’s bristles; for in those days they had no others. And whoever considers the subject must be astonished to see, that with so few colours these masters could produce works which, by their brightness and high state of preservation, awakened the envy of artists after a lapse of four centuries. And if we, who think we have conquered them by our new discoveries in chemistry, could see, after the lapse of an equal space of time, what would become of modem pictures, we should perhaps be persuaded of the great esteem in which this ancient sim¬plicity should be held. For example, to speak of black pig¬ments only, it will be found that they had but five, while we have as many as sixteen.(15)
The third part of the book begins with instructions for painting on walls in fresco; and treats of the colours, of covering the wall with mortar, of proportioning the space, and of drawing. He then proceeds to colouring, after the manner taught by Giotto to Taddeo Gaddi, and by him to Agnolo his son, the master of Cennino. And it is here that we learn, from the dictum of Cennino, that Agnolo coloured better than his father. I shall not be diffuse on this part of the art, that I may not repeat the precepts of the author. I shall merely say, that those which he lays down in this part of his treatise are so many, and so well arranged, as to be of great advantage to living artists, who too frequently are in want of precise and practical instructions in the highest branch of painting. It is in this part of the work that the author establishes the canon of the proportions of the human body with much simplicity and clearness. It is singular, that in speaking of the female body, he says, “leave that
xli
of the woman, for there are none perfectly proportioned;” which sentence being, as it appears, common to those times, may prove a good criterion in judging of pictures of that age. He continues afterwards to shew how to paint on walls in fresco and in secco, and to mix the colours, pointing out which may or may not be used in fresco. And let me call the attention of artists to the egg-tempera, which is hinted at in colouring walls in secco.
When the author has shewn how to colour flesh, he pro¬ceeds to shew how to paint draperies of all kinds of colours; but he speaks more at length of a drapery of ultramarine blue, which, in those times, was called by a figure of speech (antonomasia) a mantle of the Virgin.
He concludes this part with directions as to the manner of colouring mountains, trees, grass, and buildings; and gives directions for drawing them in perspective, from which the low state of that science plainly appears. This is the reason why, in very old pictures, the architecture always appears defective and disproportioned; for these masters made the point of sight too near, and too much below the buildings.
In the beginning of the fourth part, and in six whole chapters, Cennino teaches the manner of painting in oil on walls, in pictures, on stone, on iron, and on whatever you please.
He teaches how to grind the colours, and says, they can all be used in oil except bianco sangiovanni. And he speaks not only, as Vasari asserts, of painting grounds (carnpi), but also of painting draperies, flesh, mountains, trees, &c. And what is more astonishing still, is to see that these old masters painted also on walls with oil baked in the sun, and not pre¬pared by fire, which no one, that I am aware of, ever sus¬pected, as it is said that painting in oil was invented by John of Bruges. Whence it is still more evident to me that no one ever read beyond chap. 89 of this book; or if any persons have read the five following chapters, that they affected to be ignorant of them, as I shall hereafter shew.
In the eight following chapters the author treats of the
xlii
TAMBRONIS PREFACE.
mode of ornamenting paintings on walls with gold,/, with tin, and with relievos. And this is a proper occasion to notice a passage in chap. 96, which, in my opinion, displays the honest and religious character of Cennino. He strongly inculcates the constant use of good colours and fine gold, especially in the figures of the Virgin, which, besides the fame that it brings the artist, consoles him with the hope of obtaining for his soul and body the mercy and bounty of God and of the Virgin.
He afterwards, in teaching the method of painting in dis-temper, discusses first (in eight chapters) all kinds of glue, which are, says he, " the foundation of this part of the art.” He then proceeds to state how wood is prepared for pictures, and how cloth is glued on it. This art will be considered a novelty by many; and it may be useful in some circumstances to know that it was practised, as it may enable one to judge whether a picture be ancient or not; because the question whether canvass was stretched upon panels before the ground was laid, has been much discussed among us modems; and frequent frauds have, on this account, been attributed to picture-dealers.(16) Speaking afterwards of the grounds, he begins by informing us of the nature of plaster, of its pre¬paration, the manner of using it, and how the surface is to be planed, and with what instruments. He speaks at length on these subjects, as far as the end of chap. 122.
From thence unto the end of chap. 131 the author treats of drawing on panels on which grounds have been laid of plaster, and also on walls; of relieving them with fringes and other delicate ornaments made of plaster, varnish, or wax, as was the custom at that time.
In nine other chapters Cennino gives us afterwards a com-plete treatise on gilding, and on tempering and laying on bole; he tells U3 how to gild, and how, and with what kind of stone or teeth, to burnish gold. Among these stones he instructs us to form one of lapis amatislo, which was probably used by the greater number of painters. And having at heart the perfection of the art, he condescends to tell us how to
xliii
repair those parts which are not neatly covered with the gold; and frequently recommends, for the artist’s benefit, to cover the whole ground with gold. He then teaches us how to burnish it, and points out what gold is the best for covering flat grounds, what is used for cornices, and what for fringes and delicate works.
The details of the art of engraving (granare) upon gold, of marking the outlines of the figures, of making draperies of gold and silver, or colours of various kinds, are minutely described as far as chap. 143. Then follows how to paint on gilded tin on walls, and the manner of covering it first with colours in distemper, and afterwards of glazing it with oil- colours. And certainly this passage, which is contained in chap. 143, settles many questions, and proves that the cele¬brated Count Cicognara was right in saying, that he found many different methods of painting on a single picture/17*
With the same diligence and love of the art does Cennino teach us in the next seven chapters to imitate velvet and stuffs on walls, and silk on pictures, and the quality of rich draperies of ultramarine blue, of gold, and of purple. Then he teaches us how to paint flesh in distemper, to imitate a dead or wounded man, and all kinds of beards and hair; and that he might not omit giving precepts on any branch of the art, he describes the manner of painting water, rivers, and fish, on pictures and on walls.
And as persons sometimes wished (such being the custom at that period) to enrich pictures with ornaments of gold, for the laying on of which mordants were necessary, Cennino meets this want in three chapters, in which he teaches the nature of mordants, and the manner of tempering them.
In three other chapters he then teaches how, and when it is necessary, to varnish painted pictures. And on this sub¬ject only does he seem to me to have failed, in not having preserved the remembrance of what kind of varnish was used by that school, as I have observed in the note to this chapter.
We derive no small advantage from chap. 157 and the
xliv
three following, where he speaks of painting in miniature, and of laying gold on paper and in hooks. For we despaired of discovering the method of gilding in that beautiful and brilliant manner practised by the ancients, with which they illuminated their manuscripts ; and we are under great obli¬gations to Cennino, who has rescued this secret of the art from oblivion. We find that great part of the skill depended on the nature of the plaster {gesso) they used, on their dili¬gence in smoothing the surface, and on the goodness and thickness of the gold. The last of the four chapters above mentioned is employed in teaching how to grind gold and silver, and how to temper them for the purpose of illumi¬nating. And as verde terra takes the varnish with difficulty, the author terminates with pointing out a perfect method of varnishing it.
Chap. 161, which is indeed very curious, makes us ac-quainted with the custom that existed in the times of the author, of painting the living human face by artists; but what is still more curious, it was painted with oil-colours, and varnish to strengthen the colours, “ ad olio ed a vemice per calefiare.” Now no one ever imagined that this also was a secret of John of Bruges. And if the painters of that age had attained the art of grinding colours in oil for this purpose, it is no mark of wisdom to suppose that if they could apply them to the faces of living men and women, they could not also make imitations of such faces with them on pictures.
Having thus terminated his precepts respecting every kind of painting, Cennino gives, in the last nine chapters, a short treatise on the method of taking casts of a head, and of the whole naked figure, of the artist himself, or of another person, which he considers useful and necessary to artists. He then leaches us how to take casts of medals, seals, and coins, making us acquainted with the secret of a kind of ashes, equally fit for moulds of small things for making casts, as bronze or other metals are for large things ; and if the methods described by him are not now practised, the know¬
xlv
ledge of them will be useful, and will conduce towards the advancement and history of the art.
Here Cennino ends the practical and mechanical treatise on the different modes of painting practised in his times,—a treatise similar to which has not been written by any one since the revival of the fine arts until our own era,—a trea¬tise, in fine, which the art of painting yet wanted; for all the other writers on the subject, as I have before said, have lost themselves in the mazes of metaphysics, instead of instructing us in the practical parts of the art.
Every compassionate and noble mind must grieve to re¬flect, that the author to whom we are indebted for this trea¬sure composed the work in the confinement of a prison, in which he was cast for debt at the great age of eighty years, or thereabouts, according to the calculation we made in another page. The prisons, delle Stinche, in Florence, were destined to receive prisoners for civil debts, as noticed by Bottari. Nor can we forgive Baldinucci, who, in his Life of Cennino, says, with cold indifference, “ we may say that Cennino composed this work without any disturbance or occupation of mind or body; and this he owed to his poverty, since his treatise is dated from the Stinche, prisons in Florence, thus called by the first prisoners who were confined there, and who had been formerly in the castle of the Stinche of Valdigreve.”(n<) And is it not sufficiently melancholy for a man so venerable on ac¬count of his grey hairs,—and an artist also, who, by the con¬fession of Vasari, had painted in Florence many works in conjunction with his master, and a picture of the Virgin entirely with his own hand, which was under the loggia of the Hospital of Bonifazio Lupi, so well coloured, that, adds the same Vasari, “ it is to this day in good preserva¬tion,”—to lose his liberty on account of his poverty ? While his master died leaving his sons immense riches, the unfor¬tunate disciple remained to the end of his life a beggar, or perhaps died in prison, or in some hospital. We cannot con-jecture what reduced him to so hard a fate. For if we con¬sider his skill in painting, he seems, by the above-cited testi¬
xlvi
mony, not to have been an indifferent painter. If we consider his book on the art, we see that he had a complete and uni¬versal knowledge of all branches of his art. And if, in fine, we consider his style of writing, which is the only point of comparison of the minds of authors, we shall find that modesty, gratitude, integrity, good manners, and religion prevail in it. We are then obliged to conclude, that some great misfortune, or sickness, or old age, reduced him to this miserable condi¬tion, which he certainly bore with great fortitude, since not a single word of complaint escapes him in the whole work against the adversity of fortune. But that evil destiny which some¬times persecutes the good even after their death, not content with having rendered him unhappy in his old age, pursued him for four centuries, burying in obscurity the greater part of his genius, which will for ever render him illustrious, and commend his name to the remembrance of posterity.
I am firmly of opinion that the publication of this work will prove of inestimable advantage to present and future painters, especially as to the mode of painting in fresco, this kind of painting being almost, to our shame be it spoken, forgotten and lost; and on this subject we should have con¬fidence in the words of Cennino, on account of the above- cited passage from Vasari, who calls him a great colourist, because of that work of his which he had seen. I conclude every one may turn to his own advantage the secrets and precepts of the author respecting other modes of painting.
I have now only to say something on painting in oil, as I promised; for I cannot endure that, with this indisputable evidence, another should pretend to the glory of having taught our Italy an art that was always known and practised by the sons of this mistress of nations.
Vasari, in his life of Antonello da Messina, and in the Introduction to the Three Arts, cap. xxi., relates that John Van Eyck, otherwise John of Bruges, having spoiled a picture by exposing it to the sun in order to dry the varnish, was much vexed, and bent his mind on seeking for something which should dry the colours; when, after he had tried many
xlvii
things, both in a pure state and mixed together, he found at length that linseed-oil and nut-oil were more drying than any others he had tried. And this discovery is, by most writers, said to have taken place about the year 1410. Vasari con¬tinues by informing us, that John having improved this mode of painting by experience, filled the whole world with his fame, and excited the envy of other artists, “ especially as for a long time he would not suffer any one to see him work, nor would he teach any one the secret. But having grown old, he at length taught it to Roger of Bruges, his disciple.” Now, take notice that John was bom in 1370, and consequently must have been forty years old when he made the discovery.
Now, continues Vasari, one Antonello da Messina, who had studied design many years at Rome, and resided for many years at Palermo, and afterwards at Messina, his native place, came from Sicily to Naples; and having heard that a picture painted in oil had been sent to the king Alphonso, he made a point of seeing it; and having seen it, he went to Flanders and to Bruges, where he became intimate with John, then an old man, and, by means of presents, succeeded in inducing him to teach him this mode of colouring. From thence he re¬turned to his own country, lived there a few months, and then went to Venice, where he determined to fix his abode. It was there that he became acquainted with Domenico Vene¬ziano, to whom after a short time he communicated the secret. This Domenico Veneziano, who afterwards went to Florence, contracted an intimate friendship with Andrea del Castagno, “ and being really very much attached to Andrea, he taught him how to paint in oil, which was then unknown in Tuscany.”(l8) Finally, Andrea, excited by envy, treacher¬ously murdered the unfortunate Domenico.
This is the history of the discovery of painting in oil, as related by Vasari, without quoting either his authority or the evidence or writings of any author who had been his guide, and whose writings would confirm what he had said. Mal- vasia, in the life of Lippo Dalmasio, justly blames him for this negligence; and this tale, repeated by succeeding writers
xlviii
in every corner of Europe, established the universal and erro-neous tradition of these circumstances. Many endeavoured to combat it, but unsuccessfully;(19) for when an error is once promulgated by the pen of a writer of eminence, such as Vasari was, if it be not instantly destroyed by criticism, it becomes confirmed by time, and the endeavours of posterity to eradicate it will be ineffectual. But it will not be difficult, by the assistance of chronology and of facts, to prove that the narration of Vasari is one of those romances which will not resist the ordeal of criticism, because it had its origin in those times of credulity when genius was more under the guidance of good faith, and of the love of the marvellous, than of sound judgment.
Nevertheless, it is said by some, and among them Baldi- nucci and Lanzi, that Vasari never intended to deny the use of such painting in oil in Italy, even before John of Bruges.(t0> The politeness of those authors is to be praised, who, endea¬vouring to cure the gross blindness of their predecessor, force themselves to find means of reconciling his assertions with facts that prove the contrary. But I adhere to the letter of his opinion, because in things of this kind one cannot give place to various interpretations, comments, or hypotheses. Criticism is founded on what is said, not on what is intended to be said. If any other person makes the same objection to me that Lanzi makes in the life of Antonello da Messina, saying, “ And how, if the fact be denied, shall we give the lie to a tradition sanctioned by so many schools?” I will reply, that criticism values that author only from whom a fact is derived, and not those, even if there were a million of them, who have copied and repeated what he relates.
Vasari says, in the Introduction to the Three Arts, &c., chap, xxi., “ that the first inventor of painting in oil in Flan¬ders was John of Bruges;” and in the life of Antonello da Messina he tells us, that the said John “ at length found that linseed and nut oil were more drying; that he (John) would not let any one see him work, nor would he teach the secret to any one; but being old,” &c. And in the life of Andrea
del Castagno, that “ Domenico Veneziano, while in Florence, contracted a friendship with Andrea, and, as he really loved him, he taught him the method of colouring in oil, which was not then known in Tuscany.”
Now, we shall see whether this story of Vasari’s is recon-cilable with chronology.
John of Bruges was bom, as we have mentioned above, about the year 1370, and discovered the ait of painting in oil in 1410. He was then in the fortieth year of his age. He, it is said, sent a picture painted in oil to Alphonso, king of Naples; but that monarch did not begin to reign until 1442.(21) John was then seventy-two years of age. The at¬tention of Antonello da Messina was attracted by the rumour which arose respecting this picture, painted in the manner invented in Flanders, that is, in oil. But when was this Antonello bom ? According to most writers, in 1449, and in 1447 according to the Annals of Messina, written by Gallo, and quoted by Hackert, that is, nine or eleven years before the death of King Alphonso, for this prince died in 1458. Supposing that Antonello saw the picture of John also after Alphonso began to reign, he could not certainly remove to Flanders before he became adult and a painter, that is, be¬tween the twenty-fifth and thirty-fifth years of his age. Let us take the mean, that is, thirty years, and add the five which elapsed between 1442, the first year of the reign of Alphonso, and 1447, the epoch of the birth of Antonello. According to the Annals of Messina, we shall then have a period of thirty-five years to add to the seventy-two which John of Bruges had attained when Alphonso ascended the throne. By this calculation, Antonello would have found the painter in his 107th year, and have learnt from him only in 1477 his celebrated secret,“ that linseed and nut oils were the most drying.” But suppose pictures are to be found in Venice painted by Antonello, and by him marked 1474? and sup¬pose that Domenico Veneziano, to whom he communicated the secret, was killed in Florence by Castagno in 1470 ? how can we reconcile the age of only thirty years, which I assigned
to Antonello, with those many years that he had previously spent in drawing at Rome, and with those he afterwards passed in working at Palermo and in Messina, where he ac¬quired the name of a skilful artist, according to the account of Vasari ? how reconcile the epoch of 1437, in which Cen¬nino wrote his work, in which he describes painting in oil at length, on walls, pictures, &c., with the birth (which hap¬pened ten years after) of this Antonello, who was to travel into Flanders, and be the first to bring into Italy the great secret of painting with linseed and nut oils, which before this period was not known in Tuscany, and was then made known (about 1470), by the works of Domenico Veneziano ? How, in fine, shall we reconcile the more than centenary age of John of Bruges with the traditions, which certainly say that he died old, but not so very old ?
We are forced to conclude, that this tale was a mass of chronological contradictions, and consequently erroneous and inadmissible. And it is another proof that Vasari never read the work of Cennino.
Passing from times to facts, we must first prove what was the real opinion of Vasari. It was, that painting in oil was not known in Tuscany before John of Bruges, Antonello da Messina, and Domenico Veneziano, to whom he assigns the date of 1470, and who taught it to Andrea del Castagno. Nor can we retrench a part of this narration, and say, that he only intended to speak of a greater perfection in this method of painting. His words are clear and plain; and according to his account it was John of Bruges “ who first found, after many experiments, that the oils of linseed and of nuts were the most drying ; he was the first who saw that mixing the colours with these oils gave them great brilliancy, &c. ; and what appeared to him very admirable was, that they united together infinitely better than colours in distemper. John was much delighted with this invention,” &c. And all this, after having said, previously, “ but although many had experimented, and sought much for this secret, yet no one had found any good method, either by using liquid varnish or other sorts of
li colours mixed with the vehicles,” &c.(22) Hence some writers have endeavoured to defend him, though unsuccessfully, by supposing that he did not mean to exclude every other way of painting in oil.(25)
In order to shew by facts the inconsistency of the narration of Vasari, the wort of Cennino would alone be sufficient; but nevertheless, in order to prove my argument more indisput¬ably, I shall here record some principal facts, which, although related and repeated by many others, when added to the au¬thority of Cennino, will for ever settle the question of paint¬ing in oil having been first invented by John of Bruges.
And first of all comes the monk Theophilus, called also Ruggiero, who before the eleventh century(24) wrote a work in Latin divided into three books, the first of which has this title: Incipit tractatus Lombardicus quaUter temperantur co¬lores.W This book was first described by Abraham Lessing <26) in 1774, in a dissertation printed at Brunswick; it was after¬wards published in part by Raspe, at London, in 1781; and at length the whole was published by Cristiano Leist, in the sixth volume of the collection of Lessing. Of this Theophilus, the learned Morelli and Cicognara speak at some length. This monk, who was certainly an Italian, according to the correct and reasonable opinion of Cicognara, taught how to paint entirely with oil; for at cap. 22 he says, “ deinde accipe co lores, quos imponere volueris, terens eos diligenter oleo lini, sine aqua, el fac mixturas vultuum ac vestimentorum, sicut superius aqua feceras, et bestias sive ares aut folia variabis suis coloribus, prout libuerit”(ir>
This passage silences Budberg and many other panegyrists of John of Bruges, who maintain that the method of Theo¬philus was fit only for coarse works and painting grounds (campi), as Morelli wisely remarks.(28) Here is a very early notice of the method of painting in oil brought into Germany by an Italian, and which must have been common enough, since copies of this manuscript are found at Wolfenbuttel, at Vienna, and at Cambridge; and it is of no importance that Theophilus says, pictures painted in his manner should be
lii
exposed to the sun to dry. Cicognara(29) has replied like a wise and learned man to this objection, which overcame and somewhat embarrassed Morelli. Cennino (chap. 90) does not recommend exposing pictures painted in oil to the sun, but desires they may be covered over and left to dry naturally.
We come, in the second place, to the picture in the im¬perial gallery of Vienna, described in 1783 by Mechel, and which was painted in oil by Tommaso da Modena in 1297.(30> Then the picture of Serafino Serafini, also a native of Modena, painted in oil in 1385, and so considered in 1789.(81)
The pictures mentioned by Raspe(82) follow next. This author refers to an order of Henry III., king of England (quoted by Walpole in his Anecdotes}, directing his treasurer to pay a certain jeweller named Odo, and his son, the ex¬penses incurred for oil and varnish used in the pictures at Westminster.
Then an historical picture of King Richard II., who died in 1399, done in oil, and preserved by the Earl of Pembroke at Wilton.(83)
Nor must we be silent concerning the pictures of that master, Giorgio da Firenze, who was invited into Piedmont by Amadeus V., and who painted in oil in 1314 at Chambery, in 1318 at Borghetto, and at Pinerolo in 1325.(34)
After them comes Lippo Dalmasio, who painted in oil at Bologna a picture of the Virgin on the arch of the Porta di S. Procolo, and which he painted about the year 1407. The testimony of Tiarini, whose name was eminent among the dis-ciples of the Carracci, leaves no room for doubt on this subject. For he took a ladder and mounted on it, to make a close exa-mination of the picture; and he found that not only the figure of the Virgin, but the ground of the picture also, was painted in oil.(35)
It is sufficient to refer, in the last place,to the San Girolamo, painted in oil at Naples by Colantonio del Fiore, and marked at the foot by him with the date 1436; that is, six years before King Alphonso received his present of the picture of John of Bruges.
liiii
De Dominician accurate writer of the lives of the Neapoitan painters, after having quoted the following passage from the manuscripts of Marco of Siena (a painter who worked in Naples in 1550), namely: “ in the beginning of that (the fourteenth) century, there were painters who made known sufficiently, by their works in fresco and in oil,” &c., records, in the life of Colantonio, the notice- of Eugenio quoted in the Napoli Sacra, p. 111: “In the chapel of the family of Rocca there is a picture in which the saints Francesco and Girolamo are represented so naturally in the act of studying that they appear alive; this was the work of Colantonio, an illustrious Neapolitan painter, the first who painted in oil at Naples, whatever foreigners may say to the contrary.” And in the life of the Cavaliere Massimo Stanzione, a painter and archi¬tect much praised, and called the Guido of Naples, who flou¬rished about the first half of the seventeenth century, he relates that certain ancient manuscripts on the art had come into the hands of the Cav. Massimo from those of Paolo Por- poro, a painter, upon which he began to compose lives of some of the painters, and he wrote certain memorandums and notes which afterwards came into the hands of De Dominici, and served as a foundation for his work. Among the notes, some are written to rectify the errors of Vasari; one of them is as follows: “ Thus, above every other thing, does he refute the account of John of Bruges and of Antonello da Messina with the fact, that painting in oil has always,—that is, from time immemorial,—been practised at Naples, at least since 1300; for the S.S. Nunziata painted at that period are painted in oil, and other ancient pictures that I remember; and 1 think I am not deceived in the pictures of our painters of the thir¬teenth century. But I know it is written that Antonello,(87) who was the son of an engineer named Giuseppe, although born in Sicily, went with his father into Flanders when he was a man and knew how to paint, and was a disciple of Colantonio del Fiore in Naples, and that he was taught by John of Bruges, a Fleming, who painted well in oil; and John went mad in endeavouring to make colours and var-
liv
nishes that would always remain fresh. Oil-colours were used in Flanders and in Italy, but they did not know how to use them properly, having always the same difficulty that was experienced by painters who did not know how to paint in fresco. Antonello afterwards returned to Italy, and lived at Venice, where he taught some persons to paint, but not to paint in oil, which, as has been observed, had been always practised in Italy; and whoever reflects, will remember that there are (at Bologna, for instance) pictures in oil painted before the time of John of Bruges; and if Vasari and Ridolfi assert that painting in oil has only been practised since the time of Antonello, they have erroneously given credit to the fact without proper reflection or diligent observation; for it was practised in Bologna, and in Rome, and, as I can prove with the greatest accuracy, in Naples. Moreover, the picture given by John to King Alphonso I., said to represent the three magi, did not become famous from the king’s having seen it, but because it was considered a fine picture; and the colouring in oil was not looked upon as a novelty. It is true, also, that Zingaro and Donzelli repaired several parts of it which had been damaged in the journey, and the portraits of himself (Alphonso) and of Ferdinand his son were substi¬tuted for those of the magi, with the same oil-colours, such colours being common in Naples.”
I have with great pleasure quoted the whole of this note, in order to shew that in this part of Italy, which Vasari does not sufficiently illustrate, painting in oil was always practised. And the evidence of Massimo is worthy of confidence, because, as De Dominici says, “ he was considered a just and good man, and was esteemed very skilful in his profession.”
I might strengthen my remarks by quotations from Della Valle, Tiraboschi, Vernazza, Federici, and even from Lanzi himself; but I think it superfluous and pedantic to quote un-necessarily ; it is sufficient for me to have proved clearly, that the account given by Vasari is not reconcilable with chrono¬logy 5 that it is contradicted by facts; and that it is only, as he relates it, a romance, or tale of the imagination.
lv
I will not certainly omit that Bartolomeo Faceo (B. Facius), who wrote in 1456, and was consequently contemporary with John of Bruges, and who says many and great things concern¬ing him and his genius, does not mention him as the inventor of painting in oil.(W) And it would really be a great omission in this writer not to mention this circumstance, which has been notorious all over Europe, and was sufficient to entitle the person who claimed this invention to immortality.
I shall only add a few brief remarks, extracted from the book of Cennino, which will completely establish my argu¬ment.
In the first place, I shall notice what Cennino himself has left in writing concerning those parts of the art which he teaches in his book. In chap. 1, he says openly,“ I shall make notes concerning those things which were taught me by the before-mentioned Agnolo my master, and which I have proved with my own handthen in chap. 4, he says, “ and these are the precepts of the great masters before mentioned, of which, with what little knowledge I have acquired, I shall discourse step by step.” Whence we cannot help believ¬ing that, if the method of painting in oil had been recently discovered in Flanders, this author, who is so minute and exact in describing the practices of other masters, would not, when speaking on the subject, have omitted to men¬tion the circumstance.It is true that he says in chap¬ter 89, that the Germans practise it much—“che 1’ usano molto i Tedeschi.” Baldinucci does not let slip this oppor¬tunity of defending Vasari, and remarks, “by Germans he meant also the Flemings.” But he—I speak it with all the respect to which he is entitled—did not understand the force of this phrase, which is in the words “ che 1’ usano moltothat is, that it was practised almost universally among the artists of that nation. We have seen that if we desire to know the method of painting in oil in 1410, and of which John of Bruges pretends to be the inventor, “ he would not let any one see him paint, nor would he tell the secret to any one; but being old,” &c. Now how could Cennino have
lvi
said, " which was much practised by the Germans,” if it were practised by John only ? And we cannot be surprised if it were practised generally by the Germans, since we know that the treatise of Theophilus was much diffused, and that there were many copies in that country.(41)
Baldinucci afterwards says, “ It must be remembered, that this invention, having already, since 1410, run its course in Italy and Tuscany, and Cennino being acquainted with it, it was possible for him to notice it in his book, and also to prac¬tise it; and this hint will be sufficient to remove every shade of difficulty in a thing of so much consequence.”(42) But he either dissembled, or forgot the writing of Vasari. How could this method have run its course in Tuscany in the year 1437, if it was still unknown there in 1470 ? How could Cennino have spoken of linseed-oil only, if John of Bruges had dis¬covered that this and nut-oil were the most drying? Why should we be told now for the first time, that linseed-oil, with which Cennino teaches us to paint, is to be baked in the sun, and not boiled on the fire ? Why does he say the best was prepared at Florence? These remarks shew that it was an old practice. Who has ever said, that to prepare oil in such a manner was taught by any person,—even by John of Bruges ? And is it known that he ever taught to paint in oil " on walls, on iron, on stone, on glass, or on what you please ?” May I be forgiven for my suspicion of the fidelity of Baldinucci, because he no where mentions this practice of painting in oil on walls, and because he makes it appear that he has read nothing but this chapter, and not even the whole of this to which he refers ? This I cannot believe; and I am convinced that he purposely concealed the contents of the six chapters of this part of the work (which he must certainly have read). That he might not contradict Vasari, or mutilate the sentence, he assures us that Cennino “ does not mention either walls or pictures.” But could it be thus, if the invention of John of Bruges took place in 1410 ? If he guarded his secret jealously until his old age, how was it possible for this secret not only to traverse all Italy before 1437, but to become gigantic, and
Ivii
be applied to painting on walls ? To this the picture of Lippo Dalmasio, painted in oil on a wall in Bologna about 1407, and the chapters 143, 150, and 151 of Cennino’s book on the art, will reply.
In conclusion, what will the apologists of John of Bruges say when reading the precepts contained in chapter 143, con¬cerning glazing the draperies with oil-colours in pictures painted in distemper ?(43) Is not this perhaps the sword which will sever the knot; since if oil-colours were in use for glazing pictures painted in distemper, what doubt can remain concern¬ing the practice of using them on the whole picture ?
And in order to make this properly understood by the students and amateurs of painting, it should be stated, that some writers who discuss the question of the origin and in¬vention of the mode of painting in oil were mistaken as to a principal part, namely, as to the oil itself; since some person has said that this monk Theophilus, or Ruggiero, treated of tempering the colours with linseed and nut oils; others, that Cennino likewise taught how to paint with nut and linseed- oils. These fallacious assertions may perhaps mislead the readers of the works of these authors, whose names I shall conceal out of respect; my object not being to play the censor, but solely to investigate the truth, and display it in a full Ught.
It appears to me, therefore, evident from chapter xxii. of the first part of the treatise of Theophilus, to which I have before referred, that linseed-oil only is there mentioned; and we are directed to temper the colours with this in the same manner as we were formerly directed to mix them with water.
Nor does Cennino, in his whole book on the art, as may be seen, ever mention any other oil than that of linseed.
Vasari considers that John of Bruges was the first who worked with both kinds of oil, and was the first to dis¬cover that the oil of linseed and that of nuts were the most drying. It is, then, evident that Theophilus and Cennino either were not acquainted with any other oil, or that they preferred linseed-oil; and that the merit of having mixed
Iviii
colours promiscuously with either of these oils was given by Vasari, for the first time, to John of Bruges, although it is not known, as I have before shewn, from what source he drew his information.
For this reason, it seems to me that I have proved, even more fully than was necessary, that the narrative of Vasari, of the invention of painting in oil, is no more than a fable, to unveil which for ever we require no assistance but that of chronology and facts; that the practice of painting in oil is at least as ancient as the monk Theophilus; and that since his time it was continually in use among artists until the time of Cennino; that, in fine, the method taught by our author was not certainly derived by him through the Flemish painter.
If any one should inquire of me, Why, then, should his name, and that of Antonello, be so famous—and why should they write on the monument of the latter in a solemn epi¬taph/44) “ sed et quod coloribus oleo miscendis splendorem et perpetuitatem primus Italic# pictures contulitV'^—I shall reply, that this epitaph is certainly reported by Vasari in the life of Antonello ; but as the Cav. Morelli (Notizie d' Opere, &c., p. 190) remarks, “ it is not to be seen, and it has been sought for in vain, in our times.” It is, then, doubtful whe¬ther it ever existed; nor do we know who placed it, or in what place it is to be found. Now, being willing to act with gene¬rosity towards this noble writer, and to believe that his reli¬gion was not overcome by deception, we should perhaps be able to admit that we were indebted to John of Bruges for the practice of tempering colours with both nut and linseed- oils, and to Antonello for having used and made common through all Italy a method which in beauty greatly exceeds distemper-painting, which until his time had always been preferred.
Whereupon I agree with the opinion of the Cav. Boni(45) and others, who endeavour to reconcile these facts. But I shall always firmly believe that either the writings in which so many authors agree are false, or that Antonello of Messina
lix
could not have known John of Bruges, or taught painting in oil as a thing new and unknown in Italy ; for this great obli¬gation we owe to Cennino, whose book is a perpetual and in¬destructible monument, sufficient to revenge the loss of that glory of which he has been robbed by the foreigner.(47)