The world's leading painters: Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Titian, Rubens, Velasquez and Rembrandt

Front matter

RffiS,LEAD!^

-^ktMTm&Q:

mmmim t;i-

Preface

The purpose of this book is to present in compact form the results of the latest researches and criticism. Upon many points in the lives of the painters, and as to the authenticity of many of their works, there has been much controversy. In brief biographies it is impossible to state the conflicting arguments. The author can only consider them, and, where a result seems to be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence, state it as a fact, at the risk of being considered ignorant by those who take the contrary view. As to the authenticity of the pictures the author has accepted the opinions of the recognized experts, only venturing to express his own judgment where they are at hopeless variance. The views as to the merits of the works mentioned are the author's own, arrived at after repeated examinations of each. The only exceptions are (those in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg and in some private English collections, where he has been compelled to rely on photographs and on the opinions of others. His views will be found wanting in originality. This is not for want of patient study, but because great masterpieces are apt to make the same impression on normal minds.

A complete bibliography of the subject, or even a list of the books in several languages which the author has read or consulted, would be too voluminous ; but for the benefit of those who would pursue the study further a brief reference to the biographies that are to be found in English may be welcome.

For the three great Italians the Lives of Vasari are still valuable, despite their many errors; especially valuable ia vi PREFACE

the recent edition of Messrs. Hopkins and Blashfield, where, in copious notes, Vasari's mistakes are corrected and his deficiencies supplied.

Of Leonardo there is only one full life in English, that of M. Eugene Miintz ; but this tells substantially all that is known of Leonardo the artist, and is most readable. Of the short lives by Rosenberg, Richter and Gronau, the last is the best, despite its brevity.

Of Raphael there are three extensive biographies, by Passavant, Miintz and Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Those by Passavant and Miintz are full, accurate and entertaining. The work of Crowe and Cavalcaselle is largely devoted to tracing the origin of the master's paintings in his drawings, and appeals rather to specialists. Of the short lives by Grimm, Knackfuss, de Quincy, d'Anvers, Strachey and Julia Cartwright, the last two are the best. Mr. Oppe has recently published a valuable critical work, with process illustrations of nearly all the master's pictures.

Of Titian there is only one full biography, that of Crowe and Cavalcaselle ; but this is one of those monumental productions that supersede all that went before and form new points of departure. It is more readable than their Life of Raphael. There are also short biographies by Heath, Claude Phillips, Ricketts and Gronau. Mr. Heath's book is an abbreviation of Crowe and Cavalcaselle. Mr. Phillips' is an admirable piece of criticism written in a charming style. Mr. Ricketts' book is also highly critical, with process illustrations of substantially all the master's works. Dr. Gronau's is a happy combination of biographical detail with much sound criticism.

The great work on Rubens is that of M. de Rooses, who has given a long life to the exclusive study of the master. His immense book, however, is rather for the specialist. For the general reader that of M. Michel, also in two folio volumes, but only about half as long, is much better, telling

PREFACE vii

the master's story in most readable form with admirable judgments upon his pictures. Where his opinions differ from those of M. de Rooses they generally seem to be the sounder. There are also short biographies by Knackfuss, Kett, Dillon, Calvert, Hope Rea and Stevenson, of which the last three appear to be the best.

Of Velasquez we have in Carl Justi's great book an exhaustive presentation. The less extended, but still full, work by Senor Beruete is also admirable. The shorter Hves by Armstrong, Calvert and Stevenson are most excellent ; and that by Edwin Stowe is quite readable.

Of Rembrandt there is only one exhaustive biography in English, that of M. Michel; but that is equally admirable in style and in substance, and satisfies every requirement of the ordinary reader. There are shorter lives by Knackfuss, Mollett, Bell and Breal, of which the last two seem to be preferable.

The Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt has issued at a very moderate cost volumes each of which contains process reproductions of all the works of one of the masters. The titles of the pictures are given in English.

Books dealing with the general subject of painting and throwing light on the works of the painters treated here are of course too numerous to mention. There are also various biographies that are too antiquated to be of practical value, and perhaps some very late ones that the author has not read.

The space allotted does not permit a reference to all the pictures of the masters treated. A mere catalogue of their works would make a book almost as large as this. The author can refer only to such of them as seem best to illustrate the development of the artists' genius, preferring those that are in public galleries accessible to all. Each reader will be disappointed that some favorite of his been passed over in silence; but this is inevitable.

G. B. R.

Contents

LEONARDO DA VINCI ^ag.

I Childhood and Youth 3

II At the Court of II Moro . 22

II At The Court Of Il Moro

/ It is not surprising that Leonardo quitted Florence. His // failure to execute the important commissions with which he had been entrusted must have cast discredit upon his if abilities as an artist. The Florentine school of painting, with its hard outlines and crude colors, did not satisfy him ; '^ but it was so firmly established and was practised by such Jable masters that the task of overthrowing it was too great. In that revival of classic learning which was the supreme glory of Florence in his day, Leonardo took no interest. Greek he never knew, and he learned Latin only in middle life. Even the antique sculptures that were being so enthusiastically unearthed scarcely interested him at all. Nature was the only teacher whom he acknowledged. The democratic spirit of Florence, with its bourgeois conventions, was hateful to one who accepted no guide save truth, \ and who subjected all received opinions to a remorseless * scrutiny. Fi^ imrit^"^^t<r ^j^^^ and his exclusion from his ' father's home in a land where it is the custom for all the generations of a family to live in patriarchal fashion under the same roof were also causes of embarrassment.

Other reasons perhaps there were; and when he was about thirty years of age Leonardo determined to quit his native city.

Amongst his voluminous writings are various reports made by an engineer in the employ of the Sultan of Cairo, written from Armenia and the frontier fortresses in Asia. From these \Dr. Richter and others have concluded that Leonardo went to the Orient and served the Egyptian Sultan, then called *' the Sultan of Babylon," two years as an engineer ; even that he became a Mahometan?) This may be true ; but if so, it is strange that Leonardo's contemporaries make no mention of it. It was Leonardo's practice to copy anything that interested him, and it is more likely that these reports were transcribed from the writings of some contemporary.

Yet there is nothing improbable in the story. In those days, when the wealth of the Indies still found its way to Europe through the portals of the East and the lands of the Orient were still full of intense vitality, they must have possessed great interest for one of Leonardo's inquiring mind. As for the passages in the reports indicating that the writer was a Mahometan, Leonardo's faith hung so lightly upon him that he would probably have had little difficulty in conforming to the religion of the country where he dwelt. fHe seems to have been a deist rather than a ChristiaF^ There is at least one passage In his writings where he speaks of Christ as a mere man, and not a few where he expresses his contempt for priests and monks; though he always speaks with lofty conviction of the goodness and majesty of God. When all is said, however, the verdict on his Egyptian jouraey must remain " not proven."

f So far as we Jcnow, it was to Milan that he first went on quitting Florence. And this was natural. Milan presented the most perfect field in all the world for the exercise and development of his talent^ Mistress of the fertile Lombard plain and of many subject cities, it was far larger and richer than Florence, ^s native school of painters, while not destitute of merit, was too weak to interpose any obstacles to the principles that Leonardo advanced^ It presented a great contrast to Florence in every way. Instead of frowning structures of dark stone, looking rather like fortresses or dungeons than private dwellings, it was of brick. Even the churches were of the same material, as was the citadel-palace of the dukes, the vast Castello. Only in the midst of this wilderness of red baked earth the glorious cathedral arose, snow white in the splendor of its new marble, but still lacking its dome and its facade. And while the rich plains encircled Milan on every side, far away to the north the Alps rose in all their majesty, and at their feet were the glorious Italian lakes which Leonardo was to love so much, and which were to become his favorite haunt.

The government of the duchy was radically different from ,/ that of Florence. The Medici ruled their native city much ' like the political boss of to-day in America. The forms of the republic were preserved, and still possessed considerable vitality. The ruler had no defined position, but must consult public opinion. The public revenues were largely administered by the magistrates, and Lorenzo spent upon affairs \of state the greater part of his private fortune.

In Milan the duke was absolute. The vast revenues of the duchy were his to si>end or squander as he pleased. The long tyranny of the Visconti had practically destroyed the ancient spirit of freedom ; and men bowed their necks submissive to the yoke. At the head of the state was Lodovico il Moro, youngest son of the great Francesco Sforza, ruling in the name of his feeble nephew, Gian Galeazzo. He was a splendid prince, highly educated, a lover of art and literature, a munificent patron of poets, artists and philosophers. He was an enigmatic and contradictory character. Ambitious beyond measure, he yet shrank from the shedding of blood in an age when every statesman recognized the right of making away with one's opponents. Extremely cunning, he yet uniformly over-reached himself in the end. Determined to usurp his nephew's throne, he married that nephew to the daughter of Alphonso of Naples, the strongest potentate in Italy, and so prepared his own undoing. He was superstitious, and did nothing without the advice of his astrologers, of whom he retained a number about his person. His sad end casts a doubt upon the wisdom of the stars. Bold in his enterprises as long as the danger was at a distance, he showed himself a coward when the peril was at hand. Inviting the French into Italy, he turned against them as soon as they had driven his enemy from the throne of Naples, only to fly without striking a blow when they came to punish his treachery. He was fond of pageants and splendor; and on his cap blazed the famous diamond of Charles the Bold. He received his title of " II Moro," " The Moor," on account of his dark complexion, and he seems to have been proud of it, adopting the mulberry tree, which in ItaHan is also called " Moro," as his coat of arms.

But at the time when Leonardo sought a home in Milan none of this weakness had been made manifest. Lodovico was the foremost potentate of northern Italy, rich, splendid, surrounded by a magnificent court where men of learning or genius found a ready welcome. It was his ambition to excel the Medici as a patron of the arts ; but it must be admitted that the galaxy that he gathered about him shone far less brightly than that which reflects undying glory on the name of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Still, he attracted two men who are among the choice spirits of all the ages, Leonardo, the wizard of Art, and Bramante, the great architect.

We are told that Leonardo went to Milan as the messenger of Lorenzo, to bear to Lodovico a wonderful lute that he had fashioned in the shape of a horse's head, and on which he played with the greatest skill. Leonardo was recognized as the foremost improviser of his time; and as he stood before Lodovico in the perfection of his manly beauty, with golden locks clustering about his shoulders, singing in a melodious voice songs of his own composing while he touched his splendid lute, he must have taken the court by storm. We know not whether it was then or at a later date that he presented to Lodovico the remarkable offer of his services which we find in the Codex Atlanticus, unhappily without a date. In this, after setting forth many wonderful things that he could do as a military and hydraulic engineer, he concludes :

" Furthermore, I can execute works in sculpture, marble, bronze or terra cotta. In painting also I can do what may be done as well as any other, be he who he may.

" I can likewise undertake the execution of the bronze horse, which is a monument that will be to the perpetual glory and immortal honor of my lord your father, of happy memory, and of the illustrious house of Sforza.

" And if any of the above-named things shall seem to many to be impossible and impracticable, I am perfectly ready to make trial of them in your Excellency's park, or in whatever other place you shall be pleased to command, commending myself to you with all possible humility."

In any other this would have been shameful boasting. In Leonardo, the portion at least that deals with the fine arts was only the truth. In this memorial he makes no mention of his musical gifts, which would lead one to infer that it was presented after Lodovico had heard him play and sing, and was in a position to judge those talents for himself.

^^Leonardo's services were engaged, and on the most flattering terms. We know not what his salary was at the beginning; but while he was painting the Last Supper it was two thousand ducats, the equivalent of twenty thousand dollars a year, an unexampled income for an artist in ': those days. He was not a courtier, like Bramante, and he 'was not housed in the Castello, but had his separate establishment, where he Hved surrounded by his pupils, and where his stables were filled with the splendid horses that he loved — not the long-bodied English horses that have now become almost universal, but the compact animals of his day, so well suited for artistic treatment, and such as we see upon the Parthenon frieze. Here he was the revered master — here his genius developed, free from restraint, along its own lines, fcii it^^as in 1482, 1483, or 1484 that he established himself in Milan. Lodovico had not yet usurped the crown, he had not yet even made the fatal marriage of his nephew, who was weak alike in mind and body. Nor had he ever married; but was content with the charms of his favorite, Cecilia Gallerani, who was worthy of his love. Beautiful, sweet, gentle, highly educated and intelligent, without personal ambition, devoted only to her lover's interests, she was the center around whom the artists, poets and scholars gathered. One of Leonardo's first tasks was naturally to paint her portrait. This, which excited so much admiration at the time, has unhappily been lost.

^e chief task for which Leonardo was brought to Milan was the making of the equestrian statue of Francesco Sforza that was to immortalize ihe founder-^of the house. It was

tto be the greatest work of the kind of modern times, twenty-six feet high, weighing a hundred ton?? and that a young :man who had never done any sculpturaTwork of importance should have been entrusted with such a commission reveals the force of his personality. Leonardo set to work with /^^nthusiasm. Always a student of the anatomy and move- //ments of the horse, filling the background of his first large I picture, the Adoration of the Magi, with horses admirably ! portrayed, he made innumerable studies of horses in every position, moving and at rest. These sketches, which are now scattered over the world, are not only the most beautiful and the most spirited, but the most accurate, of all

^.drawings of the noble animal that were ever executed. He changed his design many times, and it is impossible to say which was finally adopted. At first, he seems to have contemplated a horse walking quietly, like those in all equestrian statues that the world then contained; but finally he seems to have settled upon an animal rearing above the body of a crouching foe, whose upraised shield lent a support to the fore feet. Upon the animal rode Sforza, in his hand the baton of command. In these days, when the world is full of the statues of rearing horses, this design seems simple enough ; but in Leonardo's day it was a novelty presenting unsolved problems.

At Windsor there are some drawings for the statue showing the horse walking quietly, and on them are notes for the castings; whence it has been inferred that such was his final design. In reality it proves nothing. Leonardo knew that he must cast the statue himself, and the problem confronted him in the beginning.

jThe statue was finished in plaster in 1493, and was exhibited under a triumphal arch on the occasion of the marriage of Lodovico's niece Bianca Maria Sforza to the Emperor Maximilian? But by that time the ducal finances were so depleted that there was no money to pay for its casting, and when, six years later, Lodovico was driven from his throne, the disintegration of the model began. The Gascon archers of the conqueror used it as a target for their cross-bows, and then it seems to have been left exposed to the weather till it perished. We hear of it in 1501, when Ercole d'Este tried to secure it for the adornment of Ferrara ; but after that it is mentioned no more.

Later on, when Leonardo had returned to Florence, the bitter and churlish Michelangelo publicly taunted him with the failure to complete his statue. But the reproach was unjust. Leonardo consumed no more time in the making of the statue than St. Gaudens spent on the Sherman monu-

70480 ment, and it was far larger and more original. Then, too, he did all that a sculptor should be required to do, all that any modern sculptor does. The casting of the statue in bronze is not an artist's work, but the labor of a founder. Even this Leonardo might have done had not the low state of the ducal finances precluded the expense. He had made his arrangements to cast it in five parts; but neither the metal nor the money to pay his assistants was forthcoming. The destruction of Leonardo's model is an irreparable loss to art. The surpassing excellence of the drawings that he made for it justify the belief that it was the noblest equestrian monument ever produced, and thatUiad it come down to us, Leonardo would have been ranked not merely as the painter of the greatest of all pictures, but as the maker of the world's most noble statue?! ^\rhe^La;§i,.STtffer is generally conceded to be the greatest picture ever painted. It is the first picture of modern times that possessed true grandeur of style, and it still remains unapproachable?^ It is the world's supreme masterpiece in composition. Christ and his disciples sit in a plainly furnished room at a long table, behind which there are three windows looking out upon an extended prospect softly lighted. In front of the central window is the figure of our Saviour, bathed in a gentle radiance that serves him as a halo. He has just spoken the words, " One of you shall betray me," and the effect of the appalling announcement is seen in the r faces of all the disciples and in all their gestures.

With un- 1 paralleled skill they are thrown into groups of three so ' \ naturally that it seems as if any other arrangement would ^U)e impossible. Their agitation is great and manifest; but \ behind it all there is an immense reserve force. Christ is left alone in the center, yet every movement, every emotion is centered in him. In the nobility of the faces of all save Judas, in his aspect of cruel and impenitent resolve, art has spoken its loftiest word. In the old pictures Judas had been isolated on the other side of the table, with his back to the spectator, an improbable and inartistic arrangement. Leonardo puts him amongst the most favored disciples, between St. Peter and St. John; but he accomplishes the same result of separating him from the others by causing him to lean forward upon the table, facing his Master with implacable gaze as he clutches the money-bag and overturns the salt-cellar. Long did Leonardo work upon it ; and at last, when in 1479, he desisted, he left the face of Christ unfinished, despairing of making for the Master a countenance grander than those of some of his disciples. At least, so says Vasari ; though in the present state of the work we cannot discern that this head is less finished than the others* Most wonderful is the rhythmic grace of the composition. Three of the figures are standing, but they lean forward so gracefully that their heads scarcely rise above those of their seated companions, and they only accentuate the harmony of the lines.

This is one of the rare works that speak the final word upon their subject. When the Last Supper is spok^ of, this picture inevitably arises before the mind's eye. (h. has made all previous presentations of the theme crude and primitive, all subsequent ones comparatively weak and in- ^effectivlT)

^ Leonardo spent ten years upon the picture, and the good ^ -^ijpnks were sorely vexed by the delay. Once he had to silence the worthy prior, who had complained to the Duke, by a threat to use him for a model of the Judas. He made Lodovico understand that an artist is often best employed •Vwhen using his mind, not his hand. But when the work was A finished the monks were more than content, and it was universally recognized as the world's masterpiece. / In this, as in all his other works, Leonardo avoided the I introduction of portraits into religious pictures, creating types \ instead of limning the features of his contemporaries, as did other artists of the time. So, too, instead of the costume of the day, which usually appears in the works of his fellow artists, he gives us simple draperies that are appropriate to every age, and which hang in folds of a consummate grace and dignity not unworthy of Phidias himself.

His method of working is thus described by Bandello: '' He was wont," records this writer, " as I myself have often seen, to mount the scaffolding early in the morning, and work until the approach of night, and in the interest of painting he forgot both meat and drink. Then came two, three or even four days when he did not stir a hand, but spent an hour or two in contemplating his work, examining and criticizing his figures. I have seen him, too, at noon, when the sun stood in the sign of Leo, leave the Corte Vecchia (in the center of the town) where he was engaged on his equestrian statue, and go straight to Santa Maria delle Grazie, mount the scaffolding, seize a brush, add two or three touches to a single figure, and return forthwith."

Unhappily, Leonardo made a fatal mistake in the medium that he employed. Fresco was not suited to the delicate effects that he sought, and the necessity of painting in haste before the plaster dried was incompatible with his deliberate methods of work. So he painted in tempera upon the wall. It used to be universally believed that it was in oil ; but the recent investigations of the Cavaliere Cavenaghi, who has restored the picture with such skill, prove that tempera was the medium employed. Had he painted on wood or canvas and then placed it in position, like the Venetians and the mural decorators of to-day, his masterpiece would no doubt still be untouched by time; but the dampness of the wall caused the paint to fade and scale, so that even in Vasari's days it was already a wreck. Since then it has been repainted at least twice; in 1652 the legs of Christ were cut away to make a door, and during the French Revolution the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, on whose end wall it was painted, was used as a stable, and the French soldiers amused themselves by throwing stones at the heads of Christ and his disciples ; so that the present condition of Jhis work is deplorable. Still, ^aded and scarred as it isrit yet possesses a dignity, a lofty and harmonious beauty, an organic perfection surpassing any other work of mortal brush. Even in its ruined state there is in it a greatness and a charm which are not found in any of the innumerable copies jhat were made when the picture was still unspoiledj

In 1491, at the age of forty, Lodovico married the youth- Beatrice d'Este. Intelligent and ambitious, she infused into her husband's policy a boldness that it had lacked. If, as is generally believed, Gian Galeazzo, the rightful Duke, was poisoned by his orders, it was most likely at the suggestion of Beatrice, who probably had not those scruples against bloodshed that so distinguished her husband among the rulers of his age. Young and brilliant, fond of dress and of pomp and pageantry, Beatrice became the center of the life of the court. She compelled Lodovico reluctantly and after many struggles to put away Cecilia Gallerani and to marry her to one of his nobles. Leonardo painted Beatrice's portrait with that of her husband on the wall opposite the Last Supper; but scant traces of them remain. Beatrice died in 1497 while her husband was still at the height of his power, and was spared the misery of his ignominious fall.

Lodovico loved his fair young bride, but he could not remain long constant ; and after a few months or years he took as his favorite Lucrezia Crivelli, of whom we know little save that she found favor in his eyes. The picture in the Louvre called La Belle Feronniere is supposed to be Leonardo's portrait of her ; but fine as it is, it lacks the master's suavity, and there is much cause to doubt whether it is by his hand, and no especial reason to believe that it represents the fair Lucrezia.

But in the Ambrogian Library there is a portrait of a young girl of an exquisite purity and a ravishing charm which the wisest believe to be Leonardo's work. Morelli, who had a singular predilection for Ambrogio de Predis, assigns this lovely gem to him, and his lead has been followed by many authorities ; but it se^ms more reasonable to give this exquisite production to the one man who unquestionably could have painted it. While at Milan he probably painted also the Madonna Litta now in St. Petersburg, a picture whose authenticity is questioned, but whose beauty and suavity make it worthy of thejjiaster.

While Beatrice was duchess, ^e pageants in which the monarchs and people of the Renaissance delighted were more numerous than before, and much of the time of Leonardo and Bramante was spent in organizing these ephemeral display^^ The brilliancy of the court was increased from time to time by visits fmm Beatrice's sister, Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua, the most brilliant woman in an era ofwbrilliant women.

"tSt was an age of pageants. At a time when the clothing WcTfn was so bright and many hued that a gathering of the people in holiday attire was a pageant in itself, it was inevitable that men should love such display. Every festival, every great event, was celebrated by parades in which figured floats of fanciful designs and banners often painted by the greatest artists. For the arrangement of these festivities the talents of Leonardo and Bramante were in frequent requisition. |^e may believe that Leonardo's plans were the more interesting and original, Bramante's the more stately?] It seems a pity that such lofty talents should have been expended on works that lasted only for a day.

It is fairly certain that the Sala delle Asse in the Castello was adorned by Leonardo. Its decorations have but recently been uncovered and restored. The walls are painted to represent a forest, the overarching branches covering the ceiling so that one seems to be in the midst of a verdant grove. Other pictures he painted, too, while at Milan, of which Vasari and Lomazzo speak, but which have disappeared. Meantime he was also making great numbers of wonderful drawings that were not intended to form part off any picture. iNo artist ever sought to penetrate the '^e^et of personaTfty with such persistence. It was the '' human countenance that most concerned him. If he met a person whose face struck him as unusual, whether for ] beauty or ugliness or strangeness of expression, he would \ follow him for hours, striving to extract the secret of his \individuality. He was a hunter of the soul, pursuing it in its most recondite hiding places, and trying to drag it to the light. He loved beauty, particularly when there was in it something of strangeness ; but deformity had for him almost as great a fascinationT^ All sorts of hideous beings fill his sketch books. Provided only that they were not commonplace, that they possessed some quality of grace or deformity that distinguished them from the vulgar herd, he deemed them worthy of his pencil. Every period of humanity, every aspect of the soul, is revealed to us in these wonderful drawings, the most exquisite that the hand of man ever made, the most subtle in their searching of the human heart. If nothing had survived of Leonardo's save his drawings, we should be compelled to recognize in him one of the master spirits of all times. / (jp__all_ilial_Leonardo did he was an innovator. He was / never cqntenjt,Jx>--ionow_the^ beaten track. Each picture t- was to him a problem to be solved as well as a thing of a beauty to^xeate ; and he solved more artistic problems than \ any other man that ever lived^ so many that he made the \way of the modern artist easy./