In this hope, I must record my debt of gratitude to Linda Murray and to the late Peter Murray for unfailing encouragement and constant, scholarly help. I must also acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Dr E. V. Rieu for advice and guidance, to Michael Quinlan (who helped me with the Lives where they strayed into Latin), and to my wife, for her patience.
London
G.B.
THE LIVES OF THE MOST EMINENT PAINTERS’ SCULPTORS’ AND ARCHITECTS’
WRITTEN BY
GIORGIO VASARI’
PAINTER AND ARCHITECT OF AREZZO
PREFACE TO THE LIVES
I AM fully aware that all who have written on the subject firmly and unanimously assert that the arts of sculpture and painting were first derived from nature by the people of Egypt. I also realize that there are some who attribute the first rough pieces in marble and the first reliefs to the Chaldeans, just as they give the Greeks credit for discovering the brush and the use of colours. Design, however, is the foundation of both these arts, or rather the animating principle of all creative processes: and surely design existed in absolute perfection before the Creation when Almighty God, having made the vast expanse of the universe and adorned the heavens with His shining lights, directed His creative intellect further, to the clear air and the solid earth. And then, in the act of creating man, He fashioned the first forms of painting and sculpture in the sublime grace of created things. It is undeniable that from man, as from a perfect model, statues and pieces of sculpture and the challenges of pose and contour were first derived; and for the first paintings, whatever they may have been, the ideas of softness and of unity and the clashing harmony made by light and shadow were derived from the same source.
Now the material in which God worked to fashion the first man was a lump of clay. And this was not without reason; for the Divine Architect of time and of nature, being wholly perfect, wanted to show how to create by a process of removing from and adding to material that was imperfect in the same way that good sculptors and painters do when, by adding and taking away, they bring their rough models and sketches to the final perfection for which they are striving. He gave His model vivid colouring; and later on the same colours, derived from quarries in the earth, were to be used to create all the things that are depicted in paintings.
It is true that we do not know for certain what men did before the Flood to emulate this beautiful model in painting and sculpture. However, it is more than probable that they too executed paintings and sculptures in every kind of style. For later, about two hundred years after the Flood, Belos, son of the proud Nimrod, was responsible for the statue that was subsequently used for idolatry; and again, his famous daughter-in-law, Semiramis, queen of Babylon, when that city was built included in its adornments not only various kinds of animals, drawn and coloured from life, but also effigies of herself and her husband, Ninus, besides bronze statues of her father- and mother-in-law and the latter’s mother. We are told this by Diodorus, who anachronistically calls them Jove, Juno, and Ops.1 It may have been from these statues that the Chaldeans learned how to fashion the images of their own gods; because we are clearly told in Genesis how a hundred and fifty years later Rachel stole the idols of her father Laban, when she fled from Mesopotamia with Jacob her husband.
It was not only the Chaldeans who produced sculptures and paintings. The Egyptians were also very proficient in those arts, as was proved by the marvellous sepulchre of their ancient king, Ozimandias, which is fully described by Diodorus. And there is another proof in the stern commandment which Moses issued during the flight from Egypt, which forbade the Jews under pain of death to make any images whatsoever of God. When he came down from the mountain, Moses found that his people had made the Golden Calf and were solemnly adoring it; incensed at seeing divine worship offered to the image of a beast, he not only smashed it and crushed it to powder but also, to punish that sin, he ordered the Levites to kill many thousands of the wicked sons of Israel for taking part in the idolatry. But it was the worship given to statues, not the making of them, which was wickedly sinful; and we read in Exodus that the art of design and of sculpture, in all kinds of metal as well as marble, was taught by God to Besaleel, of the tribe of Judah, and to Ooliab, of the tribe of Dan. They made the two golden cherubim, the candlesticks, and the veil, and the hems of the sacerdotal vestments, and all the beautiful casts for the Tabernacle. Their only motive was to persuade the people to contemplate and adore them.
It was from the works seen before the Flood that men, in their pride, discovered the way to make statues of those whose fame they wanted to perpetuate. The Greeks assigned a different origin to sculpture, arguing, as Diodorus says, that the first statues were made by the Ethiopians, and that the Egyptians learned from the Ethiopians and the Greeks from the Egyptians. Sculpture and painting were perfected by Homer’s time, as is proved by the inspired poet himself, who presents the shield of Achilles with such art that we seem to see it carved and painted before our eyes rather than merely described.1 Lactantius Firmianus, in a fable, attributes their discovery to Prometheus, who like God formed the human image from clay; and he affirms that the art of sculpture can be traced back to him.2 According to Pliny, painting was brought to Egypt by Gyges of Lydia; for he says that Gyges once saw his own shadow cast by the light of a fire and instantly drew his own outline on the wall with a piece of charcoal. (Pliny adds that for some time afterwards men used to compose their works using only lines and without colour.) This method was later rediscovered, though more laboriously, by Philocles the Egyptian, and also by Cleanthes and Aridices of Corinth, and by Telephanes of Sicyon.
Cleophantes of Corinth was the first of the Greeks to introduce colours and Apollodorus was the first to make use of the brush. They were followed by Polygnotus of Thasos, Zeuxis, and Timagoras of Chalcis, with Pythias and Aglaophon, all of whom were famous artists. And after them came the celebrated Apelles, who was greatly honoured and cherished for his genius by Alexander the Great and who, as we see in Lucian, brilliantly investigated the nature of slander and false favour.1 With hardly an exception the painters and architects of that time were capable of faultless work, possessing not only a talent for poetry, like Pacuvius, but also knowledge of philosophy. Metrodorus, for example, was as accomplished a philosopher as he was a painter; he was sent by the Athenians to Paulus Aemilius to arrange the adornments for his Triumph, and he stayed on to teach his sons philosophy.
So the art of sculpture flourished in Greece and was practised by many splendid artists, notably Phidias of Athens, with Praxiteles and Polycletus, as well as Lysippus and Pyrgoteles, who did excellent work in intaglio, and Pygmalion, who produced relief sculpture in ivory.2 It was Pygmalion of whom the story goes that, in answer to his prayers, the girl he had carved in stone was brought to life.
The ancient Greeks and Romans also honoured and rewarded painters: those who created great works were given the freedom of cities and other impressive dignities. The art of painting so flourished in Rome that Fabius, by signing the delightful pictures he did in the temple of Salus as Fabius Pictor, acquired this as his family name.3
In Roman cities slaves were officially debarred from working as painters; and as the people never failed to pay the highest honour to painting and to painters, notable works of art were sent as magnificent trophies to be exhibited among the other spoils in the Triumphs held in Rome. Freedmen became famous artists and received honourable rewards from the republic. The Romans so revered the arts that when Marcellus was despoiling the city of Syracuse he ordered that an illustrious artist who lived there should be treated with the greatest respect. And when he determined to lay waste the city he was careful not to set fire to the quarter where there was a very beautiful painting. This picture was subsequently brought very ceremoniously to Rome, for the Triumph. And in the course of time, after Rome had despoiled almost the whole world, along with their marvellous works the artists themselves came to the city. In this way it became a place of remarkable beauty,
for it was lavishly adorned with statues brought from abroad, where there were far more works of art than in Rome itself. For example, in Rhodes, an island city of no great size, there were more than thirty thousand statues, in bronze and marble. The Athenians possessed just as many; there were still more in Olympus and Delphi; and in Corinth the statues were without number, and all extremely beautiful and valuable. Is there not the story of how Nicomedes, king of Lycia, yearned for a statue by Praxiteles, and exhausted almost all the resources of his people in acquiring it? And did not Attalus behave in the same way, being prepared to spend over six thousand sesterces for a painting of Bacchus by Aristides? (It was this painting which Lucius Mummius ceremoniously placed in the temple of Ceres for the embellishment of Rome.)
Although this proves the high value that was placed on the arts of painting and sculpture, it still throws no clear light on their origins. As we have already discussed, they were practised in very ancient times by the Chaldeans; some attribute their discovery to the Egyptians; and the Greeks claim it for themselves. And, according to the testimony of our own Leon Battista Alberti, there are reasons for thinking that the arts flourished at even remoter periods among the Etruscans. Solid evidence for this is provided by the marvellous tomb of Porsena at Chiusi, where not so long ago, buried between the walls of the Labyrinth, were discovered some terracotta tiles in half-relief of such fine workmanship and style that it can easily be seen that they are not the products of an immature art. On the contrary, they are so perfect that they prove the existence of an art that was approaching its zenith. The same conclusion can be reached from evidence found every day in the shape of numerous pieces of those red-and-black Aretine vases which, judging from their style, were made about the same time; they are decorated with very delicate carvings and little figures and histories, in low relief, and with many small round masks, cleverly made by the artists of that time who must have had considerable skill and ability.
From the statues found at Viterbo at the beginning of the pontificate of Alexander VI it is also clear that sculpture was valued and brought to a high degree of perfection in Tuscany. It is impossible to be precise about dates, but from the style of the figures and from the way the tombs and buildings are constructed, as well as from inscriptions in those Tuscan letters, it may be conjectured that they are very old and that they were made at a time of greatness and prosperity. But what more convincing evidence of this can there be than the bronze figure representing Bellerophon’s Chimaera which was discovered in our own times, in 1554, when ditches and walls were being built for the fortification of Arezzo? This figure proves that the art of sculpture had reached perfection among the Tuscans in very early times. It is Etruscan in style, and, moreover, there are some letters cut in one of the paws which, it is conjectured (since today no one can understand the Etruscan language), give the name of the artist and possibly the date according to the usage of those times. Because of its beauty and antiquity, this work has today been placed by the Lord Duke Cosimo in the hall of the new rooms at his palace, where I recently painted scenes from the life of Pope Leo X.1 As well as this, in the very same place and the very same style were discovered a number of little bronze figures. These, too, are now in the possession of the duke.
The works made by the Greeks, the Ethiopians, and the Chaldeans are all of equally uncertain antiquity, just as much as, or more than, ours are, and so all our judgements contain a large element of uncertainty. However, our conjectures are not so fanciful as to be completely wide of the mark, and I do not think that I myself have strayed from the truth. I am sure that anyone who considers the question carefully will come to the same conclusions as I have reached above: namely, that the origin of the arts we are discussing was nature itself, and that the first image or model was the beautiful fabric of the world, and that the master who taught us was that divine light infused in us by special grace, which has made us not only superior to the animal creation but even, if one may say so, like God Himself. Now, in our own time (as I hope to show a little farther on by a number of examples) simple children, brought up roughly in primitive surroundings, have started to draw instinctively, using as their only models the trees around them, the lovely paintings and sculptures of nature, and guided only by their own lively intelligence. But the first men were more perfect and endowed with more intelligence, seeing that they lived nearer the time of the Creation; and they had nature for their guide, the purest intellects for their teachers, and the world as their beautiful model. So is there not every reason for believing that they originated these noble arts and that from modest beginnings, improving them little by little, they finally perfected them?
It goes without saying that the arts must have been discovered by some one person; and I realize that someone made a beginning at some time. And of course it is possible for one man to have helped another, and to have taught and opened the way to design, colour, and relief; for I know that our art consists first and foremost in the imitation of nature but then, since it cannot reach such heights unaided, in the imitation of the most accomplished artists. Still, I think it is very dangerous to insist that the origin of the arts can be traced to this or that person, and in any case this is hardly something we need to worry about. We have, after all, already seen what is the true origin and basis of art. An artist lives and acquires fame through his works; but with the passing of time, which consumes everything, these works – the first, then the second, then the third – fade away. When there were no writers there was no way of leaving for posterity any record of works of art, and so the artists themselves also sank into obscurity. Then, when writers started to commemorate what had been done before their time, they could only take note of artists of whom some knowledge had come down to them; and so the first artists of whom any record was made are those whose memory was the most recent. For example, by general agreement the first of the poets was said to have been Homer. This is not because there were no poets before his time. There were none as excellent as Homer, but there were certainly some, as we can see from Homer’s own writings. It was because all knowledge of these forerunners, whoever they were, had been lost some two thousand years before. However, this matter takes us too far back into antiquity to be discussed with certainty. Let us come to matters which are less obscure: to the attainment of perfection in the arts, their ruin, their restoration or, to put it better still, their rebirth. Here we can put things on a far more solid basis.
Let us accept that the arts started to be practised at a late period in Roman history, if, as is reported, the first figures were the images of Ceres made of metal taken from the belongings of Spurius Cassius who, because he plotted to make himself king, was killed without any compunction by his own father. I am sure that although the arts of sculpture and painting continued to be practised until the death of the last of the twelve Caesars, their earlier perfection and excellence were not sustained. We can see from the buildings constructed by the Romans that, as emperor succeeded emperor, the arts continually declined until gradually they lost all perfection of design.
There is clear evidence for this in the works of sculpture and architecture produced in Rome at the time of Constantine, and notably in the triumphal arch which the Roman people built for him at the Colosseum. This shows how, for lack of good instructors, they made use not only of marble histories made at the time of Trajan but also of spoils which had been brought from various parts of the world. One can see that the ex voto in the medallions, namely, the sculptures in half-relief, and likewise the captives and the great histories and the columns and cornices and other ornaments (which were all either earlier works or else spoils) are beautifully fashioned. On the other hand, one can see that the works made to fill in the gaps, for which contemporary sculptors were solely responsible, are a complete botch, as also are some little histories under the medallions composed of small marble figures, and the pediment, where there are one or two victories. Between the side arches there are some river-gods which are also very crud
e; indeed, they are so badly made that it is obvious that the art of sculpture had started to decline before that time. Nevertheless, this was before the coming of the Goths and the other barbarian invaders who destroyed the fine arts of Italy, along with Italy itself. In fact, architecture was not in such a sorry state as the other arts of design. For example, the Baptistry built by Constantine at the entrance to the principal portico of the Lateran (even disregarding the porphyry and marble columns, and double bases, which are beautifully executed and were brought from elsewhere) is as a whole an excellently thought out composition. On the other hand, there is no comparison between the stucco, the mosaic, and some incrustations on the walls, which were all the work of contemporary artists, and the ornaments, which were mostly taken from heathen temples and used by Constantine for the Baptistry. It is said that Constantine proceeded in the same way when he built the temple in the garden of Aequitius, which he later endowed and handed over to the Christian priests. There is further evidence for what I am saying in the magnificent church of San Giovanni in Laterano, which was also built by Constantine. For the sculptures in this church are clearly decadent: the silver statues of the Saviour and the Twelve Apostles, which were made for Constantine, were very inferior works, crudely executed and poorly designed. As well as this, anyone who studies with care the medals and effigies of Constantine and other statues made by sculptors of that period, which are now in the Capitol, can see clearly that they are a long way from the perfection of the medals and statues of the other emperors. All this demonstrates that, a long time before the invasion of Italy by the Goths, the decline of sculpture was well under way.
Architecture, as we said, even if not as perfect as it had been, at least maintained higher standards than sculpture. Not that this is anything to wonder at, because the architects constructed their big buildings almost entirely from spoils and it was a simple matter for them to imitate old edifices which were still standing, when they were building afresh. It was far easier for them to do this than for sculptors who were unskilled to imitate the good statues of the ancient world. The truth of this is demonstrated by the church of the Prince of the Apostles on the Vatican hill, which owed its beauty to columns, bases, capitals, architraves, cornices, doors, and other adornments and incrustations all brought from various parts and taken from magnificent buildings which had been constructed in former times. The same can be said of the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, which Constantine built at the entreaty of his mother, Helen; of San Lorenzo Fuori Le Mura; and of Sant’Agnese, also built by Constantine, at the request of his daughter, Constance. And it is well known that the font at which Constance and one of her sisters were baptized was ornamented with sculptures made a long time before, notably the porphyry pillar carved with beautiful figures, some marble candelabra exquisitely carved with foliage, and some putti in low relief, which are wonderfully beautiful.
Lives of the Artists Page 3
