Great Masters in Painting: Perugino

s in his signature. Probably his birth took place in 1446 or 1447 at the little town of Castello della Pieve, now called Città della Pieve, as it was rai

28 a member of the family signed himself proudly as citizen of Perugia. It is probable that Vasari's story of the boy having been brought into Perugia at a tender age and put as shop drudge with a painter in that city is correct. Città della Pieve is not more than some twenty-five miles from Perugia, and although the town is near to Chiusi, yet Perugia

se masters." We enter upon a curious speculation when we begin to surmise the name of this master. Lanzi speaks of an artist known as Pietro of Perugia, but conjectures that Niccolò of Foligno (known also as Niccolò Liberatore, and incorrectly as Niccolò Alunno) may have been Perugino's first master. Mariotti attaches much more importance to the early teaching of Bonfigli. Fanelli, q

ino learned from Piero della Francesca and in the botegas of Floren

as a man of forceful spirit, earnest and powerful, and with a certain dry technique and rigid definition that is in full accord with the penetrating spirit that composed the pictures. Foligno is quite close to Perugia, and there is no difficulty in realising the presence of Niccolò at times in that city. His influence is marked in Perugino's early work, but it does not stand alone, and has associated with it charact

leasing result in composition and in effect. There is, however, little virile force, very slight depth of feeling, and, above all, an absence of the open space which is so characteristic of later Umbrian art, and which has such a wondrous effect in the pictures of the great Umbrian artists. Bonfigli's pictures are cro

st certainly have been a master from wh

the works of this artist, as away from the hill-top city t

noteworthy, a "Virgin and Child,

he placid Umbrian landscapes with which later on we shall become so familiar, and the tall slender youths and sweet women full of tender grace, that make their first appearance in Umbrian art. There is a grace and charm in the work of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, that is far removed both from the fierce truth of the

ors of Perugino to complete this power which Fiorenzo so slightly commenced and which Perugino so greatly improved. In another way can be seen the influence of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. The typical Umbrian landscapes which are so important a feature in Perugino's pictures first make their appearance in the works of this artist. The special treatment of the landscape will

, a sunlight which bathes all purely Umbrian art, but which does n

ncesca. Whether, as Morelli suggests, Perugino journeyed to Arezzo, where Piero was at work, and aided him in his work, or placed himself under his tuition, or whether Perugino met Piero at Borgo San Sepolcro or in Perugia, is immaterial. It will suf

perspective. He was, above all, a mathematician, well versed in arithm

exquisite alcoves, curves, and embrasures, in the perfectly accurate drawing of roofs and rooms, and in the grouping of his figures in such g

style. There is a wonderful gravity and solemnity about his figures, a preoccupied look in most of their faces, an

rder especially in the "Visit of the Queen of Sheba," the "Invention of the Cross," and the "Exaltation of the Cross," but individually the figures composing these groups are separate and distinct from one anothe

Francesca. He never considered whether the faces of his figures were specially suited to the group in which he used them. He is quite unmoved by any ideas that the spectator may have as to fitness in the picture, and he never reveals his own views as to the scene and its appropriate presentation. Rage, pity, scorn, amazement, jealousy, passion, or even t

in the Borgo San Sepolcro Gallery is to be seen in one of Perugino's pictures; and the long vistas of arches and careful geometric proportion and the absolutely accurate drawing of arches and columns are to be equally realised in Piero's picture in the Gallery at Perugia and in Perugino's altar-piece in the Villa Albani.

ccolò Liberatore, of Fiorenzo di Lorenzo, and, above all, of Piero della Franc

Perugino, notably the "Crucifixion," at La Calza, and the similar scene painted around a carved crucifix now at Perugia, the "Pietà" in the Accademia, and the "Love and Chas

Vasari speaks, took place in 1470, at which time Perugino would be about twenty-five years old.

this; Morelli gravely doubts it; Resta distinctly denies it; Berenson rejects

is work such as Perugino would naturally have appreciated, and which does appear many times in pictures by the Umbrian master. The position of the Christ on the ground, and that of the women who bend over Him, the silent meditative devotion of the two men and of the child who kneel on the right, the attitude, wings, drapery, and movement of the flying angels, and their very position with regard to the cross, all find answering echoes in Perugino's work

simo Rosselli, and Botticelli was so high a compliment that it would not be given to one who was merely a student in Verrocchio's botega. There is no question about the date of this invitat

paint certain frescoes in the Palazzo Publico in Perugia; but of these works not a trace remains, and there is no evidence to support the learned author's statement[D] Milanesi, moreover, further record

photo] [

EBASTIA

In direct truth the figure might well be the work of Niccolò Liberatore, and is conceived on the lines of his school. In nervous, tense muscular representation, and in the movement of the limbs, it is strikingly Signorellesque, and the realism of its wounds bespeaks the same

as definitely, as they appear in later days. The picture is but a fragment of what must have been an important fresco, but it is eloquent of better work to come, and shows promise of masterly execution that only three years afterwards was to be revealed at Rome in the Sistine Chapel. No o

rtainly would have met them. In Florence also, Resta tells us, he studied Masaccio's work, and we may be quite sure he used every

par d'etate

a Vinci e

ella P

e." He is mentioned in Florence in 1490 in one of the books relating to the Cathedr

for Sixtus IV. we see the result of all this Florence training, but we are also co

space composition," which he defines in this way: "Space composition differs from ordinary composition in the first place most obviously in that it is not an arrangement to be judged as extending

, as something merely negative such as we customarily have, but on the contrary as something very pos

which so distinguishes Perugino from his Sis

"space composition" when he states that it is an "intrinsically religious art" capable of "communicating the religious em

the Keys to St. Peter," all the power of th

open air enclosed only by the blue arch of Heaven, and therefore

notes the vast distance expressed in the picture. In the centre rises the wonderful temple. Bramantesque and stately, and beyond it, disappearing away into the horizo

great space that the picture embraces and the effect is that

ace of a country could not crowd it, and the air circulates in and

gure and each one hardly notices the other, yet there is a fine thread of common interest to be seen connecting the whol

o] [Sistine

OF THE KEYS

opinion that it is not possible to appreciate Perugino adequately,

when once the student has sojourned in the country the charm of its landscape is felt and understood. There is a va

derstanding of Perugino. Away and away in the rolling distance are those vast plains, not flat surfaces, but a luxuriant country-side, irregularly marked by the contours of hills and valleys, dotted with tiny fortified towns crowning each its own hill and looking down upon its neighbour. Great white winding roads meander hither and thither, single trees stand out in sharp tall silhouette a

this scenery, but no one save Perugino s

gious guilds, praying populace, seem once more to people the earth, and away in the eternal immeasurable sky can be seen the Assumption, the angels, the mandorla of cherub fa

e and Cavalcaselle were in error in attributing "Moses and Zipporah" and the "Baptism of Christ" to Perugino, and I accept his teaching in this matter quite readily. A careful study of the Sistine frescoes has convinced me that Morelli was right and Crowe and Cavalcaselle wrong. Even the two central figures in the

s Perugino never gives, and a total absence even in the landscape of that extensive vista of scenery, that breadth of treatment which is so important. Even the representation of the Eternal Father within the mandorla of cherubs and attended by angels is not placed high up in the illimitable aerial space, but almost touches a neighbouring hill, and serves but to overfill the picture and make its crowded composition a wearisome burden. Compare for a moment the predella at Rouen. The two central figures stand apart one from the other, and therefore stand out clearly and distinctly, while yet near enough for their mutual actions to be closely connected. They stand firmly and well balanced on their feet, the slight exaggera

. They depicted the "Assumption," into which he introduced the kneeling figure of the Pope, the "Nativity," and the "Finding of Moses," but all these works were swept away during the Pontificate of Pope Paul III. to make way for the tremendous work of Michel Angelo, "Th

t at that time Perugino was entitled to draw on the Apostolic camera at Perugia for 180 ducats, being the balance of mo

photo]

TISM OF

om the San Pietro (P