even in an early essay, entitled Beiträge zur Geschichte der neueren bildenden Kunst.1 Here Meyer gives a short survey of the growth of Italian painting, speaks of the importance of Giotto, then touches upon Donatello, Ghiberti, Masaccio, and Brunelleschi the most interesting representatives of what to him is merely an epoch of transition. He next adds a very short statement of the main facts of the history of Venetian paintingGiovanni Bellini is to him the first important figure; and lastly adds a few words on the "Roman" and "Lombard" schools. To the latter, we are informed, the Carracci and their disciples gave immortal luster. All these statements reflect, with slight modifications, the views of Meyer's contemporaries. He closes his essay, however, with a more detailed discussion of three artistsinsignificant or even contemptible to the public of Cochin and Mengs: Bellini, Perugino, and Mantegna. With these, he evi dently feels, his readers should be better acquainted. Bellini is no great genius, hingegen ist er gemässigt, stille, immer nüchtern, ein unbestechlicher Freund der Natur und der Wahrheit. . . . Einfalt und Innigkeit schmücken alle seine Bilder, und darum sind auch selbst die aus den frühern Jahren gefällig, ungeachtet sie noch in der alten trocknen Manier gearbeitet sind. He subjoins a description of several of Bellini's works, among them the one in the sacristy of the Frari church and the one in S. Zaccaria, both in Venice. In the latter we find "grösseren und edleren Geschmack," in spite of occasional traces of the old style. Bellini's art reached its climax, however, in the "Christ at Emmaus."2 Though Perugino, Meyer continues, remained more faithful to the old style, he deserves appreciation for re-introducing into painting some of that beauty and grace which had so long been absent from it. Raphael himself owed much of his greatness to Perugino. Again Meyer adds a description of several paintings. In Mantegna's style Meyer praises "ausserste Bestimmtheit." His earliest works are "hart, aber in einem hohen Grade geistreich" (a characteristic adjective for the critic of a 1 Cf. Schiller's Horen for 1795, neuntes Stück. 2 In S. Salvatore in Venice. It is doubtful to modern criticism whether this painting is by Bellini. time which knew Kunstverstand, but was but little acquainted with Kunstgefühl). Nevertheless, Mantegna never rose completely above the "Dürftigkeit und enge Beschränkung" of the older period and into untrammeled imitation of beauty. To prove his point, Meyer adds descriptions of some of Mantegna's characteristic productions. To one familiar with modern views a few dry chapters on early masters must seem unsatisfactory indeed. Yet Meyer's essay is epoch-making in the history of art-criticism as probably the earliest systematic attempt on the part of a critic of the academic school to arouse interest in neglected artists. In 1800 Meyer complemented this essay by another, entitled "Mantua im Jahre 1795," in which he takes occasion to speak in terms of praise of various works of Mantegna. In the same year (1800) he had published a more pretentious treatise, entitled "Masaccio,' ," which aimed to explain the position of Masaccio in the history of painting, and in which he therefore sketches the work of leading men before and after the author of the Carmine frescoes. In Giotto's pictures ging eine neue Welt auf, sie gefallen wegen der Einfalt in der Darstellung, wegen der Naivität ihrer Motive, obschon das Vermögen nachzuahmen gering, der Ausdruck schwach ist, und wissenschaftliche Kenntnisse gänzlich fehlen. He adds, however: Ein überall durchscheinendes grosses Talent gewinnt unsere Zuneigung, und vergütet dasjenige reichlich was die strenge Kritik, gegen die Unvollkommenheit der Ausführung einzuwenden haben möchte. Other masters, like Memmi, Gaddi, Orcagna, could not, Meyer insists, in spite of their improvements, rise "bis zum Schönen oder auch nur bis zum Zierlichen der Form." To make clear Masaccio's superiority over his predecessors, Meyer gives an appreciative description of some of Masaccio's frescoes. As, however, the full value of that painter can be understood only by a knowledge of his influence on the coming generation, Meyer next turns to a discussion of Fra Filippo Lippi, Botticelli and Ghirlandajo. The two last-named-Meyer treats them together-aimed at the rep 1 Propyläen, Vol. III, zweites Stück. 2 Ibid erstes Stück. resentation of "das Natürliche." They were often "überschwenglich reich an Sachen," "doch macht die fromme Unschuld und naive Anspruchlosigkeit in ihrem Wesen, dass sie . . . . durch Einfalt gefallen." Ghirlandajo ist "äusserst wahrhaft." For Perugino Meyer claims "keiner hat mehr Gemüth und Innigkeit seinen Werken zu geben gewusst." All these artists learned from Masaccio. After him art improved technically, but lost "von Seiten des geistigen, bedeutenden Inhalts." He concludes with comments on Mantegna, Giovanni Bellini, Lionardo, and several masters of the High Renaissance. We miss in this treatise the names of Fra Angelico and Luca Signorelli, and therefore cannot claim for its author a mature grasp on the evolution of Italian painting. Its peculiar significance, however, lies in the degree of feeling shown for the charm of simplicity-an appreciation prophetic of the tenets of a new school of criticism, hostile in all respects to Cochin and Mengs. How Janus-faced Meyer was in his views, how original, and yet how dependent on the age of rationalism, shows most clearly in his Entwurf einer Kunstgeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts.' In it, by way of introduction, he sketches the history of art in the seventeenth century. Here the Bolognese are praised as warmly and as foolishly as ever they had been by former critics. Domenichino is "der edelste Sprössling der Carraccischen Schule," Guercino is conspicuous for "grosse Wirkung und naive Wahrheit" (!), and Guido for "die heitere Weise und wunderbare Meisterschaft seiner Behandlung." But even Meyer cannot abide Pietro da Cortona. In another place Meyer brands Giotto's works as "kunstlos;" nevertheless, he admits one finds in them "Gedanken, die ohne alle Schlacken sind, des grössten Künstlers der gebildeten Zeiten nicht unwerth.” He even once speaks of "Giottos und Gaddis Geist, Orcagnas Ernst und Tiefsinn, da Fiesoles Frömmigkeit, Ghirlandajos Wahrheit." Nowhere in Meyer's essays is found any concession to the principle, which at the time was being made popular by Wackenroder and Fr. Schlegel, accord 1 It appeared together with Goethe's Winckelmann und sein Jahrhundert (Tübingen, 1805). 2 In notes in MS dealing with "Geschichte der Kunst " (found in the Goethe-Schiller Archiv in Weimar), Meyer remarks on Fra Angelico: "Andacht, Innigkeit und reine kindliche Einfalt sprechen wunderbar anmuthig aus seinen Werken." ing to which only religious art can lay claim to true inspiration and poetic worth. The child of rationalism could never have conceived such a notion and later even turned against it with severity,' when it threatened to control all criticism. Yet even Meyer himself once, at least, lapsed into a mood which strongly flavors of the ideas of the Klosterbruder. In a contribution to the Propylden, entitled "Ueber Lehranstalten zu Gunsten der bildenden Künste," he says: Wie günstig der christlich-religiöse Antrieb auf die bildenden Künste gewirkt hat, erhellet ferner daraus, dass sobald derselbe anfing schwächer zu werden, sie auch ihr höchstes Ziel erreicht hatten. Von dieser Zeit an suchten sie zu gefallen, oder eigentlich zu blenden und erhielten sich nur noch durch den Hang zur Pracht und Verschwendung.2 This from the worshiper of Domenichino and Guercino! Surely, the generation was feeling the breath of a new Weltanschauung. And yet to what an extent dependence on the old standards prevailed far into the nineteenth century, and controlled persons very much more fierce and revolutionary of temperament than Meyer, is attested by certain essays by Stendhal. In his Histoire de la peinture en Italie (1817) he reflects a point of view akin, in spite of differences, to that of Meyer. For, like him, he continues the tradition of admiration for the Bolognese, but he exhibits genuine and often intelligent interest in the men of the early Renaissance. Thus, Cimabue's figures at times betray "une expression étonnante." Giotto even went beyond his master, as evidenced, for instance, by the frescoes in Assisi. Yet, on the whole, "ses tableaux ont l'air barbare." Masaccio appears to him "homme de génie, et qui a fait époque dans l'histoire de l'art." It is the virility of the man which appeals to this forerunner of Nietzsche. Like Lanzi, he calls Fra Angelico, because of his 1 In his essay Neu-deutsche religios-patriotische Kunst. Of all this more later. 2 Propyläen, 1799, zweites Stück. 3 Henri Beyle, known in literature as Stendhal (1783-1842), lived in Milan from 1814-1821, and later became French consul in Triest and in Cività Vecchia. He was passionately fond of Italy, and even preferred the Italians to his own countrymen. His chief importance lies less in his treatises on art than in his novels. For he is the forerunner of Balzac and Flaubert. I used for the Histoire de la peinture en Italie the "seule édition complète, entièrement revue et corrigée" (Paris, 1868); for the Mélanges d'art et de litérature, the edition Paris, 1867; for Rome, Naples et Florence, the edition Paris, 1865; for Promenades dans Rome, the "seule édition complète, augmentée de préfaces, et de fragments entièrement inédits" (Paris, 1873). sweetness, the "Guido Reni" of his time, but he is too "Giottoesque" to be the equal of Masaccio. Benozzo Gozzoli and Filippo Lippi appeal to him much more forcibly; nevertheless, the century which they represent is to Stendhal, as it was to Lanzi, merely a period of preparation. But he felt that toward its close there were symptoms of an advance, as proved by the character of some of the side-wall pictures of the Sistine Chapel. Thus Stendhal became a leader in the revival of interest in those works so unjustly overlooked by generations of critics and travelers. Like Cochin, and even like Ruskin in his youth, Stendhal has little enthusiasm for Botticelli. On the other hand, he finds kindred souls in Ghirlandajo and Luca Signorelli because of their realistic power. It must, therefore, be a subject of wonder that the marrowless skill of the Bolognese should appeal to him, as is apparent in his Rome, Naples and Florence (1817). Less strange is it that Cochin and his whole fabric of the bon goût should cease to be for Stendhal the last court of appeal, should even offer elements of amusement.' In Heinse, in Lanzi, in Meyer, and in Stendhal the rationalistic instinct successfully represses the romantic, and all do homage to the tradition which placed the Bolognese in the front rank of artists. The first to protest against such veneration was one of the most distinguished personalities in the art-life of England, Sir Joshua Reynolds. This great portrait-painter, we saw, was one of the path-finders in the appreciation of Michel Angelo's greatness. Strength appealed to him, and mincing sentimentality was foreign to him. Hence it happened that he became the first among critics to deal a severe blow to that school whose exaggerated sweetness had delighted the age of Samuel Richardson and of Gessner. In the fifteenth "discourse," delivered before the Royal Academy in London as early as 1790-in other words, before Lanzi and Meyer had put themselves on record-he declared: The Caracci, it is acknowledged, adopted the mechanical part with sufficient success. But the divine part which addresses itself to the imagination, as possessed by Michael Angelo and Tibaldi (!), was beyond 1 Cf. review, written in 1835, of Colomb's Journal d'un voyage en Italie en 1828, found in the volume entitled Mélanges d'art et de littérature. |