Preface to the Whole Work

It was the wont of the finest spirits in all their actions, through a burning desire for glory, to spare no labour, however grievous, in order to bring their works to that perfection which might render them impressive and marvellous to the whole world; nor could the humble fortunes of many prevent their energies from attaining to the highest rank, whether in order to live in honour or to leave in the ages to come eternal fame for all their rare excellence. And although, for zeal and desire so worthy of praise, they were, while living, highly rewarded by the liberality of Princes and by the splendid ambition of States, and even after death kept alive in the eyes of the world by the testimony of statues, tombs, medals, and other memorials of that kind; none the less, it is clearly seen that the ravening maw of time has not only diminished by a great amount their own works and the honourable testimonies of others, but has also blotted out and destroyed the names of all those who have been kept alive by any other means than by the right vivacious and pious pens of writers.

The finest spirits were driven by a burning desire for glory. In everything they did, they spared no effort, however difficult, to make their works perfect enough to impress and amaze the whole world. Many came from humble circumstances, but that did not prevent them from rising to the highest rank through their efforts. They sought to live in honor or leave future ages a lasting fame for all their extraordinary excellence. For such praiseworthy zeal and ambition, they were richly rewarded during their lives by the generosity of Princes and the splendid ambition of States. Even after death, statues, tombs, medals, and other memorials kept their memory alive in the eyes of the world. Yet time’s ravenous appetite has clearly diminished not only their own works but also the tributes paid to them by others. It has also erased and destroyed the names of all those whose memory was preserved by any means other than the truly lively and devoted pens of writers.

Pondering over this matter many a time in my own mind, and recognizing, from the example not only of the ancients but of the moderns as well, that the names of very many architects, sculptors, and painters, both old and modern, together with innumerable most beautiful works wrought by them, are going on being forgotten and destroyed little by little, and in such wise, in truth, that nothing can be foretold for them but a certain and wellnigh immediate death; and wishing to defend them as much as in me lies from this second death, and to preserve them as long as may be possible in the memory of the living; and having spent much time in seeking them out and used the greatest diligence in discovering the native city, the origin, and the actions of the craftsmen, and having with great labour drawn them from the tales of old men and from various records and writings, left by their heirs a prey to dust and food for worms; and finally, having received from this both profit and pleasure, I have judged it expedient, nay rather, my duty, to make for them whatsoever memorial my weak talents and my small judgment may be able to make. In honour, then, of those who are already dead, and for the benefit, for the most part, of all the followers of these three most excellent arts, Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting, I will write the Lives of the craftsmen of each according to the times wherein they lived, step by step from Cimabue down to our own time; not touching on the ancients save in so far as it may concern our subject, seeing that no more can be said of them than those so many writers have said who have come down to our own age. I will treat thoroughly of many things that appertain to the science of one or other of the said arts; but before I come to the secrets of these, or to the history of the craftsmen, it seems to me right to touch a little on a dispute, born and bred between many without reason, as to the sovereignty and nobility, not of architecture, which they have left on one side, but of sculpture and painting; there being advanced, on one side and on the other, many arguments whereof many, if not all, are worthy to be heard and discussed by their craftsmen.

I have often thought about this matter. The example of both ancient and modern times shows that the names of very many architects, sculptors, and painters, old and modern, are gradually being forgotten. Countless beautiful works they created are also being forgotten and destroyed. Indeed, nothing awaits their names and works but certain and almost immediate death. I wish to defend them from this second death as much as I can and preserve their memory among the living for as long as possible. I have spent much time searching for them, taking the greatest care to discover the artists’ birthplaces, origins, and deeds. With great effort, I have recovered these details from the stories of old men and from various records and writings, left by the artists’ heirs to gather dust and feed worms. This work has brought me both benefit and pleasure. So I have judged it fitting, indeed my duty, to make whatever memorial for them my weak talents and limited judgment allow. In honor of those who have died, and chiefly for the benefit of all followers of the three most excellent arts of Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting, I will write the Lives of the artists in each field. I will follow the order of their times, step by step, from Cimabue to our own day. I will discuss the ancients only as far as they concern my subject. No more can be said of them than has already been said by the many writers whose works have survived to our age. I will discuss in detail many matters concerning the principles of one or another of these arts. But before I turn to their secrets or to the history of the artists, I think it right to touch briefly on a dispute. Many people have engaged in it for no good reason. It concerns the supremacy and nobility of sculpture and painting, though the disputants have left architecture aside. Both sides have put forward many arguments. Many, if not all, of these deserve to be heard and discussed by artists in those fields.

I say, then, that the sculptors, as being endowed, perchance by nature and by the exercise of their art, with a better habit of body, with more blood, and with more energy, and being thereby more hardy and more fiery than the painters, in seeking to give the highest rank to their art, argue and prove the nobility of sculpture primarily from its antiquity, for the reason that God Almighty made man, who was the first statue; and they say that sculpture embraces many more arts as kindred, and has many more of them subordinate to itself than has painting, such as low-relief, working in clay, wax, plaster, wood, and ivory, casting in metals, every kind of chasing, engraving and carving in relief on fine stones and steel, and many others which both in number and in difficulty surpass those of painting. And alleging, further, that those things which stand longest and best against time and can be preserved longest for the use of men, for whose benefit and service they are made, are without doubt more useful and more worthy to be held in love and honour than are the others, they maintain that sculpture is by so much more noble than painting as it is more easy to preserve, both itself and the names of all who are honoured by it both in marble and in bronze, against all the ravages of time and air, than is painting, which, by its very nature, not to say by external accidents, perishes in the most sheltered and most secure places that architects have been able to provide. Nay more, they insist that the small number not merely of their excellent but even of their ordinary craftsmen, in contrast to the infinite number of the painters, proves their greater nobility; saying that sculpture calls for a certain better disposition, both of mind and of body, that are rarely found together, whereas painting contents itself with any feeble temperament, so long as it has a hand, if not bold, at least sure; and that this their contention is proved by the greater prices cited in particular by Pliny, by the loves caused by the marvellous beauty of certain statues, and by the judgment of him who made the statue of sculpture of gold and that of painting of silver, and placed the first on the right and the second on the left. Nor do they even refrain from quoting the difficulties experienced before the materials, such as the marbles and the metals, can be got into subjection, and their value, in contrast to the ease of obtaining the panels, the canvases, and the colours, for the smallest prices and in every place; and further, the extreme and grievous labour of handling the marbles and the bronzes, through their weight, and of working them, through the weight of the tools, in contrast to the lightness of the brushes, of the styles, and of the pens, chalk-holders, and charcoals; besides this, that they exhaust their minds together with all the parts of their bodies, which is something very serious compared with the quiet and light work of the painter, using only his mind and hand. Moreover, they lay very great stress on the fact that things are more noble and more perfect in proportion as they approach more nearly to the truth, and they say that sculpture imitates the true form and shows its works on every side and from every point of view, whereas painting, being laid on flat with most simple strokes of the brush and having but one light, shows but one aspect; and many of them do not scruple to say that sculpture is as much superior to painting as is truth to falsehood. But as their last and strongest argument, they allege that for the sculptor there is necessary a perfection of judgment not only ordinary, as for the painter, but absolute and immediate, in a manner that it may see within the marble the exact whole of that figure which they intend to carve from it, and may be able to make many parts perfect without any other model before it combines and unites them together, as Michelagnolo has done divinely well; although, for lack of this happiness of judgment, they make easily and often some of those blunders which have no remedy, and which, when made, bear witness for ever to the slips of the chisel or to the small judgment of the sculptor. This never happens to painters, for the reason that at every slip of the brush or error of judgment that might befall them they have time, recognizing it themselves or being told by others, to cover and patch it up with the very brush that made it; which brush, in their hands, has this advantage over the sculptor's chisels, that it not only heals, as did the iron of the spear of Achilles, but leaves its wounds without a scar.

I say, then, that sculptors seek to give their art the highest rank. Perhaps because of nature and the practice of their art, they have stronger bodies, more blood, and more energy than painters. This makes them hardier and fierier. They argue for the nobility of sculpture first by appealing to its antiquity. God Almighty made man, who was the first statue. They also say that sculpture embraces more related arts than painting does and has more arts under its authority. These include low relief, work in clay, wax, plaster, wood, and ivory, metal casting, all kinds of chasing, and engraving and carving in relief on fine stones and steel. There are many others, and they surpass the arts related to painting in both number and difficulty. The sculptors argue further that some things resist time longer and better and can be preserved longer for human use. Such things are made for human benefit and service. Without doubt, they are more useful and more worthy of love and honor than other things. The sculptors maintain that sculpture is nobler than painting to the extent that it is easier to preserve. Sculpture can better preserve itself and the names of all it honors, in marble and bronze, against the ravages of time and air. Painting, on the other hand, perishes by its very nature, even without considering external accidents. It perishes even in the most sheltered and secure places architects have been able to provide. The sculptors insist, too, that their greater nobility is proved by the small number of their craftsmen, compared with the countless painters. They mean not only excellent sculptors but even ordinary ones. They say that sculpture demands a better disposition of both mind and body, which are rarely found together. Painting, they claim, is content with any feeble temperament, as long as the hand is sure, if not bold. They also claim that their argument is proved by the higher prices mentioned in particular by Pliny. Other proofs are the love inspired by the marvelous beauty of certain statues and the judgment of the man who made a gold statue of sculpture and a silver one of painting. He placed sculpture on the right and painting on the left. They do not hesitate to point out how difficult it is to master materials such as marble and metal, and how valuable those materials are. By contrast, panels, canvases, and colors are cheap and easy to obtain everywhere. They also point to the extreme, painful labor of handling heavy marble and bronze and working them with heavy tools. Brushes, styluses, pens, chalk holders, and charcoal are light by comparison. Besides, sculptors exhaust their minds along with every part of their bodies. This is a very serious matter compared with the painter's quiet, light work, which uses only his mind and hand. The sculptors also place great weight on the idea that things become nobler and more perfect as they come closer to truth. They say that sculpture imitates true form and shows its works from every side and every point of view. Painting, by contrast, is laid flat with the simplest brushstrokes and has only one light, so it shows only one view. Many sculptors do not hesitate to say that sculpture is as superior to painting as truth is to falsehood. As their last and strongest argument, they say that a sculptor needs not merely the ordinary judgment required of a painter. A sculptor needs perfect and immediate judgment. He must be able to see inside the marble the exact whole of the figure he intends to carve. He must also be able to perfect many parts without another model, before joining and uniting them. Michelagnolo has done this divinely well. Without such fortunate judgment, however, sculptors easily and often make mistakes that cannot be corrected. Once made, these mistakes forever reveal slips of the chisel or the sculptor's poor judgment. This never happens to painters. Whenever a brush slips or their judgment fails, they have time to cover and patch up the mistake with the very brush that made it. They may recognize the mistake themselves or be told of it by others. In their hands, the brush has this advantage over the sculptor's chisels: like the iron tip of Achilles' spear, it heals, but it also leaves its wounds without a scar.

To these things the painters, answering not without disdain, say, in the first place, that if the sculptors wish to discuss the matter on the ground of the Scriptures the chief nobility is their own, and that the sculptors deceive themselves very grievously in claiming as their work the statue of our first father, which was made of earth; for the art of this performance, both in its putting on and in its taking off, belongs no less to the painters than to others, and was called "plastice" by the Greeks and "fictoria" by the Latins, and was judged by Praxiteles to be the mother of sculpture, of casting, and of chasing, a fact which makes sculpture, in truth, the niece of painting, seeing that "plastice" and painting are born at one and the same moment from design. And they say that if we consider it apart from the Scriptures, the opinions of the ages are so many and so varied that it is difficult to believe one more than the other; and that finally, considering this nobility as they wish it, in one place they lose and in the other they do not win, as may be seen more clearly in the Preface to the Lives.

The painters answer these arguments with some disdain. First, they say that if sculptors wish to appeal to Scripture, the greatest nobility belongs to painters. The sculptors are gravely mistaken to claim the statue of our first father, made of earth, as their own work. For the art of making it, both by adding and removing material, belongs as much to painters as to others. The Greeks called this art "plastice" and the Latins called it "fictoria". Praxiteles judged it the mother of sculpture, casting, and chasing. This makes sculpture, in truth, the niece of painting, since "plastice" and painting are born together from design. The painters say that, apart from Scripture, opinions over the ages are so numerous and varied that it is hard to favor one over another. Finally, even if nobility is considered as the sculptors wish, they lose on one ground and do not win on the other. This may be seen more clearly in the Preface to the Lives.

After this, in comparison with the arts related and subordinate to sculpture, they say that they have many more than the sculptors, because painting embraces the invention of history, the most difficult art of foreshortening, all the branches of architecture needful for the making of buildings, perspective, colouring in distemper, and the art of working in fresco, an art different and distinct from all the others; likewise working in oils on wood, on stone, and on canvas; illumination, too, an art different from all the others; the staining of glass, mosaics in glass, the art of inlaying and making pictures with coloured woods, which is painting; making sgraffito² work on houses with iron tools; niello³ work and printing from copper, both members of painting; goldsmith's enamelling, and the inlaying of gold for damascening; the painting of glazed figures, and the making on earthenware vessels of scenes and figures to resist the action of water; weaving brocades with figures and flowers, and that most beautiful invention, woven tapestries, that are both convenient and magnificent, being able to carry painting into every place, whether savage or civilized; not to mention that in every department of art that has to be practised, design, which is our design, is used by all; so that the members of painting are more numerous and more useful than those of sculpture. They do not deny the eternity, for so the others call it, of sculpture, but they say that this is no privilege that should make the art more noble than it is by nature, seeing that it comes simply from the material, and that if length of life were to give nobility to souls, the pine, among the plants, and the stag, among the animals, would have a soul more noble beyond compare than that of men; although they could claim a similar immortality and nobility in their mosaics, seeing that there may be seen some as ancient as the most ancient sculptures that are in Rome, and that they used to be made of jewels and fine stones. And as for their small or smaller number, they declare that this is not because the art calls for a better habit of body and greater judgment, but that it depends wholly on the poverty of their resources and on the little favour, or avarice, as we would rather call it, of rich men, who give them no supply of marble and no opportunity to work; in contrast with what may be believed, nay, seen to have happened in ancient times, when sculpture rose to its greatest height. Indeed, it is manifest that he who cannot use and waste a small quantity of marble and hard stone, which are very costly, cannot have that practice in the art that is essential; he who does not practise does not learn it; and he who does not learn it can do no good. Wherefore they should rather excuse with these arguments the imperfection and the small number of their masters, than seek to deduce nobility from them under false colours. As for the higher prices of sculptures, they answer that, although theirs might be much less, they have not to share them, being content with a boy who grinds their colours and hands them their brushes or their cheap stools, whereas the sculptors, besides the great cost of their material, require many aids and spend more time on one single figure than they themselves do on very many; wherefore their prices appear to come from the quality and the durability of the material itself, from the aids that it requires for its completion, and from the time that is taken in working it, rather than from the excellence of the art itself. And although that does not suffice and no greater price is found, as would be easily seen by anyone who were willing to consider it diligently, let them find a greater price than the marvellous, beautiful, and living gift that Alexander the Great made in return for the most splendid and excellent work of Apelles, bestowing on him, not vast treasures or high estate, but his own beloved and most beautiful Campaspe; let them observe, in addition, that Alexander was young, enamoured of her, and naturally subject to the passions of love, and also both a King and a Greek; and then, from this, let them draw what conclusion they please. As for the loves of Pygmalion and of those other rascals no more worthy to be men, cited as proof of the nobility of the art, they know not what to answer, if, from a very great blindness of intellect and from a licentiousness unbridled beyond all natural bounds, there can be made a proof of nobility. As for the man, whosoever he was, alleged by the sculptors to have made sculpture of gold and painting of silver, they are agreed that if he had given as much sign of judgment as of wealth, there would be no disputing it; and finally, they conclude that the ancient Golden Fleece, however celebrated it may be, none the less covered nothing but an unintelligent ram; wherefore neither the testimony of riches nor that of dishonest desires, but those of letters, of practice, of excellence, and of judgment are those to which we must pay attention. Nor do they make any answer to the difficulty of obtaining the marbles and the metals, save this, that it springs from their own poverty and from the little favour of the powerful, as has been said, and not from any degree of greater nobility. To the extreme fatigues of the body and to the dangers peculiar to them and to their works, laughing and without any ado they answer that if greater fatigues and dangers prove greater nobility, the art of quarrying the marbles from the bowels of mountains by means of wedges, levers, and hammers must be more noble than sculpture, that of the blacksmith must surpass the goldsmith's, and that of masonry must be superior to architecture.

The painters go on to compare the arts associated with and subordinate to sculpture with those associated with painting. They say painting has many more. It embraces the invention of historical scenes, the very difficult art of foreshortening, and all the branches of architecture needed to construct buildings. It also includes perspective, painting in distemper, and fresco, an art distinct from all the others. It includes painting in oils on wood, stone, and canvas, and illumination, another distinct art. There are also stained glass, glass mosaics, and pictures inlaid with colored woods, which are a form of painting. Other branches are sgraffito² work on houses with iron tools, niello³ work, and printing from copper plates. The last two are both branches of painting. There are goldsmiths’ enameling, gold inlay for damascening, and the painting of glazed figures. There is also the making of water resistant scenes and figures on earthenware vessels. Painters also count the weaving of brocades with figures and flowers, and the beautiful invention of woven tapestries. Tapestries are both convenient and magnificent, since they can carry painting anywhere, whether among savage or civilized people. What is more, everyone uses design, which belongs to painting, in every field of art they practice. Thus, the branches of painting are more numerous and more useful than those of sculpture. The painters do not deny the eternity of sculpture, as the sculptors call it. But they say that this is no special advantage that should make sculpture nobler than it is by nature. Sculpture’s lasting quality comes simply from its material. If a long life made souls noble, the pine among plants and the stag among animals would have souls incomparably nobler than those of men. Yet painters could claim a similar immortality and nobility for their mosaics. Some mosaics can be seen that are as old as the oldest sculptures in Rome, and mosaics used to be made of jewels and fine stones. As for the small or smaller number of sculptors, the painters say this is not because sculpture requires a better physical condition and greater judgment. It depends entirely on sculptors’ lack of resources and the scant favor shown them by rich men. We would rather call this avarice. The rich provide sculptors with neither marble nor opportunities to work. The opposite may be believed, indeed seen, to have happened in ancient times, when sculpture reached its greatest height. Clearly, anyone who cannot use and waste some marble and hard stone, which are very costly, cannot get the essential practice. Anyone who does not practice cannot learn the art, and anyone who does not learn it can do no good work. Sculptors should therefore use these arguments to excuse the imperfection and small number of their masters. Instead, they falsely claim that these shortcomings prove their art’s nobility. As for the higher prices paid for sculptures, painters answer that, although their own payments may be much smaller, they do not have to share them. They are content with a boy who grinds their colors and hands them their brushes or their inexpensive stools. Sculptors, on the other hand, face great material costs and need many assistants. They also spend more time on a single figure than painters spend on many. So the higher prices seem to come from the material’s quality and durability, the help needed to complete the work, and the time spent on it. They do not seem to come from the excellence of the art itself. Even if that answer is not enough, no greater price can be found. Anyone willing to consider the matter carefully would easily see this. Let the sculptors find a greater price than the marvelous, beautiful, living gift Alexander the Great gave Apelles in return for his most splendid and excellent work. Alexander gave him not vast treasures or a high position, but his own beloved and most beautiful Campaspe. Let them also consider that Alexander was young and in love with her, naturally subject to the passions of love, and both a King and a Greek. Then let them draw whatever conclusion they please. As for the loves of Pygmalion and those other scoundrels, who were no more worthy of being called men, the sculptors cite them as proof of their art’s nobility. The painters do not know what to say, if such great blindness of mind and such lust beyond all natural bounds can be made into proof of nobility. As for the man, whoever he was, whom the sculptors claim made sculpture of gold and painting of silver, the painters agree that there would be no disputing him if he had shown as much judgment as wealth. Finally, they point out that the ancient Golden Fleece, however celebrated, covered nothing but a mindless ram. So we should pay attention not to the testimony of wealth or shameful desires, but to that of learning, practice, excellence, and judgment. The painters have only one answer to the difficulty of obtaining marble and metals. As they have said, it comes from sculptors’ poverty and the scant favor of powerful people, not from any greater nobility. They laugh off the extreme physical labor and the dangers peculiar to sculptors and their works. If greater labor and danger prove greater nobility, they say, then quarrying marble from the depths of mountains with wedges, levers, and hammers must be nobler than sculpture. Blacksmithing must surpass goldsmithing, and masonry must be superior to architecture.

They say, next, that the true difficulties lie rather in the mind than in the body, wherefore those things that from their nature call for more study and knowledge are more noble and excellent than those that avail themselves rather of strength of body; and they declare that since the painters rely more on the worth of the mind than the others, this highest honour belongs to painting. For the sculptors the compasses and squares suffice to discover and apply all the proportions and measurements whereof they have need; for the painters there is necessary, besides the knowledge how to make good use of the aforesaid instruments, an accurate understanding of perspective, for the reason that they have to provide a thousand other things beyond landscapes and buildings, not to mention that they must have greater judgment by reason of the quantity of the figures in one scene, wherein more errors can come than in a single statue. For the sculptor it is enough to be acquainted with the true forms and features of solid and tangible bodies, subordinate on every side to the touch, and moreover of those only that have something to support them. For the painter it is necessary to know the forms not only of all the bodies supported and not supported, but also of all those transparent and intangible; and besides this they must know the colours that are suitable for the said bodies, whereof the multitude and the variety, so absolute and admitting of such infinite extension, are demonstrated better by the flowers, the fruits, and the minerals than by anything else; and this knowledge is supremely difficult to acquire and to maintain, by reason of their infinite variety. They say, moreover, that whereas sculpture, through the stubbornness and the imperfection of the material, does not represent the emotions of the soul save with motion, which does not, however, find much scope therein, and with the mere shape of the limbs and not even of all these; the painters demonstrate them with all the forms of motion, which are infinite, with the shape of the limbs, however subtle they may be, and even with breath itself and the spiritual essence of sight; and that, for greater perfection in demonstrating not only the passions and emotions of the soul but also the events of the future, as living men do, they must have, besides long practice in the art, a complete understanding of physiognomy, whereof that part suffices for the sculptor which deals with the quantity and the quality of the members, without troubling about the quality of colours, as to the knowledge of which anyone who judges by the eye knows how useful and necessary it is for the true imitation of nature, whereunto the closer a man approaches the more perfect he is.

They say next that the real difficulties lie in the mind rather than the body. Therefore, things that require more study and knowledge are nobler and more excellent than those relying chiefly on physical strength. They claim that painters rely more on the power of the mind than sculptors do. For that reason, they say, the highest honor belongs to painting. For sculptors, compasses and squares are enough to find and apply all the proportions and measurements they need. Painters must also know how to use these instruments well, but they need a precise understanding of perspective too. This is because they must depict a thousand other things besides landscapes and buildings. They also need greater judgment because of the number of figures in a single scene. More errors can arise in such a scene than in a single statue. A sculptor needs to know the true forms and features of solid, tangible bodies, which can be touched on every side. Even then, the sculptor needs to know only those bodies that have something to support them. A painter must know the forms of all bodies, both supported and unsupported, as well as all transparent and intangible ones. Painters must also know the colors suited to those bodies. Flowers, fruits, and minerals show better than anything else how numerous and varied these colors are. Their variety is so complete and capable of such infinite expansion that this knowledge is extremely difficult to acquire and retain. They say, moreover, that sculpture can represent the emotions of the soul only through movement and the mere shape of the limbs, and not even all of them. This is because the material is stubborn and imperfect, and movement has little scope in sculpture. Painters, however, show these emotions through all forms of movement, which are infinite. They also show them through the shape of the limbs, however subtle, and even through breath itself and the spiritual essence of sight. To show not only the passions and emotions of the soul but also future events more perfectly, as living people do, painters need long practice in their art and a complete understanding of physiognomy. Sculptors need only the part of physiognomy concerned with the size and character of the body’s parts. They do not need to concern themselves with the character of colors. Yet anyone who judges by sight knows how useful and necessary a knowledge of colors is for the true imitation of nature. The closer an artist comes to imitating nature, the more perfect the artist is.

After this they add that whereas sculpture, taking away bit by bit, at one and the same time gives depth to and acquires relief for those things that have solidity by their own nature, and makes use of touch and sight, the painters, in two distinct actions, give relief and depth to a flat surface with the help of one single sense; and this, when it has been done by a person intelligent in the art, has caused many great men, not to speak of animals, to stand fast in the most pleasing illusion, which has never been seen to be done by sculpture, for the reason that it does not imitate nature in a manner that may be called as perfect as their own. And finally, in answer to that complete and absolute perfection of judgment which is required for sculpture, by reason of its having no means to add where it takes away; declaring, first, that such mistakes are irreparable, as the others say, and not to be remedied save by patches, which, even as in garments they are signs of poverty of wardrobe, so too both in sculpture and in pictures are signs of poverty of intellect and judgment; and saying, further, that patience, at its own leisure, by means of models, protractors, squares, compasses, and a thousand other devices and instruments for enlarging, not only preserves them from mistakes but enables them to bring their whole work to its perfection; they conclude, then, that this difficulty which they put down as the greater is nothing or little when compared to those which the painters have when working in fresco, and that the said perfection of judgment is in no way more necessary for sculptors than for painters, it being sufficient for the former to execute good models in wax, clay, or something else, even as the latter make their drawings on corresponding materials or on cartoons; and that finally, the quality that little by little transfers their models to the marble is rather patience than aught else.

They add that sculpture removes material bit by bit, giving depth and relief at the same time to objects that are solid by nature. Sculpture also uses both touch and sight. Painters, by contrast, give relief and depth to a flat surface in two separate actions, using only one sense. When a skilled artist has done this, the result has held many great men, not to mention animals, spellbound in a most pleasing illusion. Sculpture has never been seen to do the same, because it does not imitate nature as perfectly as painting does. Finally, they answer the claim that sculpture requires completely flawless judgment because a sculptor cannot add material where it has been removed. First, they agree that such mistakes are irreparable, as their opponents say, and can only be fixed with patches. Just as patches on clothes show a lack of other garments, patches in sculptures and paintings show a lack of intelligence and judgment. They add that patience, working at its own pace, uses models, protractors, squares, compasses, and countless other devices and instruments for enlarging. These not only keep sculptors from making mistakes but also allow them to bring their whole work to perfection. They therefore conclude that this supposedly greater difficulty is little or nothing compared with the difficulties painters face when working in fresco. They also say that such perfect judgment is no more necessary for sculptors than for painters. Sculptors need only make good models in wax, clay, or some other material, just as painters make drawings on similar materials or on cartoons. Finally, they say that the quality needed to transfer a model to marble little by little is patience, more than anything else.

But let us consider about judgment, as the sculptors wish, and see whether it is not more necessary to one who works in fresco than to one who chisels in marble. For here not only is there no place for patience or for time, which are most mortal enemies to the union of the plaster and the colours, but the eye does not see the true colours until the plaster is well dry, nor can the hand judge of anything but of the soft or the dry, in a manner that anyone who were to call it working in the dark, or with spectacles of colours different from the truth, would not in my belief be very far wrong. Nay, I do not doubt at all that such a name is more suitable for it than for intaglio, for which wax serves as spectacles both true and good. They say, too, that for this work it is necessary to have a resolute judgment, to foresee the end in the fresh plaster and how the work will turn out on the dry; besides that the work cannot be abandoned so long as the plaster is still fresh, and that it is necessary to do resolutely in one day what sculpture does in a month. And if a man has not this judgment and this excellence, there are seen, on the completion of his work or in time, patches, blotches, corrections, and colours superimposed or retouched on the dry, which is something of the vilest, because afterwards mould appears and reveals the insufficiency and the small knowledge of the craftsmen, even as the pieces added in sculpture lead to ugliness; not to mention that when it comes about that the figures in fresco are washed, as is often done after some time to restore them, what has been worked on the fresh plaster remains, and what has been retouched on the dry is carried away by the wet sponge.

But let us consider judgment, as the sculptors wish. Let us see whether a fresco painter needs more judgment than someone who chisels marble. In fresco painting, there is no room for patience or delay. Both are deadly enemies of the bond between plaster and colors. The eye cannot see the true colors until the plaster is thoroughly dry. The hand can judge only whether the plaster is soft or dry. So anyone who called fresco painting working in the dark would not, I believe, be far wrong. Nor would someone who compared it to working through spectacles that distort the colors. Indeed, I have no doubt that such a description suits fresco painting better than intaglio. For intaglio, wax serves as a pair of good, accurate spectacles. They also say that fresco painting requires firm judgment. The painter must foresee how the work on fresh plaster will look when it is dry. The work cannot be left unfinished while the plaster is still fresh. The painter must do decisively in one day what a sculptor does in a month. If a painter lacks this judgment and skill, the work will show patches, blotches, and corrections, either when finished or later. It will also show colors applied or retouched on dry plaster. This is a very poor practice. Mold appears afterward and exposes the craftsmen's inadequacy and lack of knowledge. In the same way, pieces added to a sculpture make it ugly. And that is not all. Fresco figures are often washed after some time to restore them. When this happens, the paint applied to fresh plaster remains, but the wet sponge removes the retouching on dry plaster.

They add, moreover, that whereas the sculptors make two figures together, or at the most three, from one block of marble, they make many of them on one single panel, with all those so many and so varied aspects which the sculptors claim for one single statue, compensating with the variety of their postures, foreshortenings, and attitudes, for the fact that the work of the sculptors can be seen from every side; even as Giorgione da Castelfranco did once in one of his pictures, wherein a figure with its back turned, having a mirror on either side, and a pool of water at its feet, shows its back in the painting, its front in the pool, and its sides in the mirrors, which is something that sculpture has never been able to do. In addition to this, they maintain that painting leaves not one of the elements unadorned and not abounding with all the excellent things that nature has bestowed on them, giving its own light and its own darkness to the air, with all its varieties of feeling, and filling it with all the kinds of birds together; to water, its clearness, the fishes, the mosses, the foam, the undulations of the waves, the ships, and all its various moods; and to the earth, the mountains, the plains, the plants, the fruits, the flowers, the animals, and the buildings; with so great a multitude of things and so great a variety of their forms and of their true colours, that nature herself many a time stands in a marvel thereat; and finally, giving to fire so much of its heat and light that it is clearly seen burning things, and, almost quivering with its flames, rendering luminous in part the thickest darkness of the night. Wherefore it appears to them that they can justly conclude and declare that contrasting the difficulties of the sculptors with their own, the labours of the body with those of the mind, the imitation of the mere form with the imitation of the impression, both of quantity and of quality, that strikes the eye, the small number of the subjects wherein sculpture can and does demonstrate its excellence with the infinite number of those which painting presents to us (not to mention the perfect preservation of them for the intellect and the distribution of them in those places wherein nature herself has not done so); and finally, weighing the whole content of the one with that of the other, the nobility of sculpture, as shown by the intellect, the invention, and the judgment of its craftsmen, does not correspond by a great measure to that which painting enjoys and deserves. And this is all that on the one side and on the other has come to my ears that is worthy of consideration.

They add that sculptors make two figures, or at most three, from a single block of marble. Painters, however, make many figures on a single panel. They give these figures all the many varied views that sculptors claim for a single statue. Through a variety of poses, foreshortenings, and attitudes, they make up for the fact that sculpture can be seen from every side. Giorgione da Castelfranco once did this in one of his pictures. He painted a figure with its back turned, a mirror on either side, and a pool of water at its feet. The painting shows the figure’s back, the pool shows its front, and the mirrors show its sides. Sculpture has never been able to do this. They also maintain that painting leaves none of the elements unadorned or lacking the excellent things nature has bestowed on them. It gives the air its own light and darkness, with all its varied moods, and fills it with every kind of bird. It gives water its clarity, fish, moss, foam, rolling waves, ships, and all its varied moods. It gives the earth its mountains, plains, plants, fruits, flowers, animals, and buildings. Painting contains such a multitude of things, with such variety in their forms and true colors, that nature herself often marvels at it. Finally, painting gives fire so much heat and light that it is clearly seen burning things. Its flames seem almost to flicker, partly lighting even the deepest darkness of the night. They therefore believe they can justly reach a conclusion by comparing sculpture and painting. They compare the sculptors’ difficulties with their own, and physical labor with mental labor. They compare the imitation of mere form with the imitation of the impression made on the eye by both size and quality. They compare the few subjects in which sculpture can and does demonstrate its excellence with the infinite number painting presents to us. They do not even mention how painting perfectly preserves these subjects for the mind and places them where nature herself has not. Finally, weighing everything each art contains, they conclude that the nobility of sculpture falls far short of what painting enjoys and deserves. They judge this nobility by the intellect, invention, and judgment of the artists who practice each art. That is all I have heard from either side that is worthy of consideration.

But because it appears to me that the sculptors have spoken with too much heat and the painters with too much disdain, and seeing that I have long enough studied the works of sculpture and have ever exercised myself in painting, however small, perhaps, may be the fruit that is to be seen of it; none the less, by reason of that which it is worth, and by reason of the undertaking of these writings, judging it my duty to demonstrate the judgment that I have ever made of it in my own mind (and may my authority avail the most that it can), I will declare my opinion surely and briefly over such a dispute, being convinced that I will not incur any charge of presumption or of ignorance, seeing that I will not treat of the arts of others, as many have done before to the end that they might appear to the crowd intelligent in all things by means of letters, and as happened, among others, to Phormio the Peripatetic of Ephesus, who, in order to display his eloquence, lecturing and making disputation about the virtues and parts of the excellent captain, made Hannibal laugh not less at his presumption than at his ignorance.

But it seems to me that the sculptors have spoken too heatedly, and the painters too disdainfully. I have studied works of sculpture for a long time and have always practiced painting. Perhaps there is little to show for my efforts. Nevertheless, for whatever my judgment is worth, and because I have undertaken these writings, I consider it my duty to make known the judgment I have always held. May my authority count for as much as it can. I will therefore state my opinion on this dispute confidently and briefly. I am convinced that I will not be accused of presumption or ignorance, since I will not be discussing other people's arts. Many have done so before me, hoping that their learning would make them appear knowledgeable about everything to the crowd. Among them was Phormio, the Peripatetic of Ephesus. To display his eloquence, Phormio gave a lecture and argued about the virtues and duties of an excellent military commander. He made Hannibal laugh as much at his presumption as at his ignorance.

I say, then, that sculpture and painting are in truth sisters, born from one father, that is, design, at one and the same birth, and have no precedence one over the other, save insomuch as the worth and the strength of those who maintain them make one craftsman surpass another, and not by reason of any difference or degree of nobility that is in truth to be found between them. And although by reason of the diversity of their essence they have many different advantages, these are neither so great nor of such a kind that they do not come exactly into balance together and that we do not perceive the infatuation or the obstinacy, rather than the judgment, of those who wish one to surpass the other. Wherefore it may be said with reason that one and the same soul rules the bodies of both, and by reason of this I conclude that those do evil who strive to disunite and to separate the one from the other. Heaven, wishing to undeceive us in this matter and to show us the kinship and union of these two most noble arts, has raised up in our midst at various times many sculptors who have painted and many painters who have worked in sculpture, as will be seen in the Life of Antonio del Pollaiuolo, of Leonardo da Vinci, and of many others long since passed away. But in our own age the Divine Goodness has created for us Michelagnolo Buonarroti, in whom both these arts shine forth so perfect and appear so similar and so closely united, that the painters marvel at his pictures and the sculptors feel for the sculptures wrought by him supreme admiration and reverence. On him, to the end that he might not perchance need to seek from some other master some convenient resting-place for the figures that he wrought, nature has bestowed so generously the science of architecture, that without having need of others he has strength and power within himself to give to this or the other image made by himself an honourable and suitable resting-place, in a manner that he rightly deserves to be called the king of sculptors, the prince of painters, and the most excellent of architects, nay rather, of architecture the true master. And indeed we can affirm with certainty that those do in no way err who call him divine, seeing that he has within his own self embraced the three arts most worthy of praise and most ingenious that are to be found among mortal men, and that with these, after the manner of a God, he can give us infinite delight. And let this suffice for the dispute raised between the factions, and for our own opinion.

I say, then, that sculpture and painting are truly sisters. Both were born at the same time from the same father, design. Neither takes precedence over the other. The worth and strength of their practitioners may make one artist surpass another. But this is not because either art is truly nobler than the other. Although their different natures give them many different advantages, these balance each other exactly. Those who want one art to surpass the other show their infatuation, or rather their stubbornness, not their judgment. We may therefore reasonably say that one soul rules both their bodies. For this reason, I conclude that those who try to divide and separate them do wrong. Heaven has sought to free us from this error and show us the kinship and union of these noble arts. At various times, it has raised up among us many sculptors who painted and many painters who practiced sculpture. We shall see this in the Lives of Antonio del Pollaiuolo, Leonardo da Vinci, and many others who died long ago. But in our own age, Divine Goodness has created Michelagnolo Buonarroti for us. In him, both arts shine with such perfection and appear so alike and so closely united that painters marvel at his pictures. Sculptors, too, feel the greatest admiration and reverence for his sculptures. Nature has also given him a generous knowledge of architecture. Perhaps he might otherwise have needed another master to provide a suitable setting for his figures. Instead, he has the strength and ability to give any figure he makes an honorable and fitting setting. He therefore rightly deserves to be called the king of sculptors, the prince of painters, and the finest of architects. Indeed, he is the true master of architecture. We can say with certainty that those who call him divine are not mistaken. For he has mastered the three most ingenious and praiseworthy arts known to mortal men. With them, like a God, he can give us infinite delight. Let this suffice for the dispute between the opposing sides, and for our own opinion.

Now, returning to my first intention, I say that, wishing in so far as it lies within the reach of my powers to drag from the ravening maw of time, the names of the sculptors, painters, and architects, who, from Cimabue to the present day, have been of some notable excellence in Italy, and desiring that this my labour may be no less useful than it has been pleasant to me in the undertaking, it appears to me necessary, before we come to the history, to make as briefly as may be an introduction to these three arts, wherein those were valiant of whom I am to write the Lives, to the end that every gracious spirit may first learn the most notable things in their professions, and afterwards may be able with greater pleasure and benefit to see clearly in what they were different among themselves, and how great adornment and convenience they give to their countries and to all who wish to avail themselves of their industry and knowledge.

Now, returning to my original purpose, I hope to rescue names from the ravenous jaws of time, as far as my abilities allow. These are the names of sculptors, painters, and architects who have achieved notable excellence in Italy, from Cimabue to the present day. I also hope that my work will be as useful to others as it has been pleasant for me to undertake. Before turning to their history, I therefore think it necessary to introduce these three arts as briefly as possible. The people whose Lives I will write excelled in these arts. This introduction will help every receptive reader first learn the most important things about their professions. Readers may then see more clearly, and with greater pleasure and benefit, how these artists differed from one another. They may also see how greatly these artists beautify and benefit their countries and all who wish to make use of their skill and knowledge.

I will begin, then, with architecture, as the most universal and the most necessary and useful to men, and as that for the service and adornment of which the two others exist; and I will expound briefly the varieties of stone, the manners or methods of construction, with their proportions, and how one may recognize buildings that are good and well-conceived. Afterwards, discoursing of sculpture, I will tell how statues are wrought, the form and the proportion that are looked for in them, and of what kind are good sculptures, with all the most secret and most necessary precepts. Finally, treating of painting, I will speak of draughtsmanship, of the methods of colouring, of the perfect execution of any work, of the quality of the pictures themselves, and of whatsoever thing appertains to painting; of every kind of mosaic, of niello, of enamelling, of damascening, and then, lastly, of the printing of pictures. And in this way I am convinced that these my labours will delight those who are not engaged in these pursuits, and will both delight and help those who have made them a profession. For not to mention that in the Introduction they will review the methods of working, and that in the Lives of the craftsmen themselves they will learn where their works are, and how to recognize easily their perfection or imperfection and to discriminate between one manner and another, they will also be able to perceive how much praise and honour that man deserves who adds upright ways and goodness of life to the excellencies of arts so noble. Kindled by the praise that those so constituted have obtained, they too will aspire to true glory. Nor will little fruit be gathered from the history, true guide and mistress of our actions, in reading of the infinite variety of innumerable accidents that befell the craftsmen, sometimes by their own fault and very often by chance.

I will begin with architecture, the most universal, necessary, and useful of the arts. The other two arts exist to serve and adorn it. I will briefly explain the varieties of stone, the methods and proportions of construction, and how to recognize good, well-designed buildings. Next, I will discuss sculpture. I will explain how statues are made, what form and proportions they should have, and what makes a good sculpture. I will include all the most closely guarded and necessary rules. Finally, I will discuss painting. I will cover drawing, methods of coloring, the perfect execution of a work, the quality of pictures, and everything else related to painting. I will also cover every kind of mosaic, niello, enameling, damascening, and, lastly, the printing of pictures. In this way, I am convinced that my work will delight those who do not practice these arts. It will both delight and help those who have made them their profession. In the Introduction, professionals will review the methods of working. In the Lives of the artists themselves, they will learn where to find their works. They will also learn to recognize their strengths and flaws easily and to distinguish one style from another. Beyond this, they will see how much praise and honor a person deserves who combines excellence in such noble arts with upright conduct and goodness of life. Inspired by the praise earned by people of such character, they too will aspire to true glory. They will also gain much from history, the true guide and teacher of our actions. For they will read of the endlessly varied and countless events that befell the artists, sometimes through their own fault and very often by chance.

It remains for me to make excuse for having on occasion used some words of indifferent Tuscan, whereof I do not wish to speak, having ever taken thought to use rather the words and names particular and proper to our arts than the delicate or choice words of precious writers. Let me be allowed, then, to use in their proper speech the words proper to our craftsmen, and let all content themselves with my good will, which has bestirred itself to produce this result not in order to teach to others what I do not know myself, but through a desire to preserve this memory at least of the most celebrated craftsmen, seeing that in so many decades I have not yet been able to see one who has made much record of them. For I have wished with these my rough labours, adumbrating their noble deeds, to repay to them in some measure the debt that I owe to their works, which have been to me as masters for the learning of whatsoever I know, rather than, living in sloth, to be a malignant critic of the works of others, blaming and decrying them as men are often wont to do. But it is now time to come to our business.

I must apologize for sometimes using less than polished Tuscan, though I do not wish to dwell on it. I have always tried to use words and names specific to our arts rather than the refined language of fastidious writers. Let me use the terms of our craftsmen as they use them. And let everyone be content with my good intentions. I have undertaken this work not to teach others what I do not know myself, but to preserve at least this record of the most celebrated craftsmen. For in all these decades, I have yet to see anyone who has written much about them. By sketching their noble deeds in this rough work, I have wished to repay some of my debt to them. Their works have been my teachers in learning whatever I know. I would rather do this than live in idleness and maliciously criticize the works of others, blaming and disparaging them as people often do. But now it is time to begin.