noble Florentine family his sympathies were with the democratic party rather than with the moderately liberal aristocracy. In 1847–1848 his house was a centre of revolutionary committees, and during the brief constitutional régime he was much to the fore. After the return of the grand duke Leopold II. in 1849 under Austrian protection, Bartolommei was present at a requiem service in the church of Santa Croce for those who fell in the late campaign against Austria; on that occasion disorders occurred and he was relegated to his country estate in consequence (1851). Shortly afterwards he was implicated in the distribution of seditious literature and exiled from Tuscany for a year. He settled at Turin for a time and established relations with Cavour and the Piedmontese liberals. He subsequently visited France and England, and like many Italian patriots became enamoured of British institutions. He returned to Florence in 1853; from that time onward he devoted himself to the task of promoting the ideas of Italian independence and unity among the people, and although carefully watched by the police, he kept a secret printing-press in his palace in Florence. Finding that the nobility still hesitated at the idea of uncompromising hostility to the house of Lorraine, he allied himself more firmly with the popular party, and found an able lieutenant in the baker Giuseppe Dolfi (1818–1869), an honest and whole-hearted enthusiast who had great influence with the common people. As soon as war between Piedmont and Austria appeared imminent, Bartolommei organized the expedition of Tuscan volunteers to join the Piedmontese army, spending large sums out of his own pocket for the purpose, and was also president of the Tuscan branch of the Società Nazionale (see under La Farina and Cavour). He worked desperately hard conspiring for the overthrow of the grand duke, assisted by all the liberal elements, and on the 27th of April 1859, Florence rose as one man, the troops refused to fire on the people, and the grand duke departed, never to return. Sapristi! pas un carreau cassé! was the comment of the French minister to Tuscany on this bloodless revolution. A provisional government was formed and Bartolommei elected gonfaloniere. He had much opposition to encounter from those who still believed that the retention of the grand duke as a constitutional sovereign and member of an Italian confederation was possible. In the summer elections were held, and on the meeting of parliament Bartolommei’s Unitarian views prevailed, the assembly voting the resolution that the house of Lorraine had forfeited its rights and that Tuscany must be united to Italy under King Victor Emmanuel. Bartolommei was made senator of the Italian kingdom and received various other honours. His last years were spent in educational and philanthropic work. He died on the 15th of June 1869, leaving a widow and two daughters.
The best biography of Bartolommei is contained in Il Rivolgimento Toscano e l’azione popolare, by his daughter Matilde Gioli (Florence, 1905), but the author attributes perhaps an undue preponderance to her father in the Tuscan revolution, and is not quite fair towards Bettino Ricasoli (q.v.) and other leaders of the aristocratic party. Cf. Lettere e documenti di B. Ricasoli (Florence, 1887–1896), and D. Zanichelli’s Lettere politiche di B. Ricasoli, U. Peruzzi, N. Corsini, e C. Ridolfi (Bologna, 1898).
BARTOLOMMEO DI PAGHOLO, FRA (1475–1517), the Italian historical and portrait painter,—known also as Baccio (short for Bartolommeo) Bella Porta (because he lived near the Porta Romana) was born at Soffignano, near Florence, in 1475, and died at Florence in 1517. He received the first elements of his artistic education from Cosimo Roselli; and after leaving him, devoted himself to the study of the great works of Leonardo da Vinci. Of his early productions, which are distinguished for their grace and beauty, the most important is the fresco of the Last Judgment, in which he was assisted by his friend Mariotto Albertinelli. While he was engaged upon some pieces for the convent of the Dominican friars, he made the acquaintance of Savonarola, who quickly acquired great influence over him, and Bartolommeo was so affected by his cruel death, that he soon after entered the convent, and for some years gave up his art. He had not long resumed it, in obedience to his superior, when Raphael came to Florence and formed a close friendship with him. Bartolommeo learned from the younger artist the rules of perspective, in which he was so skilled, while Raphael owes to the frate the improvement in his colouring and handling of drapery, which was noticeable in the works he produced after their meeting. Some years afterwards he visited Rome, and was struck with admiration and a feeling of his own inferiority when he contemplated the masterpieces of Michelangelo and Raphael. With the latter, however, he remained on the most friendly terms, and when he departed from Rome, left in his hands two unfinished pictures which Raphael completed. Fra Bartolommeo’s figures had generally been small and draped. These qualities were alleged against him as defects, and to prove that his style was not the result of want of power, he painted the magnificent figure of St Mark (his masterpiece, at Florence), and the undraped figure of St Sebastian. The latter was so well designed, so naturally and beautifully coloured, and so strongly expressive of suffering and agony, that it was found necessary to remove it from the place where it had been exhibited in the chapel of a convent. The majority of Bartolommeo’s compositions are altar-pieces. They are remarkable for skill in the massing of light and shade, richness and delicacy of colouring, and for the admirable style in which the drapery of the figures is handled, Bartolommeo having been the first to introduce and use the lay-figure with joints.
BARTOLOZZI, FRANCESCO (1725–1815), Italian engraver, was born at Florence. He was originally destined to follow the profession of his father, who was a gold- and silver-smith; but he manifested so much skill and taste in designing that he was placed under the superintendence of two Florentine artists, who instructed him in painting. After devoting three years to that art, he went to Venice and studied engraving. He made very rapid progress, and executed some works of considerable importance at Venice.. He then removed for a short time to Rome, where he completed a set of engravings representing events from the life of St Nilus, and, after returning to Venice, set out for London in 1764. For nearly forty years he resided in London, and produced an enormous number of engravings, the best being those of Clytie, after Annibale Caracci, and of the Virgin and Child, after Carlo Dolce. A great proportion of them are from the works of Cipriani and Angelica Kauffmann. Bartolozzi also contributed a number of plates to Boydell’s Shakespeare Gallery. In 1802 he was invited to Lisbon as director of the National Academy. He remained in Portugal till his death. His son Gaetano Stephano (1757–1821), also an engraver, was the father of Madame Vestris.
BARTOLUS (1314–1357), Italian jurist, professor of the civil law at the university of Perugia, and the most famous master of the dialectical school of jurists, was born in 1314, at Sassoferrato, in the duchy of Urbino, and hence is generally styled Bartolus de Saxoferrato. His father was Franciscus Severi, and his mother was of the family of the Alfani. He studied the civil law first of all under Cinus at Perugia, and afterwards under Oldradus and Jacobus de Belvisio at Bologna, where he was promoted to the degree of doctor of civil law in 1334. His great reputation dates from his appointment to a chair of civil law in the university of Perugia, 1343, where he lectured for many years, raising the character of the law school of Perugia to a level with that of Bologna. He died in 1357 at Perugia, where a magnificent monument recorded the interment of his remains in the church of San Francisco, by the simple inscription of “Ossa Bartoli.” Bartolus left behind him a great reputation, and many writers have sought to explain the fact by attributing to him the introduction of the dialectical method of teaching law; but this method had been employed by Odofredus, a pupil of Accursius, in the previous century, and the successors of Odofredus had abused it to an extent which has rendered their writings in many instances unprofitable to read, the subject matter being overlaid with dialectical forms. It was the merit of Bartolus, on the other hand, that he employed the dialectical method with advantage as a teacher, and discountenanced the abuse of it; but his great reputation was more probably owing to the circumstance that he revived the exegetical system of teaching law (which had been
