Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion

Equations 1st Edition Viorel Barbu download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/semigroup-approach-to-nonlinear-
diffusion-equations-1st-edition-viorel-barbu/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

12534_9789811246517_tp.indd 1 10/9/21 10:55 AM
January 19, 2018 9:17 ws-book961x669 Beyond the Triangle: Brownian Motion...Planck Equation-10734 HKU˙book page vi

This page intentionally left blank

12534_9789811246517_tp.indd 2 10/9/21 10:55 AM
 Published by
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224
USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601
UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021045208

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

SEMIGROUP APPROACH TO NONLINEAR DIFFUSION EQUATIONS

Copyright © 2022 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to
be invented, without written permission from the publisher.

For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center,
Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from
the publisher.

ISBN 978-981-124-651-7 (hardcover)

ISBN 978-981-124-652-4 (ebook for institutions)
ISBN 978-981-124-653-1 (ebook for individuals)

For any available supplementary material, please visit

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/12534#t=suppl

Printed in Singapore

RokTing - 12534 - Semigroup Approach.indd 1 14/9/2021 11:21:45 am

September 16, 2021 16:0 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page v

Preface

A famous and influential book of J.-L. Lions entitled Quelques méthodes de

résolution des problèkes aux limites nonlinéaires, published with Dunod Gauthier–
Villars in 1969, opened a new way in the treatment of nonlinear partial differential
equations by emphasizing the role of functional methods arranged in several groups
of techniques. From this perspective the methods are more important than the
particular results and such a philosophy had a considerable impact on the deve-
lopment of the theory of nonlinear partial differential equations in the last fifty
years. Meantime, new functional methods as the theory of nonlinear semigroups of
contractions or the variational methods had attained preeminence and undisputed
impact in the theory of partial differential equations. This book, which is related
and continues some of our previous books, was written in the same idea, empha-
sizing the role of the theory of m-accretive and maximal monotone operators in
Banach spaces in the treatment of well-posedness for some significant classes of
nonlinear partial equations with main emphasis on elliptic and parabolic equations.
More precisely, it is focusing on the monotonicity method in nonlinear analysis and
on nonlinear dynamics described by continuous semigroups of contractions gene-
rated by m-accretive operators in Banach spaces and, in particular, in the space of
p-Lebesgue integrable functions on Ω ⊂ RN . Roughly speaking, this is the semi-
group approach to autonomous evolution equations and in a modified version it ap-
plies as well to time-varying problems. As regards the existence theory for nonlinear
partial differential equations, no generality is claimed whatever while, as mentioned
above, the accent is put on the methods which open the applications field to a wider
class of equations. In order to keep the thematic unity of this book, we had to omit
some important classes of nonlinear equations in mathematical physics such as the
wave equations or Navier–Stokes equations though the nonlinear semigroup theory
applies in these cases as well.
I am grateful to Dr. Gabriela Marinoschi from Institute of Mathematical Statis-
tics and Applied Mathematics of the Romanian Academy who carefully read the
preliminary draft of this book and made helpfully suggestions. Many thanks are
due also to Mrs. Elena Mocanu for processing the manuscript of this book.

Iaşi, July 2021 Viorel Barbu

v
January 19, 2018 9:17 ws-book961x669 Beyond the Triangle: Brownian Motion...Planck Equation-10734 HKU˙book page vi

This page intentionally left blank

August 12, 2021 16:33 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page vii

Contents

Preface v
1. Preliminaries 1
1.1 Geometric Properties of Banach Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Convex Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Sobolev Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Infinite-dimensional Sobolev Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. Monotone and Accretive Operators in Banach Spaces 19

2.1 Maximal Monotone Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Accretive Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3 Existence Theory for the Cauchy Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3. Nonlinear Elliptic Boundary Value Problems 81

3.1 Nonlinear Elliptic Problems of Divergence Type . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.2 Semilinear Elliptic Operators in Lp (Ω) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.3 Quasilinear Partial Differential Equations of First Order . . . . . . 119
3.4 Porous Media Equations with Drift Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

4. Nonlinear Dissipative Dynamics 137

4.1 Semilinear Parabolic Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.2 The Porous Media Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.3 The Phase Field Transition with Mushy Region . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.4 The Self-organized Criticality Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.5 The Conservation Law Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.6 The Fokker–Planck Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.7 A Fokker–Planck Like Parabolic Equation in RN . . . . . . . . . . 191
4.8 Generalized Fokker–Planck Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

vii
January 19, 2018 9:17 ws-book961x669 Beyond the Triangle: Brownian Motion...Planck Equation-10734 HKU˙book page vi

This page intentionally left blank

August 12, 2021 16:33 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page 1

Chapter 1

Preliminaries

Mathematics is the science of skillful operations with concepts and

rules invented just for this purpose. The principal emphasis is on the
invention of concepts.
Eugen Wigner, The unreasonable effectiveness
of mathematics in the natural sciences (1960)

The modern theory of partial differential equations is based on the functional

analysis and theory of Sobolev spaces. The aim of this chapter is to provide for later
use some basic results of functional analysis pertaining to geometric properties of
infinite-dimensional normed spaces, convex functions, spaces of distributions, and
the variational theory of linear elliptic boundary value problems. Most of these
results, which can be easily found in standard textbooks or monographs, are given
without proof or with a sketch of proof and suitable references.

1.1 Geometric Properties of Banach Spaces

Throughout this section, X is a real Banach space and X ∗ denotes its dual. The
value of a functional x∗ ∈ X ∗ at x ∈ X is denoted either by (x, x∗ ) or x∗ (x), as
is convenient. The norm of X is denoted by k · k, and the norm of X ∗ is denoted
by k · k∗ . If there is no danger of confusion, we omit the asterisk from the notation
k · k∗ and denote both the norms of X and X ∗ by the symbol k · k.
We use the symbol lim or → to indicate strong convergence in X and w- lim
or * for weak convergence in X. By w∗ -lim(x, x∗ ) * we indicate the weak-star
convergence in X ∗ . The space X ∗ endowed with the weak-star topology is denoted
∗
by Xw .
∗
Define on X the mapping J : X → 2X :
J(x) = {x∗ ∈ X ∗ ; (x, x∗ ) = kxk2 = kx∗ k2 }, ∀x ∈ X. (1.1)
By the Hahn–Banach theorem we know that, for every x0 ∈ X, there is some
x∗0 ∈ X ∗ such that (x∗0 , x0 ) = kx0 k and kx∗0 k ≤ 1, and so J(x) 6= ∅, ∀x ∈ X. The
mapping J : X → X ∗ is called the duality mapping of the space X and, in general,
it is multivalued.

1
August 12, 2021 16:33 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page 2

2 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations

The inverse mapping J −1 : X ∗ → X defined by

J −1 (x∗ ) = {x ∈ X; x∗ ∈ J(x)}
also satisfies
J −1 (x∗ ) = {x ∈ X; kxk = kx∗ k, (x, x∗ ) = kxk2 = kx∗ k2 }.
If the space X is reflexive (i.e., X = X ∗∗ ), then clearly J −1 is just the duality
mapping of X ∗ and so D(J −1 ) = X ∗ . As a matter of fact, reflexivity plays an
important role everywhere in the following and it should be recalled that a normed
space is reflexive if and only if its dual X ∗ is reflexive (see, e.g., Yosida [104], p. 113).
It turns out that the properties of the duality mapping are closely related to
the nature of the spaces X and X ∗ , more precisely, to the convexity and smoothing
properties of the closed balls in X and X ∗ .
Recall that the space X is called strictly convex if the unity ball B of X is strictly
convex, that is, the boundary ∂B contains no line segments.
The space X is said to be uniformly convex if, for each ε > 0, 0 < ε < 2, there is
δ(ε) > 0 such that, if kxk = 1, kyk = 1 and kx − yk ≥ ε, then kx + yk ≤ 2(1 − δ(ε)).
Obviously, every uniformly convex space X is strictly convex. Hilbert spaces, as
well as the spaces Lp (Ω), 1 < p < ∞, are uniformly convex spaces. Recall also that,
by virtue of the Milman theorem (see, e.g., Yosida [104], p. 127), every uniformly
convex Banach space X is reflexive. Conversely, it turns out that every reflexive
Banach space X can be renormed such that X and X ∗ become strictly convex.
More precisely, one has the following important result due to Asplund [7].

Theorem 1.1 Let X be a reflexive Banach space with the norm k · k. Then there
is an equivalent norm k · k0 on X such that X is strictly convex in this norm and
X ∗ is strictly convex in the dual norm k · k∗0 .

Regarding the properties of the duality mapping associated with strictly or uni-
formly convex Banach spaces, we have the following.

Theorem 1.2 Let X be a Banach space. If the dual space X ∗ is strictly convex,
then the duality mapping J : X → X ∗ is single-valued and demicontinuous (i.e.,
it is continuous from X to Xw∗ ). If the space X ∗ is uniformly convex, then J is
uniformly continuous on every bounded subset of X.

Let us give a few examples of duality mappings.

(1) X = H is a Hilbert space identified with its own dual. Then J = I, the identity
operator in H. If H is not identified with its dual H ∗ , then the duality mapping
J : H → H ∗ is the canonical isomorphism Λ of H onto H ∗ . For instance, if
H = H01 (Ω) and H ∗ = H −1 (Ω) and Ω is a bounded and open subset of RN ,
then J = Λ is defined by
Z
(Λu, v) = ∇u · ∇v dx, ∀u, v ∈ H01 (Ω). (1.2)
Ω
August 12, 2021 16:33 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page 3

Preliminaries 3

In other words, J is the Laplace operator −∆ under Dirichlet homogeneous

boundary conditions in Ω ⊂ RN . Here H01 (Ω) is the Sobolev space {u ∈ L2 (Ω);
∇u ∈ (L2 (Ω))N ; u = 0 on ∂Ω}. (See Section 1.3 below.) If Ω = RN , that is
X = H 1 (RN ), X ∗ = H −1 (RN ), then the duality mapping J : X → X ∗ is given
by J(u) = u − ∆u in D0 (RN ).
(2) X = Lp (Ω), where 1 < p < ∞ and Ω is a measurable subset of RN . Then, the
duality mapping of X is given by
J(u)(x) = |u(x)|p−2 u(x)kuk2−p
Lp (Ω) , a.e. x ∈ Ω, ∀u ∈ Lp (Ω). (1.3)
Indeed, it is readily seen that if Φp is the mapping defined by the right-hand
side of (1.3), we have
Z Z  p2 Z  q2
p q
Φp (u)u dx = |u| dx = |Φp (u)| dx ,
Ω Ω Ω
1 1
where p+q = 1. Since the duality mapping J of Lp (Ω) is single-valued (because
p
L is uniformly convex for p > 1) and Φp (u) ∈ J(u), we conclude that J = Φp ,
as claimed. If X = L1 (Ω), then as we show later (Corollary 2.19)
J(u) = {v ∈ L∞ (Ω); v(x) ∈ sign(u(x)) · kukL1 (Ω) , a.e. x ∈ Ω}, (1.4)
u
where sign(u) = |u| if u 6= 0, sign(0) = [−1, 1].
(3) Let X be the Sobolev space W01,p (Ω), where 1 < p < ∞ and Ω is a bounded and
open subset of RN . (See Section 1.3 below.) Then, X ∗ = W −1,q (Ω), p1 + 1q = 1,
and the duality mapping J is given by
N
!
p−2
2−p
X ∂ ∂u ∂u
J(u) = −kukW 1,p (Ω) , u ∈ W01,p (Ω). (1.5)
0
i=1
∂x i ∂x i ∂xi

In other words, J : W01,p (Ω) → W −1,q (Ω), 1

p + 1
q = 1, is defined by
N Z p−2
X ∂u ∂u ∂v
(J(u), v) = kuk2−p
W01,p (Ω)
dx, ∀u, v ∈ W01,p (Ω), (1.6)
i=1 Ω ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi

where (·, ·) is the duality pairing on W01,p (Ω) × W −1,q (Ω).

1.2 Convex Functions

Let X be a real Banach space with dual X ∗ . A proper convex function on X is a

function ϕ : X → (−∞, +∞] = R, that is, not identically +∞ and that satisfies the
inequality
ϕ((1 − λ)x + λy) ≤ (1 − λ)ϕ(x) + λϕ(y) (1.7)
for all x, y ∈ X and all λ ∈ [0, 1].
The function ϕ is called strictly convex if the equality in (1.7) for some λ ∈ (0, 1)
implies that x = y.
August 12, 2021 16:33 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page 4

4 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations

The function ϕ : X → (−∞, +∞] is said to be lower semicontinuous (l.s.c.)

on X if
lim inf ϕ(u) ≥ ϕ(x), ∀x ∈ X,
u→x

or, equivalently, if every level subset {x ∈ X; ϕ(x) ≤ λ} is closed.

The function ϕ : X →] − ∞, +∞] is said to be weakly lower semicontinuous if it
is lower semicontinuous on the space X endowed with weak topology.
Because every level set of a convex function is convex and every closed convex set
is weakly closed, a function ϕ is l.s.c. if and only if it is weakly lower semicontinuous.
Given a lower semicontinuous convex function ϕ : X → (−∞, +∞] = R, ϕ 6≡ ∞,
we use the following notations:
D(ϕ) = {x ∈ X; ϕ(x) < ∞} (the effective domain of ϕ). (1.8)
Now, let us briefly describe some elementary properties of l.s.c., convex functions.
For proof, we refer to [21], [41], [87], [94].

Proposition 1.3 Let ϕ : X → R = ] − ∞, +∞] be a proper, l.s.c., and convex

function. Then ϕ is bounded from below by an affine function; that is there are
x∗0 ∈ X ∗ and β ∈ R such that
ϕ(x) ≥ (x∗0 , x) + β, ∀x ∈ X. (1.9)

Proposition 1.4 Let ϕ : X → R be a proper, convex, and l.s.c. function. Then ϕ

is continuous on int(D(ϕ)).

(Here int denotes the interior.)

The function ϕ∗ : X ∗ → R defined by
ϕ∗ (p) = sup{(p, x) − ϕ(x); x ∈ X} (1.10)
is called the conjugate of ϕ.

Proposition 1.5 Let ϕ : X → R be l.s.c., convex, and proper. Then ϕ∗ is l.s.c.,

convex, and proper on the space X ∗ .

Proof. As supremum of a set of affine functions, ϕ∗ is convex and l.s.c. Moreover,

by Proposition 1.4 we see that ϕ∗ 6≡ ∞. 

Proposition 1.6 Let ϕ : X → R be a weakly lower semicontinuous function such

that every level set {x ∈ X; ϕ(x) ≤ λ} is weakly compact. Then ϕ attains its
infimum on X. In particular, if X is reflexive and ϕ is an l.s.c. proper convex
function on X such that
lim ϕ(x) = ∞, (1.11)
kxk→∞

then there exists x0 ∈ X such that ϕ(x0 ) = inf{ϕ(x); x ∈ X}.

August 12, 2021 16:33 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page 5

Preliminaries 5

Given an l.s.c., convex, proper function ϕ : X → R, the mapping ∂ϕ : X → X ∗

defined by
∂ϕ(x) = {x∗ ∈ X ∗ ; ϕ(x) ≤ ϕ(y) + (x∗ , x − y), ∀y ∈ X} (1.12)
is called the subdifferential of ϕ.
In general, ∂ϕ is a multivalued operator from X to X ∗ not everywhere defined
and can be seen as a subset of X × X ∗ . An element x∗ ∈ ∂ϕ(x) (if any) is called a
subgradient of ϕ in x. We denote as usual by D(∂ϕ) the set of all x ∈ X for which
∂ϕ(x) 6= ∅.
Let us pause briefly to give some simple examples.
1
(1) ϕ(x) = 2 kxk2 . Then, ∂ϕ = J (the duality mapping of the space X).
(2) Let K be a closed convex subset of X. The function IK : X → R defined by
(
0, if x ∈ K,
IK (x) = (1.13)
+∞, if x ∈ / K,
is called the indicator function of K, and its dual function HK ,
HK (p) = sup{(p, u); u ∈ K}, ∀p ∈ X ∗ ,
is called the support function of K. It is readily seen that D(∂IK ) = K,
∂IK (x) = 0 for x ∈ int K (if nonempty) and that
∂IK (x) = NK (x) = {x∗ ∈ X ∗ ; (x∗ , x − u) ≥ 0, ∀u ∈ K}, ∀x ∈ K. (1.14)
For every x ∈ ∂K (the boundary of K), NK (x) is the normal cone at K in x.
(3) Let ϕ be convex and Gâteaux differentiable at x with the gradient ∇ϕ(x). Then
∂ϕ(x) = ∇ϕ(x).
Proposition 1.7 Let X be a reflexive Banach space and let ϕ : X → R be an l.s.c.,
convex, proper function. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
(i) x∗ ∈ ∂ϕ(x),
(ii) ϕ(x) + ϕ∗ (x∗ ) = (x, x∗ ),
(iii) x ∈ ∂ϕ∗ (x∗ ).
In particular, ∂ϕ∗ = (∂ϕ)−1 and (ϕ∗ )∗ = ϕ.

We also mention without proof the following results. (See, e.g., [21], [41].)

Proposition 1.8 Let ϕ : X → R be an l.s.c., convex, and proper function. Then

D(∂ϕ) is a dense subset of D(ϕ). Moreover, int D(ϕ) ⊂ D(∂ϕ).

There is a close connection between the range of subdifferential ∂ϕ of a lower

semicontinuous convex function ϕ : X → R and its behavior for kxk → ∞. Namely,
one has

Proposition 1.9 The following two conditions are equivalent.

(j) R(∂ϕ) = X ∗ , and ∂ϕ∗ = (∂ϕ)−1 is bounded on bounded subsets,
(jj) limkxk→∞ ϕ(x)
kxk = +∞.
August 12, 2021 16:33 ws-book961x669 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 12534-main page 6

6 Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations

1.3 Sobolev Spaces

Throughout this section, until further notice, we assume that Ω is an open subset
of RN . Denote by Lp (Ω), 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞, the space of Lebesgue p-integrable functions
on Ω and by D(Ω) (or C0∞ (Ω)) the space of infinitely differentiable functions with
compact support in Ω. Denote by D0 (Ω) the space of Schwartz distributions on Ω.
Given u ∈ D0 (Ω), by definition, the derivative of order α = (α1 , ..., αN ), Dα u, of u,
is the distribution
(Dα u)(ϕ) = (−1)|α| u(Dα ϕ), ∀ϕ ∈ D(Ω), where |α| = α1 + · · · + αN .
Let m be a positive integer. Denote by H m (Ω) the set of all real valued functions
u ∈ L2 (Ω) such that distributional derivatives Dα u of u of order |α| ≤ m all belong
to L2 (Ω). In other words,
H m (Ω) = {u ∈ L2 (Ω); Dα u ∈ L2 (Ω), |α| ≤ m}.
We present below a few basic properties of Sobolev spaces and refer to the
books [1, 16, 38] for proofs.

Proposition 1.10 H m (Ω) is a Hilbert space with the scalar product

X Z
hu, vim = Dα u(x)Dα v(x)dx, ∀u, v ∈ H m (Ω).
|α|≤m Ω

If Ω = (a, b), −∞ < a < b < ∞, then H 1 (Ω) reduces to the subspace of
absolutely continuous functions on the interval [a, b] with derivative in L2 (a, b).
More generally, for an integer m ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞, one defines the Sobolev space
W m,p (Ω) = {u ∈ Lp (Ω); Dα u ∈ Lp (Ω), |α| ≤ m}
with the norm
  p1
X Z
kukm,p =  |Dα u(x)|p dx . (1.15)
|α|≤m Ω

For 0 < m < 1, the space W m,p (Ω) is defined by (see Adams [1], p. 214)
( )
u(x) − u(y)
W m,p (Ω) = u ∈ Lp (Ω); p
N ∈ L (Ω × Ω)
|x − y|m+ p
with the natural norm. For m > 1, m = s + a, s = [m], 0 < a < 1, define
W m,p (Ω) = {u ∈ W s,p (Ω); Dα u ∈ W a,p (Ω); |α| ≤ s}.
Now, we mention an important property of the space H 1 (Ω) known as the
Sobolev embedding theorem.

Theorem 1.11 Let 1 ≤ p < N, N > 2, and p∗ = 2N

N −2 . Then
∗
W 1,p (RN ) ⊂ Lp (RN ), (1.16)
1,p N
kukLp∗ (RN ) ≤ Cp,N k∇ukLp (RN ) , ∀u ∈ W (R ). (1.17)
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
these presents being the produce of Pesaro, and enriched with the metallic
lustre, we may derive from the whole matter an additional proof that the
early lustred pieces, whose origin has been disputed, were really made at
that city; and that we may agree with Passeri in ascribing the well-known
“bacili” to that place. Engraved p. 107 is a fine lustred bacile at South
Kensington, probably of Pesaro ware, and about the year 1510.
The earliest dated Pesaro piece is in the possession of the writer. It is a
“fruttiera” which is painted the creation of animals by the Almighty, Who,
moving in the midst, is surrounded by animals rising out of the ground; a
distant landscape, with a town (!) on the side of a steep mountain, forms the
background.
On the reverse is inscribed as in the woodcut on the next page,

1540.
Chrianite anim
allis Christtus
fatto in Pesaro.

We have seen some large dishes decorated with raised masks, strapwork,
&c. and painted with grotesques on a white ground, and subject panels, and
other grandiose pieces which are ascribed to the Urbino artists, but which
may in equal likelihood be attributed to the Lanfranchi of Pesaro. A
triangular plateau in the possession of Mrs. Hope has the character of their
finest productions.
 The art at Pesaro rapidly declined after 1560, wanting the
encouragement of a reigning ducal court; and Passeri ascribes much evil
influence to what he considers the bad taste of preferring the unmeaning
designs of the oriental porcelain, which was greatly prized by the wealthy,
and the painting after the prints of the later German school of Sadeler, &c.
to the grander works of the old masters; the landscapes were, however, well
executed. He gives us also a history of the revival of the manufacture in his
own time, under the influence and encouragement of the cardinal prelate
Ludovico Merlini. In 1718 there was only one potter at Pesaro, Alfonzo
Marzi, who produced the most ordinary wares. In 1757 signor Giuseppe
Bertolucci, an accomplished ceramist of Urbania, in conjunction with
signor Francesco di Fattori, engaged workmen and artists and commenced a
fabrique, but it was soon abandoned. Again in 1763 signors Antonio Casali
and Filippo Antonio Caligari, both of Lodi, came to Pesaro and were joined
by Pietro Lei da Sassuolo of Modena, an able painter on Maiolica; they
established a fabrique producing wares of great excellence hardly to be
distinguished from the Chinese. In the Debruge-Labarte collection was a
one-handled jug or pot, painted with flowers in white medallions on a blue
ground, and on the foot engraven in the paste—

“Pesaro 1771.”

A manufacture at present exists of painted tiles for pavement, removed

to Pesaro from Urbania, and which at one time produced vases and plates in
the manner of the Urbino istoriati pieces as also lustred wares after the style
of M. Giorgio. It has, we are informed, ceased making these imitations and
now confines itself to the first-named class of goods.
 CHAPTER XII.
Gubbio and Castel Durante.
Although probably not among the earliest manufactories or boteghe
of Italian enamelled and painted wares, Gubbio undoubtedly holds one of
the most prominent positions in the history and development of the potter’s
art in the 16th century. This small town, seated on the eastern slope of the
Apennines, was then incorporated in the territory of the dukes of Urbino
under whose influence and enlightened patronage the artist potters of the
duchy received the greatest encouragement; and were thus enabled to
produce the beautiful works of which so many examples have descended to
us. Chiefly under the direction of one man, it would seem that the produce
of the Gubbio furnaces was for the most part of a special nature; namely, a
decoration of the pieces with the lustre pigments, producing those brilliant
metallic ruby, golden, and opalescent tints which vary in every piece, and
which assume almost every colour of the rainbow as they reflect the light
directed at varying angles upon their surface. The woodcut (p. 112)
represents a vase of great interest and beauty; no. 500 in the South
Kensington collection. It is early in date; probably about 1500. The
admirable way in which the moulded ornament is arranged to show the full
effect of the lustre, and the bold yet harmonious design are worthy of
observation. That the Gubbio ware was of a special nature, and produced
only at a few fabriques almost exclusively devoted to that class of
decoration, is to be reasonably inferred from Piccolpasso’s statement; who
speaking of the application of the maiolica pigments says, “Non ch’io ne
abbia mai fatto ne men veduto fare.” He was the maestro of an important
botega at Castel Durante, one of the largest and most productive of the
Umbrian manufactories, within a few miles also
of those of Urbino, with which he must have been intimately acquainted
and in frequent correspondence. That he, in the middle of the 16th century,
when all these works were at the highest period of their development,
should be able to state that he had not only never applied or even witnessed
the process of application of these lustrous enrichments is, we think, a
convincing proof that they were never adopted at either of those seats of the
manufacture of enamelled pottery. Although much modified and improved,
lustre colours were not invented by Italian artists, but were derived from the
potters of the east, probably from the Moors of Sicily, of Spain, or of
Majorca. Hence (we once more repeat) the name “Majolica” was originally
applied only to wares having the lustre enrichment; but since the decline of
the manufacture, the term has been more generally given: all varieties of
Italian enamelled pottery being usually, though wrongly, known as
“Maiolica.”
 The Gubbio fabrique was in full work previous to 1518; and the
brilliantly lustred dish, which we engrave, now at South Kensington is
before that date. That some of these early bacili so well known and
apparently the work of one artist were made at Pesaro, whence the secret
and probably the artist passed to Gubbio, is far from improbable. The
reason for this emigration is not known, but it may be surmised that the
large quantity of broom and other brush-wood, necessary for the reducing
process of the reverberatory furnace in which this lustre was produced,
might have been more abundantly supplied by the hills of Gubbio than in
the vicinity of the larger city on the coast. That the process of producing
these metallic effects was costly, we gather from Piccolpasso’s statement
that sometimes not more than six pieces out of a hundred succeeded in the
firing.
The fame of the Gubbio wares is associated almost entirely with one
name, that of Giorgio Andreoli. We learn from the marchese Brancaleoni
that this artist was the son of Pietro, of a “Castello” called “Judeo,” in the
diocese of Pavia; and that, accompanied by his brother Salimbene, he went
to Gubbio in the second half of the 15th century. He appears to have left
and again returned thither in 1492, accompanied by his younger brother
Giovanni. They were enrolled as citizens on the 23rd May 1498, on pain of
forfeiting 500 ducats if they left the city in which they engaged to continue
practising their ceramic art. Patronised by the dukes of Urbino, Giorgio was
made “castellano” of Gubbio. Passeri states that the family was noble in
Pavia. It is not known why or when he was created a “Maestro,” a title
prized even more than nobility, but it is to be presumed that it took place at
the time of his enrolment as a citizen; his name with the title “Maestro” first
appearing on a document dated that same year, 1498. Piccolpasso states that
Maiolica painters were considered noble by profession. The family of
Andreoli and the “Casa” still exist in Gubbio, and it was asserted by his
descendant Girolamo Andreoli, who died some 40 years since, that political
motives induced their emigration from Pavia.
Maestro Giorgio was an artist by profession, not only as a draughtsman
but as a modeller, and being familiar with the enamelled terra cottas of Luca
della Robbia is said to have executed with his own hands and in their
manner large altar-pieces. We were once disposed to think that great
confusion existed in respect to these altar-pieces in rilievo, and were
inclined to the belief that although some of the smaller lustred works may
have been modelled by Giorgio the larger altar-pieces were really only
imported by him. Judging from the most important which we have been
able to examine, the “Madonna del Rosario” portions of which are in the
museum at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, it seemed to approach more nearly to
the work of some member of the Della Robbia family. This fine work is in
part glazed, and in part coloured in distemper on the unglazed terra cotta, in
which respect it precisely agrees with works known to have been executed
by Andrea della Robbia assisted by his sons. There are no signs of the
application of the lustre colours to any portion of the work, but this might
be accounted for by the great risk of failure in the firing, particularly to
pieces of such large size and in high relief. Be this as it may, from a further
consideration of the style of this work and the record of others, some of
which are heightened with the lustre colours, and the fact stated by the
marchese Brancaleoni that a receipt for an altar-piece is still preserved in
the archives of Gubbio, we are inclined to think that history must be correct
in attributing these important works in ceramic sculpture to Mº Giorgio
Andreoli. If they were his unassisted work, he deserves as high a place
among the modellers of his period as he is acknowledged to have among
artistic potters.
To go back twelve years in the history of the products of this fabrique,
we have in the South Kensington museum a very interesting example of a
work in rilievo, no. 2601, a figure of S. Sebastian, lustred with the gold and
ruby pigments, and dated 1501. Notwithstanding its inferiority of modelling
when compared with later works, we are in little doubt that this is by Mº
Giorgio’s own hand, agreeing as it does in the manner of its painted outline
and shading with the treatment of subjects on the earlier dishes, believed to
be by him. We must also bear in mind that an interval of twelve years had
elapsed between this comparatively crude work, and that beautiful altar-
piece whose
excellence causes us some doubt in ascribing it to his unaided hand; and we
may observe at the same time an equal difference in the merit of his own
painted pieces. The small bowl here engraved is of about this period, and is
characteristic of a style of ornament commonly found upon Gubbio ware.
This is now at South Kensington. We add also another piece, no. 8906; well
worth the attention of a student, as exhibiting the full power

attainable by the introduction of the lustre tints. The yellow has a full rich
golden tone, and the ruby a pure vivid red.
Passeri states that Giorgio brought the secret of the ruby lustre with him
from Pavia, and M. Jacquemart infers that he must have produced works at
Pavia before going to Gubbio; but we are inclined to think with Mr.
Robinson that it was from an artist previously working at Gubbio that he
acquired the art and the monopoly of the ruby tint; and it is by no means
improbable that this artist, or his predecessor, may have emigrated from
Pesaro as stated above. The following conclusions arrived at by Mr.
Robinson after the careful study of a vast number of examples of the
Gubbio and other works are endorsed by the writer, who, having
contributed some few of the facts upon which those conclusions were
based, has himself examined the contents of the principal European
collections. Those conclusions are:—
1st. That maestro Giorgio did not invent the ruby lustre, but succeeded
to and monopolized the use of a pigment, used by an earlier artist of
Gubbio.
2d. That the signed works were really painted by several distinct hands.
3d. That his own work may be distinguished with approximate certainty.
4th. That probably nearly all the “istoriati” pieces (1530-50) of Urbino,
Castel Durante, or other fabriques, enriched with lustre, were so
decorated by a subsequent operation at the Giorgio botega; and,
5th. Consequently, the use of lustre colours was mainly confined to
Gubbio, where painted wares by Xanto and other artists working at
Urbino and other places, were sent to be lustred.
Before entering upon the subject of maestro Giorgio’s own works it will
be necessary to glance at the earlier productions of his predecessors and
probable instructors. In the absence of more positive evidence of the
manufacture of early lustred wares at Pesaro, and with a view to keeping all
the lustred wares together as much as possible, we have thought it more
convenient to include in the large catalogue those pieces which may
probably have been made at that city among the lustred wares of Gubbio,
always affixing to each such piece the name of Pesaro and of Gubbio with a
(?), and arranging them as a separate class. And in order to facilitate the
methodical study of the rise and development of the art at Gubbio we have
classified the lustred wares in the following manner, and in probable
sequence of date:—
A. Works ascribed to Pesaro (or Gubbio?), the typical “bacili” referred to
by Passeri, &c.
B. Works believed of the early master who preceded Mº Giorgio at
Gubbio.
C. Works ascribed to maestro Giorgio’s own hand.
 D. Works of the fabrique, and pieces painted by unknown artists, though
bearing the initials of the master.
E. Works by the artist signing N. and by his assistants.
F. Works painted by other artists at other fabriques, and subsequently
lustred at Gubbio.
G. Works of Mº Prestino, and of the later period.
Of the first class A. are those early “mezza-maiolica” dishes having a
lustre of a peculiar pearly effect: these are frequently painted with portraits
and armorial bearings, and have by many writers been ascribed to the
Diruta potteries. At South Kensington, no. 7160 is a characteristic example
of the usual type, while in no. 1606 we have an early specimen of the ruby
lustre. On the back of no. 3035 is found the only mark with which I am
acquainted on pieces of this class; the well-known Gubbio scroll executed
in manganese colour on the course yellow glaze.
Class B. is important as connecting the former with the works of the
Gubbio furnaces. No. 7682 is a typical piece, bearing another variety of the
Gubbio scroll mark in dark colour.
Class C. contains of course the cream of the manufacture, being the
works assigned to Mº Giorgio’s own hand. The museum series is very
complete, containing specimens from the earliest period of his unsigned
work. The deep tazza and large plateau, both of which we engrave, are
admirable examples of this period. The first dated piece in any collection
which we have every reason to believe a work of maestro Giorgio, is the
rilievo of S. Sebastian (shown in the woodcut, p. 116). Other but undated
works in rilievo exist, which, as in this instance, are heightened with the
gold and ruby pigments. The earliest example having a mark which may
perhaps be that of Giorgio, and painted by him, is a small plate in the
possession of Monsignore Cajani; a central medallion with half figure of S.
Petronio, surrounded by a border of the style of the early wares, beautifully
and carefully drawn and lustred with ruby and gold; it is marked at the back
with a sort of G, intersected by a cross and a paraphe, or flourish: see p.
122.
We now come to the period of Giorgio’s signed pieces, some of the first
of which show to what perfection he had brought his art.
The earliest known signed and dated piece is in the collection of Mr. Robert
Napier; the border is decorated with trophies, &c. among which occurs the
date 1517 written in blue, while at the back 1518 is pencilled in lustre
colours. Another plate of the same service and having the same initials of
the owner, a piece of exceeding beauty for the quality of the lustre colours,
is in the British museum; we give (p. 123) a facsimile of the central initials
and of the date on the back: and also a woodcut (p. 124), from a small tazza
at South Kensington of about the same period.
Mr. Robinson speaks of this specimen as “being of the most perfect
technique of the master; and that, although he was not a powerful
draughtsman, yet this single piece would suffice to establish his claims as a
colourist.”
Mº Giorgio’s manner of decoration consists of foliated scrolls and other
ornaments terminating in dolphins, eagles, and human heads, trophies,
masks, &c.; in the drawing of which he exhibited considerable power with
great facility of invention. These “grotesche” differ materially from those of
Urbino and Faenza, approaching more to the style of some of the Castel
Durante designs. In the drawing of figures, and of the nude, Giorgio cannot
be ranked as an artist of the first class. From 1519 his signature, greatly
varied, occurs through succeeding years. It would be useless to repeat the
many varieties, several of which will be seen in the large catalogue and
among the marks on specimens in other collections. We believe that to
whim or accident may be ascribed those changes that have tasked the
ingenuity of connoisseurs to read as other names. His finer and more
important pieces were generally signed in full “Maestro Giorgio da Ugubio”
with the year, and sometimes the day of the month. About the year 1525 he
executed some of his most beautiful works; perhaps the finest large dish,
and of the highest quality which has been preserved to us, was lately in the
possession of the baronne de Parpart; we understand that it has been sold
for £880. In that piece a rich grotesque border surrounds the subject of
Diana and her nymphs, surprised by Actæon; on p. 125 is a fac-simile, half
size, of the signature at the back.
 In the next division D. are the works of the fabrique under Giorgio’s
direction, and pieces which though manifestly painted by other hands are
signed in lustre with his initials or full signature. We have no means of
learning what part his brothers undertook in the manufactory. A separate
division has also been formed of the works ascribed to or signed by the
artist who used the letter N, variously formed, as his monogram. Mr.
Robinson has ingeniously suggested that this letter, containing as it does the
three, V I and N, may really have been adopted by “Vincenzio,” the only
one of his sons known to have assisted. He succeeded Mº Giorgio in the
fabrique, where he was generally known as Mº Cencio. Brancaleoni states
that he worked with his father till 1536, when he married and set up for
himself. There is little doubt that although Mº Giorgio may himself have
occasionally applied the lustre pigments with his own brush to the pieces
painted by other artists at other places, the majority of those so enriched
were executed by his son or assistants. M. Darcel thinks that this practice
did not begin earlier than 1525, in which view we are inclined to agree.
 Under division F. will be found works of this kind, among which the
more interesting at South Kensington are no. 8886, a fine portrait plate;
4726 having the painter’s date and mark, and that of him who lustred it; the
very remarkable plaque 520, the work of Orazio Fontana, with the
monogram of Giorgio; and the small plate 8907, dated in lustre colour as
late as 1549.
The last division G. contains works ascribed to him, and examples of the
decadence of the lustred wares.
Before closing our observations on the splendid products of this
abundant pottery, we will refer to several marks which occur on pieces in all
probability made and painted there but some of which we are unable to
explain. A plate with bust portrait of a warrior, in the collection of M.
Meurnier, of Paris, having four coats of arms on the border and the letters Y.
A. E., is inscribed on the face with the name “Gabriel. da. Gubbio.” This
doubtless is a portrait plate, and the letters may allude to the families or
individuals whose arms are blazoned. “Gualdo” is said to be inscribed on a
brilliantly lustred specimen which we have failed to trace, and pieces in the
Louvre have been doubtingly classed under that name by M. Darcel. A
man’s head, rudely sketched in lustre colours, occurs on the back of a plate
in the British museum, more probably an artist’s whim than an intentional
mark. The letters MR combined occur on a lustred piece, perhaps a
monogram of M. Prestino. The letter P, variously formed, may also
probably be his initial.
About 1560-70 the use of the lustre pigments would seem to have been
almost discontinued; the secret of their proper composition and
manipulation was lost during the general decline of Italian artistic pottery,
and the death of Guid’ Ubaldo II. in 1574 was the “coup-de-grâce” to the
already much deteriorated wares of the duchy.
Those beautiful colours, known to the Italians as “rubino,” “cangiante,”
“madreperla,” “a reverbero,” and to the French as “reflet métallique,”
“nacré,” &c. have been to a certain extent reproduced. Unfortunately many
pieces made in the manufactory at Doccia have, after chipping and
scratching, been palmed upon unwary amateurs as ancient specimens by
unprincipled dealers at Florence and elsewhere. Some of these modern
examples are in the ceramic gallery at South Kensington. The most
successful reproduction of the famous lustre has however been made at
Gubbio itself by an able young chemist and artist, Luigi Carocci. Some of
his productions are excellent, though far from having those artistic qualities
so apparent in the finer specimens of maestro Giorgio’s work.
Although there can be little doubt that Castel Durante was one of
the earliest sites of the manufacture of enamelled pottery in Italy, as well as
one of the most fruitful not only of produce but of those potters who in their
own city, and at other establishments founded by them in various parts of
Italy, spread the fame of the Durantine wares and the Durantine artists
throughout Europe, it is remarkable that so few pieces have descended to
us, upon which the names of their authors are recorded, or of the “boteghe”
in which they were produced. Long lists are given by Raffaelli and other
writers, but to identify the works of their hands is generally denied us, from
the absence of signed examples by which their style can be known.
From Castel Durante came the Pelliparii who on establishing themselves
at the capital city of the duchy took the name of Fontana, to which is
attached some of the greatest triumphs of their art. “Francesco,” the able
painter who probably worked at Urbino and afterwards at Monte Bagnolo
near Perugia, was as he styled himself “Durantino.” A new life seems to
have been given to artistic pottery in Venice by the immigration of a
Durantine artist Francesco del Vasaro in 1545; and even later in the history,
when the independence of the duchy was oppressed and local patronage had
waned, another potter, Mº Diomede Durante, tried his fortune at Rome.
Others went to France, Flanders, and Corfu, spreading the art which
attained important development at Nevers, at Lyons, and other French
centres.
Castel Durante, which rose from the ruins of Castel Ripense in the
thirteenth century, took the appellation of Urbania under the reign and in
compliment to her native Pope, Urban VIII. It is now a small dull town on
the banks of the Metauro, on the post-road from Urbino to Borgo San
Sepolcro, and about thirteen Italian miles distant from the former city. The
alluvial banks and deposits of the river furnished the material for her
pottery.
Signor Raffaelli, in his valuable “Memorie,” surmises that the
manufacture of glazed pottery, as an art, was introduced at the time when
monsignor Durante built a “Castello” at the badia of St. Cristoforo at
Cerreto on the Metauro, in 1284, as a place of security for the Guelphs.
Seventy years afterwards in 1361 the then deceased maestro Giovanni dai
Bistugi of Castel Durante is referred to, who probably was so named to
distinguish him from the workers in glazed ware. This glazed ware was
doubtless the ordinary lead glazed pottery or “mezza” ware, which preceded
the use of that with stanniferous enamel and does not, as M. Darcel would
suggest, afford any proof that the use of this enamel was known here before
its application or stated discovery by Luca della Robbia. At that time even
these lead glazed wares were little known, and it was not till 1300 that they
seem to have become more generally adopted. Thenceforward their
manufacture continued, for in 1364 a work is mentioned on the bank of the
torrent Maltempo at “Pozzarelli,” perhaps so named from the pits dug for
extracting the loam. The early wares were coarse, painted with coats of
arms and half figures, the flesh being left white and the dress in gay
colours. In 1500 both the “mezza” and the enamelled wares, as well as the
“sgraffio” work, were made. The beautiful “amatoria” plate which we
engrave was about this date, and shows the beginning of a style of
decoration which afterwards prevailed in a more developed form at this
fabrique. The manufacture was at its perfection about 1525 and 1530, and
continued to produce good wares even till 1580. It would appear that the
great artists only painted the more important subject of the piece, leaving
the ornamentation to be finished by the pupils and assistants.
 Piccolpasso informs us that the earth or loam gathered on the banks of
the Metauro, near Castel Durante, is of superior quality for the manufacture
of pottery. A variety called “celestrina” was used for making the seggers,
“astucci,” when mixed with the “terra rossa;” but for the finer class of work
the loam deposited by the river which when washed was called “bianco
allattato,” and when of a blue shade of colour, was reserved for the more
important pieces. The turnings of this variety mixed with the shavings of
woollen cloth were used to attach the handles and other moulded
ornaments, and was known as “barbatina.” The red pigment of Faenza,
called “vergiliotto” was not used at Castel Durante. We presume this colour
to be that ochreous red employed for heightening and shading the draperies,
&c. by the painters of the Fontana fabrique at Urbino, and that of Lanfranco

at Pesaro, and some others; if so, the absence or presence of it would be

useful as evidence in determining the origin of a piece.
Signor Raffaelli thinks that many of the wares generally known as of
Urbino were so called from the province, and frequently included those
which were really the produce of Castel Durante. Passeri also speaks in
high commendation of the Durantine wares, and Pozzi states that it was the
rival of and only second to Faenza in the quality of its productions. The
fatal blow to this branch of industry was the death of the last duke,
Francesco Maria II. in 1631, when there being no longer a court the trade
declined, money became scarce, and the artists emigrated.
Of signed examples of the wares of Castel Durante, the earliest piece
known is the beautiful bowl belonging to Mrs. H. T. Hope which was
exhibited in the Loan collection. The ground of this piece is of an intense
dark and rich blue, entirely covered with a decoration of grotesques, among
which occurs a shield of arms of the Delia Rovere family surmounted by
the papal tiara and the keys, proving it to have been made for pope Julius
II.; trophies of books, festoons of drapery and, above, a boy angel holding a
“veronica” or napkin impressed with the face of the Saviour. At the sides
other trophies, satyrs, cupids, and interlaced foliage are richly and
harmoniously disposed, among which are two labels inscribed respectively
“Iv. II. Pon. Max.” and “Tu. es. sacerdos. i eter.” “In the design and
execution of the painting,” says Mr. Robinson, in his catalogue of that
famous collection, “splendour of colour, and perfection of enamel glaze,
this magnificent piece is a triumph of the art.” On the same occasion Mr.
Morland exhibited a piece by the same hand, and we think we recognize
variations of the same manner in two examples now in the South
Kensington museum, nos. 1728 and 1735.
In the rich and even quality of the glaze, the tendency to that form of
decoration known as “a candeliere” (as in the vase engraved), mixed
grotesques, trophies of musical instruments, and cupids, in a style of
painting which is free and at the same time firm and sure, and in the full yet
soft colouring, we see in Mrs. Hope’s bowl a commencement of what
became a very general manner in the decoration of the Durantine wares.
Of eleven years later we have the pharmacy jars which must have
formed portions of a large and important service, one of which is in the
British museum and another in the South Kensington. The signature on the
British museum jar states, “Ne la botega d’ Sebastiano d’ Marforia,” and “A
di xi de Octobre fece 1519,” and again at the base, “In Castel durā.” On p.
132 is a woodcut
of a mark in yellow, on a plate in the same museum, on which is the subject
of Dido and Ascanius.
It would seem that this fabrique continued to flourish when those of
Urbino and Pesaro had comparatively decayed; this may partly have been
owing to the encouragement given by the duke Francesco Maria II. (1574 to
1631), who frequently resided at Castel Durante and took some interest in
the manufacture. It however only produced at this period works of more
general utility, artistic and ornamental pieces being the exception.
The wares of Castel Durante are generally to be recognised by a pale
buff coloured paste, and great richness and purity of the
glaze. The plates (of which we give three woodcuts, from examples at
South Kensington, nos. 8947, 8960, and 413) are rarely decorated at the
back, but like those of Urbino and Pesaro are generally edged with yellow
on the subject pieces, and with grey white on those having grotesques,
which are in low olive tint on a blue ground. The colours are sometimes
rather pale but harmonious and the carnations are of an olive tint, thought
by some a distinguishing mark of the fabrique; while the absence of the
ochreous red pigment so noticeable on the Urbino and Pesaro “istoriati”
pieces is remarkable. In the draperies painted upon these wares blue and
ochreous yellow predominate. Broadly treated grotesques and trophies of
arms, musical instruments, books, &c. frequently painted in camaïeu of
greenish grey on a blue ground, are favourite subjects of ornament; these
also
occur painted in rich colours, among which a deep clear brown

may be noted, and surrounding medallions having portrait or fanciful heads

on a yellow ground. Subject pieces do not appear to have been so
abundantly painted at Castel Durante as at the neighbouring fabriques, and
such pieces to which the lustre enrichment has been added are still less
frequent.
 Many of the tazze the whole surfaces of which are covered with a
portrait head may probably be assigned to this place, where there would
appear to have been one or two artists who made almost a specialty of this
style of decoration. The South Kensington museum is rich in these portrait
plates; among them is a remarkable example on which a likeness of Pietro
Perugino in full face is portrayed (p. 135) and which we are disposed to
assign to this fabrique, but always with some hesitation. Another class of
pieces which we believe to have been for the most part made at Castel
Durante is that ornamented with oak branches painted yellow on a blue
ground, and sometimes in relief, surrounding a small medallion central
portrait or imaginary head.
Castel Durante seems to have supplied a larger number of pharmacy jars,
vases and bottles, than any other fabrique perhaps with the exception of
Faenza. The blue and yellow draperies of the earlier period were also a
leading feature in the revival after 1730, and a washy green was also used;
the drawing was good and some of the landscape pieces excellent, of
careful finish, soft colouring and good aërial perspective. It is very
probable, however, that many pieces of this period were really the produce
of Castelli or Naples.
 CHAPTER XIII.
Urbino.
Although not to be ranked with the earliest seats of the manufacture
of artistic pottery in Italy, there is no place so much associated with these
beautiful productions of the potter’s art as the small city of Urbino, whence,
indeed, was derived one of the names by which it is distinguished.
Crowning a steep among the many hills of Umbria, remarkable in the
landscape from her picturesque position and the towering palace of her
dukes, Urbino is one of those very curious cities with which Italy abounds,
and which centre round themselves an individual history of the greatest
interest. What giants of art and of literature were born or nurtured in that
little town! now so neglected and unknown. He who, climbing the steep
ascent and tortuous narrow streets, has visited the deserted halls and richly
decorated cabinets of her palace, and has travelled through the beauteous
scenery of her neighbourhood, to where the delicious valley of the Tiber
bursts upon the sight, will never forget the impressions that they leave.
In proof of the antiquity of ceramic industry of a more ordinary kind in
the vicinity of this city, Pungileoni tells us that an antique amphora was not
long since discovered in the grounds of the Villa Gaisa, hard by the river
Isauro, and that near to it were also found remains of a potter’s furnace.
This, however, does not prove the early establishment of a fabrique of
glazed or enamelled decorative wares. Marryat states that in a register of
Urbino dated 1477 one Giovanni di Donino Garducci is mentioned as a
potter of that place, but it is not till 1501 that any further record occurs. In
that year an assortment of vases, dishes, &c. were ordered to be made for
the use of the cardinal di Carpaccio, and among them are mentioned
“bacili” having the arms of the cardinal in the centre, and water “boccali” or
jugs with little lions on the covers. The earliest pieces now known to us,
which can with any certainty be ascribed to the potteries of Urbino, are
probably those of the Gonzaga-Este service, which are undoubtedly the
work of Nicola da Urbino; these must have been painted between the period
of the marriage of the marquis with Isabella d’ Este, in 1490, and before her
death in 1539.
 We have no account of the precise date at which the Pellipario,
afterwards Fontana, family came from Castel Durante and settled at Urbino,
but we have documentary proof that “Guido Niccolai Pellipario figulo da
Durante,” or “Guido, son of Nicola Pellipario, potter of Durante,” was
established at Urbino in 1520. From this period through the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries a number of pieces are dated and signed by various
artists, or as having been made in the boteghe of various maestri of Urbino.
We are obliged to refer the reader to the large catalogue, in detail, of the
South Kensington collection of maiolica, for an account of the works of the
more important of these artists under their respective names, beginning with
Nicola as the earliest of whom we have known examples; the Fontana
family, and of Guido Durantino; the works of Fra Xanto; of Francesco
Durantino; of the Patanazzi; not omitting those of other artists of the
fabrique, of whom we have smaller record in remaining examples or
documentary history. There seems little doubt that the revival or perhaps the
first introduction of artistic ceramic manufacture to Urbino was under the
influence of Guidobaldo I., and that many of the potters and nearly all the
more important artists immigrated from Castel Durante. Long lists of names
have been published by Raffaelli, but it is difficult to distinguish between
the more ordinary potters and the artists, whose works we are unable to
recognise from the absence of signed specimens. Our space here will allow
us to do little more than mention their names.
Considerable uncertainty exists and some confusion has arisen among
connoisseurs in respect to the works of the very able artist Nicola da
Urbino, and as to his connection with the Fontana family and fabrique at
Urbino, the latter still a disputed and undecided question; as also to the
marks on various pieces attributable to his hand only, but which have been
assigned by M. Jacquemart to the fabrique of Ferrara, and by other writers
to various painters and localities. There are no pieces marked or signed by
this artist in the South Kensington museum, but it possesses some examples
of his work. A certain similarity in some of his less careful pieces has
caused them, not unfrequently, to be attributed to Xanto, but a closer study
of his manner will show it to be really very distinct.
The first signed piece is in the British museum, a plate, representing a
sacrifice to Diana, and inscribed on the reverse as in the opposite woodcut.
Comparing this mark with those of the Gonzaga-Este service, Mr. Franks
arrived at the conclusion that they also were painted by Nicola in his most
careful manner; the clue thus found, he ingeniously deciphered the
monogram on the beautiful fragment in the Sauvageot collection painted
with a group from the Parnassus of Raffaelle, as clearly and unmistakably
by the same hand.
The manner of Nicola is remarkable for a sharp and careful outline of the
figures, the features clearly defined but with much delicacy of touch, the
eyes, mouth, and nostrils denoted by a clear black spot, the faces oval,
derived from the Greek model, a free use of yellow and a pale yellow green,
a tightening of the ankle and a peculiar rounding of the knee, the hair and
beard of the older heads heightened with white; the architecture bright and
distinct; the landscape background somewhat carefully rendered in dark
blue against a golden sky; and lastly, the stems of the trees, strangely
tortuous, are coloured brown, strongly marked with black lines, as also are
the rolled up clouds; these are treated in a manner not very true to nature.

Few Maiolica painters have produced works of greater beauty than the
plates of the Gonzaga-Este service, which are equally excellent in the
quality of glaze and the brilliancy of colour.
With regard to the Fontana family, chiefs among Italian ceramic artists,
we quote from the notice by Mr. Robinson appended to the Soulages
catalogue. He tells us that “The celebrity of one member of this family has
been long established by common consent. Orazio Fontana has always
occupied the highest place in the scanty list of Maiolica artists, although at
the same time nothing was definitely known of his works. Unlike their
contemporary, Xanto, the Fontana seem but rarely to have signed their
productions, and consequently their reputation as yet rests almost entirely
on tradition, on incidental notices in writings which date back to the age in
which they flourished, and on facts extracted at a recent period from local
records. No connected account of this family has as yet been attempted,
although the materials are somewhat less scanty than usual. There can be no
doubt that a considerable proportion of the products of the Fontana
‘boteghe’ is still extant, and that future observations will throw light on
much that is now obscure in the history of this notable race of industrial
artists. Orazio Fontana, whose renown seems to have completely eclipsed
that of the other members of his family and in fact of all the other Urbinese
artists, is first mentioned by Baldi, at the beginning of the seventeenth
century, in his eulogy of the state of Urbino pronounced before duke
Francesco Maria II.” “From documents cited by Raffaelli, it is established
beyond doubt that the original family name was Pellipario, of Castel
Durante, Fontana being an adopted surname; and it is not immaterial to
observe that down to the latest mention of any one of the family (in 1605)
they are invariably described as of Castel Durante.” “The Fontana were
undoubtedly manufacturers as well as artists, i.e., they were the proprietors
of ‘vaserie.’ Of the first Nicola, as we have only a brief incidental notice,
nothing positive can be affirmed: but with respect to his son Guido, we have
the testimony both of works still extant, and of contemporary documents.
We know also that Guido’s son Orazio also had a manufactory of his own,
and the fact is established, that between 1565 and 1571 there were two
distinct Fontana manufactories,—those of father and son. What became of
Orazio’s establishment after his death, whether continued by his brother
Camillo, or reunited to that of the father, there is no evidence to show. With
respect to the remaining members of the family, our information is of the
scantiest kind. Camillo, who was inferior in reputation as a painter only to
his elder brother, appears to have been invited to Ferrara by duke Alfonso
II., and to have introduced the Maiolica manufacture into that city. Of
Nicola, the third (?) son, we have only incidental mention in a legal
document, showing that he was alive in the year 1570. Guido, son of
Camillo, lived till 1605; and of Flaminio, who may either have been son of
Camillo or of Nicola, Dennistoun’s vague notice asserting his settlement in
Florence is all I have been able to collect. No signed pieces of Camillo,
Flaminio, Nicola the second, or Guido the second, have as yet been
observed.
“A considerable proportion of the Fontana maiolica is doubtless still
extant; and it is desirable to endeavour to identify the works of the
individual members of the family, without which the mere knowledge of
their existence is of very little moment; but this is no easy task; although
specimens from the hands of one or other of them are to be undoubtedly
found in almost every collection, the work of comparison and collation has
as yet been scarcely attempted. The similarity of style and technical
characteristics of the several artists moreover, working as they did with the
same colours on the same quality of enamel ground, and doubtless in
intimate communication with each other, resolves itself into such a strong
family resemblance, that it will require the most minute and careful
observation, unremittingly continued, ere the authorship of the several
specimens can be determined with anything like certainty. The evidence of
signed specimens is of course the most to be relied on, and is indeed
indispensable in giving the clue to complete identification in the first
instance; but in the case of the Fontana family a difficulty presents itself
which should be noticed in the outset. This difficulty arises in determining
the authorship of the pieces signed ‘Fatto in botega,’ &c. &c.; a mode of
signature, in fact, which proves very little in determining individual
characteristics, inasmuch as apparently nearly all the works so inscribed are
painted by other hands than that of the proprietor of the Vaseria. In cases,
however, in which the artist has actually signed or initialed pieces with his
own name, of course no such difficulty exists, but the certainty acquired by
this positive evidence is as yet confined in the case of the Fontana family to
their greatest name, Orazio.” We regret that our limits prevent further
quotation from Mr. Robinson’s valuable remarks.
It is a matter of uncertainty whether Guido Fontana and Guido Durantino
were the same person or rival maestri; and we are disposed to the former
opinion, from the fact that in the documents quoted by Pungileoni no other
“Vasaio” named Guido, and of Castel Durante, is named. The pieces
inscribed as having been made in their boteghe although painted by
different hands may, by the wording of their inscriptions afford some
explanation; thus, on the Sta. Cecilia plate painted by Nicola, he
writes in 1528, “fata in botega di Guido da Castello d’Urante in Urbino,”
from which we argue a connexion with the Fontana.
Unfortunately, we know no piece signed as actually painted by the hand
of Guido Fontana, but as he took that cognomen after settling in Urbino it
would be more probable that he would himself apply it on his own work;
whereas Nicola (presumably his father), on a piece of earlier date, retained
the name of their native castello. By others the botega would long be
known as that of the “durantini,” and that it retained that appellation
even in the following generation is proved by the occasional reference to
Orazio Fontana as of Castel Durante. We give a woodcut of an example of
the highest quality; a pilgrim’s bottle, at South Kensington, no. 8408.
The manner of the painter of these pieces approaches very much to that
of Orazio but is less refined and rich in colouring wanting that harmony and
power of expression for which he was remarkable; the drawing is more
correct and careful than on some of Orazio’s work, but is more dry and on
the surface; there is great force and movement in the figures and the
landscape backgrounds are finished with much care and effect, sometimes
covering the whole piece; the foliage of the trees is also well rendered.