Quod lacerum corpus medicâ sanaverit arte, Hippolytum Stygiis et revocarit aquis, Ad Stygias ipse est raptus Epidaurius undas; Sic pretium vitæ mors fuit artifici. Tu quoque dum toto laniatam corpore Romam Componis miro, Raphael, ingenio, Atque urbis lacerum ferro, igne, armisque cadaver Ad vitam antiquum jam revocasque decus, Movisti Superum invidiam; indignataque mors est Te dudum extinctis reddere posse animam, Et quod longa dies paullatim aboleverat, hoc te Mortali spretâ lege parare iterum. Sic miser heu primâ cadis intercepte juventâ: Debere et morti nostraque nosque mones. Baldassare Castiglione.] The immediate and most important consequence of these antiquarian pursuits was the adoption of classic forms by architects and artists. Fresco-painters imitated the newly-discovered _grotteschi_ in their arabesques.[408] Sculptors abandoned Christian subjects for antique mythology, or gave the attributes of heroes to the saints of the Catholic Church. The principles of Vitruvius were applied as strictly as possible to modern buildings, and the free decoration of the earlier Renaissance yielded to what passed for purely classic ornaments. It would be incorrect to maintain that this reproduction of antiquity in art only dated from the age of Leo. Alberti and Brunelleschi, Bramante and Michellozzo, had, each in his own way, striven to assimilate to modern use the style of Roman architecture. Donatello and Michael Angelo at Florence had carved statues in the classic manner; nor are the arabesques of Signorelli at Orvieto, of Perugino at Perugia, less fanciful than those of Raphael in the Loggie. What really happened was that the imitation of the ancients grew more puristic and precise through the formation of a common taste that imposed itself with the weight of authority on artists. Giulio Romano's Palazzo del Te at Mantua may be cited as the most perfect production of this epoch, combining, as it does, all forms of antique decoration and construction with the vivid individuality of genius. Giulio Romano comprehended the antique, and followed it with the enthusiasm of a neophyte. But his very defects prevented him from falling into the frigid formalism of Palladio. [Footnote 408: See Benvenuto Cellini, i. 31.]