It is not possible to assign the cause of this transition, as we are able to do in the case of later painters; but it is reasonable to conclude that it was not wholly produced, even by the almost divine genius of this artist, unaided by adventitious circumstances. There is no necessity for sending him, as some have done, to be instructed at Pisa; his history does not warrant it, and an historian is not a diviner. Much less ought we to refer him to the school of F. Jacopo da Turrita, and give him Memmi and Lorenzetti for fellow pupils, who are not known to have been in Rome when F. Jacopo was distinguished for his best manner. But P. della Valle thinks he discovers in Giotto's first painting, the style and composition of Giunta, (Preface to Vasari, p. 17,) and in the pictures of Giotto at S. Croce, in Florence, which "_he has meditated upon a hundred times_," he recognizes F. Jacopo, and finds "_reason for opining_" that he was the master of Giotto. (Vide tom. ii. p. 78.) When a person becomes attached to a system, he often sees and opines what no one else can possibly see or opine. In the same manner Baldinucci wished to refer to the school of Giotto, one Duccio da Siena, Vital di Bologna, and many others, as will be noticed; and he too argues upon a resemblance of style, which, to say truth, neither I nor any one I know can perceive. If I cannot then agree with Baldinucci, can I value his imitator? and more particularly as it is no question here of Vitale, or any other artist of mediocrity, almost unknown to history, but of Giotto himself. Is it likely, with a genius such as his, and born in an age not wholly barbarous, with the advantages enjoyed under Cimabue, especially in point of colouring, that he would take Giunta for his model, or listen to the instruction of Fra Mino, in order to excel his master. Besides, what advantage can be obtained from thus disturbing the order of chronology, violating history, and rejecting the tradition of Giotto's native school, in order to account for his new style?