[Footnote 63: They are believed to be anterior to the year 1300 by the historian of the art of Painting at Friuli; but to this I cannot agree. The pictures bear a very great resemblance to the designs of Orcagna; or rather to the poetry of Dante, who, in the year above mentioned, feigns to have had his vision, and described it in the years immediately succeeding. In confirmation of this opinion, it must be remarked that the style is Florentine, and induces us to suppose that a painter of that school must have been there. See _Lettera postuma del P. Cortinovis sopra le Antichità di Sesto_, published in the _Giornale Veneto_, (or _Memorie per servire all' Istoria Letter. e Civile_) Semestre ii. p. 1. of the year 1800. It was reprinted at Udine in 1801, in octavo, with some excellent notes by the Cav. Antonio Bartolini, who has distinguished himself by other productions connected with bibliography and the fine arts.] [Footnote 64: Vide Giuseppe Maria Mecatti, who has given an exact description of it.] [Footnote 65: Vasari is by no means so bitter against the Venetian school as it is wished to make him appear. In regard to these pictures he declares, "that they are universally admitted, with justice, to be the best which were produced among many excellent masters, at different times, in that place." They are, therefore, preferred by him to the whole of the Florentine and Siennese paintings there exhibited; and his opinion is authorized by that of P. della Valle, who frequently differs from him. If it could be proved from history, as it may be reasonably conjectured, that Antonio was a painter when he came from Venice, and did not commence his art at Florence, he would merit the reputation of being the greatest artist of that school known to us; as well as of having conferred some benefit upon that of Florence, from the Venetian school. But this point is very doubtful.] [Footnote 66: We cannot reconcile it to dates that Paolo Uccello was one of his scholars, having been born after the death of Antonio, if, indeed, there be not some error in regard to the chronology either of the master or of his pupil. Starnina might have been his pupil, as he is said to have been born in 1354; and, therefore, in 1370, he might possibly be one of his school. Yet it appears that Antonio had then renounced the easel. In his epitaph we find written: Annis qui fueram pictor JUVENILIBUS, artis Me Medicæ reliquo tempore coepit amor, &c. (See Vasari ed. Senese, tom. ii. p. 297.)]