Pietro Vannucci della Pieve,[19] as he calls himself in some pictures, or of Perugia in others, from the citizenship which he there enjoyed, had studied under a master of no great celebrity, if we are to believe Vasari; and this was a Pietro da Perugia, as Bottari conjectured, or Niccolò Alunno, as it was reported in Foligno. Mariotti pretends that Pietro advanced himself greatly in Perugia in the schools of Bonfigli, and Pietro della Francesca, from which he not only derived that excellence in perspective, which, from the testimony of Vasari was so much admired in Florence, but also much of his design and colouring.[20] Mariotti then raises a doubt whether, when he went as an artist to Florence, he became the scholar of Verrocchio, as writers report, or whether he did not rather perfect himself from the great examples of Masaccio, and the excellent painters who at that time flourished there; and he finally determines in favour of the opinion held by Pascoli, Bottari, and Taja, and adopted by Padre Resta, in his _Galleria Portatile_, p. 10, that Verrocchio was never his master. It is well worth while to read the disquisitions of this able writer in his fifth letter, where we may admire the dexterity with which he settles a point so perplexed and so interesting to the history of art. I will only add that it appears to me not improbable, that Pietro, when he arrived at Florence, attached himself to this most celebrated artist, and was instructed by him in design, and in the plastic art particularly, and in that fine style of painting with which Verrocchio, without much practising it himself, imbued both Vinci and Credi. Traditions are seldom wholly groundless; they have generally some foundation in truth.