Of those who here follow, a part formed the body of painters under the government of Lodovico the Moor, during whose time Vinci resided at Milan, and others were gradually making progress during the following years, though not any wholly succeeded in freeing themselves from the old style. The first on the list are the two Bernardi, as frequently also called Bernardini, natives of Trevilio in the Milanese, the one of the family Butinoni, the other of that of Zenale, both pupils of Civerchio, and his rivals both in painting and in writing. Trevilio is a territory in the Milanese, at that period included in that of Bergamo, and for this reason comprehended by Count Tassi in its school. It is also a considerable distance from Trevigi, where he took advantage of the resemblance of the name to announce one Bernardino da Trevigi, a painter and architect, who never existed. Vasari mentions a Bernardino da Trevio (he meant to say Trevilio) who, in the time of Bramante, was an engineer at Milan, "a very able designer, and esteemed an excellent master by Vinci, though his manner was somewhat harsh and dry in his pictures;" and he then cites among his other works a picture of the Resurrection at the cloister of the Grazie, which presents some beautiful foreshortenings. It is surprising how Bottari should have changed Trevio into Trevigi, and how Orlandi should have understood Vasari as writing of Butinone, when, guided by Lomazzo, at page 271, and in other parts of the treatise, it was easy to conjecture that he was there speaking of Zenale of Trevilio. He was a distinguished character, in the confidence of Vinci,[45] and in the Treatise upon Painting compared with Mantegna, besides being continually referred to as an example in the art of perspective, on which, when old, in 1524, he composed a work, and put down a variety of observations. There, too, among others, he treated the question so long contested in those days, whether the objects represented small and in the distance ought to be less distinct in order to imitate nature, than those that are larger and more near, a question which he explained in the negative, contending rather that distant objects should be as highly finished and well proportioned as those more fully before the eye. This, then, is the Bernardino, so much commended by Vasari, whose opinion of this artist may be verified by viewing the Resurrection at Le Grazie, and a Nunziata at San Sempliciano, presenting a very fine piece of architecture, calculated to deceive the eye. This, however, is the best portion of the painting, as the figures are insignificant, both in themselves and in their drapery. In respect to Butenone, his contemporary, and companion also when he painted at San Pietro in Gessato, we may conclude that he displayed an excellent knowledge of perspective, since it is affirmed by Lomazzo. For the rest, his works, with the exception of a few pictures for rooms, better designed than coloured, have all perished.