The whole of these writers, following the example of Scannelli and Orlandi, have complained of Vasari for having falsely asserted the abject condition of Antonio,[12] sprung, in fact, from a tolerably good family in an illustrious city, and not destitute of those conveniences of fortune that might enable him from the first to obtain an education adapted to the success of his future efforts. They have also in particular reproached him with his excessive credulity, in representing him to us as a suffering and unhappy object, burdened with a numerous family, little appreciated and badly rewarded for his labours. On the contrary they observe, we know that he was respected by the great, richly recompensed, and enabled to leave a fair heritage for his family. Now I admit that Vasari is guilty of much exaggeration, though not without some shew of truth; for we only need to compare the commissions and gains of Coreggio with those of Raffaello, of Michelangiolo, of Titian, and even of Vasari himself, to divest us of all surprise at the honest commiseration of the historian. Annibal Caracci did not only compassionate his condition, but is said to have bewailed it with his tears.[13] Besides, if we reflect that the terms made use of by Vasari, of Coreggio having become _si misero_, so wretched, that nothing could be worse, do not exactly signify _miserabile_, miserable, as interpreted by some of his critics, but rather mean, _miserly_, and _sparing_, renouncing certain conveniences of life, in order to spend as little as possible, it will alter the complexion of the case. In the same manner he states, or rather as some think, imagines that Antonio, though enabled to travel like others, by water, mounted horse during the summer solstice, and shortly after died. And, indeed, if we consider the singular deprivations to which very wealthy people, for the same reason, will submit, we do not see how a reference to the possessions of the Allegri family, not without some degree of exaggeration, as has more than once been done, can disprove this charge of meanness and extreme parsimony. We trust that the Signor Dottor Antonioli will inform us more distinctly respecting the amount of Antonio's property, though we are inclined to believe it could not have exceeded the limits of mediocrity. The highest salaries received by him have been ascertained. For the cupola and larger nave of the church of San Giovanni, he was paid four hundred and seventy-two gold ducats, or Venetian zecchins, and for the cupola of the cathedral, three hundred and fifty; doubtless considerable sums, though we should consider he was occupied from the year 1520 until 1530, in the designs and labours requisite for works of such magnitude, and which prevented him from accepting other offers of any account during the interval. He earned forty gold ducats by his celebrated picture of Night; his San Girolamo brought him forty-seven ducats, or