Yet Mengs denies that they were consummate colourists, though they studied the Lombard and Venetian schools, an opinion confirmed by Lodovico's paintings in oil, which are faded and almost gone. This arose, either from the nature of his grounds, from too abundant use of oil, or from not allowing due time between preparing his canvass and colouring it. The same remark will not apply to his frescos, which, on a near view, exhibit a boldness of hand equal almost to Paolo's; nor, in the opinion of Bellori, was there any work which, in point of colouring, reflected higher credit on the Caracci, and on the age, than their pictures in the Casa Magnani. They boast a truth, force, mixture, and harmony of colours, such as to entitle them also in this portion of the art to the praise of being reformers of the age. They effectually banished those wretched yellows, and other weak, washy tints, introduced from parsimony, in place of the azures and different colours of higher price. In this Bellori accords most merit to Annibal; declaring it was owing to him that Lodovico himself renounced his first method of colouring, which was formed on that of Procaccini.
In action and expression they aimed at vivacity, but without ever losing sight of propriety, of which they were extremely observant; and to which they were ready to sacrifice any of the graces of the art. In taste of invention and composition, they come near that of Raffaello. The Caracci were not lavish of their figures, conceiving twelve sufficient for any historical piece, except in crowds, or in battle-pieces, where they were still moderate, in order to give greater relief to particular groups. That they were competent to compose with judgment, learning, and variety, is fully apparent from their sacred histories represented on altars, where they avoided, as much as possible, the very trite representation of a Madonna between various saints. This truth is still more remarkably shewn in their profane histories, and in none better than those of Romulus, in the family just before mentioned. The three relations there appear universal in the art, as perspective, landscape, and ornamental painters, masters of every style, and concentering in one point of view whatever is most desirable in any single work. The three artists seem to disappear in one; and the same is observed also in several galleries and churches of Bologna. They followed the same maxims, and in the same studio designed in union with one another, conferring and taking measures how best to complete every work in hand. In several instances it still remains matter of doubt whether pictures are to be attributed to Annibal or to Lodovico; and the three scriptural histories of the Sampieri, in which the three relations wished to display their respective powers, do not exhibit a diversity which might essentially characterize their respective authors. Some indeed there are who may detect in Lodovico a more general imitation of Titian, than is observable in the cousins, Agostino inclining more to the taste of Tintoretto, Annibal to that of Coreggio. It has sometimes been remarked that the figures of the first of the three are light in form, those of the third, robust; while those of Agostino hold a middle rank. At Bologna I found Lodovico enjoying most repute for a certain elevation and grandeur; Agostino for his inventive powers; Annibal for grace. Every one must judge, however, according to his own views. It is now my duty to consider these separately.