It hangs in the Capitoline Gallery in Rome (Plate II), where it is
called “Portrait of Velasquez, by himself,” an attribution which no
student of Velasquez would maintain to-day. The shape of the head and
face and the expression are extremely like Bernini. Even the different
shape and angle of the two eyebrows is the same as in his portraits.
The quality of the hair is the same, and the way it grows over the
temples. In the earlier portraits of him the hair is parted on the
right side as in the Capitoline picture. The nose is very nearly the
same as in the pencil portraits by himself in the National Gallery in
Rome and in the Chigi collection.
Footnote 8:
The Borghese Warrior was found at Anzio at the beginning of the
seventeenth century. See Friederichs-Wolters, _Gipsabgüsse_, 1885, p.
541 f; Vulpius, _Vetus Latium_, 1726, Vol. III, p. 28.
Footnote 9:
It is not improbable that the statue of St. Lawrence, in the Strozzi
palace in Florence, which Bernini made at this time, was influenced by
the Dying Gaul. The two statues resemble each other closely in many
ways. There is a tradition that Michael Angelo restored certain small
portions of the Gaul, but the character of the work of the
restorations suggests Bernini rather than Michael Angelo.
Footnote 10:
In Brookline, Mass.; see p. 44 and Plates XI-XXVII.
Footnote 11:
The head reminds one of the Capitoline Alexander, which Bernini may
have seen.
Footnote 12:
Balcarres, _The Evolution of Italian Sculpture_, p. 333–334.
Footnote 13:
Balcarres, _op. cit._, p. 334.
Footnote 14:
In relation to the influence of ancient work on Bernini, it is worth
note that the four great figures in the Piazza Navona are very
Hellenistic in character and would, if turned into reliefs with their
surrounding trees and animals, resemble closely the fountain-reliefs
of the Græco-Roman world.
Footnote 15:
The one of Paul V is in the Villa Borghese, Rome; the other two are in
the National Gallery, Venice.
Footnote 16:
In the Brandegee Collection. It was published by Signor Busiri-Vici in
his work _La Piazza Vaticana_, Rome, 1890, and by Fraschetti, _op.
cit._, p. 307. The latter gives reduced and poor reproductions of the
drawings. We have thought it worth while therefore to reproduce them
on a larger scale; see Part III of this Study.
Footnote 17:
In San Lorenzo in Lucina, Rome.
Footnote 18:
They were exhibited in Rome by the then owner Sig. Andrea Busiri-Vici
at the Bernini Exposition in 1879 and are spoken of and reproduced in
small form by Fraschetti in his book on Bernini.
Footnote 19:
And these bonds are dependent, I believe, on fundamental laws of
sculpture and painting.
Footnote 20:
It is true that wood was sometimes made use of, but for serious work
only in the early times before the art had been developed. Nor can it
be supposed that the lack of marble in Egypt was the effective cause
that led to the use of granites and basalts. The Egyptians were
energetic traders and might have obtained marble had they desired it,
but the fact is they preferred the harder sorts of stone, though
alabaster was sometimes used.
Footnote 21:
That there may be no misunderstanding of the terms employed, I will
say that by breadth of treatment I mean that the sculptor or painter
leaves the various surfaces of the object reproduced by him in large
measure unbroken by small lights and shades which, however true to
nature, are apt in art to distract the attention from the general
effect. Though small differences are disregarded there may be, as
Greek work shows, exquisite modulation of surface.
Footnote 22:
I refer of course to statues in the round. The bas-reliefs show much
free action due partly to the technique, partly to their being in
softer stone and partly to the fact that the figures in them are
illustrations to historic chronicles and not primarily portraits. So
too figures and groups in wood, faience or metal are freer.
Footnote 23:
The bas-relief of the potter in the Acropolis Museum in Athens belongs
to this class.
Footnote 24:
Though no woman has ever reached the highest rank in any art, her
influence has been enormous. It is a subject to be studied by itself,
but it must be constantly kept in mind that no people who have
regarded woman from any but the highest point of view has ever
produced the noblest art. It may be a fallacy to regard her so, but it
is the most powerful and helpful ideal the western mind has yet
conceived.
Footnote 25:
When kept to its true course, the magnificent effects attained by
language in perpetuating landscape are splendidly seen in Ruskin,
when, for example, he describes the Roman Campagna (Preface to 2d ed.,
_Modern Painters_) or Verona (_Joy Forever_, sec. 76 ff.).
Footnote 26:
In speaking of Niobe I refer naturally to the group in Florence and
not to the less well known and understood earlier groups at St.
Petersburg and elsewhere; typical examples of the massacre are those
by Matteo di Giovanni, in the church of the Servi at Siena, and by Fra
Angelico in the Academy at Florence.
Footnote 27:
The copies known to me are (1) in the British Museum, (2) in the
Vatican, (3) in the collection of Barrone Barracco, Rome, and (4) a
fragment in the collection of Alden Sampson, Esq., Haverford, Penn.
Footnote 28:
This is not the place to discuss the meaning of the Latin word
_nobilis_. Suffice to say that if it is translated in this passage by
its more commonplace equivalent of _famous_, the criticism has little
point, since it is self-evident that an enduring monument, whether a
statue or bust, adds to the fame of the individual in whose honour it
is erected.
Footnote 29:
It is a long-standing error to suppose that Pericles’s skull as shown
in these busts is peculiarly domed. The shape of the tilted helmet
makes it seem to be so, but comparison with other heads covered by the
Corinthian helmet shows that his is in no way abnormal when thus
represented, however it may have been when uncovered.
Footnote 30:
In the Brandegee Collection.
Footnote 31:
One instance will suffice to show what I mean by this. Far more pure
imagination is shown in the Italian representations of the Creation or
the Last Judgment than in the Greek scenes of the lives of their Gods
with which they decorated pediment and frieze.
Footnote 32:
The recent discovery of a life-size marble copy of the Athena of the
Marsyas group has made Myron’s character much clearer than before. See
Pollak in the _Jahresheften des Oesterreichischen Archaeologischen
Institutes_, 1909, p. 154.
Footnote 33:
The modern theory that wall paintings should be flat, that they should
not give the impression of an opening beyond the wall they are on, is
contradicted by all the practice of the Renaissance. Lippi, Gozzoli,
Leonardo, Raphael, Michael Angelo, Veronese, Correggio, to recall but
a few, all used wall painting as a means of suggesting larger
dimensions and more ample space than the rooms they decorated actually
afforded.
Footnote 34:
To illustrate by an example: the low relief work of the Tempietto at
Rimini is a more perfect form of decoration (partly because of its
permanency) than painting would have been.
Footnote 35:
In the _Bulletin of the Archæological Institute of America_, Vol. II
(1910–11), Plates 47 and 79, and p. 162.
Footnote 36:
Mr. Berenson has done much to correct the attributions in his studies
on the artist he calls, since his real name is unknown, the _Amico di
Sandro_. Berenson’s _amico_ was, I believe, several _amici_.
Footnote 37:
In the gallery of Mr. Davis, in Newport, R.I.
Footnote 38:
An inscription of the seventeenth century on the back of this picture
reads: _Giorgon De Castel Franco_, F. Maestro De Titiano. The picture
was engraved by Wenzel Hollar in 1650, as the portrait of Buffalmacco
by Giorgione.
Footnote 39:
The picture in Brunswick, a poor replica of which is in Buda-Pesth,
is, or is derived from, a picture engraved by Hollar in 1650 and
called by him a “portrait of Giorgione by himself.” This is possible,
but the picture is a mere wreck. See Justi, _loc. cit._
Footnote 40:
Larpent, “Le jugement de Paris attribué au Giorgione,” Christiania,
1885.
Footnote 41:
See Gronau, _Repertorium für Kunstwissenchaft_, 1908, p. 405. His
comment on p. 407 seems to me an error.
Footnote 42:
Cf. p. 52 f.
Footnote 43:
_The Painter’s Voyage of Italy._ Englished by W. Lodge. Written
originally in Italian by Giacomo Barri, 1679.
Footnote 44:
I put a question mark after those which by general consent are no
longer attributed to Giorgione, and those which I doubt and shall
discuss in the following pages.
Footnote 45:
It is noteworthy that the backs of these two panels have patterns
painted on them showing that the pictures once formed part of some
piece of furniture, and it was in decorating such objects that much of
Giorgione’s time, according to Ridolfi, was employed. For Bode’s
remarks cf. Burchardt’s _Cicerone_, Vol. II, 913.
Footnote 46:
_Die Galerien zu München und Dresden_ (Leipzig, 1891), p. 270 f.
Footnote 47:
Morelli adds the following note: “Weder die Herren Crowe und
Cavalcaselli, noch Herr Director W. Bode lassen diese zwei Bildchen
alz Werke des Giorgione gelten, sondern sehen dieselben als
Schülerarbeiten an.” So far as Crowe and Cavalcaselle are concerned,
this statement is an error, as one can easily see by reading what they
say on pp. 128–9 of the second volume of their _History of Painting in
North Italy_.
Footnote 48:
I have not yet mentioned this picture, but shall speak of it in detail
later.
Footnote 49:
_The Venetian Painters of the Renaissance_, p. 107.
Footnote 50:
_Gazette des Beaux Arts_, October, 1897.
Footnote 51:
Berenson in the first edition of his little book on Venetian Painting
did not mention it either, but in the third edition he passes it by
with these words: “The scarcely less famous picture belonging to Mr.
Banks is by the hand which painted the Christ and Adulteress, of the
Glasgow Corporation Gallery, and that hand is Giovanni Cariani’s. To
repeat, I would have preferred to publish opinions so divergent from
those usually received, in a form adequate to the importance of the
theme; but I console myself with the belief that the merest indication
suffices the competent. As for the others—Procul o procul este,
profani.”
Such statements can only be excused by supposing the writer to have
been pressed for time. Unless they are of sufficient importance for
the author to make them intelligible, they are not entitled to our
consideration. No critic is justified in making an arbitrary statement
which he will not take the pains to make clear.
Footnote 52:
This picture was formerly called a Bellini. It comes from the
collection of Sir William Miles of Leigh Court. See Redford, _Art
Sales_, I, pp. 364–5.
Footnote 53:
Berenson, _Venetian Painters of the Renaissance_.
Footnote 54:
See _Archivio Storico dell’ Arte_, 1895, I, p. 77. In this passage the
writer (Miss Ffoulkes) speaking of an exhibition in London mentions
the Benson picture and the Epiphany. She thinks them by neither
Giorgione, nor Catena, but offers no suggestion as to the painter
except that there is another picture by him in the Venice Accademia
attributed (wrongly) to Cordegliaghi.
Footnote 55:
_Die Galerie zu Dresden_, p. 266 f.
Footnote 56:
It is noteworthy that Morelli claimed (as is shown by the + with which
the attribution is marked) to be the first to show that this picture
of the Knight was by Catena. Crowe and Cavalcaselle had already
written of the picture as by Catena. Considerable care must be
exercised in the use of Morelli’s writings to distinguish between his
true discoveries (which were many) and his agreements with earlier
authorities. It may be that these agreements were based on his own
private study, but there is a great difference between the result of
one’s study leading to our giving assent to what others have perceived
before us and our discovery of what had never been imagined by our
predecessors. _Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerint_, but still
honesty and justice are of greater value than fame. Nor does a
pleasant temper show in the implied sarcasm of Morelli’s words about
this picture which he calls a “herrliches Werk des Catena, obwohl es
im Galeriekatalog noch immerfort blos der Schule des Giambellino
zugetheilt wird (+).” It is surely not so very inaccurate to describe
a work by Catena as of the ‘Schule des Giambellino.’
Footnote 57:
A copy of this picture hangs in the Vienna Gallery and I was told by
the Director in 1901 that he considered it the original; but this
seems to me impossible, for it is much less good in every way than the
Beaumont picture. A drawing of a portion of it is at Windsor.
Footnote 58:
Parts of Mr. Benson’s picture have suffered from repainting. This is
especially true of the landscape, which seems to have lost its
original form.
Footnote 59:
_Die Galerie zu Dresden_, p. 297, n.
Footnote 60:
The inaccurate copy in the Rovigo Gallery is a wretched daub that is
not worth preserving. There are other poor replicas of the picture;
one owned by Count Lanckoronski in Vienna is considered by Venturi to
be the original. The other picture in the Rovigo Gallery (No. 11),
sometimes spoken of in the same breath with Giorgione’s name, is
equally worthless. It is nothing but a wretched copy of the head of
the Vienna David.
Footnote 61:
The picture in Madrid is by Titian; the one in the Louvre is said by
Crowe and Cavalcaselle to be by Pellegrino da San Daniele, while
Berenson attributes it to Cariani.
Footnote 62:
Examen | Historique et Critique | Des Tableaux | Exposées
Provisoirement | Venant des premier et second envoies de Milan,
Crémone, Parme, Plaisance, Modène, Cento et Bologne, auquel on a joint
le detail de tous les Monumens des Arts qui sont arrivés d’Italie.—An
VI^e de la Republique.
Footnote 63:
A good replica is in the Corsini Gallery, Florence.
Footnote 64:
_Die Galerie zu Dresden_, p. 276.
Footnote 65:
And still is in some galleries, as Hampton Court.
Footnote 66:
The picture has been much restored, but the faults pointed out here
are not due to the restorer.
Footnote 67:
_Die Galerie zu Dresden_, p. 282. A copy of the picture is at Hampton
Court.
Footnote 68:
_Die Galerie zu Dresden_, p. 282.
Footnote 69:
_Gazette des Beaux Arts_, Oct. 1897, p. 270. Berenson in this
suggestive article has mixed ecstatic and girlish talk inextricably
with sound argument. In his criticism of the Judith he says: “Il
faudrait le talent d’un poète de premier ordre pour exprimer dans la
plénitude tout ce qu’on devine dans la _Judith_ de Saint Pétersbourg.”
True, but though such sentiments fill the page, they do not have the
same effect on our mind as the picture.
Footnote 70:
See the engraving published by Justi in his _Giorgione_.
Footnote 71:
_Italian Painters: Critical Studies of their Works._ By Giovanni
Morelli. _The Galleries of Munich and Dresden._ Translated by C. J.
Ffoulkes (London, 1893), p. 218.
Footnote 72:
_Die Galerien Borghese und Doria-Pamfili in Rom_ (Leipzig, 1890), p.
99, n. 1.
Footnote 73:
Not only did Morelli weaken his writings by exaggeration—which,
however, was quite natural—but in the less excusable way of giving
illustrations that are misleading. The woodcuts which serve to show
the _Grundform_ of hands and ears are only partially exact, and in one
case, the Bonifazio ear, a positive caricature. The process cuts of
the paintings are too miserable to consider. This is unfortunately as
true of the translations as of the original editions.
Footnote 74:
Nothing shows better the distinction between the work of the
Renaissance and that of to-day than the fact that the careful training
to which the earlier artists were accustomed led them to produce in
their youthful and undeveloped period finished works and sketches that
are stiff, whereas nowadays the majority of the works of young artists
show not so much stiffness as laxity. The one developed from hardness
to easy restraint, the other advances from looseness to a mastery
generally much less even.
Footnote 75:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Magazine_, 1895–6, p. 338.
Footnote 76:
The reason I have not discussed in detail the list given by Cook in
his book on Giorgione (London, 1904) and in various articles in the
_Burlington Magazine_ (1905–1906) and _Gazette des Beaux Arts_ (1902)
is due to no careless disregard of his work but to the fact that his
point of view in regard to Giorgione and the principles of criticism
are so utterly dissimilar to mine that no good would be gained from
pointing out in detail my disagreement with his judgment.
Footnote 77:
Since writing the above I have been pleased to have Signor Venturi
tell me that he, too, considered the work to be by Giorgione. He does
not agree with me about the Benson, Beaumont and National Gallery Holy
Families, but he does not share the Catena theory of their origin. His
full views will unquestionably be propounded in his forthcoming
edition of Vasari’s _Life of Giorgione_. Cook also thinks this Virgin
is by Giorgione. Venturi’s views on Giorgione are indicated in the
_Galleria Crespi_, p. 133 f.
Footnote 78:
I leave out the one with the forged monogram of Albert Dürer in the
Correr Museum, for it is, I believe, by no means sure that Bellini was
the painter.
Footnote 79:
Before the earthquake I saw in the Gallery at Messina a picture by
Antonello da Messina the composition of which is practically identical
with, and must be the origin of, the Correr panel. Whether the Messina
picture still exists or was destroyed I do not know.
Footnote 80:
Justi’s book contains a reproduction of the engraving. A copy of the
engraving is owned by Mr. C. F. Murray of London.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.