ADDITIONAL PICTURES OTHER THAN PORTRAITS
I have now pointed out six portraits which, in my opinion, should be
included in the roll of genuine Giorgiones. No doubt others will, in
time, be identified, but I leave this fascinating quest to pass to the
consideration of other paintings illustrating a different phase of the
master's art.[113]
We know that the romantic vein in Giorgione was particularly strong,
that he naturally delighted in producing fanciful pictures where his
poetic imagination could find full play; we have seen how the classic
myth and the mediaeval romance afforded opportunities for him to indulge
his fancy, and we have found him adapting themes derived from these
sources to the decoration of _cassoni_, or marriage chests. Another
typical example of this practice is afforded by his "Orpheus and
Eurydice," in the gallery at Bergamo, a splendid little panel, probably,
like the "Apollo and Daphne" in the Seminario at Venice, intended as a
decorative piece of applied art. Although bearing Giorgione's name by
tradition, modern critics have passed it by presumably on the ground
that "it is not good enough,"--that fatal argument which has thrown dust
in the eyes of the learned. As if the artist would naturally expend as
much care on a trifle of this kind as on the Castelfranco altar-piece,
or the Dresden "Venus"! Yet what greater beauty of conception, what more
poetic fancy is there in the "Apollo and Daphne" (which is generally
accepted as genuine) than in this little "Orpheus and Eurydice"? Nay,
the execution, which is the point contested, appears to me every whit as
brilliant, and in preservation the latter piece has the advantage. Not a
touch but what can be paralleled in a dozen other works--the feathery
trees against the luminous sky, the glow of the horizon, the splendid
effects of light and shadow, the impressive grandeur of the wild
scenery, the small figures in mid-distance, even the cast of drapery and
shape of limbs are repeated elsewhere. Let anyone contrast the delicacy
and the glow of this little panel with several similar productions of
the Venetian school hanging in the same gallery, and the gulf that
separates Giorgione from his imitators will, I think, be apparent.
[Illustration: _Taramelli photo. Bergamo Gallery_ ORPHEUS AND EURYDICE]
In the same category must be ranked two very small panels in the Gallery
at Padua (Nos. 42 and 43), attributed with a query to Giorgione. These
are apparently fragments of some decorative series, of which the other
parts are missing. The one represents "Leda and the Swan," the other a
mythological subject, where a woman is seated holding a child, and a
man, also seated, holds flowers. The latter recalls one of the figures
in the National Gallery "Epiphany." The charm of these fragments lies in
the exquisite landscapes, which, in minuteness of finish and loving
care, Giorgione has nowhere surpassed. The gallery at Padua is thus, in
my opinion, the possessor of four genuine examples of Giorgione's skill
as a decorator, for we have already mentioned the larger _cassone_
pieces[114] (Nos. 416 and 417).
Of greater importance is the "Unknown Subject," in the National Gallery
(No. 1173), a picture which, like so many others, has recently been
taken from Giorgione, its author, and vaguely put down to his "School."
But it is time to protest against such needless depreciation!
In spite of abrasion, in spite of the loss of glow, in spite of much
that disfigures, nay disguises, the master's own touch, I feel confident
that Giorgione and no other produced this beautiful picture.[115] Surely
if this be only school work, we are vainly seeking a mythical master, an
ideal who never could have existed. What more dainty figures, what more
delicate hues, what more exquisite feeling could one look for than is
here to be found? True, the landscape has been renovated, true, the
Giorgionesque depth and richness is gone, the mellow glow of the
"Epiphany," which hangs just below, is sadly wanting, but who can deny
the charm of the picturesque scenery, which vividly recalls the
landscape backgrounds elsewhere in the master's own work, who can fail
to admire the natural and unstudied grouping of the figures, the
artlessness of the whole, the loving simplicity with which the painter
has done his work? All is spontaneous; the spirit is not that of a
laborious imitator, painfully seeking "effects" from another's
inspiration; sincerity and naïveté are too apparent for this to be the
work of any but a quite young artist, and one whose style is so
thoroughly "Giorgionesque" as to be none other than the young Giorgione
himself. In my opinion this is one of his earliest essays into the
region of romance, painted probably before his twenty-first year,
betraying, like the little legendary pictures in the Uffizi, a strong
affinity with Carpaccio.[116]
[Illustration: _Hanfstängl photo. Na. nal Gallery, London_
? THE GOLDEN AGE]
As to the subject many conjectures have been made: Aristotle surrounded
by emblems illustrating the objects with which his philosophy was
concerned, an initiation into some mystic rite, the poet musing in
sadness on the mysteries of life, the philosopher imparting wisdom to
the young, etc. etc. I believe Giorgione is simply giving us a poetical
rendering of "The Golden Age," where, like Plato's philosopher-king, the
seer all-wise and all-powerful holds sway, before whom the arts and
sciences do homage; in this earthly paradise even strange animals live
in happy harmony, and all is peace. Such a theme would well have suited
Giorgione's temperament, and Ridolfi actually tells us that this very
subject was taken by Giorgione from the pages of Ovid, and adapted by
him to his own ends.[117] But whether this represents "The Golden Age,"
or some other allegory or classic story, the picture is completely
characteristic of all that is most individual in Giorgione, and I
earnestly hope the slur now cast upon its character by the misleading
label will be speedily removed.[118] For the public believes more in the
labels it reads, than the pictures it sees.
Finally, in the "Venus disarming Cupid," of the Wallace collection, we
have, in my opinion, the wreck of a once splendid Giorgione. In the
recent re-arrangement of the Gallery, this picture, which used to hang
in an upstairs room, and was practically unknown, has been hung
prominently on the line, so that its beauties, and, alas! its defects,
can be plainly seen. The outlines are often distorted and blurred, the
Cupid has become monstrous, the delicacy of the whole effaced by
ill-usage and neglect. Yet the splendour of colour, the cast of drapery,
the flow of line, proclaims the great master himself. There is no room,
moreover, for such a mythical compromise as that which is proposed by
the catalogue, "It stands midway in style between Giorgione and Titian
in his Giorgionesque phase." No better instance could be adduced of the
fallacy of perfection implied in the minds of most critics at the
mention of Giorgione's name; yet if we accept the Louvre "Concert," if
we accept the Hermitage "Judith," why dispute Giorgione's claim on the
ground of "weakness of construction"? This "Venus and Cupid" is vastly
inferior in quality to the Dresden "Venus,"--let us frankly admit
it,--but it is none the less characteristic of the artist, who must not
be judged by the standard of his exceptional creations, but by that of
his normal productions.[119]
[Illustration: _Hanfstängl photo. National Gallery, London_ VENUS AND
ADONIS]
Just such another instance of average merit is afforded by the "Venus
and Adonis" of the National Gallery (No. 1123), from which, had not an
artificial standard of excellence been falsely raised, Giorgione's name
would never have been removed. I am happily not the first to call
attention to the propriety of the old attribution, for Sir Edward
Poynter claims that the same hand that produced the Louvre "Concert" is
also responsible for the "Venus and Adonis."[120] I fully share this
opinion. The figures, with their compactly built and rounded limbs, are
such as Giorgione loved to model, the sweep of draperies and the
splendid line indicate a consummate master, the idyllic landscape
framing episodes from the life of Adonis is just such as we see in the
Louvre picture and elsewhere, the glow and splendour of the whole reveal
a master of tone and colouring. Some good judges would give the work to
the young Titian, but it appears too intimately "Giorgionesque" to be
his, although I admit the extreme difficulty in drawing the line of
division. Passages in the "Sacred and Profane Love" of the Borghese
Gallery are curiously recalled, but the National Gallery picture is
clearly the work of a mature and experienced hand, and not of any young
artist. In my opinion it dates from about 1508, and illustrates the
later phase of Giorgione's art as admirably as do the "Epiphany" (No.
1160) and the "Golden Age" (No. 1173) his earliest style. Between these
extremes fall the "Portrait" (No. 636), and the "S. Liberale" (No. 269),
the National Gallery thus affording unrivalled opportunity for studying
the varying phases of the great Venetian master at different stages of
his career.
* * * * *
We may now pass from the realm of "fancy" subjects to that of sacred
art--that is, to the consideration of the "Madonnas," "Holy Families,"
and "Santa Conversazione" pictures, other than those already described.
The Beaumont "Adoration of the Shepherds," with its variant at Vienna,
the National Gallery "Epiphany," the Madrid "Madonna with S. Anthony and
S. Roch," and the Castelfranco altar-piece are the only instances so far
of Giorgione's sacred art, yet Vasari tells us that the master "in his
youth painted very many beautiful pictures of the Virgin."
This statement is on the face of it likely enough, for although the
young Castelfrancan early showed his independence of tradition and his
preference for the more modern phases of Bellini's art, it is extremely
probable he was also called upon to paint some smaller devotional
pieces, such, for instance, as "The Christ bearing the Cross," lately in
the Casa Loschi at Vicenza.[121] It is noteworthy, all the same, that
scarcely any "Madonna" picture exists to which his name still attaches,
and only one "Holy Family," so far as I am aware, is credibly reputed to
be his work. This is Mr. Benson's little picture, in all respects a
worthy companion to the Beaumont and National Gallery examples. There is
even a purer ring about this lovely little "Holy Family," a child-like
sincerity and a simplicity which is very touching, while for sheer
beauty of colour it is more enjoyable than either of the others. It may
not have the depth of tone and mastery of chiaroscuro which make the
Beaumont "Adoration" so subtly attractive, but in tenderness of feeling
and daintiness of treatment it is not surpassed by any other of
Giorgione's works. In its obvious defects, too, it is as thoroughly
characteristic; it is needless to repeat here what I said when
discussing the Beaumont and Vienna "Adoration"; the reader who compares
the reproductions will readily see the same features in both works. Mr.
Benson's little picture has this additional interest, that more than
either of its companion pieces it points forward to the Castelfranco
"Madonna" in the bold sweep of the draperies, the play of light on
horizontal surfaces, and the exquisite gaiety of its colour.
[Illustration: _Hanfstängl photo. Vienna Gallery_ THE "GIPSY" MADONNA]
In claiming this picture for Giorgione I am claiming nothing new, for
his name, in spite of modern critics, has here persistently survived.
Not so with a group of three Madonnas, one of which has for at least two
centuries borne Titian's name, another which passes also for a work of
the same painter, whilst the third was claimed by Crowe and
Cavalcaselle again for Titian, partly on the analogy of the
first-mentioned one.[122] The first is the so-called "Gipsy Madonna" in
the Vienna Gallery, the second is a "Madonna" in the Bergamo Gallery,
and the third is a "Madonna" again in Mr. Benson's collection.
I am happily not the first to identify the "Gipsy Madonna" as
Giorgione's work, for it requires no little courage to tilt at what has
been unquestioningly accepted as "the earliest known Madonna of Titian."
I am indebted, therefore, to Signor Venturi for the lead,[123] although
I have the satisfaction of feeling that independent study of my own had
already brought me to the same conclusion.
Of course, all modern writers have recognised the "Giorgionesque"
elements in this supposed Titian. "In the depth, strength, and richness
of the colour-chord, in the atmospheric spaciousness and charm of the
landscape background, in the breadth of the draperies, it is already,"
says Mr. Claude Phillips,[124] "Giorgionesque." Yet, he goes on, the
Child is unlike Giorgione's type in the Castelfranco and Madrid
pictures, and the Virgin has a less spiritualised nature than
Giorgione's Madonnas in the same two pictures. On the other hand, Dr.
Gronau, Titian's latest biographer, declares[125] that the thoughtful
expression ("der tief empfundene Ausdruck") of the Madonna is
essentially Giorgionesque. Morelli, with peculiar insight, protested
against its being considered a very _early_ work of Titian, basing his
protest on the advanced nature of the landscape, which, he says,[126]
"must have been painted six or eight years later than the end of the
fifteenth century." But even he fell into line with Crowe and
Cavalcaselle in ascribing the picture to Titian, failing to see that all
difficulties of chronology and discrepancies of judgment between himself
and the older historians could be reconciled on the hypothesis of
Giorgione's authorship. For Giorgione, as Morelli rightly saw, developed
far more rapidly than Titian, so that a Titian landscape of, say, 1506-8
(if any such exist!) would correspond with one by Giorgione of, say,
1500. I agree with Crowe and Cavalcaselle and those writers who date
back the "Gipsy Madonna" to the end of the fifteenth century, but I must
emphatically support Signor Venturi in his claim that Giorgione is the
author.
Before, however, looking at internal evidence to prove this contention,
we may note that another example of the same composition exists in the
Gallery of Rovigo, identical save for a cartellino on which is inscribed
TITIANVS. To Crowe and Cavalcaselle this was evidence to confirm
Titian's claim to be the painter of what they considered the original
work--viz. the Vienna picture, of which the Rovigo example was, in their
opinion, a later copy. A careful examination, however, of the latter
picture has convinced me that they were curiously right and curiously
wrong. That the Rovigo work is posterior to the Vienna one is, I think,
patent to anyone conversant with Venetian painting, but why should the
one bear Titian's name on an apparently authentic cartellino, and not
the other? The simple and straightforward explanation appears the
best--viz. that the Rovigo picture is actually by Titian, who has taken
the Vienna picture (which I attribute to Giorgione) as his model and
directly repeated it. The qualities of the work are admirable, and
worthy of Titian, and I venture to think this "Madonna" would long ago
have taken its rightful place among the pictures of the master had it
not hung in a remote provincial gallery little visited by travellers,
and in such a dark corner as to escape detection. The form TITIANVS
points to a period after 1520,[127] when Giorgione had been some years
dead, so that it was not unnatural that in after times the credit of
invention rested with the author of the signed picture, and that his
name came gradually to be attached also to the earlier example. The
engraving of Meyssen (_circa_ 1640) thus bears Titian's name, and both
engraving and the repetition at Rovigo are now adduced as evidence of
Titian's authorship of the Vienna "Gipsy Madonna."
But is there any proof that Titian ever copied or repeated any other
work of Giorgione? There is, fortunately, one great and acknowledged
precedent, the "Venus" in the Tribune of the Uffizi, which is _directly_
taken from Giorgione's Dresden "Venus," The accessories, it is true, are
different, but the nude figures are line for line identical.[128] Other
painters, Palma, Cariarli, and Titian, elsewhere, derived inspiration
from Giorgione's prototype, but Titian actually repeats the very figure
in this "Venus"; so that there is nothing improbable in my contention
that Titian also repeated Giorgione's "Gipsy Madonna," adding his
signature thereto, to the confusion and confounding of later
generations.
[Illustration: _Dixon photo. Collection of Mr. R.H. Benson, London_
MADONNA AND CHILD]
It is worthy of note that not a single "Madonna and Child" by Titian
exists, except the little picture in Mr. Mond's collection, painted
quite in the artist's old age. Titian invariably paints "Madonna and
Saints," or a "Holy Family," so that the three Madonna pictures I am
claiming for Giorgione are marked off by this peculiarity from the bulk
of Titian's work. This in itself is not enough to disqualify Titian, but
it is a factor in that cumulative proof by which I hope Giorgione's
claim may be sustained. The marble parapet again is a feature in
Giorgione's work, but not in Titian's. But the most convincing evidence
to those who know the master lies in the composition, which forms an
almost equilateral triangle, revealing Giorgione's supreme sense of
beauty in line. The splendid curves made by the drapery, the pose of the
Child, so as to obtain the same unbroken sweep of line, reveals the
painter of the Dresden "Venus." The painting of the Child's hand over
the Madonna's is precisely as in the Madrid picture, where, moreover,
the pose of the Child is singularly alike. The folds of drapery on the
sleeve recur in the same picture, the landscape with the small figure
seated beneath the tree is such as can be found in any Giorgione
background. The oval of the face and the delicacy of the features are
thoroughly characteristic, as is the spirit of calm reverie and tender
simplicity which Giorgione has breathed into his figures.
The second and third Madonna pictures--viz. the one at Bergamo, and its
counterpart in Mr. Benson's collection--appear to be somewhat later in
date of execution, but reveal many points in common with the "Gipsy
Madonna." The beauty of line is here equally conspicuous; the way the
drapery is carried out beyond the elbow so as to form one long unbroken
curve, the triangular composition, the marble parapet, are so many
proofs of Giorgione's hand. Moreover, we find in Mr. Benson's picture
the characteristic tree-trunks, so suggestive of solemn grandeur,[129]
and the striped scarf,[130] so cunningly disposed to give more flowing
line and break the stiffness of contour.
The Bergamo picture closely resembles Mr. Benson's "Madonna," from
which, indeed, it varies chiefly in the pose of the Child (whose left
leg here sticks straight out), whilst the landscape is seen on the left
side, and there are no tree-trunks. I cannot find that any writer has
made allusion to this little gem, which hangs high up on the end wall of
the Lochis section of the gallery (No. 232); I hope others will examine
this new-found work at a less inconvenient height, as I have done, and
that their opinion will coincide with mine that the same hand painted
the Benson "Madonna," and that that hand is Giorgione's.
Before quitting the subject of the "Madonna and Child," another example
may be alluded to, about which it would be unwise to express any decided
opinion founded only on a study of the photograph. This is a picture at
St. Petersburg, to which Mr. Claude Phillips first directed
attention,[131] stating his then belief that it might be a genuine
Giorgione. After a recent visit to St. Petersburg, however, he has seen
fit to register it as a probable copy after a lost original by the
master, on the ground that "it is not fine enough in execution."[132]
This, as I have often pointed out, is a dangerous test to apply in
Giorgione's case, and so the authenticity of this "Madonna" may still be
left an open question.
Finally, in the category of Sacred Art come two well-known pictures,
both in public galleries, and both accredited to Giorgione. The first is
the "Christ and the Adulteress" of the Glasgow Gallery, the second the
"Madonna and Saints" of the Louvre. Many diverse opinions are held about
the Glasgow picture; some ascribe it to Cariani, others to Campagnola.
It is asserted by some that the same hand painted the Kingston Lacy
"Judgment of Solomon," but that it is not the hand of Giorgione, and
finally--to come to the view which I believe is the correct one--Dr.
Bode and Sir Walter Armstrong[133] both believe that Giorgione is the
painter.
[Illustration: _Hanfstängl photo. Glasgow Gallery_ THE ADULTERESS
BEFORE CHRIST]
The whole difficulty, as it seems to me, arises from the deep-rooted
misapprehension in the minds of most critics of the character of
Giorgione's art. In their eyes, he is something so perfect as to be
incapable of producing anything short of the ideal. He could never have
drawn so badly, he never could have composed so awkwardly, he never
could have been so inexpressive!--such is the usual criticism. I have
elsewhere insisted upon the unevenness which invariably characterises
the productions of men who are gifted with a strong artistic
temperament, and in Giorgione's case, as I believe, this is particularly
true. The Glasgow picture is but one instance of many where, if
correctness of drawing, perfection of composition, and inevitableness of
expression are taken as final tests, the verdict must go against the
painter. He either failed in these cases to come up to the standard
reached elsewhere, or he is not the painter. Modern negative criticism
generally adopts the latter solution, with the result that not a score
of pictures pass muster, and the virtues of these chosen few are so
extolled as to make it all but impossible to see the reverse of the
medal. But those who accept the "Judith" at St. Petersburg, the Louvre
"Concert," the Beaumont "Adoration of the Shepherds" (to name only three
examples where the drawing is strange), cannot consistently object to
admit the Glasgow "Christ and the Adulteress" into the fold. Nay, if
gorgeousness of colour, splendour of glow, mastery of chiaroscuro, and
brilliancy of technique are qualities which go to make up great
painting, then the Glasgow picture must take high rank, even in a school
where such qualities found their grandest expression.
[Illustration: _The Louvre, Paris_
MADONNA AND SAINTS]
Comparisons of detail may be noted, such as the resemblance in posture
and type of the Accuser with the S. Roch of the Madrid picture, the
figure of the Adulteress with that of the False Mother in the Kingston
Lacy picture, the pointing forefingers, the typical landscape, the cast
of the draperies, details which the reader can find often repeated
elsewhere. But it is in the treatment of the subject that the most
characteristic features are revealed. The artist was required--we know
not why--to paint this dramatic scene; he had to produce a "set piece,"
where action and graphic representation was urgently needed. How little
to his taste! How uncongenial the task! The case is exactly paralleled
by the "Judgment of Solomon," the only other dramatic episode Giorgione
appears to have attempted, and the result in each case is the same--no
real dramatic unity, but an accidental arrangement of the figures, with
rhetorical action. The want of repose in the Christ offends, the
stageyness of the whole repels. How different when Giorgione worked _con
amore_! For it seems this composition gave him much trouble. Of this we
have a most interesting proof in an almost contemporary Venetian version
of the same subject, where the scheme has been recast. This picture
belongs to Sir Charles Turner, in London, and, so far as
intelligibleness of composition goes, may be said to be an improvement
on the Glasgow version. It is highly probable that this painting derives
from some alternative drawing for the original picture. That the Glasgow
version acquired some celebrity we have further proof in an almost exact
copy (with one more figure added on the right), which hangs in the
Bergamo Gallery under Cariani's name, a painting which, in all respects,
is utterly inferior to the original.[134]
The "Christ and the Adulteress," then, becomes for us a revelation of
the painter's nature, of his methods and aims; but, with all its
technical excellences, shall we not also frankly recognise the
limitations of his art?[135]
The "Madonna and Saints" of the Louvre, which persistently bears
Giorgione's name, in spite of modern negative criticism, is marked by a
lurid splendour of colour and a certain rough grandeur of expression,
well calculated to jar with any preconceived notion of Giorgionesque
sobriety or reserve. Yet here, if anywhere, we get that _fuoco
Giorgionesco_ of which Vasari speaks, that intensity of feeling,
rendered with a vivacity and power to which the artist could only have
attained in his latest days. In this splendid group there is a masculine
energy, a fulness of life, and a grandeur of representation which
carries _le grand style_ to its furthest limits, and if Giorgione
actually completed the picture before his death, he anticipated the full
splendour of the riper Renaissance. To him is certainly due the general
composition, with its superb lines, its beautiful curves, its majestic
and dignified postures, its charming sunset background, to him is
certainly due the splendid chiaroscuro and magic colour-chord; but it
becomes a question whether some of the detail was not actually finished
by Giorgione's pupil, Sebastiano del Piombo.[136] The drawing, for
instance, of the hands vividly suggests his help, the type of S. Joseph
in the background reminds us of the figure of S. Chrysostom in
Sebastiano's Venice altar-piece, while the S. Catherine recalls the
Angel in Sebastiano's "Holy Family" at Naples. If this be the case, we
here have another instance of the pupil finishing his master's work, and
this time probably after his death, for, as already pointed out, the
"Evander and Aeneas" (at Vienna) must have been left by Giorgione
well-nigh complete at an earlier stage than the year of his death.
That Sebastiano stood in close relation to his master, Giorgione, is
evidenced not only by Vasari's statement, but by the obvious dependence
of the S. Giovanni Crisostomo altar-piece at Venice on Giorgionesque
models. Moreover, the "Violin Player," formerly in the Sciarra Palace,
at once reminds us of the "Barberigo" portrait at Cobham, while the
"Herodias with the Head of John Baptist," dated 1510, now in the
collection of Mr. George Salting, shows conclusively how closely related
were the two painters in the last year of Giorgione's life. Sebastiano
was twenty-five years of age in 1510, and appears to have worked under
Giorgione for some time before removing to Rome, which he did on, or
shortly before, his master's death. His departure left Titian, his
associate under Giorgione, master of the field; he, too, had a hand in
finishing some of the work left incomplete in the atelier, and his
privilege it became to continue the Giorgionesque tradition, and to
realise in utmost perfection in after years the aspirations and ideals
so brilliantly anticipated by the young genius of Castelfranco.[137]
NOTES:
[113] The Doges Agostino Barberigo, and Leonardo Loredano, Consalvo of
Cordova, Giovanni Borgherini and his tutor, Luigi Crasso, and others,
are mentioned as having sat to Giorgione for their portraits. Modern
criticism has recently distributed several "Giorgionesque" portraits in
English collections among Licinio, Lotto, and even Polidoro! But this
disintegrating process may be, and has been, carried too far.
[114] Two more small works may be mentioned which may tentatively be
ascribed to Giorgione. "The Two Musicians," in the Glasgow Gallery
(recently transferred to Campagnola), and a "Sta. Justina" (known to me
only from a photograph), which has passed lately into the collection of
Herr von Kauffmann at Berlin.
Signor Venturi (_L'Arte_, 1900) has just acquired for the National
Gallery in Rome a "St. George slaying the Dragon." Judging only from the
photograph, I should say he is correct in his identification of this as
Giorgione's work. It seems to be akin to the "Apollo and Daphne," and
"Orpheus and Eurydice."
[115] I am pleased to find Signor Venturi has anticipated my own
conclusion in his recently published _La Galleria Crespi_.
[116] Mr. Cosmo Monkhouse (_In the National Gallery_, p. 223) has
already rightly recognised the same hand in this picture and in the
"Epiphany" hanging just below.
[117] Meravig, i. 124.
[118] By a happy accident the new "Giorgione" label, intended for the
"Epiphany," No. 1160, was for some time affixed to No. 1173.
[119] When in the Orleans Gallery the picture was engraved under
Giorgione's name by de Longueil and Halbon.
[120] New illustrated edition of the National Gallery Catalogue, 1900.
[121] Now in America, in Mrs. Gardner's Collection.
[122] Crowe and Cavalcaselle: _Titian_, i. p. III. This picture was then
at Burleigh House.
[123] See _La Galleria Crespi_, 1900.
[124] _The Earlier Work of Titian_ p. 24. _Portfolio_, October 1897.
[125] _Tizian_, p. 16.
[126] Morelli, ii. 57, note.
[127] See _antea_, p. 71.
[128] With the exception of the right arm, which Titian has let fall,
instead placing it behind the head of the sleeping goddess. The effect
of the beautiful curve is thereby lost, and Titian shows himself
Giorgione's inferior in quality of line.
[129] As in the "Aeneas and Evander" (Vienna), the "Judith" (St.
Petersburg), the Madrid "Madonna and Saints," etc.
[130] As in the "Caterina Cornare" of the Crespi collection at Milan.
[131] _Magazine of Art_. July 1895.
[132] _North American Review_. October 1899.
[133] _Magazine of Art_, 1890, pp. 91 and 138.
[134] The small divergencies of detail in the dress of the "Adulteress,"
etc., are just such as an imitator might have ventured to make. The hand
and arm of the Christ have, however, been altered for the better.
[135] This is the first time in Venetian art that the subject appears.
It is frequently found later.
[136] Cariani is by some made responsible for the whole picture. A
comparison with an authentic example hanging (in the new arrangement of
the Long Gallery), close by, ought surely to convince the advocates of
Cariani of their mistake.
[137] Morto da Feltre is mentioned by Vasari as having assisted
Giorgione in the decoration of the Fondaco de' Tedeschi. This was in
1508. Otherwise, we know of no pupils or assistants employed by the
master, a fact which goes to show that his influence was felt, not so
much through any personal teaching, as through his work.