Chapter I: Paintings Attributed to Giorgione

A great upheaval and destruction of old traditions has taken place of late years in regard to paintings, and while much truth has been brought to light, a great deal of fancy has been given the semblance of veracity. The name of Morelli is familiar to all who take a serious interest in the paintings of the Italian schools, and though he was not the first to practise what not inaptly has been dubbed the ‘toe-nail’ method of criticism, yet his writings are more voluminous than those of other authors, and exemplify this method of criticism more completely, so that he may be taken as the protagonist of the school. It was the development of photography, and the vast increase in the number of pictures of which photographs could be procured, which gave rise to the Morellian school. The writers of earlier days who could not have before them on their tables, or carry with them to the galleries, a large quantity of reproductions of the works of any one master, were in a large measure prevented from studying the comparative likenesses or dissimilarities of such pictures.

But, as was natural, with this intensive study of photographs has come about a microscopic method of looking at pictures which often disregards the larger and more unquestionable qualities, and satisfies itself with tricks of drawing and the painting of details. It is as though instead of considering the structure and content of a book, one should measure the lines and number the punctuation points. It is within the realm of possibility that the day has passed for treatises based on such thorough study and acute perception of the qualities expressed by the Italian painters as were written by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, or such magnificently imaginative and poetic interpretations as the enduring verities first enunciated by Ruskin.

Not that these men did not make mistakes. Had they never done so we should not be able to give a true valuation to their work. Stupidity is not demonstrated by the making of blunders but by the spirit that animates the person at the moment of their commission. Ruskin, to illustrate by means of the brightest example, realised that paintings are expressions of thought just as much as are printed books, and that they are to be read and understood not by adding the vowels together in one heap and the consonants in another, but in their entirety.

Morelli and his followers, on the other hand, are obviously in large measure satisfied by an analysis of external forms and if they discover that each of two pictures presents the same number of curved and straight lines, no further proof is needed to satisfy them that the same author is responsible for both works. It is true that details of style must be studied and were often neglected by the earlier critics, but the famous proof of the identity of Moses and Melchisedek—“you take off the -_oses_ and add the -_elchisedek_”—will never satisfy many people. Morelli forgot that it requires no special perception to discover that Botticelli gave his figures square nails on their toes and fingers, or that the knuckles of Rosselli’s figures are apt to be swollen. But it is exactly this kind of observation which copyists possess. By the observation of such points one is able to say only that such and such a work is externally like the works of this or that artist, but that it is by him depends on quite other proofs.

One or two examples will show the fallacy of such a method of argument. There is in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts a picture representing the Virgin and Child with St. John. The name of Botticelli is on the frame. So far as finger nails or shape of nostril or locks of hair or position of fingers go (and all these details are peculiarly treated by Botticelli), the work might be considered to be by him. It is, however, certain that Botticelli was not the painter of the panel. Among several circumstances that demonstrate this, such as the method of painting employed by the artist, there is one that has to do with the spirit of the work, and which in itself is sufficient proof: I refer to the figure of St. John. We have enough works by Botticelli, the authenticity of which is established beyond all question, to know that he could never at any period of his career have represented this character with a simper that reminds one of Francia’s sentimental figures.

The picture is by a feeble imitator of the master. The works of Botticelli and his imitators offer, because of the very marked peculiarities of the master, extremely good examples to show what mistakes arise by relying too exclusively on the Morellian method, and in both public and private collections are many pictures showing the mannerisms of the Florentine but which are certainly not by him.[36] Take another master, Leonardo. There has lately gone to America[37] a panel representing the head of a woman. It was left by Morelli when he died to Donna Laura Minghetti. To the followers of Morelli, the picture seemed for a long time genuine enough, but when the style of the headdress, the tone of the colour and character of the painting, and lastly the position of the head on the panel itself, had been studied, it became evident that the painting was a modern forgery, and this was further proved when an attempt was made to clean the panel.

These illustrations are sufficient to show that the final judgment of a picture should be based on more than its technical peculiarities. The observation of these is good to begin with, but it does not suffice. That even Morelli himself instinctively felt the weakness of his method is shown in a most humorous way in his description of his “discovery” of the author of a portrait of a woman in the Borghese Gallery.

He tells us how before he looked at this canvas with _kritischem Auge_ he had first thought it to be by Dosso Dossi and then by Sebastiano Luciani. The rest is too naïve to translate, it must be given verbatim. “Eines Tages jedoch, als ich wieder fragend und entzückt vor dem mysteriösen Bilde stand, begegnete mein eigener Geist dem des Künstlers, welcher aus diesen weiblichen Zügen heraussah und siehe da, in der gegenseitigen Berührung zündete es plötzlich wie ein Funken und ich rief in meiner Freude aus: Nur du, mein Freund, Giorgione kannst es sein, und das Bild antwortete: Ja, ich bin’s”; and then follows analysis and dissection of the portrait.

The still small voice of his soul having interpreted the riddle of the picture he _then_ saw that the eye, the expression, the mouth were such as only Giorgione could paint. In a critical case like this Morelli had to look first to something other than anatomical or sartorial shapes. Unfortunately, in this particular case, he has convinced but few students by this sudden and mysterious interpretation of the picture, and only his most ardent apostles see in the ill-drawn portrait anything but a feeble imitation of certain of the less subtle qualities of the great Venetian.

Morelli made, however, other discoveries in regard to Giorgione of greater import than this; but before taking them up in detail it will be worth while to fix clearly in our minds what we know about the Venetian’s work from contemporary or approximately contemporary writers. Vasari and Ridolfi do not, indeed, fail to give the name of Giorgione to many a picture that had never felt the artist’s brush, but they saw many a picture that has since disappeared and what they tell us is the basis of all modern criticism of this most poetic of all the Venetians. I believe it can be shown that much which the earlier writers said of him, and which has since been forgotten or unwisely disregarded, is true.

I will say nothing of the life that Giorgio Barbarelli Giorgione, Zorzone as his comrade Venetians called him, led. That has little to do with us. I wish merely to show which pictures now labelled with his name may in my opinion be confidently accepted as his, and which ones we are justified in taking from him. In his early days he painted, says Vasari, in the second edition of the “Lives”:

1. Many pictures of the Virgin.

2. David, armed and with long hair, holding the head of Goliath.

3. Warrior with a red cap, a fur cloak and a silk jacket.

4. Child. (2, 3, and 4 were owned by the Patriarch of Aquileia.)

5. Portrait of Giovanni Borgherini and his master.

6. Head of a warrior, owned by Anton de’ Nobili in Florence.

7. Portrait of Consalvo Ferrante.

8. Portrait of the Doge Leonardo Loredano.

9. Many other portraits.

10. Frescoes on the Ca Soranzo in Venice—one representing a figure
of Spring.

11. Frescoes on the front of the Fondaco de’ Tedeschi—the scenes
were apparently fantastical or allegorical.

12. Christ carrying the cross, in the church of San Rocco.

13. A nude figure to show that by means of reflections painting is
able to show all parts of a thing at once.

14. Portrait of Catharine, Queen of Cyprus.

15. Portrait of one of the Fugger family.

This list suffices to show that Vasari’s knowledge of Giorgione’s work was slight—and we can prove furthermore it was also imperfect. This is disheartening enough, but a still greater disappointment comes from the fact that of this list of fifteen numbers (including of course many more than fifteen pictures) there are but five of which either the originals or copies are preserved to-day. These five are Nos. 2, 5 (?), 11, 12, and 15. Numbers 5 and 15 are certainly not by Giorgione. The former is not improbably the picture in Berlin (No. 152) of which a replica is in the Louvre (No. 1156), both pictures attributed merely to the Venetian school, and the latter hangs in the Munich Gallery (No. 1107) under the name of Cariani.[38] No. 2 is usually thought to be the picture in Vienna, but Justi (Georgione, p. 182) shows that it may be a picture in Brunswick.[39]

Ridolfi gives a much longer list of Giorgione’s works:

16. Madonna enthroned, in the church of San Liberale in
Castelfranco. Portraits.

17. The dead Christ held by angels, at Treviso.

18. Frescoes on Giorgione’s own house in Venice. Figures and
fantasies.

Frescoes on the Ca Soranzo (same as No. 10). Destroyed all but a
woman with flowers in her hand and Vulcan who whips Cupid.

19. Fables from Ovid; among them Apollo and Daphne, and Zeus as a
bull with Europa on his back. These showed strong landscape
feeling. Gigantomachia. Deucalion and Pyrrha. Apollo and the
Python. Apollo and Daphne. Io. Phaethon. Pyrrhus and Phlegon.
Eos. Diana and Callisto. Mercury stealing Apollo’s herds. Jove
and Europa. Cadmus and serpents’ teeth. Actæon. Venus and Mars
caught by Vulcan. Niobe. Jove and Mercury at the house of Baucis.
Ariadne. Alcides. Achelous. Deianeira. Loves of Apollo and
Hyacinth. Venus and Adonis. Those owned by Sig. Vidman were:
birth of Adonis, Adonis and Venus, Adonis’s death.

Portraits (cf. No. 9): Agostino Barbarigo, Catharine Cornaro
(perhaps the same as No. 14), Consalvo Ferrante.

20. Frescoes on the Ca Grimani alla Servisa (Nude woman of
beautiful form); on a house on the Campo di Santo Stefano, near
S. M. Giubenico (Bacchus, Venus and Mars, half figures,
grotesques and _putti_); and on the Fondaco de’ Tedeschi (same as
No. 11), _trofei_, nudes, heads, allegorical figures measuring
the world. Man on horseback.

21. A concert (now in the Pitti).

22. Allegory of human life in Casa Cassinelli, Genoa (Nurse holding
crying child, and a knight; Youth disputing with Philosophers,
and an old man).

23. Celius Plotius attacked by Claudius.

24. Family group—un vecchio in atto di castrare un gatto.

25. Naked woman and shepherd. She smiles at him as he plays his
pipe.

26. David, a knight and a soldier, owned by And. Vendramin.

27. Naked Venus “ignuda dormiente,—è in Casa Marcella è a piedi è
Cupido con augellino in mano.”

28. Woman dressed as a gipsy, in house of Gio. Batt. Sanuto.

29. Saul holding by the hair the head of Goliath brought to him by
David. Owned by the Signori Leoni di San Lorenzo.

30. Judgment of Paris, owned by the Signori Leoni di San Lorenzo.

31. Judgment of Solomon, in Casa Grimana di Santo Ermacora; the
figure of the executioner unfinished. (Now at Kingston Lacy,
England.)

32. Virgin, St. Jerome and other figures, owned by Signor Gussoni.

33. Warrior, owned by Signor Ruzzini.

34. Knight with black armour, owned by Signori Contarini da S.
Samuello.

35. Half figure of St. Jerome reading, owned by Signori Malipieri.

36. Portraits of Luigi Crasso, seated, with spectacles in his hand.
Owned by Nicolo Crasso.

37. Story of Psyche. Twelve pictures.

38. St. Sebastian, in the Chiesa della Annunciata, Cremona.

39. St. Sebastian,—three-quarter length, owned by Prince
Aldobrandini.

40. David, owned by Prince Borghese.

41. A youth with a curious fur cloak, owned by Signori Muselli in
Verona.

42. Christ led to Calvary, with Mary and the virgin Veronica,
figures half life size.

43. Head of Polyphemus.

44. Portraits of women with strange ornaments and feathers in their
hair.

David with long hair, dressed in a corselet and with the left hand
in the hair of the head of Goliath (same as No. 2). This was a
portrait of himself.

45. A general.

46. Youth with soft hair and armed.

Portrait of one of the Fuggers (same as No. 15).

47. A nude figure with a green cloth over his knees and armour
beside him, owned by Van Veert in Antwerp.

48. ‘Some say that he began’ the picture of Pope Alexander III and
Frederick I in the Sala del Maggior Consiglio in Venice.

This list is disappointing in the same way as the previous one, but, nevertheless, several of the numbers may be added to the list of pictures which are preserved. Besides those already noted in Vasari’s list Nos. 16, 17, 19 (?), 21, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 38, 40, exist in one form or another, but Nos. 17, 21, 23, 38 and 40, though still preserved, are not by Giorgione. No. 17 has nothing whatever to do with Giorgione, and is attributed by Crowe and Cavalcaselle to Pordenone. Whether this is by him is more than doubtful; I will speak of it in detail and also of 21 later. No. 23, called The Bravo, is in Vienna and is perhaps by Cariani; 30 is probably by Campagnola and is known by copies.[40] No. 38 is in the Brera and is by Dosso Dossi, who was also the painter of 40, which is still in the Borghese Gallery. No. 48 was probably the same picture as that mentioned in the Venetian archives under date of August 14, 1507, and was probably destroyed in the fire of 1575.[41]

Another author from whom we are able to gather more and important information, is Marc Antonio Michiel, more commonly known as the Anonimo Morelli. Among the pictures which he saw in Venice and neighbouring towns were several attributed to Giorgione:

/# 49. Head of a boy holding an arrow. Owned by Ant. Pasqualino, who obtained it from Zuanne Ram.

50. Head of San Giacomo holding a pilgrim’s staff. Owned by Ant. Pasqualino.

The Anonimo states that this was either by Giorgione or by one of his
pupils and that it was copied from the Christ in the Church of San
Rocco.

51. St. Jerome, nude, seated in a desert place in the moonlight; “copied from a work by Giorgione.” Owned by And. Odoni.

52. Three Philosophers. Owned by Taddeo Contarino.

53. Hell, with Æneas and Anchises. Owned by Taddeo Contarino.

54. Landscape with the birth of Paris. “One of his early works.”

55. Portrait of Geronimo Marcello, armed,—the body turned away from, and the head towards, the spectator. Owned by Geronimo Marcello.

Nude Venus, sleeping in the open air. “The landscape and the Cupid
were finished by Titian.” Owned by Geronimo Marcello (same as No.
27).

58. St. Jerome reading. Half figure (same as No. 35?). Owned by Geronimo Marcello.

59. Soldier armed, but without a helmet. Half figure. Owned by Zuanantonio Venier.

60. Head of a shepherd. In his hand a fruit. Owned by Zuanne Ram.

Head of boy. In his hand an arrow. Owned by Zuanne Ram (same as No.
49).

61. Stormy landscape with a gipsy and a soldier. Owned by Gabriel Vendramin.

62. Dead Christ and an angel holding him above the tomb. Finished by Titian. Owned by Gabriel Vendramin.

63. Nude figure in a landscape. Pen drawing. Owned by Michiel Contarini.

64. Finished picture of No. 63. Owned by Michiel himself.

65. Portrait of Giorgione’s father. Owned by Piero Servio. #/

Of this list, the particular value of which lies in the fact that it was made by one whose early years were probably contemporary with the close of Giorgione’s life, Nos. 52, 54, 61 and perhaps 62[42] are still (either the originals or copies) in existence. No. 59 suggests a picture in the Colonna Gallery in Rome which has much Giorgionesque feeling, but is in a ruined condition.

Still another writer who mentions several pictures by the master is Giacomo Barri. I quote the passages from the English translation of his book:[43]

Page 106. Castelfranco. “Here is an admirable Picture of the _Blessed
Virgin with her Son_, the work of _Giorgione_. There are likewise
divers Palaces near adjacent where you will find works of the same
_Giorgone_ as also of Paulo Veronese.” (Same as No. 16.)

Venice, page 52. “And upon a front of a House near the house of the
_Pisani_, and the Palace of the _Flangini_, in _S. Maria Gibenigo_,
there are painted by the hand of _Giogone_, many _Freezes_ in _Chiaro
Scuro_, in Yellow, Red, and Green, with rare fancies of _Boys_, in the
middle of which are four Half-figures, _viz._, A _Bacchus_, a _Venus_,
a _Mars_, and a _Mercury_, coloured after the usual manner of the
Author.” (There is a note added to the words “the usual manner” which
reads: “Which was not to paint in above two or three colours.”) (Cf.
No. 20.)

Page 56. The ‘Fontico de Todeseti’ is mentioned. (Same as No. 11.)

Page 56. “In the field or place before S. Pauls you plainly see upon
the Front of the House of _Soranzo_ several Figures of Giorgone, most
beautiful things.” (Same as No. 10.)

Page 67. “The _albergo_ of the said school [School of St. Marks]. As
you enter, the first square on your left hand is by _Giorgone_.”

Page 84. “_The Church of the_ Hospital _of the_ Incurabili.” “And over
a side Door of the Church you may observe a little Square of our
_Saviour carrying the Cross_ and an Executioner drawing him along, by
the hand of _Giorgone_.” (Same as No. 12.)

Treviso, page 97. “The Mountain of Piety _in the aforesaid_ City.”
“Here they preserve a _Christ_ with a little _Angel_, a most singular
work, by the hand of Giorgone.” (Same as No. 17.)

Cremona, page 114. “Here is a picture of S. _Sebastian_ and two
_Angels_ by the hand of Giorgone.” (Same as No. 38.)

67. Parma, page 126. In the Palace of the _Fontana_. “There is also
the picture of _Fra Sebastiano del Piombo_, a Painter, the work of
_Giorgone_.”

Only two pictures (66, 67) not mentioned by the other authors are given in this list, and one of these, the portrait of Sebastiano del Piombo, has, I believe, been lost sight of. The picture that was in the School of St. Marks now hangs in the Academia in Venice. It represents the story of the calming of a storm by the saints Nicholas, George and Mark. Some students consider this picture to be a work by Giorgione much repainted by Palma or Paris Bordone. Others, with whom I agree, fail to see in this ugly work the slightest suggestion of Giorgione.

These then are the chief early sources for our knowledge of the subjects painted by Giorgione. If the list of his works seems small, it must be remembered that the painter was only some thirty-three years old when he died. The inaccuracy of the attributions made by these writers shows how careful one must be in dealing with the information they give us, and suggests the reflection that probably they were as careless in failing to speak of works that were certainly by the master as they were in mentioning others which unquestionably were not by him. All new attributions must, however, be based on a comparison with the few works which unbroken tradition and common consent give to Giorgione, and not with those about which trained opinion differs. Individual judgment as to the likeness one picture bears to another is very different from convincing proof. Before criticising individual works we must consider the basis for discussion that the lists present.

Of the sixty-seven different items mentioned, the following are known to us.[44] 1 (?), 2, 5 (?), 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 (?), 21 (?), 23, 26 (?), 27, 29 (?), 30, 31, 38, 40 (?), 42 (?), 52, 54, 61, 62 (?), 66. Of these only 2, 5 (?), 11, 12, 16, 21 (?), 22 (?), 26 (?), 27, 31, 52, 54, 61, 62 (?) need be considered as being related in any close way to Giorgione. The claims of Cariani, Licinio, Della Vecchia, and the host of other, generally feeble, imitators of Giorgione to the other pictures may be studied in Crowe and Cavalcaselle, or later works. Even some of the works included in the small list just given are not accepted as genuine by all the critics, but a few there are the authenticity of which could only be questioned by bringing much more serious evidence against them than I have ever seen adduced. These rare, choice works are:

2. David, armed, holding the head of Goliath. Now in Vienna. This
is not the original, but, as noted by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, a
late copy. I own another copy, on panel, which shows the lower
part of the picture better than the Vienna copy.

11. Frescoes on the Fondaco dei Tedeschi. Preserved, except a
fragment only, in Zanetti’s engravings.

12. Christ carrying the Cross, in the Church of San Rocco, Venice.

16. Madonna enthroned, in the Church of San Liberale in
Castelfranco.

27. Naked Venus, asleep, in Dresden. Some critics still hesitate to
accept Morelli’s attribution of this canvas to Giorgione, but the
greater number have, I believe, given a ready assent.

31. The Judgment of Solomon. Now at Kingston Lacy (Plate LXII).
This, the Castelfranco Madonna, and the Three Philosophers, are
in certain ways the most important works of the painter now
existing.

52. Three Philosophers. In Vienna (Plate LXVI).

54. Landscape with the Birth of Paris. A fragment of a poor copy of
this is preserved in Buda-Pesth. An engraving by T. van Kessel
from a copy of the picture by Teniers shows what the whole
composition was.

61. Stormy landscape, with a gypsy and a soldier. In the Palazzo
Giovanelli, Venice (Plate LXV).

To these nine unquestioned works by Giorgione are to be added others that have no early literary evidence to bear out their claims to a Giorgionesque origin, but which unbroken tradition resisting even the assaults of modern criticism has assigned to this category. Such are:

The Judgment of Solomon, in the Uffizi.

The Fire-test of Moses, in the Uffizi.

Knight of Malta, in the Uffizi.

Head of Christ carrying the Cross, formerly in the Palazzo Loschi
Vicenza, and now in Mrs. Gardner’s Collection in Boston (Plate
LXVII).

Study for the figure of San Liberale, in the Castelfranco picture, in
the National Gallery, London.

So far as the giving of any certain knowledge of Giorgione’s technique is concerned, the first three of these pictures are very disappointing, for all of them have been so thoroughly repainted that the original work is much injured. While most critics follow the tradition and believe Giorgione to have been the painter of these pictures, there are those who do not hold this opinion. For instance, Dr. Bode, one of the keenest judges of pictures, does not think the Judgment of Solomon, and the Trial of Moses, to be by him.[45] Others there are who think that the judgment passed by Crowe and Cavalcaselle on the Knight of Malta is very sound and satisfactory. They say: “Giorgione’s work was altered by later retouching, or the painter is a skilful imitator of Giorgione’s manner.” Personally, I believe all these to be by him.

Taking now these fragments of written evidence and of tradition, let us see what the modern writers of most repute have considered to be examples of Giorgione’s work. To begin with Crowe and Cavalcaselle, they give as true Giorgiones the following:

The Fondaco de’ Tedeschi.

The Christ in San Rocco.

The Judgment of Solomon at Kingston Lacy.

The Chaldæan Sages (the Three Philosophers).

The Family of Giorgione (the picture in the Giovanelli Palace).

The Castelfranco Madonna.

The David in Vienna, of which they say “this is a late copy, perhaps
after the original noted by Vasari.”

Of the traditional pictures they consider as the master’s work:

The Judgment of Solomon, in the Uffizi.

The Trial of Moses, in the Uffizi.

The Knight of Malta (?), in the Uffizi.

They add:

The Shepherd’s Offering in the Beaumont (now Lord Allandale’s)
Collection, London.

The Adoration of the Magi, in the National Gallery, London; formerly
owned by Sir William Miles, of Leigh Court.

These last two pictures are much less well known than the others. I shall endeavour to show that the later attributions of them to Catena or others are based on a mistaken idea of Giorgione’s style (not to mention Catena’s), and that Crowe and Cavalcaselle were perfectly right in their estimate of them. Other pictures which are often thought of in connection with Giorgione and which they, quite rightly I believe, refused to acknowledge, are:

The Concert, in the Pitti.

The Fête Champêtre, in the Louvre.

Madonna and Saints, in the Louvre.

Nymph and Satyr, in the Pitti.

The Head of a Boy, at Hampton Court.

The Madonna and Child with St. Brigida, in Madrid.

To take more modern writers, we find a very different list of works attributed to Giorgione by Morelli.[46] It consists of the following:

The Trial of Moses.

The Judgment of Solomon.[47]

The Christ bearing the Cross.

The Madonna of Castelfranco.

The Gypsy and the Soldier (Giovanelli Palace).

* The Madonna and Child with Sts. Antony and Roch. (Madrid.)

The Knight of Malta.

† * Daphne and Apollo. This is in the Seminario of St^a Maria della
Salute in Venice. Crowe and Cavalcaselle (II. 165) attribute it to
Andrea Schiavone, and with their opinion I agree.

* The Three Ages of Man, in the Uffizi, ascribed usually to Lotto.

The Concert, in the Louvre. (Same as Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s Fête
Champêtre.)

The Fragment of the Birth of Paris, in the Esterhazy Gallery,
Buda-Pesth.

* Portrait of a Man, in the Esterhazy Gallery.

* Portrait of a Woman, in the Borghese Gallery, Rome.

† Nymph and Satyr, in the Pitti.

† Portrait of a Youth, in Berlin.

† Head of a Boy, in Hampton Court.

Three Philosophers, in Vienna.

* Venus in Dresden.

† Allegory, in Dresden. { These Morelli considers copies
† Judith, in St. Petersburg. { of Giorgione’s work.

The pictures I have marked with an asterisk are those which Morelli was the first to claim with insistence for Giorgione, and with the exception of the Venus not one of these attributions has been generally accepted. Those marked with a dagger are attributions of older or younger date. About all of them, certain doubts, and about most of them doubts of very serious nature, must be dispelled, before the attribution can be accepted.

The two points most noticeable in Morelli’s list are the differences in the style of the pictures included and the absence of others. It would be difficult to combine works more dissimilar than the Berlin portrait of a youth and the portrait of a woman in the Borghese, and even if one grants that an artist working at the time when Giorgione flourished was subjected to influences so strong and varied that the character of his work altered from time to time, it can only be explained by a miracle that the same man painted the Castelfranco Madonna and the Daphne and Apollo. Even the last dashing works of the century-old Titian differ hardly more from his calmer earlier canvases than do these two pictures, which Morelli would have us believe were painted by a man who died at the age of thirty-two or thirty-three. This curious, one may not unfairly say erratic, combination of Morelli may perhaps be explained by supposing, as is true in other parts of his work, that he was so taken up with the similarity of certain details that he forgot to study the larger and more telling characteristics of the pictures. But what explanation is there of his strange silence regarding the Benson[48] and Beaumont pictures, the Judgment of Solomon at Kingston Lacy, the Vienna David, and the Christ bearing the Cross in San Rocco?

A later and slightly different form of the Morelli list is given by Berenson.[49] It is as follows:

Berlin, Portrait of a Man.

Buda-Pesth, Portrait of a Man.

Castelfranco, Duomo, Madonna with Sts. Francis and Liberale.

Dresden, Sleeping Venus.

Florence, Uffizi, Trial of Moses; Knight of Malta; Judgment of
Solomon.

Hampton Court, Shepherd with Pipe.

Madrid, Madonna with Sts. Roch and Antony of Padua.

Paris, Fête Champêtre.

Rome, Villa Borghese, Portrait of a Lady.

St. Petersburg, Judith (?).

Venice, Academy, Storm calmed by St. Mark. Finished in small part by
P. Bordone. (In the edition of 1894, Berenson attributed this to P.
Bordone, saying that perhaps it was begun by Giorgione.)

Venice, Seminario, Apollo and Daphne; Giovanelli, Gypsy and Soldier;
S. Rocco, Christ bearing Cross.

Vicenza, Casa Loschi, Christ bearing Cross. (Now in the Gardner
Collection, Boston.)

Vienna, Evander showing Æneas the Site of Rome. (Often called the
Three Philosophers.)

In an article[50] published since the appearance of his book, Berenson has added to the above list several pictures which he considers to be copies of Giorgiones. They are:

Bergamo, Orpheus and Eurydice. The copy made by Cariani.

Buda-Pesth, Two men walking. Fragment. (This is what Morelli calls the
Birth of Paris.)

Milan, Portrait of a lady, belonging to Signor Crespi.

St. Petersburg, Judith.

London, Portrait of a man formerly belonging to Mr. Doetsch; now owned
by Colonel Kemp.