Chapter II: The True Giorgione (2)

Excluding the last one as being open to doubt, nineteen pictures, two probably copies, remain as our heritage of this most noble painter’s work. With these nineteen in our mind, it becomes more evident than ever why such works as the Louvre Concert, the Borghese Lady, or the Doetsch Man are not to be thought of in connection with Giorgione’s name.

There yet remains something more to be said of Giorgione. I think that there are still some pictures to be added to this list. The first to which I desire to call attention is the so-called Gypsy Madonna in Vienna. This picture is spoken of by every one as a Titian, but the longer I study it the more strong becomes my conviction that Giorgione was the artist; that it is one of his early works; that it is one of the “many pictures of the Virgin” of which Vasari speaks. The Giorgione spirit seems to me to underlie the whole feeling just as the Giorgione technique underlies the completed performance, that is, wherever the repainting allows it to be seen (Plate LXIX).

Evidently, from the lack of decision of the drawing, the coarse modelling of the drapery, and the heavy, undetailed landscape the picture is an early work of the master, be he Titian or Giorgione. To my mind the likeness between this and unquestioned early Titians is a superficial one. This picture shows none of the ease that is a characteristic of even his early works, nor does it exhibit any of the dramatic quality, expressed either by the actions or in the faces of the figures, that is another most noticeable feature of his work. If, on the other hand, one seeks for similarities to Giorgione’s work, they are most readily found. Details and style coincide closely with his pictures. The shape of the Virgin’s head and the manner in which the hair is drawn over the brow are nearly identical with what one sees in the Uffizi panels or the Castelfranco picture. The sharply marked eyelids, the richly modelled mouth and long nose, are strongly resemblant to the same features in the Castelfranco Madonna, the Giovanelli Gypsy, the Uffizi panels, and the Knight of Malta.

Notice, too, the large hand, the feet of the child with the strongly developed toes which are just what one finds in Giorgione’s works. So, also, the landscape with its plumelike trees, and the slim figure seated on the grass is such as one finds in many of his works, but not so often in those of Titian. Finally, and of more importance than separate details, is the fact that the peaceful spirit of the group, the undramatic, unTitianesque quality, is exactly what is most characteristic of Giorgione. Titian, when he painted the Christ Child, even in his earliest days, painted a figure more representing the infant Hercules than the Salvator Mundi. Invariably, He leaps about in his Mother’s arms, and though the small chubby face may be keenly intelligent, there is hardly ever a suggestion of the imaginative powers and prophetic instinct of the Reformer. It is here that Giorgione shows his very exceptional genius, for he was able to depict a purely human man child in such wise that were the figures cut from his canvases, no one could mistake them for mere ordinary offspring.

Giorgione used none of the affected graces or sentimentalities of Raphael, nor did he depend upon such weirdness as Leonardo chose; as a result, his figures are as much more satisfying to the inquiring intellect as a living fountain is compared with the mirage of the desert. His means are simple. There is no exaggeration of action, as in the Titian Child, but all is essentially delicate and infantine. There is no exaggeration of expression, but a slightly dreamy, far-away look as of powers still unwakened, and one feels, as before no other representations of the Child, that such as He might attain to even Calvary. Taken in connection with the agreement of the details, this spiritual similarity of the work to others that we know are by Giorgione must give him pause who should think to name Titian as the author.[77]

Another picture which, I believe, deserves more attention than has yet been given it hangs, under the name of Giovanni Bellini, in the _Museo Correr_ in Venice. The picture represents the dead Christ, seated on the edge of the tomb, upheld by three angels. In the background is a landscape, with a church on the right. It is painted on a panel about four feet high. The Anonimo Morelli says that in the year 1530 in the house of Gabriel Vendramin: “El Cristo morto sopra el sepolcro, con l’Anzolo che el sostenta, fu de man de Zorzi da Castelfranco, reconzato da Tiziano.” The picture in the Correr Museum represents this same scene, but there are three angels instead of one. This difference between the picture and the description need not make us hesitate to consider the question whether Giorgione was the author of the work, if there are other reasons to render such authorship possible.

Any one, however, who has used early books such as the Anonimo knows how very inaccurate the authors often were and any one who has studied Italian painting knows that to represent the dead Christ held by only one angel is entirely contrary to precedent and practice. The present condition of the work is such that it is impossible to say whether it was ever _raconzato da Tiziano_ or not. It is a mere wreck. That there are distinct resemblances to Bellini’s work is not to be denied, but, if I mistake not, there exist even stronger ones to that of Giorgione. A slight stiffness in drawing, a certain archaism in drapery, is just what one would expect to find in the work of Bellini’s pupil. In the modelling and action of the figures, however, there are evidences of an attempt at freedom of design such as are rare in Bellini’s work. Four works of Bellini occur at once as criteria for judging the quality of the one under discussion—the Pietà in the Brera, one in the Mond collection in London, one in Rimini, and one in the Berlin Gallery.[78] None of these show the slender, rather unmodelled hands of the Correr picture; none presents so vivid a picture of Death. In none except the one at Rimini are the secondary figures really supporting the Christ,—the body does not show, as in the Correr picture, the relaxation of death, and in the Rimini picture the angels are much more playfully treated than in the Correr panel. The Bellini pictures are deeply touching, but to me there seems an even nobler and more moving sentiment in the work which I fain would attribute to Giorgione, and it is just such a sentiment as the painter of the Vicenza Christ might have suggested.

The heads of the figures of the dead Christ in the works of Bellini are without exception represented as _asleep_. In the Correr picture one sees more than sleep in the closed eyes and drawn mouth of the Saviour. There is death—but death, the tragedy, so combined with a yearning, soul-compelling sadness, that the face can never be forgotten by whoso once has seen it, and this is spiritual life. Scarcely any other artist ever equalled Giorgione, and none certainly ever surpassed him, in the power of representing the members of the Holy Family. There are many fine presentations of Christ bearing the Cross, but none so imaginative as the Vicenza picture. For there we see in the sensitive face, the direct eye, and steady earnest mouth, the signs of completed power over self, while in the tear drop that sparkles on the cheek is the sign of suffering that broke the body, whose soul it could not quell—for neither brow nor eye are those of one who weeps. The Correr painting contains a similar double suggestion. Two details there are also which bear out the idea that Giorgione is the author. One is the technique which so far as can be seen is of the rich, smooth, carefully shaded kind, peculiar to Giorgione’s work. The other is the landscape in which the low horizon line and the plumy trees correspond closely to his certain works. Wreck though it be, and possibly only a copy of the original, it is worth study by students.[79]

A smaller, but fortunately much more perfectly preserved, work hangs in the London Gallery under the name of School of Giorgione. It represents a bearded man on a throne and other figures in an open landscape. Whoever, unafraid of finding something unexpected, looks at this picture with critical eye, will, I think, realise that it is not a school work, but by the master himself. It is very carefully wrought in design and execution, as a youthful work would be likely to be, and as the two Florence panels are. The rich clear colours and the bright sunshine spread over the scene, are such as are found in the Florence panels, the Kingston Lacy picture, those in Vienna, and the Virgin of Castelfranco. The landscape is typically Giorgionesque, closed in as it is in the foreground, and opening into a middle distance of rich meadows, enlivened here and there with tall steep-roofed houses. The rich detail and broad chiaroscuro find their counterpart over and over again in Giorgione’s work; and finally, who but Giorgione ever presented to our delighted eyes a scene so simple, so dreamlike, so poetic, so defined, and yet so difficult to understand? It is a dream picture, rendered with the utmost clearness of vision. It is only the masters who can do this—only Giorgione and Keats and such rare spirits who can put in terms for the ordinary plodding mortal to grasp, the evanescent visions of the mind.

Of very different character is the portrait of a youth in a large hat in the Vienna Gallery. Crowe and Cavalcaselle attribute this to Morto da Feltre. It was impossible for me to see the original when I was in Vienna, but study of an excellent photograph makes me doubt this attribution. If I mistake not, the picture might be a copy of a portrait by Giorgione. The treatment of the landscape is sufficient to show that Giorgione’s hand did not touch the work itself, but scarcely any other than Giorgione can have originated this grave sweet face with the steady eyes.

To close this necessarily unsatisfactory part of my subject, there is the etching by H. van der Borcht which quite possibly is copied from a lost Giorgione. It represents a woman seated upon a dead warrior, and below the figures are the words _Giorgione inv_.[80] It seems not unlikely that it preserves for us one of the frescoes long since faded from some palace wall in Venice. It is but the echo of a voice that is still, but even as such it means much.

If now my arguments, in the foregoing discussion, are based upon sound reason rather than upon theory, it results that the following are the works by which we must judge Giorgione’s genius, and that these must serve as a standard for further study of his work:

1. Vienna, David (copy).

2. Vienna, Three Philosophers.

3. Vienna, Gypsy Madonna.

4. Vienna, Portrait of a Youth (copy?).

5. Venice, Fondaco dei Tedeschi. (The engravings can be used in
giving suggestions of Giorgione’s methods of composition.)

6. Venice, Chiesa di San Rocco, Christ carrying the Cross.

7. Venice, Giovanelli Palace, Soldier and Woman.

8. Venice, Correr Museum, Pietà (copy?).

9. Castelfranco, Madonna Enthroned.

10. Dresden, Venus.

11. Kingston Lacy, Judgment of Solomon.

12. Buda Pesth, Birth of Paris (copy).

13. Florence, Uffizi, Judgment of Solomon.

14. Florence, Uffizi, Fire-test of Moses.

15. Florence, Uffizi, Knight of Malta.

16. Boston, Mrs. Gardner, Head of Christ.

17. London, National Gallery, Study for figure of San Liberale.

18. London, National Gallery, Epiphany.

19. London, National Gallery, David and Solomon.

20. London, Mr. Beaumont (Lord Allandale), Shepherd’s Offering.

21. London, Mr. Benson, Holy Family.

22. St. Petersburg, Hermitage, Judith.

At first sight it may seem that there is more variety of style in these pictures than the works of any one artist would show, especially one who died young. There are, however, certain general considerations to be clearly remembered. Giorgione was born and grew up in a time of great discovery, when long-established thoughts and habits were rapidly changing, so that we should commit a serious error were we to expect him to paint the same subjects, or in the same manner, as his predecessors. His works would necessarily be different from theirs. He would naturally show greater variety and, owing to his youth, his style would not have become fixed. What is certain is that his contemporaries regarded him with the greatest admiration, so the best way to fit ourselves to judge him is to study the life of Venice in his day.

It is not much that is left us of the great man’s life work, but it suffices to show what he was, not only as a painter, but as a man; and why his influence was so great on his contemporaries, and why so long as the human heart stays young his spirit will continue to call loudly to it. That he was a perfect colourist, that is to say, that he understood how to juxtapose the rich oriental colours of the Venetian palette in such wise that each tint emphasised the effect of all the others, or that as a draughtsman he could adequately portray the images in his brain, does not explain the effect he has on those who care for him. These are merely technical qualities that are not difficult to acquire, and that many a man has possessed.

It is the spirit of Giorgione’s work that makes him what he is. He spoke in the simplest, broadest way to the deeper side of our nature. Not so imbued with the ceremonies of religion as his master Bellini, nor so given over to the full-blooded joy in the beauties of this world as his comrade Titian, he recognised that fanaticism or sensuality are equally spiritual death, and that the whole and perfect soul must be tempered in the fires of the heart, and cooled in the breezes of Nature. No such loveable Madonna had been painted as she of Castelfranco,—no purer presentation exists of the compelling beauty of the human figure than his Venus. Unabashed “he held both hands before the fire of life,” not warming first one and then the other, but with true poetic feeling combining every beauty that he perceived in one harmonious song.

Always steadily reaching for the same goal, this even-poised master did not one day paint such exalted figures as Bellini’s Virgin and Companion Saints in the Frari, and on another such heathen festivities as the same master’s Bacchanal. But, as he loved music and pleasant company and such pleasantnesses of life, so in his painting he shows us grace and harmony and good breeding. And as these things are hard to find in our daily course and harder still to fix long enough to paint their semblance, he fashioned for himself a world, an Arcadia, where men and women, surrounded by beautiful Nature, lived together, enjoying a life where there was both work and play. In all temperate reason they employ their energies now on problems of deep thought, and now in the satisfaction of health and natural bodily enjoyment, and it is just because of the reasonableness of this balance of mind and body that his pictures seem poetic, dreamlike and difficult to explain. As Keats, more than any scientist or idle dreamer, tells how the nightingale entrances the soul, so Giorgione depicts the Virgin and her Child guarded by attendant Saints, or adored by kings and slaves, with greater persuasiveness than any theologian. But he does this neither as one diverted only by the pageantry, nor as an historian. Endowed with a poet’s instinct, he saw the deeper meaning of the scene and depicted those parts that truly illustrate it.

Other artists there have been endowed with this same instinct, but their works do not obtain from us of to-day as full response as from our forefathers who lived when they were painted, and this because they do not give visual form to matters of lasting import, but to those fleeting affairs that constitute fashion. This is not so of Giorgione. The glory of his work will never fade, for his appeal is to the spirit of youth—that spirit which is compounded of a pure and natural love in all things beautiful, be they physical or spiritual, natural or divine, and with energy sufficient to urge it forward to the acquisition of, and the becoming part of, each and all of these various perfections. Such was Giorgione: neither utterly pagan, nor completely christian, but absolutely human in the finest sense, in that his perceptions were clear enough to see the special value of all things beautiful and his technical powers adequate to give due expression to that which he perceived.

INDEX

Alexander, portraits of, 82

allegory of Time and Truth, 13

archæological study of art, 3, 4

art as an index of life, 4, 57, 97, 133, 147
function of, 128

Athena, head of, from Cyrene, 135 f.
date of, 142
local work, 149

beauty, Greek love of, 76

Bellini and Giorgione, 173, 181

Bellini, Bacchanal, 190

Berenson, 154, 157, 171, 172

Bernini, an estimate of, 3 f.
architectural work, 40 f.
classes of his work, 14
clay models, 21, 44 f.
contemporary honour for, 6
designs for piazza of St. Peter’s, 50 f.
early life of, 15
estimate and characterization of, 42
expression of religion, 22
influence of, 23
multiplicity of sketches, 19
originality of, 20
portraits of, 10 f.
sculptor’s models, 21 f., 44 f.
list of, 46
technique of, 18 f.
versatility, 40

Bernini, works of,
Æneas and Anchises, 16
angels, used in architecture, 23 f.
Apollo and Daphne, 7, 17
Baldacchino in St. Peter’s, 33
Beata Albertona, 32
Cattedra in St. Peter’s, 33
Daniel in the lions’ den, 29
David, 16
fountains, 14, 34
Habakkuk, 26
Maria di Magdala, 32, 49
portraits, 14, 35
Bishop Santoni, 37
Costanza Buonavelli, 37
Francis I, 39
Louis XIV, 39
Mons. Francesco Barberini, 39
Mons. Montoya, 37
Paul V, 38
Proserpina, 17
saints, 25
Santa Bibiana, 26
St. Jerome, 27, 47
Saint Theresa, 30, 48
Truth, 13

Borghese pope, patronage of, 15

Borghese warrior, 17

Botticelli, 112, 156
Virgin and child in Boston, 157

Brandegee Collection, 21, 41, 45, 51, 85

Browning, 69

Brunn, H., 138

Bupalos and Athenis, 77

Carracci, 3

Cariani and Giorgione, 160, 166

Catena and Giorgione, 177
draperies of, 183
St. Jerome (National Gallery), 178
Knight adoring Infant Christ, 178, 182

Corbulo, portrait of, 57, 88

Cyrene, sculpture of, 136 f.

Dante, Greek spirit in, 113

Demetrius of Alopeke, 84

Egyptian portraiture, 60
sculpture, 61, 140

emotion controlled in Greece, 103

evolution of art, 4

Farnese Hercules, 123

Florentine portraits, 90

Furtwaengler, A., 138

Futurists, 140

Ghirlandaio, 112

Giorgione, 155 f.
draperies of, 183
life, 159
list of works, 203, 210
Anonimo Morelli, 163
Barri, 164
Berenson, 171
Crowe and Cavalcaselle, 168
Morelli, 169
Ridolfi, 161
Vasari, 159
paintings attributed to, 155 f.
romantic quality of, 181
spirit of his work, 211
the true Giorgione, 172 f.
treatment of landscape, 191

Giorgione, works of,
Birth of Paris (copy, Buda-Pesth), 196
Christ carrying the Cross (San Rocco, Vienna), 184
David and Solomon (National Gallery), 208
Epiphany (National Gallery), 175
Gypsy Madonna (Vienna), 204
Head of Christ (Gardner Collection, Boston), 185
Holy Family (Benson), 183 f.
Judgment of Solomon (Kingston Lacy), 172 f., 182
Knight of Malta (Uffizi), 58, 185
Madonna Enthroned (Castelfranco), 181
Pietà (Venice), 206
Portrait (Temple Newsam), 202
Portrait (Vienna), 209
San Liberale (National Gallery), 186
Shepherd’s Offering (Lord Allandale), 180 f.
The Tempest (Venice), 181
Three Philosophers (Vienna), 181
Venus (Dresden), 174, 181

Giorgione, works attributed to,
Allegory (Dresden), 195
Cassone pictures (Padua), 195
Concert (Pitti), 188
Daphne and Apollo (Venice), 194
Fête Champêtre (Louvre), 189
Head of Boy (Hampton Court), 187
Judith (St. Petersburg), 195
Madonna (Madrid), 193
Madonna and Saints (Louvre), 187
Nymph and Satyr (Pitti), 187
Orpheus and Eurydice (Bergamo), 200
Portrait (Berlin), 198
Portrait (Borghese), 196
Portrait (Buda-Pesth), 197
Portrait (from Crespi Collection), 202
Portrait (from Doetsch Collection), 201

Guido, 3

hair as a means of dating sculpture, 144

Hipponax, caricature of, 77

humanity of the Greek gods, 150

Kresilas, portrait of Pericles, 58, 75, 78 f.

Laocoon, 123

Laws of sculpture, 7

Leonardo, 140, 158

logical reasoning about pictures, 176

Longinus, 46

Lowell on Lincoln, 69

lucidity of Greek sculpture, 140

Lysippus, portraits of Alexander, 82

“Massacre of the Innocents,” 73

materials for sculpture, 145

Michael Angelo and Bernini, 16

Michael Angelo, 97 f.
affectation of the period, 119, 120
complexity of his work, 101, 103
feeling for the nude figure, 101
muscles emphasized, 120, 123
period of, 98, 103, 111
pupils of, 122
sonnets and letters, 115

Michael Angelo, works of,
Bacchus, 116 f.
Battle of the Centaurs, 133
David, 133
Eros, 116, 118, 120
Madonna of Bruges, 116, 131
Moses, 100, 102
Night and Dawn, 122
Pietà in St. Peter’s, 100
Sistine Chapel, 121, 125 f., 132
Victor, 116

Morelli on Giorgione, 155 f.

Mourning Athena, 148

Myron’s Discobolus, 17

mystical fervour in art, 3

Niobid group, 73

nude figure felt under drapery, 101 f.

Oberammergau, 31

origins of art, 3

Pausanias, 138

Pericles, portrait of, 58, 75, 78 f.

Pheidias and Michael Angelo, 93 f.

Pheidias, age of, 105, 109
and Pericles, 110
influence of, 94 f.

Pheidias, work of,
Athena Parthenos, 131
Lemnian Athena, 101, 131
Parthenon, 3, 132
frieze, 118
pediments, 101, 121
Zeus, 108

photography and art criticism, 155

physical beauty prized by Greeks, 151

portraits of women and children, 89

portraits made for friends, 65

portraiture, art of, 57 f.
commemorative, 60, 64
Egyptian, 60
Florentine, 90
Greek and Roman, 85
in language, 66
in large compositions, 62
in painting and sculpture, 59, 71, 74
motives for, 59
religious, 59
summary, 91

Raphael, Angelo Doni, 58

realism, in sculpture, 75

realism, Greek and Roman, 75

religion and art, 104, 106

Roselli, 156

Roman art, 4

Ruskin, 156

Scipio, so-called bust of, 57

Sheik-el-Beled, 57

Shelley, 66, 68

Silanion, 83

technical peculiarities in paintings, 157 f.

temple, significance of the Greek, 106

Tintoretto, Greek spirit of, 113

Titian, Duke of Norfolk, 58

Triton, 47

“Truth unveiled by Time,” 13

Turner’s Rizpah, 67

violence in art, 8

wealth and art, 64, 91

youth in Greek art, 111

-----

Footnote 1:

Filippo Baldinucci Fiorentino. _Vita del cavaliere Gio. Lorenzo
Bernini._ Firenze. 1682.

Domenico Bernino. _Vita del cavaliere Gio. Lorenzo Bernino._ Roma.
1713.

Stanislao Fraschetti. _Il Bernini._ Milan. 1900.

Footnote 2:

Fraschetti, _op. cit._, p. 47.

Footnote 3:

Fraschetti, _op. cit._, pp. 425, 426.

Footnote 4:

Fraschetti, _op. cit._, p. 428.

Footnote 5:

This portrait (Fraschetti, _op. cit._, p. 434) is probably a copy of
one owned by Baron Geymüller in London.

Footnote 6:

Fraschetti, _op. cit._, p. 429.

Footnote 7:

In the Museum at Weimar is a portrait on which is written that it was
done by Bernini himself, and as an _autoritratto_ it has been
published by Fraschetti (p. 433). It is a wretched performance, done
not by Bernini, but by someone who had neither an observant eye nor a
well-trained hand.

There is still another portrait which I think is very probably of him.
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=.