Giorgione Part 6

ADDITIONAL PICTURES--PORTRAITS

Vasari, in his _Life of t.i.tian_, in the course of a somewhat confused account of the artist's earliest years, tells us how t.i.tian, "having seen the manner of Giorgione, early resolved to abandon that of Gian Bellino, although well grounded therein. He now, therefore, devoted himself to this purpose, and in a short time so closely imitated Giorgione that his pictures were sometimes taken for those of that master, as will be related below." And he goes on: "At the time when t.i.tian began to adopt the manner of Giorgione, being then not more than eighteen, he took the portrait of a gentleman of the Barberigo family who was his friend, and this was considered very beautiful, the colouring being true and natural, and the hair so distinctly painted that each one could be counted, as might also the st.i.tches[85] in a satin doublet, painted in the same work; in a word, it was so well and carefully done, that it would have been taken for a picture by Giorgione, if t.i.tian had not written his name on the dark ground." Now the statement that t.i.tian began to imitate Giorgione at the age of eighteen is inconsistent with Vasari's own words of a few paragraphs previously: "About the year 1507, Giorgione da Castel Franco, not being satisfied with that mode of proceeding (i.e. 'the dry, hard, laboured manner of Gian Bellino, which t.i.tian also acquired'), began to give to his works an unwonted softness and relief, painting them in a very beautiful manner.... Having seen the manner of Giorgione, t.i.tian now devoted himself to this purpose," etc. In 1507 t.i.tian was thirty years old,[86] not eighteen, so that both statements cannot be correct. Now it is highly improbable that t.i.tian had already discarded the manner of Bellini as early as 1495, at the age of eighteen, and had so identified himself with Giorgione that their work was indistinguishable.

Everything, on the contrary, points to t.i.tian's evolution being anything but rapid; in fact, so far as records go, there is no mention of his name until he painted the facade of the Fondaco de' Tedeschi in company with Giorgione in 1507. It is infinitely more probable that Vasari's first statement is the more reliable--viz. that t.i.tian began to adopt Giorgione's manner about the year 1507, and it follows, therefore, that the portrait of the gentleman of the Barberigo family, if by t.i.tian, dates from this time, and not 1495.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Dixon photo. Collection of the Earl of Darnley, Cobham Hall_

PORTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN]

Now there is a picture in the Earl of Darnley's Collection at Cobham Hall which answers pretty closely to Vasari's description. It is a supposed portrait of Arios...o...b.. t.i.tian, but it is as much unlike the court poet of Ferrara as the portrait in the National Gallery (No. 636) which, with equal absurdity, long pa.s.sed for that of Ariosto, a name now wisely removed from the label. This magnificent portrait at Cobham was last exhibited at the Old Masters in 1895, and the suggestion was then made that it might be the very picture mentioned by Vasari in the pa.s.sage quoted above.[87] I believe this ingenious suggestion is correct, and that we have in the Cobham "Ariosto" the portrait of one of the Barberigo family said to have been painted by t.i.tian in the manner of Giorgione. "Thoroughly Giorgionesque," says Mr. Claude Phillips, in his _Life of t.i.tian_, "is the soberly tinted yet sumptuous picture in its general arrangement, as in its general tone, and in this respect it is the fitting companion and the descendant of Giorgione's 'Antonio Broccardo' at Buda-Pesth, of his 'Knight of Malta' at the Uffizi. Its resemblance, moreover, is, as regards the general lines of the composition, a very striking one to the celebrated Sciarra 'Violin-Player,' by Sebastiano del Piombo.... The handsome, manly head has lost both subtlety and character through some too severe process of cleaning, but Venetian art has hardly anything more magnificent to show than the costume, with the quilted sleeve of steely, blue-grey satin, which occupies so prominent a place in the picture." Its Giorgionesque character is therefore recognised by this writer, as also by Dr. Georg Gronau, in his recent _Life of t.i.tian_ (p. 21), who significantly remarks, "Its relation to the 'Portrait of a Young Man' by Giorgione, at Berlin, is obvious."

It is a pity that both these discerning writers of the modern school have not gone a little further and seen that the picture before them is not only Giorgionesque, but by Giorgione himself. The mistake of confusing t.i.tian and Giorgione is as old as Vasari, who, _misled by the signature_, navely remarks, "It would have been taken for a picture by Giorgione if t.i.tian had not written his name on the dark ground (in ombra)." _Hinc illae lacrimae!_ Let us look into this question of signatures, the ultimate and irrevocable proof in the minds of the innocent that a picture must be genuine. t.i.tian's methods of signing his well-authenticated works varied at different stages of his career. The earliest signature is always "Ticia.n.u.s," and this is found on works dating down to 1522 (the "S. Sebastian" at Brescia). The usual signature of the later time is "t.i.tia.n.u.s," probably the earliest picture with it being the Ancona altar-piece of 1520. "Tician" is found only twice. Now, without necessarily condemning every signature which does not accord with this practice, we must explain any apparent irregularity, such, for instance, as the "t.i.tia.n.u.s F." on the Cobham Hall picture. This form of signature points to the period after 1520, a date manifestly inconsistent with the style of painting. But there is more than this to arouse suspicion. The signature has been painted over another, or rather, the F. (= fecit)[88] is placed over an older V, which can still be traced. A second V appears further to the right. It looks as if originally the bal.u.s.trade only bore the double V, and that "t.i.tia.n.u.s F."

were added later. But it was there in Vasari's day (1544), so that we arrive at the interesting conclusion that t.i.tian's signature must have been added between 1520 and 1544--that is, in his own lifetime. This singular fact opens up a new chapter in the history of t.i.tian's relationship to Giorgione, and points to practices well calculated to confuse historians of a later time, and enhance the pupil's reputation at the expense of the deceased master. Not that t.i.tian necessarily appropriated Giorgione's work, and pa.s.sed it off as his own, but we know that on the latter's death t.i.tian completed several of his unfinished pictures, and in one instance, we are told, added a Cupid to Giorgione's "Venus." It may be that this was the case with the "Ariosto," and that t.i.tian felt justified in adding his signature on the plea of something he did to it in after years; but, explain this as we may, the important point to recognise is that in all essential particulars the "Ariosto" is the creation not of t.i.tian, but of Giorgione. How is this to be proved?

It will be remembered that when discussing whether Giorgione or t.i.tian painted the Pitti "Concert," the "Giorgionesque" qualities of the work were so obvious that it seemed going out of the way to introduce t.i.tian's name, as Morelli did, and ascribe the picture to him in a Giorgionesque phase. It is just the same here. The conception is typically Giorgione's own, the thoughtful, dreamy look, the turn of the head, the refinement and distinction of this wonderful figure alike proclaim him; whilst in the workmanship the quilted satin is exactly paralleled by the painting of the dress in the Berlin and Buda-Pesth portraits. Characteristic of Giorgione but not of t.i.tian, is the oval of the face, the construction of the head, the arrangement of the hair.

t.i.tian, so far as I am aware, never introduces a parapet or ledge into his portraits, Giorgione nearly always does so; and finally we have the mysterious VV which is found on the Berlin portrait, and (half-obliterated) on the Buda-Pesth "Young Man." In short, no one would naturally think of t.i.tian were it not for the misleading signature, and I venture to hope competent judges will agree with me that the proofs positive of Giorgione's authorship are of greater weight than a signature which--for reasons given--is not above suspicion.[89]

Before I leave this wonderful portrait of a gentleman of the Barberigo family (so says Vasari), a word as to its date is necessary. The historian tells us it was painted by t.i.tian at the age of eighteen.

Clearly some tradition existed which told of the youthfulness of the painter, but may we a.s.sume that Giorgione was only eighteen at the time?

That would throw the date back to 1495. Is it possible he can have painted this splendid head so early in his career? The freedom of handling, and the mastery of technique certainly suggests a rather later stage, but I am inclined to believe Giorgione was capable of this accomplishment before 1500. The portrait follows the Berlin "Young Man,"

and may well take its place among the portraits which, as we have seen, Giorgione must have painted during the last decade of the century prior to receiving his commission to paint the Doge. And in this connection it is of special interest to find the Doge was himself a Barberigo. May we not conclude that the success of this very portrait was one of the immediate causes which led to Giorgione obtaining so flattering a commission from the head of the State?

I mentioned incidentally that four repet.i.tions of the "Ariosto" exist, all derived presumably from the Cobham original. We have a further striking proof of the popularity of this style of portraiture in a picture belonging to Mr. Benson, exhibited at the Venetian Exhibition, New Gallery, 1894-5, where the painter, whoever he may be, has apparently been inspired by Giorgione's original. The conception is wholly Giorgionesque, but the hardness of contour and the comparative lack of quality in the touch betrays another and an inferior hand.

Nevertheless the portrait is of great interest, for could we but imagine it as fine in execution as in conception we should have an original Giorgione portrait before us. The features are curiously like those of the Barberigo gentleman.

In his recently published _Life of t.i.tian_, Dr. Gronau pa.s.ses from the consideration of the Cobham Hall picture immediately to that of the "Portrait of a Lady," known as "La Schiavona," in the collection of Signor Crespi in Milan. In his opinion these two works are intimately related to one another, and of them he significantly writes thus: "The influence of Giorgione upon t.i.tian" (to whom he ascribes both portraits) "is evident. The connection can be traced even in the details of the treatment and technique. The separate touches of light on the gold-striped head-dress which fastens back the lady's beautiful dark hair, the variegated scarf thrown lightly round her waist, the folds of the sleeves, the hand with the finger-tips laid on the parapet: all these details might indicate the one master as well as the other."[90]

The transition from the Cobham Hall portrait to the "Lady" in the Crespi Collection is, to my mind, also a natural and proper one. The painter of the one is the painter of the other. Tradition is herein also perfectly consistent, and tradition has in each case a plausible signature to support it. The t.i.tIANVS F. of the former portrait is paralleled by the T.V.--i.e. t.i.tia.n.u.s Vecellio, or t.i.tia.n.u.s Veneziano of the latter.[91] I have already dealt at some length with the question of the former signature, which appears to have been added actually during t.i.tian's lifetime; in the present instance the letters appear almost, if not quite, coeval with the rest of the painting, and were undoubtedly intended for t.i.tian's signature. The cases, therefore, are so far parallel, and the question naturally arises, Did t.i.tian really have any hand in the painting of this portrait? Signor Venturi[92] strongly denies it; to him the T.V. matters nothing, and he boldly proclaims Licinio the author.

I confess the matter is not thus lightly to be disposed of; there is no valid reason to doubt the antiquity of the inscription, which, on the a.n.a.logy of the Cobham Hall picture, may well have been added in t.i.tian's own lifetime, and for the same reason that I there suggested--viz. that t.i.tian had in some way or other a hand in the completion, or may be the alteration, of his deceased master's work.[93]

For it is my certain conviction that the painter of the Crespi "Lady" is none other than Giorgione himself.

Before, however, discussing the question of authorship, it is a matter of some moment to be able to identify the lady represented. An old tradition has it that this is Caterina Cornaro, and, in my judgment, this is perfectly correct.[94] Fortunately, we possess several well-authenticated likenesses of this celebrated daughter of the Republic. She had been married to the King of Cyprus, and after his death had relinquished her quasi-sovereign rights in favour of Venice.

She then returned home (in 1489) and retired to Asolo, near Castelfranco, where she pa.s.sed a quiet country life, enjoying the society of the poets and artists of the day, and reputed for her kindliness and geniality. Her likeness is to be seen in three contemporary paintings:--

1. At Buda-Pesth, by Gentile Bellini, with inscription.

2. In the Venice Academy, also by Gentile Bellini, who introduces her and her attendant ladies kneeling in the foreground, to the left, in his well-known "Miracle of the True Cross," dated 1500.

3. In the Berlin Gallery, by Jacopo de' Barbari, where she appears kneeling in a composition of the "Madonna and Child and Saints."

[Ill.u.s.tration: _From a print. Pourtales Collection, Berlin_

MARBLE BUST OF CATERINA CORNARO]

Finally we see Caterina Cornaro in a bust in the Pourtales Collection at Berlin, here reproduced,[95] seen full face, as in the Crespi portrait.

I know not on what outside authority the identification rests in the case of the bust, but it certainly appears to represent the same lady as in the above-mentioned pictures, and is rightly accepted as such by modern German critics.[96]

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Anderson photo. Crespi Collection, Milan_

PORTRAIT OF CATERINA CORNARO]

To my eyes, we have the same lady in the Crespi portrait. Mr. Berenson, unaware of the ident.i.ty, thus describes her:[97] "Une grande dame italienne est devant nous, eclatante de sante et de magnificence, energique, debordante, pleine d'une chaude sympathie, source de vie et de joie pour tous ceux qui l'entourent, et cependant reflechie, penetrante, un peu ironique bien qu'indulgente."

Could a better description be given to fit the character of Caterina Cornaro, as she is known to us in history? How little likely, moreover, that tradition should have dubbed this homely person the ex-Queen of Cyprus had it not been the truth!

Now, if my contention is correct, chronology determines a further point.

Caterina died in 1510, so that this likeness of her (which is clearly taken from life) must have been done in or before the first decade of the sixteenth century.[98] This excludes Licinio and Schiavone (both of whom have been suggested as the artist), for the latter was not even born, and the former--whose earliest known picture is dated 1520--must have been far too young in 1510 to have already achieved so splendid a result. Palma is likewise excluded, so that we are driven to choose between t.i.tian and Giorgione, the only two Venetian artists capable of such a masterpiece before 1510.

As to which of these two artists it is, opinions--so far as any have been published--are divided. Yet Dr. Gronau, who claims it for t.i.tian, admits in the same breath that the hand is the same as that which painted the Cobham Hall picture and the Pitti "Concert," a judgment in which I fully concur. Dr. Bode[99] labels it "Art des Giorgione."

Finally, Mr. Berenson, with rare insight proclaimed the conception and the spirit of the picture to be Giorgione's.[100] But he a.s.serts that the execution is not fine enough to be the master's own, and would rank it--with the "Judith" at St. Petersburg--in the category of contemporary copies after lost originals. This view is apparently based on the dangerous maxim that where the execution of a picture is inferior to the conception, the work is presumably a copy. But two points must be borne in mind, the actual condition of the picture, and the character of the artist who painted it. Mr. Berenson has himself pointed out elsewhere[101] that Giorgione, "while always supreme in his conceptions, did not live long enough to acquire a perfection of draughtsmanship and chiaroscuro equally supreme, and that, consequently, there is not a single universally accepted work of his which is absolutely free from the reproaches of the academic pedant." Secondly, the surface of this portrait has lost its original glow through cleaning, and has suffered other damage, which actually debarred Crowe and Cavalcaselle (who saw the picture in 1877) from p.r.o.nouncing definitely upon the authorship.

The eyes and flesh, they say,[102] were daubed over, the hair was new, the colour modern. A good deal of this "restoration" has since been removed, but the present appearance of the panel bears witness to the harsh treatment suffered years ago. Nevertheless, the original work is before us, and not a copy of a lost original, and Mr. Berenson's enthusiastic praise ought to be lavished on the actual picture as it must have appeared in all its freshness and purity. "Je n'hesiterais pas," he declares,[103] "a le proclamer le plus important des portraits du maitre, un chef-d'oeuvre ne le cedant a aucun portrait d'aucun pays ou d'aucun temps."

And certainly Giorgione has created a masterpiece. The opulence of Rubens and the dignity of t.i.tian are most happily combined with a delicacy and refinement such as Giorgione alone can impart. The intense grasp of character here displayed, the exquisite _intimite_, places this wonderful creation of his on the highest level of portraiture. There is far less of that moody abstraction which awakens our interest in most of his portraits, but much greater objective truth, arising from that perfect sympathy between artist and sitter, which is of the first importance in portrait-painting. History tells us of the friendly encouragement the young Castelfrancan received at the hands of this gracious lady, and he doubtless painted this likeness of her in her country home at Asolo, near to Castelfranco, and we may well imagine with what eagerness he acquitted himself of so flattering a commission.

Vasari tells us that he saw a portrait of Caterina, Queen of Cyprus, painted by Giorgione from the life, in the possession of Messer Giovanni Cornaro. I believe that picture to be the very one we are now discussing.[104] The doc.u.ments quoted by Signor Venturi[105] do not go back beyond 1640, so that it is, of course, impossible to prove the ident.i.ty, but the expression "from the life" (as opposed to t.i.tian's posthumous portrait of her) applies admirably to our likeness. What a contrast to the formal presentation of the queenly lady, crown and jewels and all, that Gentile Bellini has left us in his portrait of her now at Buda-Pesth!--and in that other picture of his where she is seen kneeling in royal robes, with her train of court ladies, as though attending a state function! How Giorgione has penetrated through all outward show, and revealed the charm of manner, the delightful _bonhomie_ of his royal patroness!

We are enabled, by a simple calculation of dates, to fix approximately the period when this portrait was painted. Gentile Bellini's picture of "The Miracle of the True Cross" is dated 1500--that is, when Caterina Cornaro was forty-six years old (she was born in 1454). In Signor Crespi's picture she appears, if anything, younger in appearance, so that, at latest, Giorgione painted her portrait in 1500. Thus, again, we arrive at the same conclusion, that the master distinguished himself very early in his career in the field of portraiture, and the similarity in style between this portrait and the Cobham Hall one is accounted for on chronological grounds. All things considered, it is very probable that this portrait was his earliest real success, and proved a pa.s.sport to the favourable notice of the fashionable society of Venice, leading to the commission to paint the Doge, and the Gran Signori, who visited the capital in the year 1500. That Giorgione was capable of such an achievement before his twenty-fourth year const.i.tutes, we may surely admit, his strongest right to the t.i.tle of Genius.[106]

The Barberigo gentleman and the Caterina Cornaro are comparatively unfamiliar, owing to their seclusion in private galleries. Not so the third portrait, which hangs in the National Gallery, and which, in my opinion, should be included among Giorgione's authentic productions.

This is No. 636, "Portrait of a Poet," attributed to Palma Vecchio; and the catalogue continues: "This portrait of an unknown personage was formerly ascribed to t.i.tian, and supposed to represent Ariosto; it has long since been recognised as a fine work by Palma." I certainly do not know by whom this portrait was first recognised as such, but as the transformation was suddenly effected one day under the late Sir Frederic Burton's _regime_, it is natural to suppose he initiated it. No one to-day would be found, I suppose, to support the older view, and the rechristening certainly received the approval of Morelli;[107] modern critics apparently acquiesce without demur, so that it requires no little courage to dissent from so unanimous an opinion. I confess, therefore, it was no small satisfaction to me to find the question had been raised by an independent inquirer, Mr. d.i.c.kes, who published in the _Magazine of Art_, 1893, the results of his investigations, the conclusion at which he arrived being that this is the portrait of Prospero Colonna, Liberator of Italy, painted by Giorgione in the year 1500.

Briefly stated, the argument is as follows:--

I. (1) The person represented closely resembles Prospero Colonna (1464-1523), whose authentic likeness is to be seen--

(_a_) In an engraving in Pompilio Totti's "Ritratti et Elogie di Capitani ill.u.s.tri.

Rome, 1635."

(_b_) In a bust in the Colonna Gallery, Rome.

(_c_) In an engraving in the "Columnensium Procerum" of the Abbas Domenicus de Santis. Rome, 1675.

(All three are reproduced in the article in question.)

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Hanfstangl photo. National Gallery, London_.

PORTRAIT OF A MAN]

(2) The description of Prospero Colonna, given by Pompilio Totti (in the above book) tallies with our portrait.

(3) The accessories in the picture confirm the ident.i.ty--e.g. the St Andrew's Cross, or saltire, is on the Colonna family banner; the bay, emblem of victory, is naturally a.s.sociated with a great captain; the rosary may refer to the fact of Prospero's residence as lay brother in the monastery of the Olivetani, near Fondi, which was rebuilt by him in 1500.

II. Admitting the ident.i.ty of person, chronology determines the probable date of the execution of this portrait, for Prospero visited Venice presumably in the train of Consalvo Ferrante in 1500. He was then thirty-six years of age.

III. a.s.suming this date to be correct, no other Venetian artist but Giorgione was capable of producing so fine and admittedly "Giorgionesque"

a portrait at so early a date.

IV. Internal evidence points to Giorgione's authorship.