Giorgione Part 8

CHAPTER V

ADDITIONAL PICTURES OTHER THAN PORTRAITS

I have now pointed out six portraits which, in my opinion, should be included in the roll of genuine Giorgiones. No doubt others will, in time, be identified, but I leave this fascinating quest to pa.s.s to the consideration of other paintings ill.u.s.trating a different phase of the master's art.[113]

We know that the romantic vein in Giorgione was particularly strong, that he naturally delighted in producing fanciful pictures where his poetic imagination could find full play; we have seen how the cla.s.sic myth and the mediaeval romance afforded opportunities for him to indulge his fancy, and we have found him adapting themes derived from these sources to the decoration of _ca.s.soni_, or marriage chests. Another typical example of this practice is afforded by his "Orpheus and Eurydice," in the gallery at Bergamo, a splendid little panel, probably, like the "Apollo and Daphne" in the Seminario at Venice, intended as a decorative piece of applied art. Although bearing Giorgione's name by tradition, modern critics have pa.s.sed it by presumably on the ground that "it is not good enough,"--that fatal argument which has thrown dust in the eyes of the learned. As if the artist would naturally expend as much care on a trifle of this kind as on the Castelfranco altar-piece, or the Dresden "Venus"! Yet what greater beauty of conception, what more poetic fancy is there in the "Apollo and Daphne" (which is generally accepted as genuine) than in this little "Orpheus and Eurydice"? Nay, the execution, which is the point contested, appears to me every whit as brilliant, and in preservation the latter piece has the advantage. Not a touch but what can be paralleled in a dozen other works--the feathery trees against the luminous sky, the glow of the horizon, the splendid effects of light and shadow, the impressive grandeur of the wild scenery, the small figures in mid-distance, even the cast of drapery and shape of limbs are repeated elsewhere. Let anyone contrast the delicacy and the glow of this little panel with several similar productions of the Venetian school hanging in the same gallery, and the gulf that separates Giorgione from his imitators will, I think, be apparent.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Taramelli photo. Bergamo Gallery_ ORPHEUS AND EURYDICE]

In the same category must be ranked two very small panels in the Gallery at Padua (Nos. 42 and 43), attributed with a query to Giorgione. These are apparently fragments of some decorative series, of which the other parts are missing. The one represents "Leda and the Swan," the other a mythological subject, where a woman is seated holding a child, and a man, also seated, holds flowers. The latter recalls one of the figures in the National Gallery "Epiphany." The charm of these fragments lies in the exquisite landscapes, which, in minuteness of finish and loving care, Giorgione has nowhere surpa.s.sed. The gallery at Padua is thus, in my opinion, the possessor of four genuine examples of Giorgione's skill as a decorator, for we have already mentioned the larger _ca.s.sone_ pieces[114] (Nos. 416 and 417).

Of greater importance is the "Unknown Subject," in the National Gallery (No. 1173), a picture which, like so many others, has recently been taken from Giorgione, its author, and vaguely put down to his "School."

But it is time to protest against such needless depreciation!

In spite of abrasion, in spite of the loss of glow, in spite of much that disfigures, nay disguises, the master's own touch, I feel confident that Giorgione and no other produced this beautiful picture.[115] Surely if this be only school work, we are vainly seeking a mythical master, an ideal who never could have existed. What more dainty figures, what more delicate hues, what more exquisite feeling could one look for than is here to be found? True, the landscape has been renovated, true, the Giorgionesque depth and richness is gone, the mellow glow of the "Epiphany," which hangs just below, is sadly wanting, but who can deny the charm of the picturesque scenery, which vividly recalls the landscape backgrounds elsewhere in the master's own work, who can fail to admire the natural and unstudied grouping of the figures, the artlessness of the whole, the loving simplicity with which the painter has done his work? All is spontaneous; the spirit is not that of a laborious imitator, painfully seeking "effects" from another's inspiration; sincerity and navete are too apparent for this to be the work of any but a quite young artist, and one whose style is so thoroughly "Giorgionesque" as to be none other than the young Giorgione himself. In my opinion this is one of his earliest essays into the region of romance, painted probably before his twenty-first year, betraying, like the little legendary pictures in the Uffizi, a strong affinity with Carpaccio.[116]

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

? THE GOLDEN AGE]

As to the subject many conjectures have been made: Aristotle surrounded by emblems ill.u.s.trating the objects with which his philosophy was concerned, an initiation into some mystic rite, the poet musing in sadness on the mysteries of life, the philosopher imparting wisdom to the young, etc. etc. I believe Giorgione is simply giving us a poetical rendering of "The Golden Age," where, like Plato's philosopher-king, the seer all-wise and all-powerful holds sway, before whom the arts and sciences do homage; in this earthly paradise even strange animals live in happy harmony, and all is peace. Such a theme would well have suited Giorgione's temperament, and Ridolfi actually tells us that this very subject was taken by Giorgione from the pages of Ovid, and adapted by him to his own ends.[117] But whether this represents "The Golden Age,"

or some other allegory or cla.s.sic story, the picture is completely characteristic of all that is most individual in Giorgione, and I earnestly hope the slur now cast upon its character by the misleading label will be speedily removed.[118] For the public believes more in the labels it reads, than the pictures it sees.

Finally, in the "Venus disarming Cupid," of the Wallace collection, we have, in my opinion, the wreck of a once splendid Giorgione. In the recent re-arrangement of the Gallery, this picture, which used to hang in an upstairs room, and was practically unknown, has been hung prominently on the line, so that its beauties, and, alas! its defects, can be plainly seen. The outlines are often distorted and blurred, the Cupid has become monstrous, the delicacy of the whole effaced by ill-usage and neglect. Yet the splendour of colour, the cast of drapery, the flow of line, proclaims the great master himself. There is no room, moreover, for such a mythical compromise as that which is proposed by the catalogue, "It stands midway in style between Giorgione and t.i.tian in his Giorgionesque phase." No better instance could be adduced of the fallacy of perfection implied in the minds of most critics at the mention of Giorgione's name; yet if we accept the Louvre "Concert," if we accept the Hermitage "Judith," why dispute Giorgione's claim on the ground of "weakness of construction"? This "Venus and Cupid" is vastly inferior in quality to the Dresden "Venus,"--let us frankly admit it,--but it is none the less characteristic of the artist, who must not be judged by the standard of his exceptional creations, but by that of his normal productions.[119]

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Hanfstangl photo. National Gallery, London_ VENUS AND ADONIS]

Just such another instance of average merit is afforded by the "Venus and Adonis" of the National Gallery (No. 1123), from which, had not an artificial standard of excellence been falsely raised, Giorgione's name would never have been removed. I am happily not the first to call attention to the propriety of the old attribution, for Sir Edward Poynter claims that the same hand that produced the Louvre "Concert" is also responsible for the "Venus and Adonis."[120] I fully share this opinion. The figures, with their compactly built and rounded limbs, are such as Giorgione loved to model, the sweep of draperies and the splendid line indicate a consummate master, the idyllic landscape framing episodes from the life of Adonis is just such as we see in the Louvre picture and elsewhere, the glow and splendour of the whole reveal a master of tone and colouring. Some good judges would give the work to the young t.i.tian, but it appears too intimately "Giorgionesque" to be his, although I admit the extreme difficulty in drawing the line of division. Pa.s.sages in the "Sacred and Profane Love" of the Borghese Gallery are curiously recalled, but the National Gallery picture is clearly the work of a mature and experienced hand, and not of any young artist. In my opinion it dates from about 1508, and ill.u.s.trates the later phase of Giorgione's art as admirably as do the "Epiphany" (No.

1160) and the "Golden Age" (No. 1173) his earliest style. Between these extremes fall the "Portrait" (No. 636), and the "S. Liberale" (No. 269), the National Gallery thus affording unrivalled opportunity for studying the varying phases of the great Venetian master at different stages of his career.

We may now pa.s.s from the realm of "fancy" subjects to that of sacred art--that is, to the consideration of the "Madonnas," "Holy Families,"

and "Santa Conversazione" pictures, other than those already described.

The Beaumont "Adoration of the Shepherds," with its variant at Vienna, the National Gallery "Epiphany," the Madrid "Madonna with S. Anthony and S. Roch," and the Castelfranco altar-piece are the only instances so far of Giorgione's sacred art, yet Vasari tells us that the master "in his youth painted very many beautiful pictures of the Virgin."

This statement is on the face of it likely enough, for although the young Castelfrancan early showed his independence of tradition and his preference for the more modern phases of Bellini's art, it is extremely probable he was also called upon to paint some smaller devotional pieces, such, for instance, as "The Christ bearing the Cross," lately in the Casa Loschi at Vicenza.[121] It is noteworthy, all the same, that scarcely any "Madonna" picture exists to which his name still attaches, and only one "Holy Family," so far as I am aware, is credibly reputed to be his work. This is Mr. Benson's little picture, in all respects a worthy companion to the Beaumont and National Gallery examples. There is even a purer ring about this lovely little "Holy Family," a child-like sincerity and a simplicity which is very touching, while for sheer beauty of colour it is more enjoyable than either of the others. It may not have the depth of tone and mastery of chiaroscuro which make the Beaumont "Adoration" so subtly attractive, but in tenderness of feeling and daintiness of treatment it is not surpa.s.sed by any other of Giorgione's works. In its obvious defects, too, it is as thoroughly characteristic; it is needless to repeat here what I said when discussing the Beaumont and Vienna "Adoration"; the reader who compares the reproductions will readily see the same features in both works. Mr.

Benson's little picture has this additional interest, that more than either of its companion pieces it points forward to the Castelfranco "Madonna" in the bold sweep of the draperies, the play of light on horizontal surfaces, and the exquisite gaiety of its colour.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Hanfstangl photo. Vienna Gallery_ THE "GIPSY" MADONNA]

In claiming this picture for Giorgione I am claiming nothing new, for his name, in spite of modern critics, has here persistently survived.

Not so with a group of three Madonnas, one of which has for at least two centuries borne t.i.tian's name, another which pa.s.ses also for a work of the same painter, whilst the third was claimed by Crowe and Cavalcaselle again for t.i.tian, partly on the a.n.a.logy of the first-mentioned one.[122] The first is the so-called "Gipsy Madonna" in the Vienna Gallery, the second is a "Madonna" in the Bergamo Gallery, and the third is a "Madonna" again in Mr. Benson's collection.

I am happily not the first to identify the "Gipsy Madonna" as Giorgione's work, for it requires no little courage to tilt at what has been unquestioningly accepted as "the earliest known Madonna of t.i.tian."

I am indebted, therefore, to Signor Venturi for the lead,[123] although I have the satisfaction of feeling that independent study of my own had already brought me to the same conclusion.

Of course, all modern writers have recognised the "Giorgionesque"

elements in this supposed t.i.tian. "In the depth, strength, and richness of the colour-chord, in the atmospheric s.p.a.ciousness and charm of the landscape background, in the breadth of the draperies, it is already,"

says Mr. Claude Phillips,[124] "Giorgionesque." Yet, he goes on, the Child is unlike Giorgione's type in the Castelfranco and Madrid pictures, and the Virgin has a less spiritualised nature than Giorgione's Madonnas in the same two pictures. On the other hand, Dr.

Gronau, t.i.tian's latest biographer, declares[125] that the thoughtful expression ("der tief empfundene Ausdruck") of the Madonna is essentially Giorgionesque. Morelli, with peculiar insight, protested against its being considered a very _early_ work of t.i.tian, basing his protest on the advanced nature of the landscape, which, he says,[126]

"must have been painted six or eight years later than the end of the fifteenth century." But even he fell into line with Crowe and Cavalcaselle in ascribing the picture to t.i.tian, failing to see that all difficulties of chronology and discrepancies of judgment between himself and the older historians could be reconciled on the hypothesis of Giorgione's authorship. For Giorgione, as Morelli rightly saw, developed far more rapidly than t.i.tian, so that a t.i.tian landscape of, say, 1506-8 (if any such exist!) would correspond with one by Giorgione of, say, 1500. I agree with Crowe and Cavalcaselle and those writers who date back the "Gipsy Madonna" to the end of the fifteenth century, but I must emphatically support Signor Venturi in his claim that Giorgione is the author.

Before, however, looking at internal evidence to prove this contention, we may note that another example of the same composition exists in the Gallery of Rovigo, identical save for a cartellino on which is inscribed t.i.tIANVS. To Crowe and Cavalcaselle this was evidence to confirm t.i.tian's claim to be the painter of what they considered the original work--viz. the Vienna picture, of which the Rovigo example was, in their opinion, a later copy. A careful examination, however, of the latter picture has convinced me that they were curiously right and curiously wrong. That the Rovigo work is posterior to the Vienna one is, I think, patent to anyone conversant with Venetian painting, but why should the one bear t.i.tian's name on an apparently authentic cartellino, and not the other? The simple and straightforward explanation appears the best--viz. that the Rovigo picture is actually by t.i.tian, who has taken the Vienna picture (which I attribute to Giorgione) as his model and directly repeated it. The qualities of the work are admirable, and worthy of t.i.tian, and I venture to think this "Madonna" would long ago have taken its rightful place among the pictures of the master had it not hung in a remote provincial gallery little visited by travellers, and in such a dark corner as to escape detection. The form t.i.tIANVS points to a period after 1520,[127] when Giorgione had been some years dead, so that it was not unnatural that in after times the credit of invention rested with the author of the signed picture, and that his name came gradually to be attached also to the earlier example. The engraving of Meyssen (_circa_ 1640) thus bears t.i.tian's name, and both engraving and the repet.i.tion at Rovigo are now adduced as evidence of t.i.tian's authorship of the Vienna "Gipsy Madonna."

But is there any proof that t.i.tian ever copied or repeated any other work of Giorgione? There is, fortunately, one great and acknowledged precedent, the "Venus" in the Tribune of the Uffizi, which is _directly_ taken from Giorgione's Dresden "Venus," The accessories, it is true, are different, but the nude figures are line for line identical.[128] Other painters, Palma, Cariarli, and t.i.tian, elsewhere, derived inspiration from Giorgione's prototype, but t.i.tian actually repeats the very figure in this "Venus"; so that there is nothing improbable in my contention that t.i.tian also repeated Giorgione's "Gipsy Madonna," adding his signature thereto, to the confusion and confounding of later generations.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Dixon photo. Collection of Mr. R.H. Benson, London_

MADONNA AND CHILD]

It is worthy of note that not a single "Madonna and Child" by t.i.tian exists, except the little picture in Mr. Mond's collection, painted quite in the artist's old age. t.i.tian invariably paints "Madonna and Saints," or a "Holy Family," so that the three Madonna pictures I am claiming for Giorgione are marked off by this peculiarity from the bulk of t.i.tian's work. This in itself is not enough to disqualify t.i.tian, but it is a factor in that c.u.mulative proof by which I hope Giorgione's claim may be sustained. The marble parapet again is a feature in Giorgione's work, but not in t.i.tian's. But the most convincing evidence to those who know the master lies in the composition, which forms an almost equilateral triangle, revealing Giorgione's supreme sense of beauty in line. The splendid curves made by the drapery, the pose of the Child, so as to obtain the same unbroken sweep of line, reveals the painter of the Dresden "Venus." The painting of the Child's hand over the Madonna's is precisely as in the Madrid picture, where, moreover, the pose of the Child is singularly alike. The folds of drapery on the sleeve recur in the same picture, the landscape with the small figure seated beneath the tree is such as can be found in any Giorgione background. The oval of the face and the delicacy of the features are thoroughly characteristic, as is the spirit of calm reverie and tender simplicity which Giorgione has breathed into his figures.

The second and third Madonna pictures--viz. the one at Bergamo, and its counterpart in Mr. Benson's collection--appear to be somewhat later in date of execution, but reveal many points in common with the "Gipsy Madonna." The beauty of line is here equally conspicuous; the way the drapery is carried out beyond the elbow so as to form one long unbroken curve, the triangular composition, the marble parapet, are so many proofs of Giorgione's hand. Moreover, we find in Mr. Benson's picture the characteristic tree-trunks, so suggestive of solemn grandeur,[129]

and the striped scarf,[130] so cunningly disposed to give more flowing line and break the stiffness of contour.

The Bergamo picture closely resembles Mr. Benson's "Madonna," from which, indeed, it varies chiefly in the pose of the Child (whose left leg here sticks straight out), whilst the landscape is seen on the left side, and there are no tree-trunks. I cannot find that any writer has made allusion to this little gem, which hangs high up on the end wall of the Lochis section of the gallery (No. 232); I hope others will examine this new-found work at a less inconvenient height, as I have done, and that their opinion will coincide with mine that the same hand painted the Benson "Madonna," and that that hand is Giorgione's.

Before quitting the subject of the "Madonna and Child," another example may be alluded to, about which it would be unwise to express any decided opinion founded only on a study of the photograph. This is a picture at St. Petersburg, to which Mr. Claude Phillips first directed attention,[131] stating his then belief that it might be a genuine Giorgione. After a recent visit to St. Petersburg, however, he has seen fit to register it as a probable copy after a lost original by the master, on the ground that "it is not fine enough in execution."[132]

This, as I have often pointed out, is a dangerous test to apply in Giorgione's case, and so the authenticity of this "Madonna" may still be left an open question.

Finally, in the category of Sacred Art come two well-known pictures, both in public galleries, and both accredited to Giorgione. The first is the "Christ and the Adulteress" of the Glasgow Gallery, the second the "Madonna and Saints" of the Louvre. Many diverse opinions are held about the Glasgow picture; some ascribe it to Cariani, others to Campagnola.

It is a.s.serted by some that the same hand painted the Kingston Lacy "Judgment of Solomon," but that it is not the hand of Giorgione, and finally--to come to the view which I believe is the correct one--Dr.

Bode and Sir Walter Armstrong[133] both believe that Giorgione is the painter.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Hanfstangl photo. Glasgow Gallery_ THE ADULTERESS BEFORE CHRIST]

The whole difficulty, as it seems to me, arises from the deep-rooted misapprehension in the minds of most critics of the character of Giorgione's art. In their eyes, he is something so perfect as to be incapable of producing anything short of the ideal. He could never have drawn so badly, he never could have composed so awkwardly, he never could have been so inexpressive!--such is the usual criticism. I have elsewhere insisted upon the unevenness which invariably characterises the productions of men who are gifted with a strong artistic temperament, and in Giorgione's case, as I believe, this is particularly true. The Glasgow picture is but one instance of many where, if correctness of drawing, perfection of composition, and inevitableness of expression are taken as final tests, the verdict must go against the painter. He either failed in these cases to come up to the standard reached elsewhere, or he is not the painter. Modern negative criticism generally adopts the latter solution, with the result that not a score of pictures pa.s.s muster, and the virtues of these chosen few are so extolled as to make it all but impossible to see the reverse of the medal. But those who accept the "Judith" at St. Petersburg, the Louvre "Concert," the Beaumont "Adoration of the Shepherds" (to name only three examples where the drawing is strange), cannot consistently object to admit the Glasgow "Christ and the Adulteress" into the fold. Nay, if gorgeousness of colour, splendour of glow, mastery of chiaroscuro, and brilliancy of technique are qualities which go to make up great painting, then the Glasgow picture must take high rank, even in a school where such qualities found their grandest expression.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _The Louvre, Paris_

MADONNA AND SAINTS]

Comparisons of detail may be noted, such as the resemblance in posture and type of the Accuser with the S. Roch of the Madrid picture, the figure of the Adulteress with that of the False Mother in the Kingston Lacy picture, the pointing forefingers, the typical landscape, the cast of the draperies, details which the reader can find often repeated elsewhere. But it is in the treatment of the subject that the most characteristic features are revealed. The artist was required--we know not why--to paint this dramatic scene; he had to produce a "set piece,"

where action and graphic representation was urgently needed. How little to his taste! How uncongenial the task! The case is exactly paralleled by the "Judgment of Solomon," the only other dramatic episode Giorgione appears to have attempted, and the result in each case is the same--no real dramatic unity, but an accidental arrangement of the figures, with rhetorical action. The want of repose in the Christ offends, the stageyness of the whole repels. How different when Giorgione worked _con amore_! For it seems this composition gave him much trouble. Of this we have a most interesting proof in an almost contemporary Venetian version of the same subject, where the scheme has been recast. This picture belongs to Sir Charles Turner, in London, and, so far as intelligibleness of composition goes, may be said to be an improvement on the Glasgow version. It is highly probable that this painting derives from some alternative drawing for the original picture. That the Glasgow version acquired some celebrity we have further proof in an almost exact copy (with one more figure added on the right), which hangs in the Bergamo Gallery under Cariani's name, a painting which, in all respects, is utterly inferior to the original.[134]

The "Christ and the Adulteress," then, becomes for us a revelation of the painter's nature, of his methods and aims; but, with all its technical excellences, shall we not also frankly recognise the limitations of his art?[135]

The "Madonna and Saints" of the Louvre, which persistently bears Giorgione's name, in spite of modern negative criticism, is marked by a lurid splendour of colour and a certain rough grandeur of expression, well calculated to jar with any preconceived notion of Giorgionesque sobriety or reserve. Yet here, if anywhere, we get that _fuoco Giorgionesco_ of which Vasari speaks, that intensity of feeling, rendered with a vivacity and power to which the artist could only have attained in his latest days. In this splendid group there is a masculine energy, a fulness of life, and a grandeur of representation which carries _le grand style_ to its furthest limits, and if Giorgione actually completed the picture before his death, he antic.i.p.ated the full splendour of the riper Renaissance. To him is certainly due the general composition, with its superb lines, its beautiful curves, its majestic and dignified postures, its charming sunset background, to him is certainly due the splendid chiaroscuro and magic colour-chord; but it becomes a question whether some of the detail was not actually finished by Giorgione's pupil, Sebastiano del Piombo.[136] The drawing, for instance, of the hands vividly suggests his help, the type of S. Joseph in the background reminds us of the figure of S. Chrysostom in Sebastiano's Venice altar-piece, while the S. Catherine recalls the Angel in Sebastiano's "Holy Family" at Naples. If this be the case, we here have another instance of the pupil finishing his master's work, and this time probably after his death, for, as already pointed out, the "Evander and Aeneas" (at Vienna) must have been left by Giorgione well-nigh complete at an earlier stage than the year of his death.

That Sebastiano stood in close relation to his master, Giorgione, is evidenced not only by Vasari's statement, but by the obvious dependence of the S. Giovanni Crisostomo altar-piece at Venice on Giorgionesque models. Moreover, the "Violin Player," formerly in the Sciarra Palace, at once reminds us of the "Barberigo" portrait at Cobham, while the "Herodias with the Head of John Baptist," dated 1510, now in the collection of Mr. George Salting, shows conclusively how closely related were the two painters in the last year of Giorgione's life. Sebastiano was twenty-five years of age in 1510, and appears to have worked under Giorgione for some time before removing to Rome, which he did on, or shortly before, his master's death. His departure left t.i.tian, his a.s.sociate under Giorgione, master of the field; he, too, had a hand in finishing some of the work left incomplete in the atelier, and his privilege it became to continue the Giorgionesque tradition, and to realise in utmost perfection in after years the aspirations and ideals so brilliantly antic.i.p.ated by the young genius of Castelfranco.[137]

NOTES: