Giorgione
by
Herbert Cook
Part 3 out of 3
Venice, and January 1568, when his book was published, it follows that
Titian was "above seventy-six years" in 1566-7--in other words, that he
was born 1489-90.
Still confining ourselves to Vasari, we find two other passages bearing
on the question:
"(_b_) Titian was born in the year 1480 at Cadore.[156]
"(_c_) About the year 1507 Giorgione da Castel Franco began to give to
his works unwonted softness and relief, painting them in a very
beautiful manner.... Having seen the manner of Giorgione, Titian 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.... At the time when Titian
began to adopt the manner of Giorgione, being then not more than
eighteen, he took the portrait," etc.[157]
This passage (_c_) makes Titian "not more than eighteen about the year
1507," and fixes the date of his birth as 1489-90, therein agreeing with
the previous deduction at which we arrived when examining the passage in
Vasari's second edition. Thus in two places out of three Vasari is
consistent in fixing 1489-90 as the date. How, then, explain (_b_),
which explicitly gives 1480?
Anyone conversant with Vasari's inaccuracies will hardly be surprised to
find that this statement is dismissed by all Titian's biographers as
manifestly a mistake. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the two passages
just quoted, and either they are wrong or 1480 is a misprint for 1489.
Now, from the nature of the evidence recorded by Vasari, it cannot be a
matter for any doubt which is the more trustworthy statement. On the one
hand, he speaks as an eye-witness of Titian's old age, and is careful to
record the exact year he visited Venice and the age of the painter; on
the other hand, he makes a bald statement which he certainly cannot have
verified, and which is inconsistent with his own experience! In any
case, in Vasari's text the evidence is two to one in favour of 1489-90
as the right date, and thus we come to the agreeable conclusion that our
two oldest authorities, Dolce and Vasari, are at one in fixing Titian's
birth between 1488 and 1490--in other words, about 1489.
So far, then, all is clear, and as we know from later and indisputable
evidence that Titian died in 1576, it follows that he only attained the
age of eighty-seven and not ninety-nine. Whence, then, comes the story
of the ninety-nine years? From none other than Titian himself, and to
this piece of evidence we must next turn, following out a strict
chronological order.
In 1571--that is, three years after Vasari's second edition was
published--Titian addresses a letter to Philip the Second of Spain in
these terms:[158]
"Most potent and invincible King,--I think your Majesty will have
received by this the picture of 'Lucretia and Tarquin' which was to
have been presented by the Venetian Ambassador. I now come with
these lines to ask your Majesty to deign to command that I should
be informed as to what pleasure it has given. The calamities of the
present times, in which every one is suffering from the continuance
of war, force me to this step, and oblige me at the same time to
ask to be favoured with some kind proof of your Majesty's grace, as
well as with some assistance from Spain or elsewhere, since I have
not been able for years past to obtain any payment either from the
Naples grant, or from my ordinary pension. The state of my affairs
is indeed such that I do not know how to live in this my old age,
devoted as it entirely is to the service of your Catholic Majesty,
and to no other. Not having for eighteen years past received a
_quattrino_ for the paintings which I delivered from time to time,
and of which I forward a list by this opportunity to the secretary
Perez, I feel assured that your Majesty's infinite clemency will
cause a careful consideration to be made of the services of an old
servant of the age of ninety-five, by extending to him some
evidence of munificence and liberality. Sending two prints of the
design of the Beato Lorenzo, and most humbly recommending myself,
"I am Your Catholic Majesty's
"most devoted, humble servant,
"TITIANO VECELLIO.
"From Venice, the 1st of August, 1571."
Here, then, is Titian himself, in the year 1571, declaring that he is
ninety-five years of age--in other words, dating his birth back to
1476--that is, some thirteen years earlier than Dolce and Vasari imply
was the case. A flagrant discrepancy of evidence! In similar strain he
thus addresses the king again five years later:[159]
"Your Catholic and Royal Majesty,--The infinite benignity with
which your Catholic Majesty--by natural habit--is accustomed to
gratify all such as have served and still serve your Majesty
faithfully, enboldens me to appear with the present (letter) to
recall myself to your royal memory, in which I believe that my old
and devoted service will have kept me unaltered. My prayer is this:
twenty years have elapsed and I have never had any recompense for
the many pictures sent on divers occasions to your Majesty; but
having received intelligence from the Secretary Antonio Perez of
your Majesty's wish to gratify me, and having reached a great old
age not without privations, I now humbly beg that your Majesty will
deign, with accustomed benevolence, to give such directions to
ministers as will relieve my want. The glorious memory of Charles
the Fifth, your Majesty's father, having numbered me amongst his
familiar, nay, most faithful servants, by honouring me beyond my
deserts with the title of _cavaliere_, I wish to be able, with the
favour and protection of your Majesty--true portrait of that
immortal emperor--to support as it deserves the name of a
cavaliere, which is so honoured and esteemed in the world; and that
it may be known that the services done by me during many years to
the most serene house of Austria have met with grateful return, to
spend what remains of my days in the service of your Majesty. For
this I should feel the more obliged, as I should thus be consoled
in my old age, whilst praying to God to concede to your Majesty a
long and happy life with increase of his divine grace and
exaltation of your Majesty's Kingdom. In the meanwhile I expect
from the royal benevolence of your Majesty the fruits of the favour
I desire, with due reverence and humility, and kissing your sacred
hands,
"I am Your Catholic Majesty's
"most humble and devoted servant,
"TITIANO VECELLIO.
"From Venice, the 27th of February, 1576."
This is the last letter we have of Titian, who died in August of this
year, according to his own showing, in his hundredth year.
Now what reliance can be placed on this statement? On the one hand, we
have the evidence of two independent writers, Dolce and Vasari, both
personally acquainted with Titian, and both agreeing by inference that
the date of his birth was about 1489. Both had ample opportunity to get
at the truth, and Vasari is particularly explicit in recording the exact
date when he visited Titian in Venice and the age the painter had then
reached. Yet five years later Titian is found stating that he is
ninety-five, and not eighty-two as we should expect! Perhaps the best
comment is made by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, who significantly remark
immediately after the last letter: "Titian's appeal to the benevolence
of the King of Spain looks like that of a garrulous old gentleman proud
of his longevity, but hoping still to live for many years."[160]
Exactly! The occasion could well be improved by a little timely
exaggeration well calculated to appeal to the sympathies and "infinite
benignity" of the monarch, and if, when the writer had actually reached
the respectable age of eighty-two, he wrote himself down as ninety-five,
who would gainsay him? It added point to his appeal--that was the chief
thing--and as to accuracy, well, Titian was not the man to be
over-scrupulous when his own interests were involved. But even though
the statement were not deliberately made to heighten the effect of an
appeal, we must in any case make allowances for the natural proneness to
exaggerate their age which usually characterises men of advanced years,
so that any _ex parte_ statement of this kind must be received with due
caution. Where, moreover, as in the present case, we have evidence of a
directly contradictory kind furnished by independent witnesses, whose
declarations in this respect are presumably disinterested, such _ex
parte_ statements are on the face of them unreliable. The balance of
evidence in this case appears to rest on the side of the older
historians, Dolce and Vasari, whose statements, as I hold, are in the
circumstances more reliable than the picturesque exaggeration of a man
of advanced years.
I claim, therefore, that any account of Titian's life based solely on
such flimsy evidence as to his age as is found in this letter to Philip
the Second is, to say the least, open to grave doubt. The whole
superstructure raised by modern writers on this uncertain foundation is
full of flaws and incongruities, and I am fully persuaded the future
historian will have to begin _de novo_ in any attempt at a chronological
reconstruction of Titian's career. The gap of thirty-five years down to
1511 may prove after all less by twelve or thirteen years than people
think, so that the young Titian naturally enough first emerges into view
at the age of twenty-two and not thirty-five.
But we must not anticipate results, for there is still the evidence of
the later writers of the seventeenth century to consider. Two of these
declare that Titian was born in 1477. The first of these, Tizianello, a
collateral descendant of the great painter, published his little
_Compendio_ in 1622, wherein he gives a sketchy and imperfect biography;
the other, Ridolfi, repeats the date in his _Meraviglie dell' Arte_,
published in 1648. The latter writer is notoriously unreliable in other
respects, and it is quite likely this is merely an instance of copying
from Tizianello, whose unsupported statement is chiefly of value as
showing that the "centenarian" theory had started within fifty years of
Titian's death. But again we ask: Why should the evidence of a
seventeenth-century writer be preferred to the personal testimony of
those who actually knew Titian himself, especially when Vasari gives us
precise information with which Dolce's independent account is in perfect
agreement? No doubt the great age to which Titian certainly attained was
exaggerated in the next generation after his death, but it is a
remarkable fact that the contemporary eulogies, mostly in poetic form,
which appeared on the occasion of his decease, do not allude to any such
phenomenal longevity.[161]
Nevertheless, Ridolfi's statement that Titian was born in 1477 is
commonly quoted as if there were no better and earlier evidence in
existence, and, indeed, it is a matter of surprise that conscientious
modern biographers have not looked more carefully at the original
authorities instead of being content to follow tradition, and I must
earnestly plead for a reconsideration of the question of Titian's age by
the future historians of Venetian painting.[162]
If, as I believe, Titian was born in or about 1489 instead of 1476-7,
it follows that he must have been Giorgione's junior by at least twelve
years--a most important deduction--and it also follows that he cannot
have produced any work of consequence before, say, 1505, at the age of
sixteen, and he will have died at eighty-seven and not in his hundredth
year. The alteration in date would help to explain the silence of all
records about him before 1511, when he would have been only twenty-two
and not thirty-five years old; it would fully account for his name not
being mentioned by Duerer in his famous letter of 1506, wherein he refers
to the painters of Venice, and it would equally account for the absence
of his name from the commission to paint the Fondaco frescoes in 1507-8,
for he would have been employed simply as Giorgione's young assistant.
The fact that in 1511 he signs himself simply "Io tician di Cador
Dpntore" and not _Maestro_ would be more intelligible in a young man of
twenty-two than in an accomplished master of thirty-five, and the
character of his letter addressed to the Senate in 1513 would be more
natural to an ambitious aspirant of twenty-four than to a man in his
maturity of thirty-seven.[163]
Such are some of the obvious results of a change of date, but the larger
question as to the development of Titian's art must be left to the
future historian, for the importance of fixing a date lies in the
application thereof.[164] HERBERT COOK.
THE DATE OF TITIAN'S BIRTH
_Reply by Dr. Georg Gronau. Translated from the "Repertorium fuer
Kunstwissenschaft," vol. xxiv., 6th part_
In the January number of the _Nineteenth Century_ appears an article by
Herbert Cook under the title, "Did Titian live to be Ninety-Nine Years
Old?" The interrogation already suggests that the author comes to a
negative conclusion. It is, perhaps, not without interest to set forth
the reasons advanced by the English connoisseur and to submit them to
adverse criticism.
(Here follows an abstract of the article.)
The reasoning, as will have been seen, is not altogether free from
doubt. It has been usual hitherto in historical investigations to call
in question the assertions of a man about his own life only when
thoroughly weighty reasons justified such a course. Is the evidence of a
Dolce and of a Vasari so free from all objection that it outweighs
Titian's personal statement? Before answering this question it should be
pointed out that we possess two further statements of contemporary
writers on the subject of Titian's age, statements which have escaped
the notice of Mr. Cook. One is to be found in a letter from the Spanish
Consul in Venice, Thomas de Cornoga, to Philip II., dated 8th December
1567 (published in the very important work by Zarco del Valle[165]).
After informing the king of Titian's usual requests on the subject of
his pension, and so on, he continues: "y con los 85 annos de su edad
servira a V.M. hasta la muerte."
Somewhere, then, in the very year in which Titian, according to Vasari,
was "above seventy-six years of age," he seems to have been
eighty-five, according to the report of another and quite independent
witness, and if so, he would have been born about 1482.
We have then three definite statements:
Vasari (1566 or 1567) says "over 76"
The Consul (1567) " "85"
Titian himself (1571) " "95"
This new information, instead of helping us, only serves to make still
greater confusion.
The other piece of evidence not mentioned by Mr. Cook was written only a
few years after Titian's death. Borghini says in his _Riposo_, 1584:
"Mori ultimamente di vecchiezza (!not, then, of the plague?), essendo
d'eta d'anni 98 o 99, l'anno 1576." ... This is the first time that the
traditional statement as to the master's age appears in literature. In
this state of things it is worth while to look closer into the evidence
of Dolce and Vasari to see if they are not after all the most
trustworthy witnesses.
It is always held to be a mistake to take rather vague statements quite
literally, as Mr. Cook has done, and to build thereon further
conclusions. When Dolce says that Titian painted with Giorgione at the
Fondaco, "non avendo egli allora appena venti anni," he is only trying
to make out that his hero, here as everywhere, was a most unusual person
(the whole dialogue is a glorification of the master). For the same
reason he makes the following remark, which we can absolutely prove to
be false:--the Assumption (he says) "fu la prima opera pubblica, che a
olio facesse." Now at least one work of Titian's was, then, already to
be seen in a public place--viz. the "St. Mark Enthroned, with Four
Saints," in Santo Spirito, afterwards removed to the sacristy of the
Salute. In other points, too, Dolce can be convicted of small errors and
misrepresentations, partly on literary grounds, partly due to his desire
to enhance the praise of Titian.
Vasari, again, should only be cited as witness when he speaks of works
of art which he has actually seen. In such a case, apart from slips, he
is always a trustworthy guide. Directly, however, he goes into
biographical details or questions of chronology accuracy becomes nearly
always a secondary matter. Titian's biography offers an excellent and
most instructive example of this. Vasari mentions first the birth and
upbringing of the boy, then he speaks of Giorgione and the Fondaco
frescoes, and goes on: "dopo la quale opera fece un quadro grande che
oggi e nella salla di messer Andrea Loredano.... Dopo in casa di messer
Giovanni D'Anna ... fece il suo ritratto ...; ed un quadro di Ecce Homo,
..." and he goes on, "L'anno poi 1507...." If it had not been that one
of these pictures, once in the possession of Giovanni D'Anna, had been
preserved (now in the Vienna Gallery), and that it bears in a
conspicuous place the date 1543, it would be recorded in all biographies
of Titian that he painted in 1507 an "Ecce Homo" for this Giovanni
D'Anna.
If one goes further into Vasari's account we read that Titian published
his "Triumph of Faith" in 1508. "Dopo condottosi Tiziano a Vicenza,
dipinse a fresco sotto la loggetta ... il giudizio di Salamone. Appresso
tomato a Venezia, dipinse la facciata de' Grimani; e in Padoa nella
chiesa di Sant' Antonio alcune storie ... de fatti di quel santo: e in
quella di Santo Spirito fece ... un San Marco a sedere in mezzo a certi
Santi." We now know on documentary evidence that the Vicenza fresco
(which was destroyed later) dated from 1521, and similarly that the
frescoes at Padua were painted in 1511, whilst the date of the S. Mark
picture may be fixed with probability at 1504.
These examples prove how inexact Vasari is here once more. But it may be
objected, supposing that he is inaccurate in statements which refer
back, can he not be in the right in a case where he comes back, so to
speak, straight from visiting Titian and writes down his observation
about the master's actual age? To be sure; but when we find that so many
other similar notices of Vasari are wrong, even those that refer to
people whom he personally knew, we lose faith altogether. In turning
over the leaves of the sixth volume of the Sansoni edition of Vasari, in
which only his contemporaries, some of them closely connected, too, with
him, are spoken of, we find the following incorrect statements:--
P. 99. Tribolo was 65 years old (in reality only 50).
P. 209. Bugiardini died at 75 (really 79).
P. 288. Pontormo at 65 (he died actually in his 63rd year).
P. 564. Giovanni da Udine at 70 (really 77).
A still more glaring instance is to be found when Vasari not only makes
misstatements about his own life but is actually out by several years in
giving his own age. One and the same event--viz. his journey with
Cardinal Passerini to Florence--is given in his own autobiography to the
year 1524, in the "Life of Salviati," to the year 1523, and in the "Life
of Michael Angelo" to 1525. When he speaks of himself in the same
passage in the "Life of Salviati" as the "putto, che allora non aveva
piu di nove anni," he is making a mistake of at least three years in his
own age. And not less delightful is it to read in the "Life of Giovanni
da Udine": "Giorgio Vasari, giovinetto di diciotto anni, quando serviva
il duca Alessandro de' Medici suo primo signore l'anno 1535." We are
obviously not dealing with Messer Giorgio's strongest point, for, as a
matter of fact, he was at that time twenty-four years of age! The same
false statement of age is found again in his own biography (vii. p. 656,
with the variation, "poco piu di diciotto anni").
But I think these instances suffice to prove how little one dare build
on such assertions of Vasari. Who dare say if Titian was really only
seventy-six in 1566 when the Aretine visited him?
And now a few remarks on the other points raised by Mr. Cook. As a
fact, it is an astonishing thing that we have no documentary evidence
about Titian before 1511; but does he not share this fate with very many
of his great countrymen, with Bellini, Giorgione, Sebastiano, and
others? An unfriendly chance has left us entirely in the dark as to the
early years of nearly all the great Venetian painters. That Duerer makes
no mention of Titian's name in his letters gives no cause for surprise,
for even the most celebrated of the younger artists, Giorgione, is not
alluded to, and of all those with Bellini, whose fame outshone even then
that of all others, only Barbari is mentioned. That Titian's name does
not occur in the documents about the Fondaco frescoes may be due to the
fact that Giorgione alone was commissioned to undertake the frescoes for
the magistrates, and that the latter painter in his turn brought his
associate Titian into the work.
Mr. Cook says that Titian still signed himself in 1511 "Dipintore"
instead of "Maestro." I am not aware whether in this respect definite
regulations or customs were usual in Venice.[166] At any rate, the
painter is still described in official documents as late as 1518 as "ser
Tizian depentor" (Lorenzi, "Monumenti," No. 366), when, even according
to Mr. Cook's theory, he must have been thirty years old; and he is
actually so called in 1528 (_ibid_. No. 403), after appearing in several
intermediate documents as "maestro" (Nos. 373, 377). If this argument,
however, proves unsound, the last point--viz. that the well-known
petition to the senate in 1513 reads more like that of a man of
twenty-four than one of thirty-seven--must be left to the hypothesis of
individual conjecture.
Must we really close these very long inquiries by confessing they are
beyond our ken? It almost seems so. For, with regard to the testimony
afforded by family documents, Dr. Jacobi (whose labours were utilised by
Crowe and Cavalcaselle) so conscientiously examined all that is left,
that a discovery in this direction is not to be looked for. Is the
statement of Tizianello that Titian's year of birth was 1477 to be
rejected without further question when we remember that, as a relative
of the painter, he could have had in 1622 access to documents possibly
since lost?
Under these circumstances the only thing left to do is to question the
works of Titian. Of these, two can be dated, not indeed with certainty,
but with some degree of probability: the dedicatory painting of the
Bishop of Pesaro with the portrait of Alexander VI. of 1502-03, and the
picture of St. Mark, already mentioned, of the year 1504. Both are, to
judge by the style, clearly early works, and both can be connected with
definite historical events of the years just mentioned. That these
paintings, however, could be the work of a fourteen- to fifteen-year-old
artist Mr. Cook will also admit to be impossible.
Much, far too much, in the story of Venetian painting must, for want of
definite information, be left to conjecture; and however unsatisfactory
it is, we must make the confession that we know as little about the date
of the birth of the greatest of the Venetians as we know of Giorgione's,
Sebastiano's, Palma's, and the rest. But supposing all of a sudden
information turned up giving us the exact date of Titian's birth, would
the picture of the development of Venetian painting be any the different
for it? In no wise. The relation to one another of the individual
artists of the younger generation is so clearly to be read in each man's
work, that no external particulars, however interesting they might be on
other grounds, could make the smallest difference. Titian's relations
with Giorgione especially could not be otherwise represented than has
been long determined, and that whether Titian was born in 1476, 1477,
1480, or even two or three years later.[167] GEORG GRONAU.
WHEN WAS TITIAN BORN?
_Reply to Dr. Gronau. Reprinted from "Repertorium fuer
Kunstwissenschaft," vol. xxv., parts 1 and 2_
I must thank Dr. Georg Gronau for his very fair reply, published in
these pages[168] (to my article in the _Nineteenth Century_ on the
subject of Titian's age[169]). He has also most kindly pointed out two
pieces of contemporary evidence which had escaped my notice, and
although neither of these passages is conclusive proof one way or the
other, they deserve to be reckoned with in arriving at a decision.
Dr. Gronau formulates the evidence shortly thus:
Vasari in 1566 or 1567 says Titian is over 76
The Spanish Consul in 1567 " " 85
Titian himself in 1571 " he is " 95
and he adds that this new piece of evidence--viz. the letter of the
Spanish Consul to King Philip--instead of helping us, only makes the
confusion worse.
What then are we to think when yet another--a fourth--contemporary
statement turns up, differing from any of the three just quoted? Yet
such a letter exists, and I am happy in my turn to point out this fresh
piece of evidence, in the hope that instead of making the confusion
worse, it will help us to arrive at some decision.
On October the 15th, 1564, Garcia Hernandez, Envoy in Venice from King
Philip II., writes to the King his master that Titian begged that His
Majesty would condescend to order that he should be paid what was due to
him from the court and from Milan.... For the rest the painter was in
fine condition, and quite capable of work, and this was the time, if
ever, to get "other things" from him, as according to some people who
knew him, Titian was about ninety years old, though he did not show it,
and for money everything was to be had of him.[170]
In 1564 then the Spanish Envoy writes that Titian was said to be about
ninety. Let us then enlarge Dr. Gronau's table by this additional
statement, and further complete it by including the earliest piece of
evidence, the statement of Dolce in 1557 that Titian was scarcely twenty
when he worked at the Fondaco de' Tedeschi frescoes (1507-8). The year
of Titian's birth thus works out:
Writing in 1557, Dolce makes out Titian was born about 1489
" " 1566-7, Vasari " " " 1489
" " 1564, Spanish Envoy " " 1474
" " 1567, Spanish Consul " " 1482
" " 1571, Titian himself " " 1476
Now it is curious to notice that the last three statements are all made
in letters to King Philip, either by Titian himself, or at his request
by the Spanish agents.
It is curious to notice these statements as to Titian's great age occur
in begging letters.[171]
It is curious to notice they are mutually contradictory.
What are we to conclude?
Surely that the Spanish Envoy, the Spanish Consul, and Titian himself,
out of their own mouths stand convicted of inconsistency of statement,
and further that they betray an identical motive underlying each
representation--viz. an appeal _ad misericordiam._
Before, however, contrasting the value of the evidence as found in these
Spanish letters with the evidence as found in Dolce and Vasari, let us
note two points in these letters.
Garcia Hernandez, the Spanish Envoy, writes: "According to some people
who knew him, Titian was about ninety years old, though he did not show
it." Now, if Titian was really about ninety in the year 1564, he will
have lived to the age of one hundred and two, a feat of longevity of
which no one has ever accused him! Apart, therefore, from the healthy
scepticism which Hernandez betrays in this letter, we may certainly
conclude that "some people who knew him" were exaggerating Titian's age.
Secondly, Titian's letter of 1571 says he is ninety-five years old.
Titian's similar letter of 1576, the year of his death, omits to say he
is one hundred. Surely a strange omission, considering that he refers to
his old age three times in this one letter.[172] Does not the second
letter correct the inexactness of the first? and so Titian's statement
goes for nothing?
The collective evidence, then, of these Spanish letters amounts to this,
that, in the words of the Envoy, "for money everything was to be had of
Titian," and accordingly any statement as to his great age when thus
made for effect must be treated with the greatest suspicion.
But is the evidence of Dolce and Vasari any more trustworthy? Dr. Gronau
is at pains to show that both these writers often made mistakes in
their dates, a fact which no one can dispute. Their very incorrectness
is the more reason however for trusting them in this instance, for they
happen to agree about the date of Titian's birth; and, although neither
of them expressly gives the year 1489, they indicate separate and
independent events in his life, the one, Dolce, at the beginning, the
other, Vasari, at the end, which when looked into give the same result.
Moreover, be Dolce ever so anxious to cry up his hero Titian, and make
him out to have been precocious, and be Vasari ever so inexact in his
chronology, we must remember that, when both of them wrote, the
presumption of unusual longevity had not arisen, and that their evidence
therefore is less likely to be prejudiced in this respect than the
evidence given in obituary notices, such as occurs in Borghini's
_Riposo_ of 1584, and in the later writers like Tizianello and Ridolfi.
That Borghini therefore says Titian was ninety-eight or ninety-nine when
he died, and that Tizianello and Ridolfi, thirty-eight and sixty-four
years later respectively, put him down at ninety-nine, is by no means
proof that such was the case. It would seem that there had been some
speculation before and after Titian's death as to his exact age; that no
one quite knew for certain; and that Titian with the credulousness of
old age had come to regard himself as well-nigh a centenarian. Be this
as it may, I still hold that the evidence of Dolce and Vasari that
Titian's birth occurred in 1489 is more trustworthy than either the
evidence found in the three Spanish letters, or the evidence as given in
the obituary notices of Borghini and others.
One word more. If Titian was born in 1489, instead of 1476-7, it does
make a great difference in the story of his own career; and, what is
more, the history of Venetian art in the early sixteenth century, as it
centres round Giorgione, Palma, and Titian, will have to be carefully
reconsidered.
HERBERT COOK.
NOTES:
[148] The picture now hangs in the Academia at Venice.
[149] e.g. the "Sacred and Profane Love" (so-called) in the Borghese
Gallery; the "S. Mark" of the Salute; the "Concert" in the Pitti; the
"Tribute Money" at Dresden; the "Madonna of the Cherries" at Vienna,
etc., which one or other of his biographers assign to the years
1500-1510.
[150] _The Life and Times of Titian_, 2 vols., 1881.
[151] _The Earlier and Later Work of Titian. Portfolio_, October 1897
and July 1898.
[152] _Tizian_. Berlin, 1901.
[153] _La Vie et l'Oeuvre de Titien_: Paris, 1886.
[154] See Crowe and Cavalcaselle: _Titian_, i. 85. The fact that
Titian's name does not occur in these records is curious and suggestive.
[155] Ed. _Sansoni_, p. 459. The translation is that of Blashfield and
Hopkins. Bell, 1897.
[156] _Ibid_. p. 425.
[157] _Ibid_. p. 428.
[158] The translation is that of Crowe and Cavalcaselle. _Titian_, ii.
391. The original is given by them at p. 538.
[159] Quoted from Crowe and Cavalcaselle.
[160] Crowe and Cavalcaselle. _Titian_, ii. 409.
[161] There is a collection of these in a volume in the British Museum.
[162] Before the discovery of the letter to Philip, Messrs. Crowe and
Cavalcaselle were quite prepared to admit that Titian was born "after
1480" (vide _N. Italian Painting_, ii. 119, 120). Unfortunately, they
took the evidence of the letter as final, but finding themselves
chronologically in difficulties, they shrewdly remark in their _Titian_,
i. 38, note: "The writers of these lines thought, and _still think_,
Titian younger than either Giorgione or Palma. They were, however,
inclined to transpose Titian's birthday to a later date than 1477,
rather than put back those of Palma and Giorgione to an earlier period,
and in this they made a mistake." Perhaps they were not so far wrong
after all!
[163] For this most amusing letter see Crowe and Cavalcaselle. _Titian_,
i. p. 153.
[164] The evidence afforded by Titian's own portraits of himself (at
Berlin and in the Uffizi) is inconclusive, as we do not know the exact
years they were painted. The portrait at Madrid, painted 1562, might
represent a man of seventy-three or eighty-six, it is hard to say which.
But there is a woodcut of 1550 (_vide_ Gronau, p. 164) which surely
shows Titian at the age of sixty-one rather than seventy-four; and,
finally, Paul Veronese's great "Marriage at Cana" (in the Louvre), which
was painted between June 1562 and September 1563, distinctly points to
Titian being then a man of seventy-four and not eighty-seven. He is
represented, as is well known, seated in the group of musicians in the
centre, and playing the contrabasso.
[165] _Jahrbuch der Sammlungen des A.H. Kaiserhauses_, vii. p. 221 _ff_
1888.
[166] Dr. Ludwig had the kindness to write to me on this subject: "Among
the thousands of signatures of painters which I have seen I have never
come across the signature _Maestro_. Of course, someone else can
describe a painter as Master; he himself always subscribes himself
_pittor, pictor_, or _depentor_."
[167] Dr. Gronau further points out (in a letter recently sent to the
writer) that Titian, writing to the emperor in 1545, says: "I should
have liked to take them (i.e. the paintings) to your Majesty in person,
but that my age and the length of the journey forbade such a course" (C.
and C. ii. 103). Writing also in 1548 to Granvella he refers to his
"vechia vita." Would not such expressions (asks Dr. Gronau) be more
applicable to a man of sixty-eight and seventy-one respectively than to
one of only fifty-six and fifty-nine?
[168] XXIV. Band. 6 Heft, p. 457.
[169] January 1902, pp. 123-130.
[170] Quoted from Crowe and Cavalcaselle. II. 344. The Spanish original
is given at p. 535.
[171] I have quoted Titian's letter in full in the _Nineteenth Century_.
That of the Spanish Consul is given in the _Jahrbuch der Sammlungen des
A.H. Kaiserhauses_, vii. p. 221, from which I extract the passage: "El
dicho Ticiano besa pies y manos de V.M., y suplica umilmente a V.M.
mande le sea pagado lo que le ha corrido de las pensiones de que V.M. le
tiene echo merced en Milan y en esa corte, y la trata de Napoles, y con
los 85 anos de su edad servira a V.M. hasta la muerte."
[172] I have quoted this letter also in full in the _Nineteenth
Century._ I am indebted to M. Salomon Reinach for making this point
(_Chronique des Arts_, Feb. 15, 1902, p. 53, where he expresses himself
a convert to my views).
CATALOGUE OF THE WORKS OF GIORGIONE
ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE GALLERIES IN WHICH THEY ARE CONTAINED
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
BUDA-PESTH GALLERY.
PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG MAN. [No. 94.]
_Esterhazy Collection_. (See p. 31.)
TWO FIGURES STANDING. [No. 95.]
Copy of a portion of Giorgione's lost picture of the "Birth of Paris."
These are the two shepherds. (See p. 46.)
The whole composition was engraved by Th. von Kessel for the _Theatrum
pictorium_ under Giorgione's name. The original picture was seen and
described by the Anonimo in 1525.
VIENNA GALLERY.
EVANDER AND HIS SON PALLAS SHOWING TO AENEAS THE FUTURE SITE OF ROME.
Canvas, 4 ft. x 4 ft. 8 in. [No. 16.]
Seen by the Anonimo in 1525, in Venice, and said by him to have been
finished by Sebastiano del Piombo. (See p. 12.)
_Collection of the Archduke Leopold William, and registered in the
inventory of_ 1659.
ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS, or NATIVITY. Wood, 3 ft. x 3 ft. 10 in. [No.
23.]
Inferior replica by Giorgione of the Beaumont picture in London.
I have sought to identify this piece with the picture "da una Nocte,"
painted by Giorgione for Taddeo Contarini. (See p. 24 and Appendix,
where the original document is quoted.)
_From the Collection of the Archduke Leopold William, and registered in
the inventory of 1659 as a Giorgione._
VIRGIN AND CHILD. Wood, 2 ft. 2 in. x 2 ft. 9 in. [No. 176.]
Known as the "Gipsy Madonna," and ascribed to Titian. _Collection of the
Archduke Leopold William._ (See p. 97.)
PORTRAIT OF A MAN. Canvas, 3 ft. 5 in. x 2 ft. 9 in. [No. 167.]
Commonly, though erroneously, called "The Physician Parma," and ascribed
to Titian.
_Collection of the Archduke Leopold William._ (See p. 87.)
DAVID WITH THE HEAD OF GOLIATH. Wood, 2 ft. 2 in. x 2 ft. 6 in. [No.
21.]
Copy after a lost original, which is thus described by Vasari: "A David
(which, according to common report, is a portrait of the master himself)
with long locks, reaching to the shoulders, as was the custom of that
time, and the colouring is so fresh and animating that the face appears
to be rather real than painted; the breast is covered with armour, as is
the arm with which he holds the head of Goliath."
_This picture was at that day in the house of the Patriarch of Aquileia;
the copy can be traced back to the Collection of the Archduke Leopold
William at Brussels._ (See p. 48.)
Herr Wickhoff, however, seems to think that, were the repaints removed,
the Vienna picture might prove to be Giorgione's original painting. See
Berenson's _Study and Criticism of Italian Art_, vol. i. p. 74, note.
BRITISH ISLES
LONDON, NATIONAL GALLERY.
ADORATION OF THE MAGI, or THE EPIPHANY. Panel. 12 in. x 2 ft. 8 in. [No.
1160.]
_From the Leigh Court sale, 1884._ (See p. 53.)
UNKNOWN SUBJECT, possibly THE GOLDEN AGE. Panel. 1 ft. 11 in. x 1 ft. 7
in. [No. 1173.]
Now catalogued as "School of Barbarelli." (See p. 91.) _Purchased in
1885 at the sale of the Bohn Collection as a Giorgione.
Formerly in the Aldobrandini Palace, Rome, where it was bought by Mr.
Day for the Marquis of Bristol, but afterwards sold at Christie's to Mr.
White, and by him for L73.10s. to Bohn._
PORTRAIT OF A MAN, possibly PROSPERO COLONNA. Transposed in 1857 from
wood to canvas, 2 ft. 8 in. x 2 ft. [No. 636.]
Catalogued as "Portrait of a Poet," by Palma Vecchio.
_Formerly in possession of Mr. Tomline, and purchased in 1860 from M.
Edmond Beaucousin at Paris._
It was then called the portrait of Ariosto by Titian. (See p. 81.)
A KNIGHT IN ARMOUR, probably S. LIBERALE. Wood, 1 ft. 3 in. x 10 in.
[No. 269.]
_Formerly in the Collection of Benjamin West, P.R.A., and bequeathed to
the National Gallery by Mr. Samuel Rogers in 1855._ (See p. 20.)
VENUS AND ADONIS. Canvas, 2 ft. 6 in. x 4 ft. 4 in. [No. 1123.]
Catalogued as "Venetian School," and more recently as "School of
Giorgione."
_Purchased in 1882 as a Giorgione at the Hamilton Palace sale._ (See p.
94.)
GLASGOW GALLERY.
THE ADULTERESS BEFORE CHRIST. Canvas, 4 ft. 6 in. x 5 ft. 11 in. [No.
142.]
_Ex M'Lellan Collection._ (See p. 102.)
TWO MUSICIANS. Panel. 1 ft. 9 in. x 1 ft. 4 in. [No. 143.]
Recently attributed to Campagnola. Said to be Titian and Giorgione,
playing violin and violoncello. The former attribution to Giorgione is
probably correct.
_Graham-Gilbert Collection._
New Gallery, Venetian Exhibition, 1895. [No. 99.]
HAMPTON COURT.
SHEPHERD BOY. Canvas, 1 ft. 11 in. x 1 ft. 8 in. [No. 101.]
_From Charles I. Collection_, where it was called a Giorgione. (See p.
49 for a suggestion as to its possible authorship.)
BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
THREE FIGURES. Half-length; two men, and a woman fainting. Canvas, 2 ft.
5 in. x 2 ft. 1 in.
Ascribed to Titian, but probably derived from a Giorgione original.
Other versions are said (C. and C. ii. 149) to have been at the Hague
and in the Buonarroti Collection at Florence. The London picture is so
damaged and repainted, although still of splendid colouring, as to
preclude all certainty of judgment.
_Formerly in Charles I. Collection._
MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONT'S COLLECTION.
ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS, or NATIVITY. Wood, 3 ft. 6 in. x 2 ft.
(about).
_From the Gallery of Cardinal Fesch_, and presumably the same as the
picture in the Collection of James II. I have sought to identify this
piece with the picture "da una Nocte," painted by Giorgione for Vittorio
Beccare (See p. 20, and Appendix quoting the original document.)
MR. R.H. BENSON'S COLLECTION.
HOLY FAMILY. Wood, 14 in. x 17 in.
New Gallery, 1895. [No. 148.] (See p. 96.)
MADONNA AND CHILD. Wood, 1 ft. 6 in. x 1 ft. 10 in.
New Gallery, 1895. [No. 1, under Titian's name.] (See p. 101.)
_From the Burghley House Collection._
PORTRAIT OF A MAN. Canvas, 38 in. x 32 in.
Copy of a lost original. Three-quarter length; life-size; standing
towards right; head facing; hands resting on a column, glove in left;
black dress, cut square at throat.
New Gallery, 1895. [No. 52, as "Unknown."] (See p. 74.)
COBHAM HALL, THE EARL OF DARNLEY'S COLLECTION.
PORTRAIT OF A MAN. Canvas, 2 ft. 1 in. x 2 ft. 9 in.
Erroneously called Ariosto, and ascribed to Titian.
I have sought to identify this with the "Portrait of a Gentleman" of the
Barberigo family, said by Vasari to have been painted by Titian at the
age of eighteen. (See p. 69.)
HERON COURT, THE EARL OF MALMESBURY.
THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. Canvas, 22 in. x 28 in.
Copy of an unidentified original, of which other versions are to be
found at Dresden, Venice (Pal. Albuzio), and Christiania. This one is
probably a Bolognese repetition of the seventeenth century.
Ridolfi mentions this subject in his list of Giorgione's works.
New Gallery, 1895. [No. 29.]
HERTFORD HOUSE, WALLACE COLLECTION.
VENUS DISARMING CUPID. 3 ft. 7 in. x 3 ft. [No. 19.]
The picture was engraved as a Giorgione when in the Orleans Gallery.
(See p. 93.)
KENT HOUSE, THE LATE LOUISA LADY ASHBURTON.
TWO FIGURES IN A LANDSCAPE. Panel. 18 in. x 17 in.
The damaged state precludes any certainty of judgment. The composition
is that of the Adrastus and Hypsipyle picture; the colouring recalls
the National Gallery "Golden Age(?)." If an original, it is quite an
early work. New Gallery, 1895. [No. 147.]
TWO FIGURES (half-lengths), A WOMAN AND A MAN.
Copy after a missing original, and in the style of the figures at
Oldenburg. (See Venturi, _La Gall. Crespi_.) This or the original was
engraved as a Giorgione in 1773 by Dom. Cunego ex tabula Romae in
aedibus Burghesianis asservata.
KINGSTON LACY, COLLECTION OF MR. RALPH BANKES.
THE JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON. Canvas, 6 ft. 10 in. x 10 ft. 5 in.
Mentioned by Dr. Waagen, Suppl. Ridolfi (1646) mentions: "In casa
Grimani da Santo Ermagora la Sentenza di Salomone, di bella macchia,
colla figura del ministro non finita." Afterwards in the Marescalchi
Gallery at Bologna, where (1820) it was seen by Lord Byron, who
especially praised it (vide _Life and Letters_, ed. by Moore, p. 705),
and at whose suggestion it was purchased by his friend Mr. Bankes. (See
p. 25.)
Exhibited Royal Academy, 1869.
A PAINTED CEILING.
With four putti climbing over a circular balcony, seen in steep
perspective, and covered with beautiful vine leaves and flowers. This is
said to have been painted by Giorgione in the last year of his life
(1510) for the Palace of Grimani, Patriarch of Aquileia. Admirably
preserved, and most likely a genuine work.
TEMPLE NEWSAM, COLLECTION OF THE HON. MRS MEYNELL-INGRAM.
PORTRAIT OF A MAN.
Traditionally ascribed to Titian. Just under life-size; he holds a black
hat. Blue-black silk dress with sleeve of pinky red and golden brown
gloves. Dark auburn hair. Dark grey marble wall behind. In excellent
preservation. (See p. 86.)
COLLECTION OF SIR CHARLES TURNER.
THE ADULTERESS BEFORE CHRIST.
A free Venetian repetition, perhaps based on an alternative design for
the Glasgow picture. (See p. 104.)
FRANCE.
LOUVRE.
FETE CHAMPETRE, or PASTORAL SYMPHONY. Canvas, 3 ft. 8 in. x 4 ft. 9 in.
_Said to have been in Charles I. Collection, and sold to Louis XIV. by
Jabuch._ (See p. 39.)
HOLY FAMILY AND SAINTS CATHERINE AND SEBASTIAN, WITH DONOR. Wood, 3 ft.
4 in. x 4 ft. 6 in.
Perhaps left incomplete by Giorgione at his death, and finished by
Sebastiano del Piombo. (See p. 105.)
_From Charles I. Collection._
GERMANY.
BERLIN GALLERY.
PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG MAN.
_Acquired from Dr. Richten_ (See p. 30.)
BERLIN, COLLECTION OF HERR VON KAUFFMANN.
STA. GIUSTINA.
A small seated figure with the unicorn. Recently acquired at Cologne,
and known to the writer only by photograph and description, but
tentatively accepted as genuine.
DRESDEN GALLERY.
VENUS. Canvas, 3 ft. 7 in. x 5 ft. 10 in. [No. 185.]
Formerly catalogued as a copy by Sassoferrato after Titian. Restored by
Morelli to Giorgione, and universally accepted as such. Mentioned by the
Anonimo and Ridolfi, and said to have been completed by Titian. (See p.
35.)
THE HOROSCOPE. Canvas, 4 ft. 5 in. x 6 ft. 2 in.
Copy after a lost original. C. and C. suggest Girolamo Pennacchi as
possible author. It bears the Este arms.
_From the Manfrini and Barker Collections._
(See _Gazette des Beaux Arts_, 1884, tom. xxx. p. 223.)
JUDGMENT OF PARIS. Canvas, 1 ft. 9 in. x 2 ft. 3 in.
One of several copies of a lost original. [See under British
Isles--Heron Court.]
ITALY
BERGAMO, GALLERY.
ORPHEUS AND EURYDICE. Wood, 1 ft. 3 in, x 1 ft. 9 in. [No. 179, Lochis
section.]
(See p. 89.)
MADONNA AND CHILD. Wood, 1 ft. 3 in. x 1 ft. 6 in. [No. 232, Lochis
section, as "Titian."]
The composition is very similar to Mr. Benson's "Madonna and Child"
(_q.v._). (See p. 101.)
THE ADULTERESS BEFORE CHRIST. 4 ft. 11 in. x 7 ft. 3 in. [No. 26,
Carrara section.]
Later copy, with slight variations, of the Glasgow picture, Ascribed to
Cariani, and in a dirty state. (See p. 104.)
CASTELFRANCO, DUOMO.
MADONNA AND CHILD ENTHRONED, SS. LIBERALE AND FRANCIS BELOW. Wood, 7 ft.
6 in. x 4 ft. 10 in.
(See p. 7.)
FLORENCE, PITTI GALLERY.
THE CONCERT. Canvas, 3 ft. 10 in. x 7 ft. 4 in. [No. 185.]
Described by Ridolfi and Boschini.
An old copy is at Hyde Park House, another in the Palazzo Doria, Rome.
(See p. 49.)
THE THREE AGES. Wood, 3 ft. 8 in. x 5 ft. 4 in. [No. 157.]
By C. and C. ascribed to Lotto, by Morelli to Giorgione.
(See p. 42.)
NYMPH AND SATYR. Canvas. [No. 147.]
(See p. 44.)
FLORENCE, UFFIZI GALLERY.
TRIAL OF MOSES, or ORDEAL BY FIRE. Canvas. Figures one-eighth life-size.
[No. 621.]
_From Poggio Imperiale._(See p. 15.)
JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON. Companion piece to last. Wood. [No. 630.]
(See p. 15.)
KNIGHT OF MALTA. Canvas. Bust, life-size. [No. 622.]
The letters XXXV probably refer to the man's age. Mr. Dickes (_Magazine
of Art_, April 1893) thinks he is Stefano Colonna, who died 1548. (See
p. 19.)
MILAN, CRESPI COLLECTION.
PORTRAIT OF CATERINA CORNARO. Canvas, 3 ft. 11 in. x 3 ft. 2 in.
_From the Alessandro Martinengo Gallery, Brescia (1640), thence to
Collection Francesco Riccardi, Bergamo, where C. and C. saw it in 1877._
They state it was engraved in the line series of Sala. It has been known
traditionally both as Caterina Cornaro and "La Schiavona." (See p. 74.)
In the signature T.V. it is clear that the V represents the last letter
but one in TITIANVS. The first three letters can just be made out. There
are many _pentimenti_ on the marble parapet, which seems to have been
painted over the dress.
PADUA, GALLERY.
Two _cassone_ panels with mythological scenes. Wood, about 4 ft. x 1 ft.
each. [Nos. 416, 417.]
(See p. 56.)
Two very small panels with mythological scenes, one representing LEDA
AND THE SWAN. Wood, about 5 in. x 3 in. each. [Nos. 42, 43.]
(See p. 90.)
ROME, BORGHESE GALLERY.
PORTRAIT OF A LADY. Canvas, 3 ft. 2 in. x 2 ft. 6 in.
(See p. 33.)
NATIONAL GALLERY, PAL. CORSINI.
S. GEORGE AND THE DRAGON.
_Recently acquired._
(Tentatively accepted from the photograph. See p. 91.)
ROVIGO, GALLERY.
MADONNA AND CHILD. [NO. 2.]
Repetition by Titian of Giorgione's original at Vienna
(See p. 98.)
A SMALL SEATED FIGURE. DANAE? [No. 156.]
Copy of a missing original.
VENICE, ACADEMY.
STORM AT SEA CALMED BY S. MARK. Wood, 11 ft. 8 in. x 13 ft. 6 in. [No.
516.]
_From the Scuola di S. Marco_, where it was companion piece to Paris
Bordone's "Fisherman and Doge." Ascribed by Vasari to Palma Vecchio, by
Zanetti to Giorgione.
Too damaged to admit of definite judgment. (See p. 55.)
THREE FIGURES. Half-lengths; a woman fainting, supported by a man;
another behind.
Modern copy by Fabris of apparently a missing original. Can this be the
picture mentioned by C. and C. as in the possession of the King of
Holland? (C. and C. ii. 149, note.) _Cf_. also, Notes to Sansoni's
_Vasari_, iv. p. 104. Another version is at Buckingham Palace (_q.v_.),
but it differs in detail from this copy.
SEMINARIO.
APOLLO AND DAPHNE. _Cassone_ panel. Wood. Small figures, much defaced.
(See p. 34.)
CHURCH OF SAN ROCCO. CHRIST BEARING THE CROSS. Panel. Busts large as
life. About 3 ft. x 2 ft.
Christ clad in pale grey, head turned three-quarters looking out of the
picture, auburn hair and beard, bears cross. He is dragged forward by an
elderly man nude to waist. Another man in profile to left. An old man
with white beard just visible behind Christ. (See p. 54.)
PAL. ALBUZIO. JUDGMENT OF PARIS.
Another version of this subject, of which copies exist at Christiania,
Lord Malmesbury's, and Dresden.
PAL. GIOVANELLI. ADRASTUS AND HYPSIPYLE. Canvas, 2 ft. 9 in. x 2 ft. 5
in.
Described by the Anonimo in the house of Gabriel Vendramin (1530). (See
p. 11.)
Statius (lib. iv. 730 _ff_.) describes how King Adrastus, wandering
through the woods in search of a spring to quench the thirst of his
troops, encounters by chance Queen Hypsipyle, who had been driven out of
Lemnos by the wicked women, who had resolved to slay their husbands, and
she had taken refuge in the service of the King of Nemea, in capacity
of nurse.
Ex _Manfrini Palace._
PAL. QUERINI-STAMPALIA. PORTRAIT OF A MAN. Unfinished. Wood, 2 ft. 6 in.
square. (See p. 85.)
NORWAY.
CHRISTIANIA.
JUDGMENT OF PARIS.
Another version of this subject, of which copies exist at Lord
Malmesbury's, Dresden, and Venice.
RUSSIA.
ST. PETERSBURG, HERMITAGE GALLERY.
JUDITH. 4 ft. 9 in. x 2 ft. 2 in. [No. 112.]
Once ascribed to Raphael, and engraved as such (in 1620), by H.H.
Quitter, and afterwards by several other artists. Dr. Waagen pronounced
it to be Moretto's work, and accordingly the name was changed; as such
Braun has photographed it. It is now officially recognised rightly as a
Giorgione (_vide_ Catalogue of 1891).
_Brought from Italy to France, and eventually in Crozat's possession_.
(See p. 37.)
VIRGIN AND CHILD. 2 ft. 10 in. x 2 ft. 6. [No. 93.]
_Acquired at Paris in 1819 by Prince Troubetzkoy as a Titian_, under
which name it is still registered. (See p. 102, where Mr. Claude
Phillips's suggestion that it may be a Giorgione is discussed.)
SPAIN.
MADRID, PRADO GALLERY.
MADONNA AND CHILD AND SAINTS FRANCIS AND ROCH. Canvas, 3 ft. x 4 ft. 5
in. [No. 341.]
_From the Escurial_; restored to Giorgione by Morelli, and now
officially recognised as his work. (See p. 45.)
UNITED STATES.
BOSTON, COLLECTION OF MRS. GARDNER.
CHRIST BEARING THE CROSS. Wood, 1 ft. 8 in. x 1 ft. 4 in.
Several variations and repetitions exist. (See p. 18.)
_Till lately in the Casa Loschi at Vicenza._
* * * * *
A few drawings by Giorgione meet with general recognition, but, like his
paintings, they appear to have been unnecessarily restricted by an
over-anxiety on the part of critics to leave him only the best. E.g. the
drawing at Windsor for a part of an "Adoration of the Shepherds," is, no
doubt, a preliminary design for the Beaumont or Vienna pictures. The
limits of the present book will not allow a discussion on the subject,
but we may remark that, like all Venetian artists, Giorgione made few
preliminary sketches, concerning himself less with design and
composition than with harmony of colour, light and shade, and "effect."
The engraving by Marcantonio commonly called "The Dream of Raphael," is
now known to be derived from Giorgione, to whom the subject was
suggested by a passage in Servius' _Commentary on Virgil_ (lib. iii. v.
12). (See Wickhoff, loc. cit.)
LIST OF GIORGIONE'S PICTURES CITED BY "THE ANONIMO," AS BEING IN HIS
DAY (1525-75) IN PRIVATE POSSESSION AT VENICE.[173]
CASA TADDEO CONTARINI (1525).
(i) The Three Philosophers (since identified as Aeneas, Evander, and
Pallas, in the Vienna Gallery),
(ii) Aeneas and Anchises in Hades.
(in) The Birth of Paris. (Since identified by the engraving of Th. von
Kessel. A copy of the part representing the two shepherds is at
Buda-Pesth.)
CASA JERONIMO MARCELLO (1525).
(i) Portrait of M. Jeronimo armed, showing his back and turning his
head.
(ii) A nude Venus in a landscape with Cupid. Finished by Titian. (Since
identified as the Dresden Venus.)
(in) S. Jerome reading.
CASA M. ANTON. VENIER (1528).
A soldier armed to the waist.
CASA G. VENDRAMIN (1530).
(i) Landscape with soldier and gipsy. (Since identified as the Adrastus
and Hypsipyle of the Pal. Giovanelli, Venice.)
(ii) The dead Christ on the Tomb, supported by one Angel. Retouched by
Titian. (This can hardly be the celebrated Pieta in the Monte di Pieta
at Treviso, as there are here three angels. M. Lafenestre, in his _Life
of Titian_, reproduces an engraving answering to the above description,
but it is hard to believe this mannered composition is to be traced back
to Giorgione.)
CASA ZUANE RAM (1531).
(i) A youth, half-length, holding an arrow.
(ii) Head of a shepherd boy, who holds a fruit.
CASA A. PASQUALINO.
(i) Copy of No. (i) just mentioned.
(ii) Head of S. James, with pilgrim staff (or, may be, a copy).
CASA ANDREA ODONI (1532).
S. Jerome, nude, seated in a desert by moonlight. Copy after Giorgione.
CASA MICHIEL CONTARINI (1543).
A pen drawing of a nude figure in a landscape. The painting of the same
subject belonged to the Anonimo.
CASA PIERO SERVIO (1575).
Portrait of his father.
It is noteworthy that two of the above pieces are cited as copies, from
which we may infer that Giorgione's productions were already, at this
early date, enjoying such a vogue as to call for their multiplication at
the hands of others, and we can readily understand how, in course of
time, the fabrication of "Giorgiones" became a profitable business.
NOTES:
[173] _Notizie d'opere di disegno_. Ed. Frizzoni. Bologna, 1884.
Back to Full Books
|