Giorgione | Page 9

the name of Giorgione be denied this "Nativity," to which of the
followers of Bellini are we to assign it?--for the work is clearly of
Bellinesque stamp. The name of Catena has been proposed, but is now
no longer seriously supported.[25] If for no other reason, the colour
scheme is sufficient to exclude this able artist, and, versatile as he
undoubtedly was, it may be questioned whether he ever could have
attained to the mellowness and glow which suffuse this picture. The
latest view enunciated[26] is that "we are in the presence of a painter as
yet anonymous, whom in German fashion we might provisionally name
'The Master of the Beaumont "Adoration."'" Now this system of
labelling certain groups of paintings showing common characteristics is
all very well in cases where the art history of a particular school or
period is wrapt in obscurity, and where few, if any, names have come
down to us, but in the present instance it is singularly inappropriate. To
begin with, this anonymous painter is the author, so it is believed, of
only three works, this "Adoration," the "Epiphany," in the National
Gallery, No. 1160, and a small "Holy Family," belonging to Mr. Robert

Benson in London, for all three works are universally admitted to be by
the same hand. Next, this anonymous painter must have been a
singularly refined and poetical artist, a master of brilliant colour, and an
accomplished chiaroscurist. Truly a deus ex machina! Next you have to
find a vacancy for such a phenomenon in the already crowded lists of
Bellini's pupils and followers, as if there were not more names than
enough already to fully account for every Bellinesque production.[27]
No, this is no question of compromise, of the dragging to light some
hitherto unknown genius whose identity has long been merged in that
of bigger men, but it is the recognition of the fact that the greater
comprises the less. Admitting, as we may, that these three pictures are
inferior in "depth, significance, cohesion, and poetry" (!) to the
Castelfranco "Madonna," there is nothing to show that they are not
characteristic of Giorgione, that they do not form part of a consistent
whole. As a matter of fact, this "Adoration of the Shepherds" connects
very well with the early poésie already discussed. There is some
opposition between the sacred theme and Giorgione's natural dislike to
tell a mere story; but he has had to conform to traditional methods of
representation, and the feeling of restraint is felt in the awkward
drawing of the figures, and their uneven execution. That he felt
dissatisfied with this portion of the work, the drawing at Windsor
plainly shows, for the figures appear here in a different position, as if
he had tried to recast his scheme.
Some may object that the drawing of the shepherd is atrocious, and that
the figures are of disproportionate sizes. Such failings, they say, cannot
be laid to a great master's charge. This is an appeal to the old argument
that it is not good enough, whereas the true test lies in the question, Is it
characteristic? Of Giorgione it certainly is a characteristic to treat each
figure in a composition more or less by itself; he isolates them, and this
conception is often emphasised by an outward disparity of size. The
relative disproportion of the figures in the Castelfranco altar-piece, and
of those of Aeneas and Evander in the Vienna picture can hardly be
denied, yet no one has ever pleaded this as a bar to their authenticity.
Instances of this want of cohesion, both in conception and execution,
between the various figures in a scene could be multiplied in
Giorgione's work, no more striking instance being found than in the

great undertaking he left unfinished--the large "Judgment of Solomon,"
next to be discussed. Moreover, eccentricities of drawing are not
uncommon in his work, as a reference to the "Adrastus and Hypsipyle,"
and later works, like the "Fête Champêtre" (of the Louvre), will show.
I have no hesitation, therefore, in recognising this "Adoration of the
Shepherds" as a genuine work of Giorgione, and, moreover, it appears
to be the masterpiece of that early period when Bellini's influence was
still strong upon him.
The Vienna replica, I believe, was also executed by Giorgione himself.
Until recent times, when an all too rigorous criticism condemned it to
be merely a piece of the "Venezianische Schule um 1500" (which is
correct as far as it goes),[28] it bore Giorgione's name, and is so
recorded in an inventory of the year 1659. It differs from the Beaumont
version chiefly in its colouring, which is silvery and of delicate tones. It
lacks the rich glow, and has little of that mysterious glamour which is
so subtly attractive in the former. The landscape is