65. Luca Signorelli. Maud Crutwell, Luca Signorelli, London, 1901. See Venturi, vii, as usual.
66. Pietro Perugino. Venturi, Storia, Vol. VII, pt. 2, ch. v, makes Perugino the direct pupil of Piero della Francesca, ascribing to Perugino many pictures formerly ascribed to Fiorenzo di Lorenzo. The view while attractive is not wholly convincing to me. All of Perugino’s works are published in Klassiker der Kunst, No. XXV, Stuttgart, 1914. The best general estimate of Perugino is that of Wölfflin and of Berenson, in Central Italian Painters.
67. The Cambio frescoes. While it is inherently likely that Raphael worked on these frescoes, Prof. Venturi’s plea for Raphael’s authorship of God, the Prophets and Sibyls, Storia, Vol. VII, pt. 2, p. 828 ff. depends largely on the shaky evidence of drawings attributed arbitrarily to Raphael.
Raphael and Michelangelo. From the point of view of pure style the best treatment of these artists and of the High Renaissance is that of Heinrich Wölfflin in The Art of the Italian Renaissance, New York, 1913. It is a book that every student should read and if possible own. Mr. Berenson’s treatment of space composition, in the introduction to Central Italian Painters of the Renaissance, is perhaps his finest achievement in criticism.
68. Raphael. Hermann Grimm’s two volume Life of Raphael is still valuable for background. Among the numerous popular books in English none is outstanding. Henry Strachey’s Raphael, in “Great Masters of Art,” is good, and so are Julia Cartwright’s two monographs: The Early Work of Raphael and Raphael in Rome, in the Portfolio Series, London, 1895.
For Raphael’s participation in the frescoes of the Cambio it seems to me that Professor Venturi, in Storia dell’ Arte Italiana, Vol. VII, part 2, makes out only a plausible case.
Reproductions of all of Raphael’s works in Klassiker der Kunst, No. I., Raphael, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Among the innumerable essays on Raphael none is more understanding than John La Farge’s, in Great Masters, New York, 1903.
69. Michelangelo. The best source for the study of Michelangelo, painter, is the superb plates in Ernst Steinmann’s Die Sixtinische Cappelle, Munich, 1901. Among recent short biographies that of Charles Holroyd, Michelangelo, London and New York, 1911 and Romain Rolland (a longer study, The Life of Michelangelo, New York, 1912; a different and shorter work, Michelangelo, a Study, &c., New York, 1915) are perhaps the best. The two volume biographies by Hermann Grimm and by J. Addington Symonds are valuable, especially for historical background. But the reader may be wise to content himself with one of the brief biographies and such contemporary lives as Vasari’s, Ascanio Condivi’s, and Francesco d’Olanda’s. The two latter are translated in Holroyd’s book. The drawings of Michelangelo are admirably discussed and presented in a perfect selection by Mr. Berenson in The Drawings of the Florentine Painters. The drawings are chronologically arranged and beautifully reproduced by Karl Frey, Die Handzeichnungen Michelangelo’s, 2 vols., Berlin, 1911. W. R. Valentiner treats The Late Years of Michelangelo (New York, 1914) with insight, devoting himself chiefly to the more finished drawings. For a brief yet comprehensive survey, John La Farge in Great Masters, New York, 1903. The works are completely reproduced in Klassiker der Kunst, No. VII. Michelangelo, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
70. Little literature of a general sort is available to the English speaking reader. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, A History of Painting in Northern Italy, admirably edited by Tancred Borenius, in three volumes, London, 1913, is the chief repository of facts. Evelyn March Phillipps, The Venetian School of Painting, London, 1912, is an excellent brief survey. For readers of Italian Lionello Venturi’s Le Origini della Pittura Veneziana, Venice, 1911, is the best book. A treasure house of materials in Laudadeo Testi’s two volumes, La Storia della Pittura Veneziana, Bergamo. John Ruskin’s masterpiece, Stones of Venice, may be consulted with profit and delight. There are treasures of antiquarian information in Pompeo Molmenti, La Storia di Venezia nella Vita Privata, 3 vols., Bergamo, 1905.
71. Jacopo Bellini. The extraordinary and fascinating sketch books are published in two forms, by Corrado Ricci, Jacopo Bellini e i suo libri di designi, 2 vols., Florence, 1908, and by V. Goloubew, Les Dessins de Jacopo Bellini, Bruxelles, 1908.
72. G. McNeill Rushforth, Carlo Crivelli, London, 1900.
73. Andrea Mantegna. The standard work is by Paul Kristeller, Andrea Mantegna, London and New York, 1901. Maud Crutwell’s short biography, Andrea Mantegna, London, 1901, is excellent. Mr. Berenson’s subtle analysis in North Italian Painters of the Renaissance perhaps overstresses Andrea’s defects. Mantegna’s complete works are reproduced in Klassiker der Kunst, No. XVI, Stuttgart, 1910.
74. Antonello da Messina. See L. Venturi, Le Origini, and A. Venturi, Storia, VII, pt. 4. Recent attributions, Bernard Berenson, Study and Criticism of Italian Art, 3rd Series, London, 1916, p. 79 ff.
75. Giovanni Bellini. Nothing notable in English except casual criticism by Ruskin and Roger E. Fry’s admirable little book, Giovanni Bellini, London, 1899, which is unfortunately out of print. For such as read German—Georg Gronau, Die Künstler-familie Bellini, Leipzig, 1907, with abundant illustrations. Recently discovered pictures and a better chronology, in Bernard Berenson: Venetian Painting in America, New York, 1916.
76. Vettor Carpaccio. Ludwig and Molmenti’s The Life and Works of Victor Carpaccio, London, 1907, gives, aside from its main topic, a vivid picture of the cultural condition of Venice about 1500. See my essay review of it in The Nation, Vol. 86, (1908) pp. 315 ff. John Ruskin’s delightful comments on Carpaccio are mostly in the Guide to the Academy at Venice and in St. Mark’s Rest, chapter The Shrine of the Slaves, Library ed. Vol. XXIV.
77. Giorgione. For the smallest list L. Venturi, Giorgione e il Giorgionismo, Milan, 1913; for the longest list Herbert Cook, Giorgione; for a middle view L. Justi, Giorgione, 2 vols., Berlin, 1908, most useful plates.
The general conditions of the problem are clearly stated by the late Richard Norton in Bernini and other Studies, New York, 1914. L. Hourticq, in La Jeunesse de Titien, Paris, 1919, has lately worked over the pictures which lie between Titian and Giorgione in an interesting but highly subjective fashion. Kenyon Cox, Art in America, Vol. I, pp. 115 ff., makes the plausible suggestion that the several portraits signed V or VV are by Titian, the letters meaning Vecellius Venetus. This would make the Berlin portrait a Titian.
Walter Pater’s essay on The School of Giorgione, in The Renaissance is as masterly for insight as it is for verbal beauty.
I hesitate to add one more to the varying opinions concerning Giorgione’s paintings. At least I may introduce a novelty by classing them according to probability, or rather according to the completeness of my own conviction. In the whole matter we are largely in the field of taste and opinion. E means early.
1. The Shepherds finding the Infant Paris (repainted fragment, E) Budapest
2. “The Soldier and the Gipsy” E. Prince Giovanelli
3. Madonna with St. Francis and St. George (1504) Castelfranco
4. The Three Philosophers (finished by Sebastiano del Piombo) Vienna
5. Orpheus and Eurydice (cassone panel) Bergamo
6. The Sleeping Venus (landscape by Titian) Dresden
7. Fresco of Nude Woman, nearly effaced (1508), represented by Zanetti’s print Fondaco de’ Tedeschi
8. Judith (cut down at sides) Petrograd
9. His own Portrait (much cut down and damaged) Brunswick
10. Christ with his Cross Church of S. Rocco
11. The Concert (finished by Titian? or repainted in his manner?) Florence
Paintings probably by Giorgione. I accept these, but do not think the evidence demonstrative.
12–13. Stories of the Infant Paris (two cassone panels, E.) Sir Martin Conway, Allington Castle, Maidstone, England
14. The Fire Ordeal of Moses (door panel, E.) Florence
15. The Judgment of Solomon (door panel, E.) Florence
16. Christ bearing his Cross, E. Fenway Court, Boston.
17. Homage to a Poet, E. London
18. Portrait of a Young Man (possibly an early Titian) Berlin
19. Boy With an Arrow (old copy?) Vienna
20. Shepherd with a Flute Hampton Court
21. David with Goliath’s Head (copy? or ruined original?) Vienna
22. Altar-piece of St. John Chrysostom (mostly executed by Sebastiano del Piombo) S. Giovanni Crisostomo
23. The Pastoral Symphony (radically repainted in recent times.) Paris
24. Portrait of a Man New York
This list might still be extended by half a dozen numbers by including pictures which may represent lost originals by Giorgione, but here we are in a field too subjective for profitable discussion in a handbook.
Pictures generally ascribed to Giorgione, I think erroneously.
The Knight of Malta (probably a Titian about 1515) Florence
Portrait of Broccardo Budapest
Storm Calmed by St. Mark (probably a Palma) Venice
Judgment of Solomon (Hourticq plausibly regards as copy of lost fresco by Titian) Banks Coll., Kingston Lacy
Madonna with St. Antony and St. Roch (probably a Titian) Madrid
Portrait of a Woman Casino Borghese, Rome
The reason for excluding such works is their over-pathetic or over-dramatic quality. The argument applies especially to the Adulteress before Christ at Glasgow. Corroborative technical evidence against this group may be found in L. Venturi’s excellent monograph.
On the Venetian Renaissance in general we have the works cited at the head of Notes for Chapter VII and for biographies and lists D. V. Hadeln, new ed. Ridolfi, Le Maraviglie dell’ Arte, Berlin, 1914. A brief survey by the late Kenyon Cox, in Concerning Painting, New York, 1917, pp. 98–132, is valuable.
78. Titian. Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s The Life and Times of Titian, in 2 vols., London, 1881, is still the fullest repository of information. Georg Gronau’s popular but carefully done Titian, London and New York, 1904, takes account of later documentary discoveries. As a painter’s analysis of technical aims Charles Rickett’s Titian, London, 1910, is noteworthy. Nearly all of Titian’s works are published in Klassiker der Kunst, No. III, Stuttgart, 1906. Several newly discovered pictures are reproduced in the recent volumes, 1918–22, of the Burlington Magazine, Art in America, and Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst.
79. Titian’s Age. All the available material on this disputed matter is offered by Mr. Herbert Cook and Dr. George Gronau in a controversy printed as appendices to Cook’s Giorgione, London, 1907. The early evidence is very conflicting.
| Writing | in | 1557 | Dolce implies | Titian | was | born | about | 1489 |
| „ | „ | 1566–7 | Vasari | „ | „ | „ | „ | 1489 |
| „ | „ | 1564 | A Spanish Envoy | „ | „ | „ | 1474 | |
| „ | „ | 1567 | A Spanish Consul | „ | „ | „ | 1482 | |
| „ | „ | 1571 | Titian himself | „ | „ | „ | „ | 1477 |
| „ | „ | 1584 | Borghini | „ | „ | „ | „ | 1478–9 |
Writing in 1545 and 1548 Titian refers to his old age and disabilities (Cook, p. 141 note), expressions more natural if he was sixty-eight and seventy-one than they would be if he were only fifty-six and fifty-nine.
Mr. Cook’s theory that Titian and his Spanish official friends grossly exaggerated his age to secure prompter remittances from the Emperor seems to me gratuitous and flimsy. Dr. Gronau convinces me that neither Dolce nor Vasari can be regarded as serious witnesses. L. Hourticq in La Jeunesse de Titien, Paris, 1919, adds next to nothing to Cook in maintaining the later date for Titian’s birth.
The whole weight of evidence points to the fact that Titian told the broad truth about his age, perhaps, indulging in a round number. I am sure he was well over ninety when he described himself as ninety-five in the letter of 1571, and that he died all but a centenarian.
80. Pietro d’Achiardi, Sebastiano de Piombo, Roma, 1908.
81. Max von Boehn, Giorgione und Palma Vecchio, Leipzig, 1908.
82. Bernard Berenson, Lorenzo Lotto, London, 1905. Comprises also careful studies of Alvise Vivarini, Cima, Montagna and other Venetic painters. In The Study and Criticism of Italian Art, 3rd series, London, 1916, the superb Saint Justine of the Valsecchi Collection is rightly restored to Giovanni Bellini, l.c. p. 38 ff.
83. Correggio. The standard work, C. Ricci, Antonio Allegri da Coreggio, New York, 1896. A delightful critical study, T. Sturge Moore, Correggio, London and New York, 1906. The complete works in Klassiker der Kunst, No. XVII, Stuttgart.
A new and convincing view of Correggio’s date of birth and early development in Venturi, Storia, Vol. VII, pt. iii, pp. 1152 ff.
84. Evelyn March Phillipps, Tintoretto, London, 1911. Many of the extraordinary tempera sketches are reproduced in the Burlington Magazine for January and February, 1910. H. Thode, Tintoretto, Leipzig, 1901.
Many eloquent criticisms by Ruskin in Modern Painters and Stones of Venice (see indices) and in the Guide to the Academy at Venice, Library ed. Vol. XXIV.
85. Paolo Veronese. See Kenyon Cox’s masterly essay in Old Masters and New, New York.
86. G. B. Tiepolo. The standard work is by Pompeo Molmenti. G. B. Tiepolo, Milan, 1909.
87. G. A. Simonson. Francesco Guardi, London, 1905. Numerous additions by the same author in the Burlington Magazine for succeeding years.
On this period there is little available literature in English, but there are excellent sketches of most of the artists treated in this chapter in C. Ricci, Art in Northern Italy, New York, 1911.
A. Pératé in A. Michel, Histoire de l’Art, Vol. Vª, gives a fuller summary.
88. Caravaggio. W. Kallab, Austrian Jahrbuch, Vol. XXVI (1906), p. 272 ff., brief illustrated essay. Felix Witting, Michelangelo da Caravaggio, Strassburg, 1916.
89. Salvator Rosa. Lady Morgan, The Life and Times of Salvator Rosa, in two vols., Paris, 1824. Leandro Ozzola, Vita e opere di Salvator Rosa, Strassburg, 1908.
The passages translated in the text are from Bottari, Raccolta di lettere sulla Pittura &c., Vol. I, pp. 447, 450 f., Milan, 1822.
90. The Carracci. The fundamental source is Carlo Cesare Malvasia’s highly contentious and anecdotal work Felsina Pittrice; I have used the two volume edition, Milan, 1841.
Gabriel Rouchès, La Peinture Bolonaise à la Fin du XVIe Siècle, Paris, 1913, is the standard work on the Eclectic School. On the landscape of this school, which is highly important as preparatory to Claude and Poussin, Rouchès has two remarkable essays in Gazette des Beaux Arts, 5e période Tome, III. (Jan. and Feb. nos. 1921) pp. 7 ff., and 119 ff.
Hans Tietze, in Austrian Jahrbuch, Vol. XXVI (1906) p. 51 ff., Annibale Carracci’s Galerie im Palazzo Farnese und seine Römische Werkstätte—a very thorough and richly illustrated monograph on the Carracci, including such scholars as Francesco Albani, and Domenichino.
91. Guido Reni. Max von Boehn, Guido Reni, Leipzig, 1910, fully illustrated.
92. Domenichino. Luigi Serra, Domenico Zampieri detto Domenichino, Rome, 1909. Also Tietze’s article, above, note 3.