n > I u ;:'■■■' ''' I," *■■,-• • , . , , ;i ■ •,■■,• ■ -I. - .-.■A ,'i ■'. j .• ’.■.. ' ^ l li.-'-j. *,■. \ li :.'.< frhh:f .m ':'f. ':W< Mi':'',' V‘V, '^v.: .',;‘:‘il ,'Sv‘ S'# riy ■ . / V !■■■' ’ V*'':, ' Ite A -s, . ,1 1'' ’ • iSKitJ,?!!’! I,': 4 J *r THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET II Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 with funding from Getty Research Institute https://archive.org/details/artgeniusoftinto02osma British Museum^ Loudon STUDY IN TEMPERA FOR CHRIST’S CHARGE TO SAINT PETER THE ART AND GENIUS OE TINTORET BY F. P. B. OSMASTON VOLUME II LONDON G. BELL AND SONS, LTD. 1915 CHISWICK PRESS : CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. USRArtV* CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE List of Illustrations vii XIV. Improvisation i XV. Portraiture 14 XVI. The Ideal of Beauty 31 XVII. The Epic of the Sword 51 XVIII. The Wallet of Oblivion 64 XIX. Work in Advanced Age 76 XX. Il Paradiso 91 XXL The Drawings 119 Conclusion 132 APPENDIX I. Description of Drawings purchased by the British Museum IN 1907 155 APPENDIX II. List of Subject-Pictures or Frescoes mentioned by Ridolfi NOW LOST, OR INCAPABLE OF IDENTIFICATION . . . 165 Catalogue of Authentic Works by Tintoret in Public and Private Collections and Churches 177 Index 215 Remaining Plates to Volume II. i- LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS TO FACE PLATE PAGE Coloured Drawing of Christ’s Charge to St. Peter. London, British Museum ...... Frontispiece CV. The Magdalen in the Desert. Venice, Scuola di S. Rocco . 2 Photo Anderson. CVI. Mary in Egypt. Venice, Scuola di S. Rocco .... 3 Photo Anderson. evil. Narcissus. Rome, Colonna Gallery ...... 5 Photo Anderson. CVIII. Portrait of Man in Armour. Vienna, Imperial Gallery . 8 Photo J. Lowy. CIX. Portrait of Sansovino. Florence, Uffizi .... 8 Photo Alinari. CX. Portrait of Nicolo da Ponte. Vienna, Imperial Gallery . 16 Photo J. Lowy. CXI. Portrait OF Sebastiano Veniero. Vienna, Imperial Gallery . 16 Photo J. Lowy. CXI I. Portrait of Old Man and Boy. Vienna, Imperial Gallery . 18 Photo J. Lowy. CXIII. Portrait OF Marcantonio Barbaro. Vienna, Imperial Gallery 17 Photo J. Lowy. CXIV. Portrait of Man in Black. Vienna, Imperial Gallery . . 1 1 CXV. Portrait of Man unknown. Hampton Court . . . *19 CXVI. Portrait of Jacobo Soranzo. Milan, Museo Civico . . 12 Photo Anderson. CXVII. Portrait of a Procurator. Vienna, Academy ... 20 CXVIII. Portrait OF Luigi CoRNARO. Florence, Pitti Palace . . 22 Photo Alinari. CXIX. Portrait of Antonio Capello. Venice, Accademia. . . 23 Photo Naya. CXX. Portrait of Pietro Mocenigo. Paris, Louvre ... 23 Photo Alinari. CXXI. Portrait OF A Venetian Procurator. Gosford House . . 24 CXXII. Portrait of a Nobleman. Spain, Prado 25 vii Vlll LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE TO FACE PAGE CXXIII. S. Justin A and Tesorieri. Venice , Accademia . Photo Alinari. 26 CXXIV. Madonna, Child, S. Catherine and Patron. Dresden, Royal Gallery ......... 27 cxxv. Self-Portrait. Florence, Uffizi Photo Alinari. 29 CXXVI. Ecce Homo. Venice, Scuola di S. Rocco .... Photo Anderson. 32 CXXVIL Saint Jerome. Vienna, Imperial Gallery .... Photo J. Lowy. 34 CXXVIII. The Three Graces. 1578. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Anderson. 36 CXXIX. Adam and Eve. Venice, Accademia . ... Photo Anderson. 37 cxxx. Cain and Abel. Venice, Accademia ..... Photo Anderson. 37 CXXXI. Six Ladies with Musical Instruments. Dresden, Royal Gallery ......... Photo Brockmann. • 39 CXXXII. Rescue of Ladies by a Knight. Dresden, Imperial Gallery Photo Brockmann. 39 CXXXI II. Leda and the Swan. Florence, Pitti Palace 42 CXXXIV. Susannah and the Elders. Vienna, Imperial Gallery 44 cxxxv. Susannah and the Elders. Paris, Louvre .... Photo Alinari. 45 CXXXVI. The Nine Muses. Hampton Court 46 CXXXVII. Cleansing of the Women of Midian. Spain, Prado . 47 CXXXVIII. Pallas Driving away the God of War, 1578. Venice, Ducal Palace ......... Photo Anderson. 48 CXXXIX. The Defence of Brescia. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Anderson. 52 CXL. The Capture of Riva. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Anderson. 53 CXLI. FeDERIGO II DRIVES THE FRENCH UNDER LaNTREC FROM Pavia, 1522. Munich, Alte Pinakothek .... Photo F. Hanfstangl. 54 CXLII. Federigo I TAKES Legnano BY Storm. Munich, Alte Pina- kothek .......... Photo F. Hanfstangl. 56 CXLIII. Ludovigo is victorious on the Etsch over Venetians IN 1439. Munich, Alte Pinakothek ..... Photo F. Hanfstang- 1 . 57 PLATE CXLIV. CXLV. CXLVI. CXLVIL CXLVIII. CXLIX. CL. CLI. CLII. CLIII. CLIV. CLV. CLVI. CLVII. CLVIII. CLIX. CLX. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS TO FeDERIGO II DRIVES THE FRENCH FROM MiLAN BY NIGHT. Munich, AUe Pinakothek ....... Photo F. Hanfstangl. Federigo II TAKES Parma IN 1 52 1. Munich, Alte Pinakothek Photo F. Hanfstangl. Giovanni F. Gonzaga is appointed Margrave of Mantua BY Kaiser Sigismund. Munich, Alte Pinakothek Photo F. Hanfstangl. Giovanni Francesco II engages on the River Taro with Charles VIII. Munich, Alte Pinakothek .... Photo F. Hanfstangl. Entry of Philip II into Mantua in 1549. Munich, Alte Pinakothek .......... Photo F. Hanfstangl. The Death of S. Rocco. Venice, Church of S. Rocco Photo Naya. Battle Scene. Venice, Church of S. Rocco .... Photo Naya. S. Rocco IN Hospital. Venice, Church of S. Rocco Photo Naya. S. Rocco IN THE Desert. Venice, Church of S. Rocco . Photo Naya. The Pool of Bethesda. Venice, Church of S. Rocco Photo Anderson. Gethsemane. Venice, Scuola di S. Rocco .... Photo Anderson. SS. Andrew and Jerome. Venice, Ducal Palace . Photo Alinari. SS. Margaret, George and Louis of Toulouse. Venice, Ducal Palace ......... Photo Anderson. Madonna and Child, Saints, three Tesorieri, and their Secretaries. Venice, Accademia ..... Photo Anderson. Deposition. Detail. Venice, Ducal Palace .... Photo Anderson. The Resurrection. Venice, Ducal Palace .... Photo Anderson. Esther and Ahasuerus. Spain, Prado Esther and Ahasuerus. Hampton Court .... Legend of S. Catherine. Venice, S. Caterina Photo Alinari. ix FACE PAGE 58 58 60 60 61 70 72 74 67 76 76 77 78 79 83 83 80 II b X LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE TO FACE PAGE CLXI. Legend of S. Catherine. Venice, S. Caterina . Photo Alinari. 80 CLXII. The Ascension. Venice, II Redentore Photo Alinari. 81 CLXIII. The Stoning of Stephen. Venice, S. Giorgio Maggiore Photo Alinari. 88 CLXIV. The Manna in the Wilderness. Venice, S. Giorgio Maggiore Photo Alinari. 85 CLXV. Study for the Paradise. Paris, Louvre .... Photo Alinari. 92 CLXVI. Study for a Paradise. Liverpool, Walker Gallery 92 CLXVII. The Paradise. 1590. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Anderson. 93 CLXVIII. Detail of Christ and the Madonna. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Anderson. 99 CLXIX. Detail of S. John and Adam and Eve. Venice, Ducal Palace .......... Photo Naya. 100 CLXX. Detail of Moses. Venice, Ducal Palace .... Photo Naya. 100 CLXXI. Detail of David. Venice, Ducal Palace .... Photo Naya. lOI CLXXII. Detail of SS. Augustine and Monica. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Naya. Detail of the Magdalen. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Naya. 102 CLXXIII. Detail of S. Christopher and Rachel. Venice, Ducal Palace .......... Photo Naya. 102 CLXXIV. Detail of Angels in the Paradise. Venice, Ducal Palace Photo Naya. 1 12 CLXXV. Detail of Right Angel Choir. Venice, Ducal Palace Detail of Left Angel Choir. Venice, Ducal Palace. 113 CLXXVI. Study of an Assumption. (Drawing.) Vienna, Albertina Library .......... 121 CLXXVII. Study for Jacob Wrestling with the Angel. (Collotype.) London, British Museum ....... 124 CLXXVIII. Study FOR Unknown Subject. (Colour.) London, British Museum 127 CLXXIX. Study for a Crucifixion. Lucca (?) 124 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XI TO FACE PLATE PAGE CLXXX. Study for Christ’s Charge to S. Peter. (Drawing on blue paper.) London^ British Museum . . . .130 CLXXXI. Study for Miracle of the Slave. (Tempera.) London, British Museum . . . . . . . .128 CLXXXI I. Study for Temptation of S. Anthony. (Tempera.) London, British Museum . . . . . .129 CLXXXIII. Two Studies for Aurora and Tithonus(?). London, British Museum . . . . . . . .160 CLXXXIV. Study for Callisto and the Muses. (Tempera.) London, British Museum . . . . . .162 CLXXXV. Study for the Genius of War. (Tempera.) London, British Museum . . . . . . . .162 CLXXXVI. Drawing for Origin of the Milky Way. Venice, Acca- demta . . . . . . . . . .124 CLXXXVII. CLXXXVIII. CLXXXIX. CXC. CXCI. CXCII. CXCIII. CXCIV. cxcv. CXCVI. CXCVII. REMAINING PLATES TO VOL. II Legend of S. Catherine. Venice, S. Caterina. Photo Alinari. The Betrothal of S. Catherine. Venice, Ducal Palace. Photo Anderson. The Forge of Vulcan. 1578. Venice, Ducal Palace. Photo Anderson. Venus, Vulcan and Cupid. Florence, Pitti Palace. Photo Alinari. S. Marcilian with SS. Peter and Paul. Venice, S. Mar- ciliano. Photo Anderson. S. Mark presenting Doge Mocenigo to Christ. Venice, Ducal Palace. Photo Anderson. Portrait of Paolo Paruta. Venice, Ducal Palace. Photo Anderson. Portrait of Doge Alvise Mocenigo. Venice, Accademia. Photo Naya. Portrait of Vincenzo Zeno. Florence, Pitti Palace. Photo Alinari. Portrait of Ollario Grimani. 1560. Vienna, Academy. Portrait of Man Unknown, Paris, Louvre. Two Portraits of Men Unknown. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xii PLATES OF WORKS DOUBTFUL OR ENTIRELY UNAUTHENTIC PLATE CXCVIII. CXCIX. cc. CCI. CCII. CCIII. CCIV. ccv. Portrait of Jacobo Soranzo. Venice, Accademia. Photo Anderson. Portrait of Ves alius. Munich, Alte Pinakothek. Photo F. Hanfstangl. Portrait of Man with a Baton. By Titian. Munich, Alte Pinakothek, Photo F. Hanfstangl. Lucretia with a Dagger. Vienna, Imperial Gallery. Doge Gritti before the Virgin. Painted by Assistants. Venice, Ducal Palace. Photo Anderson. Christ in the House of Levi. A doubtful work. Spain, Escurial. Magdalen washing Christ’s Feet. A School Picture. Rome, Palazzo Corsini. Photo Alinari. Woman taken in Adultery. A doubtful Study. Rome, Palazzo Doria. Nobleman and Son. By Domenico Tintoretto. Munich, Alte Pinakothek. PuRGATORio. By Artist Unknown. Parma, Gallery. Madonna of the Rosary. By Domenico Tintoretto. Ferrara. A Deposition. Probably a Copy. Caen. Deposition. By Titian and Palma Giovine. Venice, Accademia. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET CHAPTER XIV IMPROVISATION »f Tintoret, and one which has by no means gone worked with three pencils, one of gold, one of silver, and one of lead. In a real sense that is true of every genuine artist, any artist at least who can claim any approach to genius. It is only mediocrity which can assert, with absolute complacency or without, the serene equality of the commonplace or impotent. The only question of importance is what we understand by the lead pencil when wielded by an artist of the natural gift of a Titian, a Tintoret, or a Turner. Are we contrasting such work by a criterion of quality which their own achievement, or that of men of something like the same calibre, supplies, and under which we adjudge the degree of their declension, or do we actually contend that in the work we epitomize with the figure of lead, as the feet of clay of a certain image, they fall on occasions, as wholly as any fallen angel completely shorn of his wings, into the uttermost depths of the abyss. If we do so I still preserve the fancy that, at least in the case of Tintoret, we may find not a few good reasons for a revision of the terms of our indictment. In the present chapter I shall mainly concern myself to explain how, in my judgment, not only upon the evidence of facts, but also in the light of a general principle, such a conclusion is untenable. During a recent perusal of a carefully considered review of Tintoret’s life-work in a prominent English journal ^ I came across the following * A long literary article in “The Times ” of 9 March 1911. The book mainly under review is the biography of Miss Phillipps. II B many, may be summarized in that oft-quoted 2 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET sentence : “ If Tintoret is not inspired by his subject he is the emptiest of painters, and deserves all that Reynolds says agfainst him and more.” And -with yet more emphasis a little further down : “ When he is bored with his task he seems to yawn in our faces, as in so many of those portraits which were painted apparently on the theory that pictures of dull men ought to look dull. He was certainly the most unflattering portrait painter who ever lived. He painted because he was asked to paint and had the itch for it. But he often proved that the Venetians were right when they said he had a pencil of lead.” He painted because “ he had the itch for it.” He did indeed, and I should be sorry to meet with the artist who did not, though I much fear, if we may judge from results, there are not a few who are without even that compelling stimulus. At least there can be no doubt as to this writer’s construction of our dictum. With him, and he is an admirable exponent of we might almost say the prevailing impression of this master’s life-work, the fall is nothing less than a veritable descensus Avc7'ni. It is not merely a case of the careless or less inspired work of a great artist, the Hoinerus dormitaus of occasion, the exaggerated mannerism of a Michelangelo, the coarseness of a Rembrandt as he soars with his Ganymede and falls very flat, if characteristically Rembrandt none the less, the ambition that overreaches itself and topples on the other side. It is rather that of an artist, who, craving to be doing something, no matter what, pitches his mantle into the ditch, and if he does not follow after, is at least content to tramp, minus his coat, in fraternal union with the beggar and his donkey. But whether the occasion be a suitable one for jesting or not our critic at any rate is no doubt entirely serious. And indeed the article as a whole is by no means consciously depreciative, but entirely admirable in many respects, characterized by personal knowledge of Tintoret’s work in Venice and elsewhere and an unequivocable admission of his extra- ordinary powers. At the same time the one fact that appears to have impressed this student in Tintoret’s art above everything else is its inequality. As might be anticipated he has his own theory to explain this fact. It may be readily summarized. Tintoret was first and foremost the master of what is here defined as “ improvised imagination.” Where the impulse of inspiration fails, he becomes a child, his guardian angel Plate CV Scuola di S. Rocco, Venice THE MAGDALEN IN THE DESERT . T V % r Plate CVI Scttola di S. Kocco, Venice MARY IN EGYPT IMPROVISATION 3 departs, and being himself fundamentally sincere (the child of genius, in short, without the wings) he attempts no compromise, so that if any particular subject does not appeal to him, or any particular personality, he presents us with the mirror of his boredom, or the commonplace of his sitter, wholly naked and unashamed. It is an ingenious theory. And what is more this theorist is quite eager to point out the advantages of such a personal artistic attitude, with its swiftness of inspired intuition, if we compare it with a power far more invariably dependent on carefully encogitated design of the more academical type which tends to grow cold, or lose its pregnant relation to life in its elaboration. He chatters no doubt as thoughtlessly as Sir Joshua, whom he probably follows, where he refers to the “blind bustling crowd ” at the foot of the Cross in the S. Rocco Crucifixion, But whatever may be the truth of the “bustle ” he does realize that the scene is intensely vital and vivid, a genuine moment of life arrested, which continues to hold the attention as such, and that compared with it the pose of the Madonna and the gesticulating crowd beneath her in Titian’s Assunta are like the carefully arranged dispositions of an artist’s model fossilized in marble, fixed for ever, as he says, in unreal postures of monumental brass. This is a conviction which betrays clear critical insight. His appre- ciation of the Visitation in the S. Rocco Scuola, the pictures of which school appear to be the main basis of this critic’s own study, in so far as that study is at all convincing or marked with real penetration, is even finer and more intimate in its expression and observation. Have we then anything of importance to urge either against this theory, or the view of the facts which has originated it? I think myself there is a very great deal not merely to urge, but at some length to expound. Now, in the first place, the art of a great painter does not only assert its appeal to our interest through the character of its design, or the qualities of its colour, but also in virtue of the specific executive power of the artist to place such appearances before our vision. It will be necessary to consider this theory of improvised imagination from both of these points of view. There are certain facts relative to this art, or the attitude of the painter towards them, which may be admitted, nor, in the examination of 4 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET the truth or insufficiency of the above theory as an exhaustive account of this art, is it of any importance to deny them. Tintoret was, as all the most famous artists of the world have ever been, profoundly influenced by the inspiration of the subject immediately on hand. And more than this he belongs to that type of creative artist who, with Aeschylus, Dante, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven and Blake, are in this respect most influenced, rather than to the type where we find supreme executive power, directed to the completion of the art-product as a work of consummate perfection and beauty addressed to our aesthetic sense, is in comparison the factor most predominant in the impulse of its creation, a type of art sufficiently indicated by that of Sophocles, Virgil, Bellini, Andrea del Sarto, Raphael, Titian, in his first two periods, Leonardo, Milton, Racine, Mozart, or that of Tennyson, to take a recent example. And one of the fundamental features of the difference maintained between these two broadly generalized types of artistic creation is this very in- equality in the executive achievement of any master who clearly is included in the first type as compared with that of any of the other. I do not mean to assert that all artists, even of the highest rank, can with certainty be enrolled on the one side or the other. But as types of artistic production the classification is of real value as expressing one dominant impression of the attitude of the master to his work and the effect of that attitude upon his work. And precisely in the sense that the inequality of the art-result in the ninth symphony of Beethoven may be admitted if we compare it as a consummate organic whole with the B minor symphony of Mozart, I discover the inequality of such a work as the Paradise of Tintoret, when set side by side under a similar comparison with the Cenacolo of Leonardo, the Cartoons of Raphael, or the Bacchus and Ai'iadne of Titian. The parallel will, I may perhaps anticipate, be disputed, and by no one with more emphasis than our present theorist. I shall be reminded that if we know one fact more certain than any other in respect to the masterpieces of Beethoven it is that the essential design, if we may thus characterize the themes and their co-ordination in such work, was pre- viously evolved from often most commonplace fragments under a process of reconstruction which had appeared almost incredible in a man of such original genius if we did not discover the fact unfolded in his own extant s Plate CVII NARCISSUS AT THE FOUNTAIN IMPROVISATION 5 notebooks. The contention, however, is that such an elaboration of design was wholly foreign to Tintoret’s method of composition, or rather where we do find any such preparatory studies they resemble repeated improvisation rather than an organic growth. Let us look a little more closely at the facts. We will, to start with, take a glance at the extreme case of the decorations for the Scuola di San Rocco, from which our critic almost exclusively draws his illustrations, and no doubt with reason so far as the plausibility of his theory is concerned, if not the truth of it. Do the studies we actually possess for the work of this School support by a fraction the contention that the main portion of this work at least was conceived and finally composed under any mode that differs essentially from that adopted by the schools of Titian or Veronese? It points in precisely the opposite direction. The oil-study for the Adoration of the Magi^ now in the possession of the Earl of Wemyss, is a carefully thought out and admirably executed work precisely — I was going to say as any extant oil-study of Titian might be — but I cannot recollect a single one, though Mr. Ricketts, I believe, is of the opinion, I know not on what evidence, that Rubens once possessed such a one of the Battle of Cadore. The two other more rapid oil-studies,^ here more truly to be described as improvisations, I have myself actually seen for the Slaughter of the Innocents and the Last Supper^^ do not differ in any respect, unless it be in the superb quality of Tintoret’s brushwork, from any other example in which a master of oil-painting will seek to realize his original conception of an important work. And as is often the case with other masters the variations are rather in the completed work of the nature of more com- plete realization than the addition of any important new features. Are we to suppose that a master should think it worth his while to make a tentative effort upon such an apparent illustration of improvised * Thode includes in his List a study for the Resicrrection in the Hermitage Collection at St. Petersburg. I know nothing further as to this. ^ The first of these I saw on one occasion in the Brera Gallery, but could not find it on two later visits. It was certainly authentic. The second is in the Academy of Madrid (No. 503). I have no doubt as to that either. The drawings in the Albertina Museum, Vienna, which refer to this School, are all copies; but there is a drawing in the British Museum which may be Tintoret’s and may be related to The Slaughter of the Innocents. The oil-study of the Crucifixion at Munich is at least related to the S. Rocco picture. There is a further oil-study, I believe, for one of the pictures in the Church. 6 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET inspiration as the Slaughter of the Innocents^ or upon such a comparatively inferior work as the Last Supper in this School, and do nothing of a similar, or rather far more important character by way of preparatory study, for the two most important pictures in the Refectory, not to mention a number of others of equal or even greater importance than one of them. The idea is absurd, and indeed contrary to all we know about this master’s methods. In the case of The Crucifixion it is, if possible, more absurd than such a belief would be in relation to any portion of Tintoret’s achievement before or after, whether we held it true of the Miracle of the Slave or the Temptation of St. Anthony., where it is demonstrably false, or of The Cana Marriage or The Gathering of Manna in the S. Giorgio Maggiore Church, where it is almost as inconceivable though not demonstrably so.^ As I have already sought to prove to demonstration this Crucifixion, in its harmonious and elaborate design, absolutely presupposes, no matter what the nature of the gift of the creator might be, a careful co-ordination of the component parts which involved a labour probably greater than Titian ever bestowed on this aspect of any composition produced by him. But I go a step further. I maintain that so far as all that work is con- cerned, upon which the assured fame of Tintoret is based, it is neither more or less an improvisation than are the most famous works of Velasquez or Rembrandt, whether it be the Las Hilanderas or the Capitulation of Braga of the one, or any of the noble religious works of the other in the Munich Royal Gallery or elsewhere. The execution may in certain cases be more rapid, but even on that point dogmatism is extremely hazardous in the case of these three masters. Our critic is of course entitled to his opinion that the Paradise in its final result is a purely mechanical result, as contrasted with the brilliant ' I say almost because it is obvious that in the case of Tintoret, as also in that of Titian, in later life preparatory studies were less resorted to. Nor do I deny that there are cases in which Tintoret would not merely appear, as we are told Veronese often did, to work out his design on the final canvas only, but also painted even the final effect exclusively alia prima. What exactly his method was in this school is a very difficult question. Personally I think he combined several methods. Such a picture as the Mary m Egypt certainly appears to be painted straight away on the canvas as we now see it or ought to see it. In others even assuming that the medium throughout, or with rare excep- tions, was not oil, the method was not so direct, but was built upon a tempera basis or one that corresponded to his more usual method. IMPROVISATION 7 improvisation of the Louvre. There have indeed been many artists, of high rank too, who would have been thankful to have produced in their final work the same vitality, beauty of colour, and even actual variety of expression as this improvisation, or rather this carefully worked out original conception. But at least our admirer of this work must admit that Tintoret was not so content, that he painted this picture with a deliberate purpose, and it was not to secure finally the beauty of a brilliant impro- visation. What that something was is depicted, it is true, with scarce a vestige of the beauty of the final work, whereof we possess the “bare ruined choirs” in the Ducal Palace masterpiece, yet already essentially in the Prado replica, and in one word it is a profounder penetration into the ideality of his subject. A great many people no doubt prefer pretty pictures, and the Louvre work is not merely pretty, but glorious. A great many critics prefer superlative brush-work, and again the brush-work of the Louvre picture is superlative, and almost as fresh as when it was laid on. Much of that on the Pai'adise^ even before human neglect had suffered the soilure of centuries to devour it, was, to a considerable degree, the brush-work of a man of prodigious power, but of an old man tasked even beyond his recuperative energies. But neither brush-work nor indeed artistic beauty were the inspiring aim of the creator of this picture. For we have here the genius of Tintoret unleashed after a quarry that was nothing less than the flight of Dante himself, in so far as such a flight could be transferred to the painted canvas. It would be well if we could arrive at some common understanding of the meaning of this expression “ improvisation.” Great works of art do not grow up without long maturing roots like some fairy bean-stalk. We are too ready to assume that thoughtless or merely rapid execution, and such execution as we find in this S. Rocco Flight into Egypt or its Temptation, or in the background of such a picture as Mr. Crawshay’s Adam and Eve, or the Narcissus of the Colonna Gallery, are one and the same thing. But as Ruskin insisted to the point of weariness they are not only different, they are opposed extremes. The latter is inseparable from deliberate intention throughout, an exact knowledge of natural detail and an indefatigable study, which, in all the most famous examples of it, follows wholly traditional lines. It is only possible in the greatest men, and only to them at their meridian of artistic experience, or only when 8 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET they have acquired through such labour a power to represent the abstract of such knowledge which unveils its most characteristic and ideal quality. Without such stores of memory the invention, as Reynolds points out truly enough, is helpless. Without materials there can be no novel com- bination. The landscapes of Tintoret are perhaps the most obvious illustration, but his treatment of the human form displays of course a far profounder knowledge. We have only to contrast his virtuosity in this respect with that of Rembrandt, whose strength does not lie so much in this direction, I refer of course to those cases where he has not the model before his eyes. Yet Rembrandt was an artist with an almost miraculous memory for everything important to his art, resembling even Turner in this respect. The truth is that in the presence of such knowledge of characteristic detail as we find in the works of Tintoret, when he is not actually intent upon a purely decorative effect, it is difficult to discover a common ground upon which to discuss at all such a question either with critics who refer generally, with no intentional disparagement, to his exclusive absorption in an improvised effect under the wholly undefined and compulsive afflatus of his genius, or with those who are condescend- ing enough with Mr. Ricketts to make him a present of “occasional flashes. ” We may well ask, are then such pictures as we possess in our National Collection, or the Cana Marriage^ or the finest Cenacoli and Depositions not comparable on entirely equal terms, as carefully designed and finished works of art, with all, or any of the Venetian School? Does the excellence, in its illustration of consummate oil-painting, which fascinates us in three at least of the famous quatrain, fall one whit below the quality so remarkable in the Bacchus and Ariadne of Titian? Or, finally, are the eight superb historical scenes in the Munich Gallery less carefully designed creations than was the once famous Battle of Cadore painted by the distinguished rival? And in every one of these cases, however our vote of preference may be cast, at least it must be conceded that the rivalry is a real one in the same field. The contention is no doubt that the natural impulse is in the opposite direction. Let us assume it to be so, the marvel is all the greater that this master not only submitted himself to the methodical course of self-education which he did, that he not merely asserted throughout his life an almost incomparable power of Plate CVIII Imperial Gallery^ Vienna A MAN IN ARMOl’R Plate CIX Uffizi, Flaence SANSOVINO IMPROVISATION 9 grappling with a host of subjects in a manner, which, if open to criticism in some respects, did at least stamp upon them the hall-mark of his genius and extraordinary executive ability, but further retained in unabated strength his capacity on momentous occasions to compose and execute that rara avis, which was not only an absolute expression of idea, but in its execution is consummate in the supreme sense we attribute it to the greatest and only the greatest. Is there a parallel in the entire history of European art to an artist capable of painting during the same period of time such a ceiling as that in the S. Rocco Scuola Upper Hall and the four pictures in the Anti- Collegio Sala of the Ducal Palace? And one of the last, if not the last picture Tintoret painted was the Deposition of the Mortuary Chapel of the S. Giorgio Maggiore Church, which is, if not a more beautiful, very possibly a greater work than any of them. Such powers, as we should expect, were not always under control. It is pretty clear that in the later portion of his life more work was accepted than any single human hand or intellect could grapple with adequately alone. Only let us first make sure we have realized what is actually implied in the power, as represented in the legacy of the work which still remains, before we attempt to estimate its possibilities of declension, or subscribe to the theory of a Pegasus shorn of his pinions, a master bored to death by his sitters, reduced to inanition like some boa- constrictor by the dull-eyed oxen engulfed in its own voracity. In truth the problem of Tintoret’s portraits is even more the rock of misunderstanding and shipwreck to all rational criticism than the impro- vised inspiration theory deduced from his work on the Scuola di San Rocco. In that palace we are at any rate face to face with the hand of the master, though his work may be tarnished and stained with the dust of three centuries. But in the matter of portraiture, by general admission a part of his production into which he rarely threw all his power or artistic interest, in the sense at least that the most famous portrait painters have done so, a part too not unfrequently utilized as some replenishment of the domestic exchequer, or an act of courtesy to a friend or a distinguished stranger — who shall stay the list of anything and everything ambition, tradition or the cupidity of the collector may seek to foist upon the II c lO THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET benevolence or lethargy of such a master? There is one and only one barrier to this flood that I know of, and that is the fact that the hand which painted the portraits of Tintoret is that of Jacobo Robusti. Some years ago now I once expressed the opinion that at least in a case or two inferior work shovelled on the back of that very insufficiently understood painter Domenico Robusti might after all be the work of the father executed on a dull day, or in a reluctant temper. Few indeed are aware, Ruskin most certainly was not, of the more than average work which in certain examples we can only attribute to Domenico.^ But a wider knowledge of Tintoret’s finest and most indubitable achievement in portraiture, no less than a more careful consideration of what is implied in that work as well as other work, makes recantation inevitable. The hands of Esau or Jacob remain their own to the end, and if the father had painted in his sleep from the mere “itch of it,” the result could never be mistaken for the work of his son, provided we were really permitted to see what he did paint. Tintoret was no ordinary craftsman; he was, if I may use the expression, one of Nature’s own craftsmen. He was not an artist like his son, and many far more gifted, Alma Tadema, who has just taken his place along with him, is an example of one of the most accomplished of the type, Courbet is another, with hundreds of inferior skill, and all our modern Germans, except, let us say, a Lenbach, men whose technique and brush-work have been slowly elaborated with practice, and a certain natural ability no doubt in its degree, into the facility and power of executive achievement finally secured. He was one of the rare class of which Velasquez is the supreme example among the Spaniards, Rembrandt and still more emphatically Franz Hals among the Dutch, and Etty, but again still more pre-eminently Gainsborough in the English school, whose brushwork is to a quite exceptional degree characterized by qualities of decision or rather a certain natural virtuosity and inevitableness. This supreme power of the mere “art of painting” both in Gainsborough and Tintoret has been well emphasized by Ruskin ^ and others. I merely Such pictures as the Nobleman and Son in the Munich Gallery, the Crucifixion in the S. Trovaso Church, the Coronation of the Rosary at Bologna, or the fine Immaculate Conception at Stuttgart, wrongly attributed to Tintoret by Thode. ^ See “Modern Painters,” vol. ii. Prep. XX, also E. M. Phillipps, “Tintoretto,” P- 145- •1 i! K t d Plate CXIV Imperial Galleiy, Vienna MAN IN BLACK DATED 1553 IMPROVISATION 1 1 mention it here in virtue of the important corollary which I hold to follow from it in connection with this problem of Tintoret’s portraiture. And it is this, that where we are estimating" possible work of a master of the brush in the sense these supreme executants were such, we may possibly have to allow for failure or neglig'ence in many ways, haste, bad drawing, crudeness, absence of the more subtle gradations of pictorial effect, all this and more is not absolutely impossible, but at least we cannot have tentative timidity, sloppy and fussy work, the niggling touch, and in a word absence of all distinction. This fact alone is sufficient to sweep aside a host of portraits, not merely those of private collections, but all but the rare exceptions in Venice. Beethoven may be out of sorts or in ill-humour with his company, but you will never mistake his hand on the piano for that of the average executant though he miss every one of his octaves. Few, if indeed any biographers of Tintoret, have faced this truth with the necessary courage. It is little less than amazing what hopelessly commonplace work even careful students, Thode for example, will include in the list of his works. I do not mean by this to imply that decision in particular cases is either so straightforward or simple as in the parallel ones of Beethoven or Gainsborough. But it is not the principle which is here at fault, it is rather the difficulty experienced in applying it to specific examples. Pictures painted over three centuries ago, even where they have escaped the entire or partial veil of the restorer, may be obscured by neglect out of recognition. And this is not the only difficulty. Tintoret, here too like Rembrandt in a great portion of his portraiture, did not only paint portraits in which the power and rapid decision of his brushwork is the feature most prominent ; he also painted them with exceptional care and deliberation. The Mocenigo portrait of the Louvre, where the ring on the senator’s hand might have been painted by Titian, or the Mafi in Black at Vienna, or the Jacobo Sansovino in the Uffizi, are all examples of this more elaborate technique. It is indeed a comparatively easy task to detect an inferior hand where it strives to imitate rapidity and brilliance of brushwork and only secures hardness of line or aimless recklessness, and many an attributed portrait reveals itself as such in the wooden flatness of its accessories due to this cause. It is more difficult to distinguish the work of a genuine THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET I 2 artist, who seeks to complete his own work conscientiously and with real ability, and is mainly, it may even be unconsciously, influenced by Tintoret in certain features of his more careful style and the general spirit. Such cases are just the ones in which the question of possible restoration still further complicates the issue. The portrait supposed to be that of Titian formerly in the Stafford House Collection, is, I myself should say, quite certainly not a work of Tintoret ; but there are difficulties in connection with it which are much the same that confront us with reference to several in the Uflfizi, where the general type of the master is yet more strongly reproduced. The fine portrait of an Admiral in Lord Barrymore’s collection tends on the other hand to provoke a more favourable verdict. Yet this too lies outside the range of the wholly convincing work, though not by any means for the reason that the work is either timid or undistinguished. The doubt is still greater in such a more disputable example as The Lady in Mourning of the Dresden Gallery. Ridolfi, with an idea apparently that he thereby exalts his hero, gives us a long list of notables of all classes who, he assures us, flocked to this studio. And modern biographers as a rule assume that because Tintoret could “knock off” a portrait at a sitting or two he must have thus disposed of hundreds. The imagination of one of these writers is even pathetically eloquent over the crowd of the unknown locked up in palaces and castles of Spain. We may reply to such effusions categorically that if this painter ever was responsible for such a regiment of irregulars they have vanished or are painted over absolutely. For myself I regard all such surmises as mere moonshine. No doubt many portraits were painted with great ease and rapidity, some few of them even with an alia prima technique not very different from that of a Franz Hals. We can affirm this owing to the simple fact that extant examples exist, but they are also the easiest of all to identify. His Jacobo Soranzo of the Milan Museum and several of the Vienna examples are “knocked off,” or, as I should say, “flashed on,” in precisely this fashion. But the “ knocking off” or “flashing on” in such examples, only too few I regret to say, is of a type that only an Alfred Stevens in our English School could even have approached. The truth is that the number of extant examples that possess any Plate CXVI Museo Publico, Milan JACOBO SORANZO IMPROVISATION 13 conceivable claim to be either in part or wholly Tintoret’s work has been much exaggerated. He painted in his time a great many, no doubt, a great many too many for the best interest of his reputation, but where either haste or carelessness was a marked feature they were not qualities likely to assist their preservation. For myself, after careful consideration of the lists of others, and the kind of average I accept from such lists, where personal inspection has been possible, together with a general review of all I have seen in private or public collections, I am convinced that the number of portraits now extant in Europe that possess any conceivable claim to be from this master’s hand are well under two hundred.^ We may have a substantial margin over the authentic portraits of Titian, at one time almost exclu- sively a portrait painter, but even in quantity the work of the two men is at least comparable. I doubt myself whether Tintoret could ever have been par excellence the portrait painter most in vogue in Venice as Ridolfi would have us believe. He was far too busy in other ways, and far too disinclined to make pictures of people who did not really interest him. At the same time during a part of his lifetime he may have been driven to it in some measure by economical necessity. But whatever may have been the extent of his former profusion, in order to learn what the nature of it was, and the general criterion by which we have to test such comparatively few examples that remain, we should first examine his work in this direction now at Vienna, and only quite at the end of our travels review, and for the most part exclude, what still passes under his name in the city that so readily parted with what was most precious in this respect, and retained instead the mere shadow of an impotent imitation. ‘ See note to Catalogue for a general review of this question. CHAPTER XV PORTRAITURE T he Imperial Gallery and the Academy in Vienna, and we should add the Albertina Library, contain works of art of surprising interest to the student of Tintoret. The official catalogues also afford exceptional assistance in the task of separating authentic from spurious work. Our conclusions may not always completely coincide with results, but here at least, as indeed is the case in most German galleries, the process is conscientiously attempted to remove really authentic ex- amples from such as can only claim to be from the brush of Domenico, or indefinitely from the Venetian school. It would be strange indeed if in such a collection as this of the Imperial Gallery some such process had not been commenced. To take the portraits alone we may find examples of almost every possible grade of Tintoresque style from the most dis- tinguished to the most debased. But, as is generally the case, we shall find, not merely in respect of portraits, but also in the application of this process to other works, the courage of the official guide is inclined to droop before examples where the faintest shadow of plausibility remains. The quite impossible Apollo and the Muses, whether regarded as restored or unrestored, is still accepted as genuine. The Lucretia tvith the Dagger p though most certainly not a Titian, like the Lady in Mourning of the Dresden Gallery, only at a still greater distance, approaches so far more nearly to Veronese, or his school, that an acceptance of it, or indeed either, is impossible. No doubt in a few genuine pictures, the Narcissus in the Colonna Gallery, or in the Assumption of the Gesuiti Church in Venice, we can detect marked traces of this approach, but they are far more clearly grafted on Tintoret’s more characteristic manner. Even the acceptance of such a work as the Hercules and the Faun can only be ‘ No. 234. The i". Rocco in Heaven in the Scuola was of course a deliberate approach. The Colonna picture, if there was any doubt about the figure, is absolutely authenticated by the landscape. PORTRAITURE 15 endorsed subject to the conviction that there has been very considerable restoration. The faces of the women in particular are certainly not as Tintoret left them. The Finding of Moses is, on the other hand, so closely related in parts of its technique to The Women of Midtan in the Prado that I think its authenticity quite possible in the greater portion of it, though Domenico probably assisted in a work which was never of great importance. The painting of the basket and the drapery is much more like the father, and I think the design of the princess, including the beauty of her hair and her pose, is beyond the reach of Domenico. The certainly authentic picture of Mr. Leslie, unfinished and in tempera, and entirely differently composed, would be of a later date, not far in fact from that of the beautiful Diana, also unfinished, which belonged to Ruskin. The Depositions^ though varying from the picture in the Venetian Academy, is clearly the work of a copyist, or, but much less probably, a wholly repainted picture. It is an inferior production as we find it altogether. Against these unfortunate losses to our catalogue we have one correction of supreme value to credit on the other side, for the S. Jerome here attributed to Palma Giovine, can only conceivably be from the hand of Tintoret. In the refinement of its colour, the intellectual strength of the design, the superb character of the nude, not to mention the majesty of the lion and the tender landscape, such an attribution is quite im- possible. No doubt Palma painted better pictures than those in the immediate vicinity of this grand work, which not merely hang in pathetic contrast to its distinction, but belong to another province of art altogether. But in all the work I have ever seen of Palma I know of only two pictures which even approach it,^ and then only sufficiently to show how far the design of such a work as this S. Jerome^ in its combination of intellectual force and chaste severity with exquisite tenderness of colour, is quite beyond the reach of such a painter. It is possible that most people will regard the Susannah and the Elders ^ in this Gallery, with its lovely garden view, its unique supremacy over the ideal aspect of the subject, if we ' No. 252. Thode retains it quite impossibly. ’ The one is the Deposition in the II Redentore Church. The other is the Tobit and the Angel in the Gesuiti Church, both in Venice. " See Plate CXXVII. See Plate CXXXIV. i6 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET contrast the composition, as I shall do in another chapter,^ with that of other famous masters, a beauty which grows the more it is studied, in its harmony of romance and delicacy as Tintoret’s highest achievement in this collection. Without estimating the measure of achievement the S. Jerome is for myself the more precious picture. It appears to have gripped the core of the artist himself. It asserts the supremacy of Tintoret’s art where its nobility and excellence is most assured precisely as the S. Jerome in the Brera asserts that of Titian. It is useless and unnecessary to compare such works to the advantage or disadvantage of either. They express the high water mark of the Venetian school, and are incomparable in their own particular types of excellence. But our immediate quest is that of the portraits. The galleries named make together a fine show of them. In these two collections we find about twenty examples of certain authenticity, and several of the finest quality. It is, with hardly an exception, perfectly easy to separate all from spurious work. Starting with the Academy we find as genuine examples the portraits of The Doge Priuli, A Procurator of S. Mark^ Ollario Grimani^ Thomas Mocenigo, Eduardo Mocenigo^ and two of a Contarini^"^ With, other portraits not by his hand. All the above examples are stamped with the vitality and decision we expect from such a master. The colour is throughout glowing and rich, more especially in that fine portrait. No. 13, and also in Nos. 8 and 21. Every touch is defined with intention. The painting of the eyes and beard in No. 8, or of the hands in No. 32, call for special attention. In No. 47 the hand painting is too slight. From the work here, but it is illustrated also in other portraits, not only in the work of the Gallery we shall consider next, we infer that it was the general rule of Tintoret to paint his lights upon an underpaint of fairly solid impasto sometimes of a greenish gray, but in other cases more nearly resembling the flesh tint, and with clean brush strokes.^ The head of the Procurator^ here, in some respects the most masterly of this collec- tion, in the vividness of these delicately modulated flashes of paint across ’ In that on “ the Ideal of Beauty.” * That is Nos. 34, 21, 32, 47, 7, 13, and 8, in the order of the text. The catalogue of 1910. ® This, of course, refers to the type of the more open technique. In such a portrait as that of Sansovino it is, of course, far more elaborate. " See Plate CXVII. Plate CX Imperial Gallery, Vienna N I COLO DA PONTE Plate CXI Impei'ial Gallery, Vienna SEBASTIANO VENIERO a A 1 *^ : :ri to.’"' V »V \ % “ - % Pi .ATE CXIII Impei-ia! Gallery, Vienna MARCANTONIO BARBARO PORTRAITURE 17 the forehead and face, is reminiscent of the technique of Hals. But all these portraits, though none of them great, are admirable examples of penetrating and masculine characterization and masterly execution.^ The works of the Imperial Gallery are even more instructive. Here the contrast between the wretched stuff that aspires to some appearance of Tintoret’s manner and his actual work is not only well illustrated in particular examples, but there are two portraits of a celebrity of his time, the Doge Nicolo da Ponte, that is to say a quite exceptionally fine one by Tintoret himself,^ which can only be viewed by special permit in the student’s gallery, and the other, clearly the work of a copyist based upon it in the principal gallery, which Thode not merely accepts, but actually reproduces in his book. It would be hardly possible to find more pertinent material by way of showing the kind of quality and distinction which disappears under such a process, though this copy is by no means of the inferiority of many works attributed to Tintoret even in famous galleries. Some of the finest heads in this gallery are of unknown persons. No. 242 is an excellent example. For pure quality of painting it is hardly with a rival among them all, and how the blue eyes glisten ! Here is the portrait of The Admiral Sebastiano Veniero,^ that famous hero of the battle of Lepanto. He stands before us in full armour, his baton in hand, a strong and indomitable face, the idol of his folk, and much admired no doubt by the patriotic artist. He associates with him the great sea-fight in the background. Hardly less important is that of Marcantonio Barbarod The costume is splendidly painted, and for once in a way the hands are completely finished. The Portrait of an Old Man and a Boy ® is a favourite of biographies of this master. The painting of the beard supplies a much ' The reference of Miss Phillipps to these portraits is only intelligible on the supposi- tion her information is second-hand (p. 131). It is a pity not always to mention authority in such cases, even though the folly of the same be thereby exposed. Her statements about “ dull lifelessness ” and Domenico are of course pure nonsense. " Plate CX. ’ Plate CXI. ^ No. 224, Plate CXIII. Thode (p. 80) refers to other portraits of admirals in the Schloss of Dessau and in Lord Rosebery’s collection. I have not seen either. That in Lord Barrymore’s possession I think at least possible. It is a fine picture. The one which Thode accepts in the Giovanelli Palace is not authentic in my opinion, if we mean the same picture. “ Plate CXI I. II D i8 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET required corrective to those who talk about the “flossy” beards of Tintoret. Titian may tend to flossiness; the tendency of Tintoret is in the opposite direction, namely, to articulate distinction; and though he makes no attempt to emulate the miracles of Diirer, in his best portraits he paints the hair in detail sufficiently to define its characteristic lines. The gray green ground, above referred to, is very conspicuous in this portrait. The portrait of A Man in Armour^ and The Man in Black^^ a more romantic impersonation than we generally meet with in this master’s portraits, are both noble works. The modelling of the ear, and the way the beard is painted in the latter are exceptionally fine. In connection with this portrait I would like to say a few words upon the distinguished but disputed portrait in the Hampton Court collection,® described in the Charles I catalogue as “ A man’s picture, as big as life, to the knees, in a black habit and a little ruff, his left hand at his side, the other leaning on a table. . . . One of Tintorreto’s best works, taken for Titian.” Mr. Ricketts, not without some qualms, has accepted this as a Titian, and included a reproduction. Mr. Claude Phillipps retains apparently the catalogue attribution. The difficulty appears to be this. That the artist who painted this fine and dignified presentment should be no other than the one who painted this portrait in Vienna, and one or two others I could mention, appears a reasonable conclusion on the face of it. Any contrast of technique between the two is incomparably less than that between it and the incontestable work of Titian in the same room, the superb portrait of A llessandro de Medici^ though Titian may also approach it more closely in the Louvre or elsewhere. There is, however, a date on this picture, as there is also one on the Vienna picture. It is Anno XXV. 1545. On the other we have M D L III. Anno XXXV. In 1545, according to the generally accepted date of birth, Tintoret would have been only twenty-seven years of age and Titian sixty-seven or sixty-eight. Such a portrait of Tintoret painted during the period in which he painted his Last Judgment is not inconceivable, but it certainly adds very much to the difficulty. On the other hand, such a portrait for Titian in the last decade of his middle period does not appear to me to improve the prospects of that attribution, and I do not see how the temerity of Mr. Ricketts in ‘ Plate CVIII. " Plate CXIV. * Plate CXV. Plate CXI I Imperial Gallery, Vienna OLD MAN AND BOV Plate CXV Hampton Court, England A MAN UNKNOWN DATED 1545 PORTRAITURE 19 putting that date on three years improves his case. In my opinion it rather weakens it, but if we may alter at all we may as well erase altogether, and then my vote is certainly plumped for Tintoret. As it is, though I adhere to the catalogue, I admit there are serious difficulties in such a portrait as this, where the claims of both masters to the work are obviously open to real defence.^ There is a further rather interesting point in connection with the Vienna date. That date on the face of it would appear to record the age of the sitter. But if so it is a curious coincidence that assuming Tintoret’s birth to be 1518, it records the age of the painter himself. In these Vienna portraits we have masterly execution and character- ization, but none of them attains to the finest work of Titian either in psychological interest, or in the completeness of the repose and unity of the pictorial effect. Even in the Marcantonio Barbara traces of carelessness are not wholly absent. But they are the carelessness of a master, not the evidence of technical incapacity. And what this difference implies could hardly be better illustrated than in a picture of Tintoret in the Dresden Gallery which contains a portrait of a patron. It is entitled A Holy Family^ with S. Catherine and a Patron in adoration.^ This picture appears to have been painted in a morning’s work, if we accept a little further elaboration of the faces, and mainly that of the patron. Here we have the full power of this master’s brushwork, the supreme assurance of knowing exactly what he wants to do, a kind of work which is the despair of the copyist.^ But there is something crude in the result. A religious picture inspiring us with a sense of grace, tranquillity and mystery is not to be “flashed on” in this fashion. The patron’s expression is noble, but it ' Thode is no assistance, as all he knows of this collection is portraits generally. Miss Phillipps rejects it, but accepts The Knight of Malta^ which in my opinion is a school picture. I cannot make out whether Berenson accepts it or not. He may refer to the, as 1 think, spurious Portrait of a Man (i'? 4 ), but not very likely. ^ No. 267, Plate CXXIV. ^ A German artist, of considerable experience as a copyist and a painter of independent work, copied this picture for me. The result was merely painful beyond all belief. There was nothing he could firmly seize upon outside the masterful manner, and that was as much beyond him as on the first day he laid a brush to canvas. I may add that the temerity was of his own selection. The double portrait in the same Gallery (No. 270) is an incomplete picture in the same way, indeed, I am not wholly sure of this work’s authenticity. 20 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET lacks, as is too often the case with these patrons of Tintoret, real co- ordination with the rest of the design, a certain grace and vitality beyond mere devotional feeling and sincerity. The pose is too formal even here, and it is worse in some other pictures. And though this aspect alone is not due to carelessness, the picture as a whole was got rid of too easily, and the result possesses something of that “ unbalanced and incoherent” quality, unsympathetic or uninstructed criticism would attach to all his work. There are three portraits attributed to Tintoret in the Berlin Imperial Gallery. After previous experience we may affirm without hesitation that only one (No. 298) is entirely authentic. With regard to the others we can at least be certain that in neither case did he paint the robes and accessories as we find these fossil remains now, and the background of one (No. 299) is the work of a mere dauber. But even this is hardly so glaring as it is all over that amazing Annunciation^ which the authorities still appear to believe the work of Tintoret. I believe myself it is a fake from beginning to end, which has aimed at the appearance of desolate ruin and has admirably succeeded. The Royal Gallery at Munich, though profoundly interesting to a student of Tintoret in other directions, is a series of disappointments on the score of portraits. First there is that appreciably overrated portrait of The Man ivith a Baton. Some German authorities, but not Thode, claim this for our master. Mr. Ricketts secures it with absolute confidence for Titian. It is a simple fact that this fine portrait as a whole and at a distance looks most like the work of Tintoret. The sturdiness, austerity, and general dark gray tone are all more reminiscent of him. A closer scrutiny, however, of the way both hands and face are painted raises such difficulties to the defence of the Tintoret ascription that for my part I abandon it altogether and leave Mr. Ricketts in possession of the field. Then there is The PoHrait of the Anatomist Andreas Vesalius,^ hailing from the Dusseldorf Collection. It is the portrait of a young man holding a pair of compasses in one hand and a crucifix in the other. We have here perfect preservation and all is painted, particularly the hands, in a masterly fashion. The bit of landscape through the window is carefully painted in quite a Tintoresque spirit. The picture is not a ' No. 1127, Plate CXCVIII. Plate CXVII Academy, Vienna A VENETIAN PROCURATOR ' r i »» I I f i r Si* a PORTRAITURE 21 Domenico, he never mastered a technique of this quality, and on the other hand it is difficult to identify precisely this effect with any other portrait of Tintoret I know. Of course, there is the problematical Marietta. I should like to think that this talented lady could have painted such a work. But if she did she certainly did not paint the picture ascribed to her in the Bridgewater Gallery. Thode excludes it, but as far as I know, attempts no alternative. The portrait is the work of a master, and I can think of no other more probable on the whole than Tintoret himself. The portrait group of A Venetian Nobleman and his Son^^ is, I think, one of the most successful examples of Domenico’s careful talent.^ It is somewhat hard, stiff, and conventional, but there is a real nobility about it. When discussing The Man with a Baton we might have mentioned that portrait of Jacobo Soranzo in the Venetian Academy. This too is claimed both for Titian and Tintoret. The picture has suffered very considerably from attrition ; but though there is a strong whiff of Tintoret in the appearance of accessories I am pretty confident, whether by Titian or anyone else, it is not by Tintoretto. This face and beard is impossible as his brushwork, even making all allowances for a scrubbing-brush since. The Jacobo Soranzo^ of the Milan Museum is on the other hand a superb example of our master, and I willingly surrender the Academy example to any votary of Titian for such an exchange. The four portraits in this Museum^ placed together by Bassano, Moroni, Pordenone, and Tintoret, are a veritable constellation, all superb examples. In seeing this portrait we no longer wonder that Whistler placed his rank as a portrait-painter so high. The way this purple robe is flashed across in broad, but absolutely harmonious and fusing strokes of the brush contains a world of instruction. No man who painted like this could conceivably have painted garments as they are painted in two of the Berlin portraits and other work of that type. We may be thankful this work is under glass and in perfect preservation. Among all the poor stuff of this Venetian Academy it is certain that but four or five portraits at the most were painted by Tintoret himself. ' Thode mentions a similar type of work at Besangon, with two sons as genuine. I have not seen it. ^ It was not in the Gallery when I visited it in 1911. ^ They are not all together now (1913). ^ Plate CXVI. 22 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Even these are inferior to almost all previously mentioned and show signs of neglect or restoration. Such are The Doge Alvise Mocenigo^ Andrea Capello^ The Procurator Antonio Capello^ and Battista Morosini. The last-mentioned is without doubt a genuine example of the more elaborate type.^ It is worth observing here that Venice was the first State which made a point of preserving the portraits of its leading public men. Those which the Bellinis executed had a strong influence on this branch of Venetian painting. But the few genuine examples now in the Ducal Palace are not this master’s best work. And in the Ingresso of the Ducal Palace I can only accept as any approach to that work the Tovimaso Con- tar ini, tho- Vicenzo Morosini, and the Paolo Paruta,‘^ which latter is the best head of all, though the rest of the picture, if untampered with, is far enough from the full measure of his powers in this direction. The portrait of Nicolo Priuli which Thode and others accept, is fussy and indecisive, impossible as a Tintoret in its present state. The Henry HI of this palace ^ is I believe with Thode a copy, but not by any means a bad one. The real picture was painted under rather remarkable circumstances. The King visited Venice in 1574. Tintoret, according to the story, disguised himself, and obtained a sketch of the king in pastel. This work of another artist, apparently, he enlarged on a canvas of his own, and through the good offices of the king’s chamberlain was permitted to complete in the king’s presence. The king would have made him a knight, but he declined the honour. To review all the possible and impossible work of Tintoret in such a field would neither repay the labour, nor am I in possession of all the materials to undertake such a task. We may concentrate attention on what is certainly the most important part of it. The Vicenzo Zeno‘S in the Pitti Palace is a noble presentment of a thoughtful old man’s face. But the colour is too red, and it has evidently suffered from restoration or attrition, only a close examination could determine which. The Luigi Cornaro^ reflects much the same type of nobility and refinement we emphasized in The Man in Black at Vienna. The hands here are painted ' Nos. 233, 234, 236, in the order of the text. I have not got the last number. ^ Nos. 426, 428, and 424. ® No. 638. ^ Plate CXCIV. ^ Plate CXVIII. Plate CXVIII Pilti, Florence lA'IGl CORNARO Plate CXIX Accademia, Venice ANTONIO CAPELLO DATED MDXXIIl i Plate CXX Louvi'e, Paris i PIETRO MOCENIGO PORTRAITURE 23 in a masterly way. The splendid head of the architect Jacobo Sansovino,^ that friend of Titian, in the Uffizi, deserves exceptional notice from the student as a fine example of the distinction with which the hair is here painted as contrasted with the indefinite and woolly manner of his inferior imitators. In the same gallery there are other portraits attributed to Tintoret, but all of a studied and elaborate style extremely difficult to adjudge with certainty. No. 601 appears to me unquestionably an authentic portrait, also that of An Old Man with Cap and Red Scarf, and most distinguished of all An Old Man with Ermine Cape. The eyes in this portrait are quite remarkable for their vividness. The other portraits do not produce a similar conviction.^ There is a fine portrait in the Palazzo Durazzo of Genoa, that of Agostino Durazzo. The Pietro Mocenigo of the Louvre we have already had occasion to refer to. It was once a very fine portrait, but is now much dried up. M iss Phillipps mentions for especial praise ^ a portrait of a man in the prime of life, with a bronze statuette in the collection of M. Rothan of Paris. I do not know this, but there is one beyond dispute in the Chantilly collection. A good deal of praise has been bestowed on the pensive-looking man in the Colonna Gallery in Rome, touching the keys of a spinet in the open air, with a spirited landscape for background. The conception is original and romantic, but the picture is very soiled, and parts of its execution, notably the hands, are very careless. The Two Benedictine Monks^ in the same gallery is really a finer work. The unknown portrait. No. 95, in this gallery is also an excellent example, hands and eyes and general effect are all first-rate. Among several probably authentic portraits in the Prado® there is one of exceptional distinction. It is the head of a nobleman. No. 412. No. 41 1 also is one of the more distinguished of these portraits, which are the authentic ones, easily recognizable almost without ^^exception. ' Plate CIX. ^ No. 577 is not genuine, and No. 613, the head of a man with red hair and beard, is too tight and laboured for Tintoret, though not easy to assign, and well painted. ^ Tintoretto, p. 133. ^ No. 30. Nos. 419, 434, 414, 433, and 421 have all distinct claims to authenticity. Nos. 432, 438, and 429 are as distinctly not so. 24 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET This collection also contains the only two certainly authentic portraits of women known to myself, and there is nothing exceptionally arresting in either, though one or both, for they rather appear to be the same sitter, is traditionally supposed to be Marietta. Thode and Berenson mention another in the possession of Mr. Doetsch. Mr. Ricketts appears to have no doubt as to The Lady in Mourning in the Dresden Gallery being a Tintoret. I regret to say he has not removed mine.^ Considering the great beauty of women of all classes we find in this master’s imaginative work it is strange the number of portraits should be so few.^ Ridolfi mentions one or two, which are lost, but they could be counted on the hand. Herr Thode has a long list of portraits in the possession of private owners in England and elsewhere. My own knowledge is far from exhaustive in England, and so far as Germany is concerned is almost nil. So far as it goes it is not encouraging. The Earl of Wemyss possesses two quite exceptionally fine and authentic works, but I hardly know of one example among the many I have seen in England of the same class. I much doubt whether all in Thode’s list are there on personal knowledge; on any other evidence their presence is only misleading. In any case his revision of the current views of private possessors or public catalogues is not drastic enough. In the Giovanelli Palace there is a room full of so- called portraits of Tintoret. Thode accepts three out of eight or more, he does not say which. But they are all tarred with the same brush. They are part of the shadow a great artist leaves behind when he is gone, and one of them is actually dated after his death. Even Tintoret’s best work as a portrait-painter has real limitations, if we compare it with the finest examples of masters such as Raphael, Titian, Rembrandt, or Velasquez. He gives us the essential character of a personality, the virility of manhood, the steadfast repose of age, the experience and savoir faire of the statesman ; he gives it further with a masterly simplicity and directness, which in his best work approaches that of Rembrandt and Velasquez. But the fundamental impression is that we ^ Both the colour and the very close character of the flesh-painting preserve this doubt, despite the desire to claim it, for it is a fine work. The presentment of a queen in the Bergamo Gallery which most accept is very disappointing and not free from doubt. Plate CXXI Gosford House A X'KNETIAN PROCURATOf Plate CXXII Prado, Spain. A NOBLEMAN PORTRAITURE 25 are rather made aware of his powers as an artist than any poetic manifesta- tion of his genius. His aim is not primarily to make a composition of his subject, not to emphasize character to the point of universality,^ or even to gather round it, except in a few examples, associations of really enhancing suggestion. At the same time it is absurdly false to say that his portraits are exceptionally, still less, as in the case of some moderns, studiously unflattering. It is true at least only in the sense that every Dutch portrait-painter is so. To confront us with the vitality and masculine virility of the sons of Adam, this above all, is after all probably what the majority, or at least the best of them prefer. He will place before us the heroic staunchness of his great admiral, will show us that his doges are a stubborn folk who will stand no nonsense, or will even at times reveal the shadows and tranquillity of waters which are deep. If friends or wives ever protested at such austerity the worthies themselves were the last to do so. The portraiture we find in the type of picture, generally a religious composition of some kind, in which two or three state officials or a patron with or without his family are present, are more difficult to defend. We have here the plain significance of manhood and citizenship complicated with that of devotion, in a scene, too, which usually involves a tremendous anachronism. We have, therefore, the essential religious sincerity of the painter directly contradicted by the unreality of the scene, unreality at least to a modern sense. And as a rule, it must be admitted, Tintoret, not in the least because he is bored, but simply because he is religious, rarely makes sufficient concession to the imaginative design in his insist- ance on the devotional claim. That he could compose figures well enough in a living scene, no less than a wholly imaginative drama, is certain if it was not sufficiently proved by one of the few extant pictures which remain of this type, namely, the family picture of the Pellegrina.^ But the type we are referring to now is neither the one or the other, and though very common in Italian art was very rarely, if ever quite convincing. Probably the finest picture Tintoret ever painted of this class is that favourite of ^ This, of course, is only when comparing him with the very greatest. As Ruskin well insists, every portrait painter who probes the essential humanity in his subjects gives expression to universality. This Tintoret does almost invariably. This remarkable work, now in the collection of Lord Barrymore, I describe in the catalogue. II E 26 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Ruskin in the Venetian Academy of The Madonna and Child^ with SS. Mark^ Rocco, Sebastian, the three Camerlenghi with attendants. The design here, combined with the deep richness and harmonious austerity of the colour scheme, assists the illusion that these Venetians are a consonant part of the subject. We have here a real beauty, no less than nobility of gesture. The heads, too, are seen in profile, and in fact the picture has been taken for an Adoration of the Magi.^ In the S. Justina and the three Tesorieri of the same gallery we do not feel this unity in anything like the same degree. The figure of the saint is beautiful, but we are conscious in the others of an attitude of posture for the occasion, though earnestness and devotion is expressed.^ Our sympathy with such a subject can only be very imperfect. I agree with Thode that The Madomia and Child with three Senators, also in this gallery, is not by Tintoret. At least it is to be hoped so, for the drawing of the babe is scandalous. I think, in default of any alternative, Domenico must accept the responsibility. There are only two other pictures deserving of mention of this type. The first is the beautiful Resui'rection and three Senators^ in the Ducal Palace. The beauty of this picture I deal with elsewhere. Here it is only necessary to observe that the incongruity, according to our notions, of introducing three Venetian Senators at such a superhuman event as the Resurrection is here emphasized at its extreme, and the only effect of the tremendous association on the painter has been to make him paint these worthies more stiffly bound up in the fetters of sincere but conventional devotion than ever, so that we can only long to sweep them off and take refuge in the sacred narrative, replacing their impossible pretensions with the holy women or the Magdalene, or a disciple, not worshipping at all, but possessed with joy and wonder. I know of nothing more demonstrative of the essential sincerity of Tintoret’s religion than this, namely, that in 1 The realization of this picture is exceptionally fine, as may be seen in the nude painting of S. Sebastian and the exquisite landscape. The only rival to it as such a success is the Parma Deposition. '■“ The Adoration of the Holy Spirit in the Colonna Gallery is a fine work of this type and is not impaired by the question of anachronism. The portraits here are worthy of the best Dutch portraiture. The Three Procurators before S. Mark in the Berlin Gallery is a picture ruined by restoration, and particularly so in the figures of S. Mark and the three behind him. It is dated 1569. ^ See Plate CLVII. Plate CXXIII Accademia, Venice S. JUSTINA AND TESORIERl Plate CXXIV MADONNA, CHILD, SS. CATHERINE, JOSEPH, AND PATRON PORTRAITURE 27 such a case his supreme artistic vision could become so totally blind, as it apparently was, not merely to the incongruity, which could only be expected, but even to the aesthetic defect of such a composition. He repeats it in a Resurrection in the S. Giorgio Maggiore Church, in which scene members of the Morisini family are present. Here, with that bad luck which often follows good effects which are not with full consciousness the artist’s aim, he does manage to incorporate modern life better with the imaginative portion of the picture. Unfortunately the imaginative part is a poor affair indeed compared with the exquisite poetic beauty of the previous example. We may fitly conclude our review of Tintoret’s work as a portrait painter with the self-portraits. The most famous are, of course, the two in the Louvre and the Uffizi. Three others attributed as such I have seen in English private collections. The one in the Duke of Leconfield’s possession may be dismissed at once as it is an inferior work which is not even by Tintoret. The one in the Duke of Bedford’s collection is conceivably enough by Tintoret in the more elaborate style of his portrait work. It is a half-length standing figure in black dress facing towards the right. The left hand rests on the hilt of a sword. Dr. Waagen ^ calls it the noblest presentment of Tintoret in his youth, and affiliates it with the Louvre portrait.^ I am not prepared to deny there is any resemblance; but apart from any historical evidence, which I do not possess, this portrait is too remote from Tintoret’s own representations of himself at something like this age in his imaginative work to make one at all confident it is a self-portrait, even assuming it to be an authentic work of Tintoret, which the quality of the painting does not leave wholly free from question. The portrait in the possession of the Earl of Wemyss is to my thinking far more important. It is painted on black marble. It is most certainly an authentic work and a really fine one. It is the head of a man rather beyond middle age, with thick, curly hair begin- ning to turn gray, a grave and stern, almost grimly stern face, a large mouth, not at all unlike that of the Louvre portrait, and penetrating dark eyes. It is painted with more care than either of the two most famous self-portraits. The ears are beautifully modelled, and the hair In the supplementary volume to his “ Studies of Art ” in English collections. That in the S. Rocco Scuola is not a genuine work. 28 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET of the beard is painted as that in the Sansovino portrait. I must say I incline strongly to the view this most exceptionally interesting head is a self-portrait. Of the Louvre portrait there can be no doubt, even apart from the circumstance that the fact is registered on the canvas. We recognize essentially the same features, if aged and worn, of the head and face more ideally treated than in several of his pictures. It is the face of a thinker and poet even more than that of a versatile artist. There is no suggestion here of that self-centred satisfaction of one who, despite all reverses and disappointments, is conscious there is somewhat in his work which will eventually triumph after he has passed away, is conscious at least of having lived a rich and full life, such as we find in the self-portraits of the old Rembrandt. There is no attempt here as was the case invariably with the great Dutch master, and is a part of the intention of Titian’s splendid self-portrait in the Prado, to make himself the subject of a really fine example of the portrait painter’s art. There is no attempt whatever to disguise the fact that the personality presented can only be viewed by direct vision through a mirror. It is merely the rapid transcript of himself noted down in the work of a few hours with little or no attempt at idealization. As a painted picture it is neither as interesting as the work in Scotland, or even that of the Uffizi Gallery. The mastery of the brush is visible enough, but it is merely the mastery of the definite line and intention, the record of plain and obvious facts. These locks of hair are painted much as the master of the pencil draws with deliberate strokes to record form rather than subtlety of texture. A face rugged with toil, eyes which have been overworked to weariness in their hollow cavities. And in truth the conflict of this master has not been merely or mainly one with the world, as it was in the case of the mighty Dutchman or Titian. It has been in a degree they never experienced a spiritual conflict. And there is an undercurrent of spontaneous, we might almost say unconscious, simplicity and sincerity reflected by this pathetic work which is the possession of the very few. A man who has probed deeply into the mystery of suffering no less than sorrow, the tragic if also the most exalted issues of human history. In this as in other aspects of his art we find here a confession of isolation which relates him yet more closely to Michelangelo. With both Art has been a severe and exclusive mistress. : i ■ '■ r - r- Plate CXXV Uffi'd, Florence PORTRAIT OF TINTORET ATTRIBUTED PORTRAITURE 29 Both she has led beyond the range of most emphatic artistic success, as the world views it, the fortunate isles where she speaks with a language intelligible to all. Both she has beckoned by more rugged ascent to the eminence, where they seemed to possess a rarer vision, but were still conscious their power fell short in its boldest straining to report it. Both have dreamed and have ever dreamed of a higher and fairer than it. Jacobus Tentorettus Pictor Venetianus Ipsius fecit. It is the record of the existence of a remarkable personality rather than that of a picture, or the making of one. Man’s work is a foam-flake on the ocean of Time. What is to become of him? Whence cometh the hope and the reward? If we turn from such a face to the yet older one of the Uffizi over which the tranquillity of age, and, if not a certain peace that passes understanding, at least a kind of benignant con- templation, with a quiet resignation to that, have already settled, the desire to remove it as impairing, weakening of its rugged intensity, the profoundly human impression of the other is intelligible enough. Nor are reasons wanting in the actual detail of the presentment which do support such an uninstructed impulse. The hair in this picture seems to have entirely softened out from the folds so visible in the Gosford House and the Louvre portraits. The forehead, too, is changed in its apparent height, and the bony frame of this face is less angular in its structure. I know not whether a habit which for many years induced me to associate this portrait of the Uffizi with this master as the only one I had then studied, has something to do with it, but I must confess the doubt holds me still. This is a portrait of Tintoret’s hand, of that there can be no doubt. And the hand I see here, the whim may seem a strange one to venture to record, is precisely the hand I should expect. The eyes have lost much of their vitality and resistance, but they are the eyes of a poet and a thinker; there is a haze over depth, but no real shallowing in their fastness.^ The forehead may be more domed, even allowing for loss of hair, in fact it is so out of all consistency with the Louvre work. But after all such differences may be over-tasked. We are not dealing with photography, but with an artist who received the facts as he pleased and subject to the mood of the moment. If it was not for the brushwork would anyone be ' Reproductions do no real justice to the penetration and ideality of the Uffizi work. They are even flattering to the Louvre portrait. 30 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET able to affirm that the two self-portraits of Rembrandt in our National Gallery, or the superb one there of the young man and of the old man of the Munich Gallery are of the same man? Or if that is an excess of statement the identity is rather due to a marvellous suggestion by the painter of intimate knowledge of the personality recorded inseparable from a self-portrait and conveyed by the entire impression. In precisely the same way I cannot resist a kind of almost uncanny suggestion from this Uffizi portrait that it is a self-portrait. But the mood of the painter is entirely changed. He insists no longer on the literal fact. Great events have passed between the painting of the two, a fulness of experience never secured in many a lifetime. We must assume in short that the Louvre work was painted a few years before the Paradise^ and this other presents us with the tranquil assurance of that final effort of a life-work accomplished, its labour of ambition, rapture and restlessness closed behind. It is painted but a year or so before his death, in a mood of meditation upon this change. The hair is now snow-white. The stupendous effort and the loss of Marietta have left their mark. His work in the world — and this at least is his first biographer’s account of it — descends, it is no doubt in some measure a purely physical reaction, into reflections over the problems of a religious life, or a brooding over phantasies of design which have passed in dreams from time to time without the articulate arrest. Such dreams he has seized as the fitful exigencies of an artist’s life enabled him to seize and hold them. But the vision still comes and goes and it is still a dream. Or shall we say as Rachel did in one of her wiser moments: “ Life is a dream which follows a dream. We never wholly awake to the realities.” And yet perhaps, too, we may add with Novalis we are never nearer awakening than when we dream that we dream. I admit such a view of the portrait is fantastic. I have surrendered myself to the mood it excites rather than submitted myself to the more stable principles of criticism. I make a present of it to any who have patience or sufficient interest after perusing it to weigh any possibilities they may conceive it to possess. CHAPTER XVI THE IDEAL OF BEAUTY T O express in pictorial art that which, in the order of Nature, is the consummation of the process of Life, and on our Earth at least the most fitted tenement of Spirit, with a truth which shall display either its masculine integrity, or its still more exquisite manifestation as a vision of chaste and august loveliness, may well be regarded as the highest ambition of a painter. In the arts of Greece the presentment of the plastic beauty of the human form is not only the achievement of its sculpture, but in the com- pleteness of the success is as such original and unique. In the revival of the arts of painting and sculpture in Italy during the Renaissance it is in the first instance, at least, from classic sculpture and myths of Hellenic origin that the masters of Florence, Venice, and Rome sought for inspiration in their pursuit of an Ideal of Beauty, and in their effort to graft that achievement of the past on the arts inherited from Christendom. But in one aspect of it this effort is, if viewed ex- clusively in relation to pictorial art, a creation of their own, except in so far of course as fine sculpture stimulated a rivalry in draughtsmanship and educated aesthetic taste. Whatever paintings Greece may have possessed the ravage of time had swept them away, and even the poor remains we now possess were then unknown. Moreover, to incorporate the beauty of the living human form in colour, and the media of pictorial art, Italian artists were con- fronted with a problem of exposition and difficulties by no means identical with those Hellenic sculptors had so triumphantly overcome. The art of sculpture differs, in virtue of its material of the clay, the plaster and the marble, from that of painting in its power to reproduce Life, or at least the essence and arcana of such life. So far as the question is merely one of spatial realization sculpture, with a medium which 31 32 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET possesses all three dimensions of Space, no doubt offers a closer imitation of the natural form. But in other and more important respects an artistic presentment upon the coloured surface possesses a real advantage. For whereas the painter, by the employment of light and shadow, and all the other resources of his craft, can imitate with success the rondure of form through every conceivable gradation, replacing thereby this loss of the spatial relation, he can also with his colours and his incomparably greater power to depict the varied expressions of the face and the focus of soul- life itself in the human eye and its light, present the illusion of Life with far greater intensity and directness. Or rather we should say that the fact the painted figure is in certain respects more definititely an illusion than that of sculpture, so far from being a disadvantage, is rather to its advantage precisely in the degree that the aim of the artist is toward an ideal of Beauty, an aesthetic result, which is with intention not simply an imitation of Nature. In other words pictorial art presupposes and claims as most vital to its significance the presence of such an illusion in the sense that its aim is not one exclusively of realization, but also of idealization. And though this is also a truth which equally applies to sculpture, as one of the fine arts, it is pre-eminently so of the art of painting in this, that the problem which it has to solve is not to present us with mere animal life and form as such, the absolute illusion of human nakedness robed in all the accidents of our bodily flesh, but rather to reveal the vital and ideal significance of this goodly frame of earth as the vessel of Spirit. The task of its highest achievement is so to disclose the symmetry of its grace and power, the beauty of its design no less than the vital mystery of its coloured efflorescence, that the illusion of nakedness wholly vanishes in our aesthetic vision of its ideality. In a work of art of this supreme excellence, as with the finest poetry, the most fine may indeed be the most “feigning,” but it is the feigning that most reveals the truth expressed in those lines of the poet: O how much more doth beauty beauteous seem, By that sweet ornament which truth doth give ! The rose looks fair, but fairer we it deem For that sweet odour which doth in it live. In sculpture we can have no direct assault upon Life itself, and we rightly assume that the essential emphasis is on form, and are prepared Plate CXXVI Scuola di S. Rocco, Venice THE IDEAL OF BEAUTY 33 for such plastic imitation of nudity as the limitations of the art will admit. With the art of painting the reverse is the case. And just in propor- tion to its power of rising into an ideal realm of vital beauty is it possible for it to descend into the region of bathos and contempt. Here, if ever, the aphorism applies, Corruptio optiini pessima. And if in the painting of the nude the greatness of a great master is most emphatically asserted, it is often yet more obviously true that men of inferior power never expose their inferiority more obtrusively that where they attempt to rival on such a ground that which they have either no soul nor sufficient intelligence to understand, or if they do understand are wholly unable to execute in all that most concerns its essence. In considering works of this character it may be found useful to emphasize the more vital and ideal quality of such compositions under three heads of division. First, there are those in which the presentment of the ideal beauty of the human form, though I am now referring mainly, for reasons I shall shortly explain, to the feminine figure, is secured in part no doubt by an idealization of the coloured medium, or by the poetic raptus imported into the entire composition whereof such a figure or figures form an integral part, but mainly and in the first instance by the emphasis of inspiration placed in the design of such figures on all that is most in harmony with ideal grace or other spiritual qualities, qualities which tend to awake in all who contemplate such creations the sense of the Ideal which has moved the artist himself. In the presence of such works we are made aware that the world we enter is not that of Nature as such, but an ideal world of the poet. We are confronted with no questions of propriety in so far as we understand the true meaning of such questions. The objects we face are stamped with the wand and virtue of ideal conception. In Hellenic art the Ideal of masculine beauty is emphasized on an equality with that of feminine beauty, in Apollo and other deities, with the same aesthetic impulse as that which celebrates the goddess of Beauty herself. In Christian art there is a real change in this respect. And the source of this change is mainly due to the fact that a new spiritual significance, the characteristics of spiritual discipline and conflict and suffering, become an integral feature of the Ideal itself. II F 34 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET And for this reason we may affirm that Tintoret’s Ideal of masculine Beauty is rather found in the sublime figure on the Cross in the Gesuati Church, or even in his Ecce Homo of the S. Rocco Scuola, or the S. Jerome'^ we considered in the previous chapter, than in the figures which support the Golden Calf^ or any personification of mere physical perfection such as we find in the Venetian Academy Adam and Eve^ and with yet further emphasis on its sensuous attractions and opulence of corporeity in his figure of the Tempter in the S. Rocco Temptation. For a reason that is analogous, in the conception of the English painter Watts, human life under all the more fascinating aspects of its grace and loveliness, is presented in a maiden’s figure. And it is owing to such a change that in Christian art facial expression becomes so much more important and the ideal significance of drapery so largely replaces that of bodily form. The nude figure of Titian’s S. John the Baptist carries with it no spiritual significance of any kind; the gray-cloaked figure of grief in Tintoret’s Crucifixion embodies for ever the emotion of Christian devotion in the presence of the Cross of Christ. Secondly there are those compositions where we find this idealization of figurative design, or its environment; this deliberate austerity, this insistence on all that is most vital to spiritual Beauty, is not such a prominent feature either in the conception or execution of the work. The imagination may, in fact, remain comparatively dormant in respect to form. And in this connection it must be remembered that it was mainly for the decorative qualities, particularly in its colour^ aspect, that the nude originally found a place in Venetian art. And the genius of the painter may thus exert itself so creatively and with such resource in the glory of its colour, spread over the bare form, as to withdraw it, no less than in the former case, from the material world, and associate it with an ideal which is none the less real for the fact that it is more closely related to sensuous life than in that former case, more connate at least with im- mediate sensation. The reclining female figure in the foreground of ^ The subject was a favourite of this master. Ridolfi mentions several examples, all lost, one with quite exceptional praise in which the spiritual travail was indicated on the features of the saint with extraordinary power. ^ In the work of Signorelli or Mantegna the primary object is, on the contrary, to assert the nobility of man. Plate CXXVII Imperial Gallery^ Vienna S. JEROME THE IDEAL OF BEAUTY 35 Titian’s Bacchanals is Nature in her superb opulence, but it is an opulence that only the creative gift of a great colourist could display. Lastly, we have works which in their imaginative poverty both of design or invention, and whether in colour or the more formal and ideal aspect of their appearance are like the foolish virgins, shut outside the house of Beauty altogether. We have the type of confusion, rashness or impotence, or the contemptible realism of the delicately veiled or inten- tionally disrobed licence, nudity arrayed in its arrogance or unrelieved in its shame. The first type we may sufficiently indicate with the work of men such as Durer, as in his Adam and Eve of the Prado, ^ Lorenzo di Credi, as in his exquisite Venus of the Uffizi, Luca Signorelli, as in his Saints in Paradise, Botticelli, as in his famous Venus rising from the Sea, or Michelangelo on his yet more famous Sistine Chapel Ceiling. The second may be as clearly distinguished in that of Giorgione, Titian, Rubens, Velasquez, and Rembrandt, in so far as the two latter can be said em- phatically to belong to either. The supreme example of the second is Giorgione rather than Titian, in such a picture as the Fete Champetre, where, in the words of Ruskin, “ The sense of nudity is utterly lost, and there is no desire of concealment any more, but his naked figures move among the grass like fiery pillars, and lie on it like flakes of sunshine.” ^ Our gifted artist Mrs. Swynnerton is a fine example of this type, with real intellectual design to match it. It may also be observed that an inferior design from the point of view of ideal beauty may, in the hands of a great artist, Rembrandt for example, rank on a wholly different plane of artistic achievement from that of ordinary realism which can neither assert such a mastery of execution, or approach the intensity with which a profound artistic personality is operative as the ideal focus of unity throughout the composition, even though in other respects the picture may be justly open to criticism on the score of mere naturalism. Thus the Venus of Rembrandt, who is little more than an ungainly ' And still more distinctively in the woodcut of the same subject. ^ But it is a noticeable fact that imagination is also, and indeed to a greater degree more active in the design of Giorgione’s nude figures than in those of Titian. This, of course, contributes to the same result. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 36 naked peasant woman, is not exactly a picture which by most would be regarded as more beautiful than The Mirror of Venus by Velasquez of our National Collection, which is the masterly painting of the nude figure of a well-shaped courtesan. But few would care to deny that the absence of idealization is experienced more keenly in the design of the latter than in that of the former, despite the fact that it may justly be contended that more creative power is displayed in this particular example of the artistic colour of Velasquez as compared with that of Rembrandt.^ I am inclined to regard this as mainly due to the fact that Rembrandt’s Venus is, relatively speaking, more near in its fundamental conception to the directness and honesty of Nature herself. Precisely for the reason that the figure of Velasquez puts forward a more pretentious claim, makes its appeal more assertively to the Ideal of feminine beauty, is the inferiority of its pretentions disclosed. And to cite an extreme example of this, if with the profoundest respect for the work of Velasquez as a marvellous piece of painting, any nude figure of such a painter as J. F. Millet, be it never so much the unadorned peasant of his delight, is the purest sunshine and glory thereof itself if we contrast it with the atrocious realism of a modern Hans Makart,“ where we face the most beautiful women of the nearest Alhambra, divested of their gauzes, in a picture painted with a villainous ease, as of a Rubens shorn of his strength, and with every seduction that meretricious line and colour can suggest. But I may be reminded that my immediate subject is not modern art, German or otherwise, but the work of Tintoret. I rank him pre-eminently, as may already be inferred, under the first type of artists. In other words, in his presentation of the nude he not only appeals to the imagination through its environment, but introduces imaginative idea in the design of the actual figure. In the Adam and Eve and the Cain and Abel of the Venetian Academy, comparatively early works, we obtain what is possibly this master’s nearest approach to the actual living model. In the design of the feet of Eve here there is no such tapering off, such a distinct idiosyncrasy of treatment, as is carried to an excess in the Eve of ’ Both of course being under this particular aspect of design inferior to the Bathsfwba of our Blake. ^ In his Summer of the Berlin Modern Gallery in which this apparently admired artist of the Germans may be said to out-Herod himself. Plate CXXVIII Ducal Palace, Venice THE THREE GRACES 1578 1 Plate CXXIX ADAM AND EVE ■y V Plate CXXX Accademia, Venice THE IDEAL OF BEAUTY 37 Mr. Crawshay’s beautiful work, and is seen in its full beauty of moderation in the Juno of The Origin of the Milky Way, his Leda and many other examples. The ideality of these Academy works is enforced partly no doubt by the intellectual quality of the design and the feeling expressed in their pose, and even more by the imaginative power and fascination of the landscape with which they are so vitally coalescent. In this Adam and Eve we may indeed be conscious of nudity, but it is that essential to the subject, not a foreign element imported into it. And indeed as part of the natural scene I think it will be felt that the grays and yellows and green-browns, and also the yet more gray-green and ivory tones of Mr. Crawshay’s picture are in more effective harmony with the landscape than the warmer tones of Titian’s Adam and Eve in the Prado.^ And, moreover, the impression is so virile and bracing, the mastery of articulate form and the beauty of line so consummate that it is only realization of Nature in the sense that the finest sculpture is so. In the modelling of the Eve of Mr. Crawshay’s work we are conscious of a more active imagination, and the figure is in this aspect a greater achievement. The woman here directly faces the spectator, a superb figure dappled with the exquisitely gradated shadow of large forest leaves across her body. The Adam in this picture, a reclining figure on the left, with a strange and not altogether pleasant facial expression, is neither equal in power or beauty to the Eve. The figure is if anything too small, which is also a possible piece of criticism of the Academy Adam. The background of the other picture is not so elaborate, but it is nothing less than magnificent, such as it is. Not even Titian ever surpassed the painting and design of this foliage of broad leaves against the sky. The technical mastery displayed in the Adam and Eve of the S. Rocco Scuola is inferior to both these works. But the figures here are even more in complete fusion with the natural environment. The mystery and deceit of the Fall are admirably expressed with the subtlety so remote from the conception of most of the old masters, but so entirely seized in the Eve Tempted of Watts. So far as mere craftsmanship is concerned the painting of the back of Adam and Abel in the Academy pictures, and the Eve of Mr. Crawshay’s work, or putting the Ducal Palace quatrain on one side, the modelling of the back of the right-hand female figure in the Ladies playing Musical Instruments ‘ At least as we have it now, but it is usually supposed to have been much restored, THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 38 of the Dresden Gallery, mark the highest point of achievement in knowledge and power to reproduce it. It simply runs beyond the vision. It is of the same class of work as the definition of the knee of the girl with cymbals in Titian’s Bacchus and Ariadne. In the Temptation of S. Anthony of the S. Trovaso Church, and the two examples of Susannah and the Elders in the Louvre and the Vienna Gallery, we have subjects where again a note discordant with the absolute enjoyment of ideal grace and beauty is necessarily present. In Tintoret’s many studies^ of this Temptation we find this aspect of beauty as a veil of deceit far more insisted upon than in the one finished picture we possess which is almost wholly independent. This, as Ruskin remarks in his exhaustive description® of the picture, is entirely restrained and temperate. We have simply the saint depicted and harassed somewhat by the importunity of some beautiful figures and faces of partially draped women, with an impersonation above of divine assistance. Whatever became of the nightmare of studies, if indeed they were ever undertaken for this picture, they were forsaken either from sheer weariness, or with the desire to create a work perhaps more in consonance with the place for which it was painted. The Susannah theme presented finer opportunities for romance and ideal composition, and in the Vienna work, which is the more original and beautiful of the two,^ they were seized with complete success. The subject was a favourite one with many painters. It is one of all others which we may almost assume will illustrate the imaginative grasp of the romantic aspect of a subject, and the instinctive delicacy of feeling, which so frequently distinguishes Tintoret’s compositions from those of other masters. And believing as I most emphatically do that the education of our sense of beauty, and our true enjoyment of the same consists ^ In the British Museum. See Appendix. ^ In notes to “ Stones of Venice.” ^ There is another Susannah in the Louvre (1468), a large picture with Susannah in the foreground, four maidens grouped round her, a fountain hard by, the two Elders ap- proaching on the left, in middle distance and landscape. The catalogue accepts it. The influence of Tintoret is obvious enough. Neither the execution or colour are his. It may be a copy of a lost work. The design is almost too good for a school picture. It is not by Domenico, as I think, and can hardly be a totally repainted picture. Speculation is futile without more knowledge. 1 I r or • , i *•' « '* •/■■f ■ *'■ ■* , 'I' •"i' : ihii t '■ 4-1 THE EPIC OF THE SWORD 55 there are finely modelled figures in the foreground. The point of view appears to be from galleys, over which sails are spread in a kind of canopy, to the shore beyond where there is a further conflict of foot and horsemen. It is a work that might have been a really fine one if Tintoret had spent a little more care on the definition of a central interest. The Battle of Zara in the Ducal Palace is wholly excluded by not a few as a work of this master.^ If we compare the design of this battle- piece with others in this palace by Andrea Vicentino and Domenico we shall find it hard not to arrive at the conclusion that the design at least is Tintoret’s, though he appears to be rather anxious to get the job off his hands. At any rate the various groups are well thought out. The interest is concentrated on the three figures in the foreground about the standard, and the drawing of the group in the left corner is like his work. The galloping horses in the distance are even more emphatically like him. It is not a real success, of course, and on a different plane altogether to some others we have to consider, too much a general flinging about of missiles. It may have been an early attempt at this class of work, or only in part executed under Tintoret’s direction. It has certainly been very much repainted, though in the deep blue and some other tones we may have a suggestion of former wealth. But if Tintoret really ever painted this work throughout almost all the subtlety and much of the force of his brushwork has vanished. Neither in this work nor in that of the Giovan- nelli Palace, which I also think is in great measure, certainly in the design, the work of Tintoret, do we find any real approach whatever to the power we find in the Munich pictures, or indeed, as I should say, even to those on the ceiling of the Sala del gran Consiglio. The subjects of these four octagonal pictures are: i. The Capture of Riva on the Lago di Garda from the Duke of Milan in 1440. ii. Vittorio Soranzo defeating the Estensi in 1484. iii. Brescia defended against the Visconti in 1483. iv. The Capture of Gallipoli from the Aragonese in 1483. ' Both Thode and Miss Phillipps reject it. I may say that the photograph gives no true impression of this picture at all. The figures are too much reduced and the force is destroyed. 56 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET As works of decoration the design here is far superior to The Battle of Zara. As such they are indeed unique. The art we find in some of the Gonzaga series is indeed more beauti- ful, and the colour of those works is of a different quality altogether, but as decorative design these four ceiling pictures are superb. Tintoret has seized the epic spirit and emphasized that above everything else. The impulse of the Iliad breathes in these canvases, with the glory, hazards, and beauty of the warrior’s life. The brutality generally inseparable from such events is not insisted upon. It is an aristocratic view of warfare precisely in the sense Homer’s poem is such. The Gallipoli example is the most characteristic and impressive. The very essence of adventure is focussed in the stern and inflexible figure of the helmed leader who directs the surprise through the dark of night. There is a night attack in the Gonzaga series. There we are conscious of the romance, here it is entirely the epic force which is presented of such a scene. These pictures are excluded by Miss Phillipps from the authentic work of this master. Is there any other master who in extant work approaches the power of such designs? I know of none in the Venetian school. They appear to have been painted over throughout, deliberately reclothed by no bungler, but a clever artist who has preserved the general tones. What is gone is the delicacy and modulation of tone we meet with in the Munich work, invariably in fact where it is really Tintoret whom we behold. Here we have the metallic quality of other repainted work in this palace, and yet more rigid in its frost upon parts of the Nine Muses. We come now to the series which alone fully justifies the importance I have claimed for this part of Tintoret’s creative activity. This is the cycle of eight pictures painted for the palace of his friend Guglielmo Gonzala, Duke of Mantua, with whom he became closely acquainted on that nobleman’s visit to Venice. Four pictures were commissioned in the first instance, that is in 1579. Their subject-matter is as follows : A. Giovanni Francesco Gonzaga (1395-1444) is appointed Margrave of Mantua by the Emperor Sigismund in 1433. B. Ludovico (1414-1478) is victorious in a fight on the Etsch near Legnano with the Venetians in 1439. Plate CXLII FKDERIGO I TAKES EEGNANO BY STORM (i / : f: K ■V' y*. \ 4 " ' ' r J'' : \ 4 '.- . r s, ; „ . -- - , :rn 1 :--x^ '.< ■r’ ' i!' ‘ vr >^, ■ ■ ' 'r Plate CXLIII VICTORY OF LUDOVICO ON THE ETSCH, 1439 THE EPIC OF THE SWORD 57 C. Federigo I (1440-1484) takes the town of Legnano by storm. D. Giovanni Francesco II (1466-1519) engages on the river Turo with Charles VII I in 1495. To this commission was added a further one of four in 1579, all com- pleted in the following year. E. Federigo II (1500-1540) drives the French out of Milan by night in 1521, F. Federigo II takes Parma in 1521. G. Federigo II drives the French under Lantrec and the Swiss from Pavia in 1522. H. Entry of Philip II into Mantua in 1549. In September 1580 Tintoret was invited to the Duke’s Court to superintend the hanging of these pictures. His wife, such is Ridolfi’s account, objected to his making such a journey without her company. The visit was made en famille. A state barge was placed at the painter’s disposal to conduct him to the mainland. He was most hospitably enter- tained, and his opinion invited by the Duke on other matters of artistic importance. He was even urged to remain. This proposal Tintoret was unable to accept. It is the only trip abroad for which we possess incon- testable evidence. These works are unfortunately hung too high to be inspected as they deserve. They would not be out of place in a room to themselves. They are, as such a historical series, unique in the history of modern painting, in anything approaching such a quality. We will take them in the order they now^ hang in the large room of the Venetian school in the Munich Gallery, starting with that over the Mary and Martha picture by Tintoret and moving in due order to the right of it. This is G in the above list. In the immediate foreground are dead bodies. A man in full mail approaches from the right. Frederick II, mounted unhelmed on a horse, is standing just behind. In the middle distance there are several cannon of antique pattern and a long train of soldiers, advances in a half circle round the higher ground on which the artillery is placed to the assault of ^ That is, in 1910. II I THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 58 the breach in the city walls. Further to the left a crowd of others, like so many ants, escalade the ramparts with Papal standards flying. On the left in the distance is a bridge and French troops are escaping from the town. Here the difficulty of attaching a design of real interest and unity to a number of troops advancing to attack ramparts is overcome by the original device of this half circle of gaily dressed soldiers. The lightness of touch and variety of pose with which this evolution is depicted is admirable. The nude in the foreground, if not exceptional for Tintoret, falls excellently into its place, and the stooping figure in dark yellow on the left to balance the fine group on the right declares the master of com- position. The exquisite painting of the feathers in the foreground is also worthy of notice. Next in order on the right is C. In the foreground the Gonzaga charges on horseback with a few retainers a group of overthrown horses and riders. In the middle distance, on a low mound, the young Duke of Milan, his ally, calmly surveys the battle on horseback with a standard-bearer just behind him. On the right the Swiss foot, who have besieged the town, are in flight. On the left provision-waggons move into it. On a standard to the right may be seen the words Probasti me. This was the motto of the son of this Frederick when he freed himself from certain charges of dishonourable conduct brought against him by Venice. Here it is an anachronism. This picture appears to be rather more dried up than some of the others, but the general harmony of colour tone is exquisite. It may not appear so effective as some at first sight, but it is admirably composed. The central figure makes a fine focus, and the grace of the bearing of this bareheaded cavalier is charming. But though the design, especially in the drawing of some of these foreground figures, is quite first-rate, I would particularly call attention to the colour. It is one of the best of the series in this respect. The delicacy of tone throughout is remarkable. This is as conspicuous in the distant greens and blues of the background as it is in the more emphatic tints upon this Ajax smiting with his axe; and all the details of the foreground — whether grass, feathers or other objects — are characterized with truth and admirable executive ability. Next in order we have B. Plate CXLIV FEDERICO II DRIVES THE FRENCH FROM MILAN iU4 Plate CXLV y4/U Pinakothek, Munich THE EPIC OF THE SWORD 59 In the immediate foreground of these fighting galleys Ludovico Gonzala issues his commands. In the distance the troops of Milan and the Pope force a landing and the soldiers of Venice fly in rout before them. This is the least successful of all as a composition. The difficulty of presenting a sea-fight satisfactorily with such vessels is very apparent. It is, as in the case of the Prado picture, too much of a mere struggle without any real focus. Such a defect was probably felt in the Battle of Lepanto itself.^ But harmonious colour at least is a delight here as else- where. Note especially the beauty of the salmon-coloured standards against the pale yellow sky. The colour of the tunics of the men pressing to left and right in the foreground is an admirable illustration of the way that Tintoret, even in his most rapid work, blends his colours pure and clean yet in tones which defy description. You may call that on the left green grays, but it is the most you can do. There is not a raw bit of colour on the entire canvas. E comes next in order. This is a night attack. Guided by a torchbearer the Margrave rides towards one of the city gates. On the extreme right a soldier kneels on the naked body of a fallen foe. In the distance there is a sortie from the city, already in flames, upon a retreating enemy. This picture is unfortunately much impaired as a composition by the fact that it has not merely darkened, but it has so dried up from neglect of the pigment that what was the most romantic portion of it in the very centre of the picture is now practically invisible. We can barely detect the glitter of the helms of the stealthily moving train of soldiers in the middle distance. Otherwise it was, and even now is in some respects a superb bit of realization. The power of painting was never more visible from the gleam from the blazing town on the poleaxe to the left, keen and sparkling as that of a Rembrandt, or on the flowers and foliage in the foreground, to the broad indication of the nude forms in the foreground and the fury of human movement behind the now almost invisible advance. It was unquestionably one of the most arresting of all when it was first executed. F comes next in order. Behind some dead bodies in the foreground the Margrave Frederick II, ' Mr. Mond’s sea-fight, if a genuine work, probably shares the same defect. 6o THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET a young figure, on a splendid prancing horse, rides forward to the right, where one of his mailed warriors drives the enemy before him. In the middle distance some of his soldiers advance upon what passed for artillery in those days. The French and Swiss are in full flight with the enemy’s cavalry in hot pursuit over a portico covered bridge in the distance. There is a fight for a standard in the middle distance. As a composition this is not so effective as some, though the design of the foreground is admirably balanced. The design of the horse is masterly. The brilliancy of colour, particularly in the middle distance, is, however, so emphatic that but for the unmistakable character of the brushwork and the absence of any approach to crudity one might almost be suspicious of repainting. But it is nothing more than good paint well preserved. The painting of the distant bridge and the figures upon it is perfectly delightful in its atmospheric quality, and how perfectly the dim blue of the distant hills melt in with the landscape. A is the next example. This is in fact the first of the cycle. The Emperor Sigismund is seated on a tribune covered with dark crimson velvet. Opposite him stands, bending low, Giovanni Francesco Gonzaga, to whom the master of the ceremonies presents the Margrave coronet. The arms of the Gonzaga, white on a field divided into four parts by a red cross, in each of which is a black eagle. Beyond this scene we have the Petersplatz in Mantua with riders carrying the colours of Milan, Venice, and the Pope. Tintoret has taken especial pains over the composition of this picture, and the entire impression here is excellent. As to its details it will bear the closest study. The figure of Gonzaga is most imposing and dignified, and it is obvious how carefully the painter with the figure of the woman in blue on the ground, and the young fellow with his leg thrown care- lessly over the edge, seeks to disguise the formal lines of the dais. It will be seen that the three standards continue the lines of the standing figures, and the noble figure of the upright and full-clad knight on the right assists as a balance to the group on the left. This masterly sense of the principles of composition is quite as apparent in the grouping of the cavaliers in the square. The horses are instinct with animation, and the heads composed in masterly fashion to prevent all monotony of line. But though a fine work as composition it is even more excellent as a work of colour. If this Plate CXLVI GIOVANNI GONZAGA MADE MARGRA\'E OF MANTUA BY EMPEROR V • Plate CXLVII GIOVANNI FRANCESCO II ENGAGES ON RIVER TARO WITH CHARLES VIII 1 3C ■% . - ..... «U- r i S' ^(S? 5^ •S' ; !r t- .. - M ■• i y “it I'- i-< Plate CXLVIII ENTRY OF PHILIP !I INTO MANTUA, 1549 THE EPIC OF THE SWORD 6i picture was carefully oiled out, placed on a line with the spectator, with fair breathing-space round it, it would cause some surprise to the genuine lover of colour that is at once pure, refined, and perfectly harmonious through all its parts. There is not a rude patch throughout. Even the rich orange in the centre is no one limited tone but gleams with every kind of lustre. The jerkin on the youth beyond, of a kind of purple gray and blue with a white ruff upon it, is an admirable bit of harmony. A little more to the right we get a genuine patch of Tintoret’s dark blue. Look at the pink of this dais and compare it only for a moment with that truly awful red, or rather scarlet, in the carpet of Titian’s Charles V, but a few paces off. We will hope that Mr. Ricketts has conclusively disposed of the authenticity of that piece of crudity.^ In further proof of the authen- ticity of our own picture we will only point further to the exquisite har- mony between the light-blue gray sky and the gray buildings of the square. The last but one, over that interesting oil-study of Tintoret for a Crucifixion, is D. The cavalry of the Papal troops press on land and through water against the French, whose cavalry carry their fleurs-de-lys standards. Gonzaga approaches on horseback, a full-face portrait, and behind him one bears a standard designed with a flaming sun. The very romance of warfare. The vividness and vitality of the con- ception is marvellous. We are spared the horrors of war and receive instead the beauty of its animation and movement and adventure. The plunge of cavalry through a brook, here it is before our eyes. The colour is surprisingly fresh despite its dryness. A bold, and, from the natural point of view, hardly defensible feature of the colour scheme is the curious dark colour of the sky, darker in tone than all the rest, and not apparently cloud, though the impression is not unlike that of Millet’s Springs where, however, it is obviously cloud, a thunderstorm in fact. But the effect of freshness has unquestionably been enhanced, whatever verdict we may pass on the means. Our last of the cycle is H. Eight white-robed pages support a canopy over Philip II as he enters * As a matter of fact, I believe the picture is known to have been restored by Rubens. We cannot recommend his work for imitation. 62 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Mantua, and is greeted by a representative of the Gonzaga family. The square in front of the Margrave’s palace is surrounded with troops. On the left we have the statue of Hercules and the inscription: ALCIDES STATUIT CAESAR SED PROTULIT AT TU ULTRIUS SI FAS PROGREDIERE PATRE. A difficult subject to compose, and on the whole the artist has admir- ably succeeded with the assistance of beautiful, if also sometimes rather fantastic forms. The youths on the left and the women in the right- and left-hand corners of the foreground are admirable examples of this master’s characteristic design. They are the creations of a poet. The jewels in the hair of the right-hand woman are splendid. Colour and execution alike are a real match to the rest of the series. This then concludes my review of this class of Tintoret’s compositions. Without presenting so obviously the appearance of improvisation such as we receive from a considerable part of the S. Rocco Scuola decorations, it supplies a far truer test of the real character of this master’s colouring^ at the time he was working upon the Ducal Palace, and the evidence here of his imaginative grasp of a subject, his rhythmic beauty of line, his exquisite sense of colour and power of execution is almost as convincing. I have no doubt if a critic as sensitive as Ruskin was to the worth of such qualities had seen this series of historical pictures he would have expressed an enthusiasm and justified it with an elaboration I cannot pretend to rival. But at least I am convinced that no such an array of historical scenes has ever been painted in this grand style before or since, whether we admire them most for the romance and poetry they contain, for their realization of historical fact under an epic or typical aspect, or mainly as superb examples of pictorial art, the modulated harmony of their coloured gradations, their merits as imaginative composition and the fascination of the artist’s personal technique. As I say, they cannot be seen as they ought to be seen where they hang now, and the very prodigality displayed in subjects all of the same generic type thus placed together makes an appeal upon concentrated ^ These pictures are, of course, indubitable oil-pictures. THE EPIC OF THE SWORD 63 attention, not to say knowledge, which very few visitors of public galleries, surrounded as they are by so many diverting attractions, are prepared to bestow. But we have none the less in these works Tintoret’s genius as unquestionably illustrated and vindicated as completely as in the most famous examples of it in Venice itself. And, indeed, no estimate of it can be regarded as satisfactory which either disregards them or fails to acknowledge their supreme merit. ^ ' The writer of a review which has recently appeared (in the “Times” Supplement, 22 October 1914) on a book of Mr. Belloc upon the Bayeux Tapestry, and entitled “War in Art,” apparently considers Leonardo and Rubens the masters whose genius was most fitted to express the energy of battle, but among several other names omits that of Tintoret altogether. His appreciation of the Epic spirit, however, wholly coincides with the view I have taken, — pictures which, to borrow his expression, give either the impression of a dominating spirit, or the soul of war in its ardour, tenacity and grandeur. CHAPTER XVIII THE WALLET OF OBLIVION I N comparison with the arts of poetry and music that of painting is at a serious disadvantage in the respect that such works are incapable of renewal. Manuscripts may indeed be destroyed, and the world has thus lost possessions of supreme artistic and historical value; but with the art of printing such a loss, in any case of importance, is a remote con- tingency, though the autograph vanish the imaginative content may be indefinitely multiplied. As Bacon expresses it, “the images of men’s gifts and knowledges remain in books, exempted from the wrong of time and capable of perpetual renovation.” But a picture or a fresco is a wholly perishable product. No copy, even by the artist himself, can entirely reproduce it. A canvas may be rebacked, as has recently been the case with Tintoret’s Paradise^ and the life of a great work may be thus extended. But even then the more apparent injury to the painted surface may be wholly left as it was, with its cracks and fissures as gaping as we may view them now in that Paradise. And while the effects of Time are ultimately inexorable, in- judicious restoration may antedate the decease centuries before the process of disintegration is complete. The pictures of Tintoret have in the past, and even now it is true of the most of them, suffered most from the neglect of ordinary care and judicious handling which would have kept alive the lustre of their vitality without destroying or concealing with further accretions the actual colours and brushwork of the artist. Painted as so many of them are for churches they have been left on the walls, often even without frames, as two of the noblest and, curiously enough, best preserved are at this moment,^ to dry up and wither under the accretions of soilure and incense smoke, or the ’ The Cena of the S. Paolo Church and the Presentation of the S. Maria dell’ Orto Church. The pictures in the S. Stephano Church are all unframed. 64 THE WALLET OF OBLIVION 65 injurious influences of the Venetian climate. Nor is the neglect of their guardians by any means wholly responsible for such injury and obscura- tion. Tintoret was a master who painted with extraordinary rapidity. It is a clearly ascertained fact that not the least important reason that many of these pictures of old masters have retained their original freshness and glow of colour is due to this, that before the final stage of the process, with its glazes and semi-transparent pigment, the former blocking in of the work in opaque colour of a few elementary tones was permitted wholly to dry, being often left in Titian’s case for weeks, or even months before the work was finally completed. And, moreover, in Tintoret’s later and indeed more ordinary method, it is equally clear that the groundwork on which he painted was of a darker scheme, with more blue and black in it than that employed by other Venetians. In both these respects, therefore, first that the oil which would otherwise turn black was not suffered wholly to dry out, and, secondly, that the colour which would finally assert itself through the finishing stage was darker to start with than was usual in the process of his most famous contemporaries, not to mention the extra- ordinary success of some of the greatest Flemish masters in this respect, we find legitimate grounds for explaining the thick darkness, as of Egypt itself, which has fallen on a portion of his extant work. Moreover, this master was, in the latter portion of his career especially, like Rembrandt in this respect, and no doubt on excellent grounds from his own point of view, fond of dark shadows. But when we have said all this, and all that may be justly said upon the master’s own negligence, or ignorance, or dis- regard for posterity, the general conclusion remains with which I started that what his works, as indeed the works of every old master of importance, have most suffered from is the neglect or ignorance of their guardians. Though Tintoret was indeed fond of rich shadows, and very possibly may have completed some of his works under conditions prejudicial to the perfect preservation of their colour, yet it remains the fact that he was a Venetian painter and a colourist in precisely the sense that Titian was so himself. With the rarest exceptions, and these are rather hypothetical cases than actually proved, he did not paint as the modern painter with rare exceptions paints alia prima on the canvas for the final effect which he knows, if he knows anything at all, must eventually change and grow II K 66 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET darker or more cold. His work is built up on a process which is calculated with the course of time to preserve and intensify the richness of its glow rather than to diminish it. In some of his finest works you can see the red gleaming through points of the darkest shadow. And even in such overpainted works as the Schleissheim Crucifixion or the Last Judgment what is still so extraordinary a feature is the richness which shines through every obscuration. In nine cases out of ten what these pictures suffer from is not so much darkening of the pigment itself, or the oil or medium used, as sheer withering of it from dryness, or obscuration of it from absence of light, soilure, and damp. In the case of the S. Rocco Crucifixion damp appears to be the most serious cause combined with the total neglect of the canvas, which is not even properly stretched. In that of the Cana Marriage we have the drying up of the more ordinary type, which eventually destroys both the richness and the subtlety of the colour scheme altogether. When Ruskin said that old pictures of priceless value were suffered to go to ruin, where a few pounds only is required to place them in a healthy con- dition, though hundreds would doubtless be contributed to their ultimate burial in complete repainting, this is no language of hyperbole but the statement of pathetic fact. The famous Spring of Botticelli is painted on a panel which will at no distant date be worm-eaten all over unless it re- ceives adequate attention. But this is not the place to multiply examples. In the present chapter I propose to describe the subjects of the most important works of Tintoret in Venice which have suffered from such a process of obscuration. They may not actually be lost in the sense in which so many described for us by Ridolfi, or a portion at least of the once famous Entombment painted for the Church of S. Francesco della Vigna,^ or the Annunciation and Woman of Samariap which Mr. Stearns and others have imagined still exist in the S. Benedetto Church, are lost; but vanished glories they are none the less, so far as their original beauty and indeed to a great extent their visibility, is concerned. The only value of such a description is the subordinate one that it places on record the main lines of their composition, and may possibly assist the enthusiasm ^ See vol. i, ch. xiii. “ There is a picture in the Devonshire collection of this subject. I have not seen it. It may, of course, be the one lost. r' ** •• . i 1% .;r / Plate CLII Scttola di S. Rocco, Venice GETHSEMANE THE WALLET OF OBLIVION 67 of a student or two to penetrate the gloom in such a presence, and under such conditions of penance. The first is probably the most extreme case of all on the left hand wall of a chapel to the left of the altar in the S. Moise Church. The sub- ject is The Washing of the Feet of the Disciples. Christ is seen standing on the right upon a raised dais of five or six steps high. He is in the act of turning round, with the napkin in both hands, as he wipes the feet of S. Peter. This disciple’s head is a noble one, and he is making a gesture of emphatic deprecation. There are in all some seven or eight disciples grouped round or upon this dais. Im- mediately beneath Peter there is another disciple, who looks towards his Master with a humble and intensely reverent expression. Behind him, rather higher in the canvas, yet another; and beneath him a woman in blue and light crimson drapery, whose head turns away from the main group as she looks intently at the surprise stamped on the face of this other apostle. Rather lower down and yet further from the dais another disciple moves forward with a sudden impulse of protest, his right hand across his breast. A further one, just behind him, is seated. His earnest expression is significant of the same wonder. Still more to the left, higher up, a woman stands holding her hands outstretched above her head in yet more emphatic astonishment. Quite in the foreground we find a further disciple, kneeling on the steps, his hands clasped, leaning forward and gazing with an almost pathetic earnestness at Christ. At the extreme right there is a figure added rather from the point of view of composition simply. It would appear to be a mendicant, partially nude, with white linen folded on his head. And immediately above him is yet another disciple, looking away from the drama, though he is just beneath the hands of Christ. The expression of his face is that of serious or rather ecstatic thought. In the depth of the background, relating the scene to more ordinary life, two women can just be distinguished at either end of a table, arrang- ing linen. The one on the right has just become conscious of the general stir of surprise, and turns her head round to look at Christ. An unfortunate addition to the composition is the figure of a priest and those of two donors on the extreme left. The expression of the priest is, however, here noble and dignified, and the group is so far removed from 68 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET the central interest of a picture so large, and even in its original condition so much in shadow, that the disturbing effect becomes of less importance. The head of Christ is not remarkable, but those of all the disciples are not only distinctive and vigorous, but are stamped with most sensitive characterization. The canvas has been added to probably at both the top and bottom, certainly in the latter case, where the addition of a communion cup is clearly a later and thoughtless addition. Though in a terrible state it is possible to make out the colour of drapery in most of the figures. Even such a jejune description will, I think, be sufficient to suggest the Rembrandtesque character of a composition upon which Tintoret bestowed something more than his usual attention. In its original con- dition it must have expressed the surprise and mystery of the scene in a way that the better preserved work in the Escurial Palace, or even that in our National Gallery, does not approach. The idea of a raised dais assists this concentration of interest very considerably. The above is the most complete case of pictorial obscurity I have met with in Venice, probably anywhere. There are, however, in the S. Stephano Church, three pictures not many degrees superior. The subjects are The Last Supper^ The Agony, and another Feet- Washing. The Gethsemane scene closely resembles that in the S. Rocco Scuola and is painted with even more vigour of execution. It is not so much a complete picture as an example of improvisation, which here at any rate would appear to have been rushed straight on the canvas without any previous painting upon it at all. This may possibly account in part ^ for the fact that it has darkened so much, though it was always a dark picture. The composition is not entirely identical with the other example. The agony is here represented at its extreme limit. ^ Christ in fact appears to be prostrate, and the angel, whose glory is the sole source of the picture’s lighting, is awakening Him from a state of actual unconsciousness. There is no approach of soldiers ; one of the three disciples in the fore- ground is roused into a state of half-dazed surmise from his slumber. ^ The pigment is much dried up, and I am afraid that between my two visits there has been some rather senseless splashing here and there with new paint. The impression on the second was certainly not so favourable. ^ There is a fine drawing in the Windsor collection in which Christ is presented in the same attitude of prostration. I think it is by N. Poussin. It is the only other parallel I know of. THE WALLET OF OBLIVION 69 The isolation of the Master and the intensity of the vigil, that appears to be the keynote of the picture. The virtuosity of execution is of course amazing, not even so detailed as the S. Rocco work; but every stroke carrying suggestion, whether of leaf or stone or vital expression. The Feet- Washing'" in its composition would not repay an effort of description, even if it was possible to follow its detail throughout, which it is not. Christ stands by a bowl in the foreground. Peter is just behind, and other disciples are grouped round. It is a work that will not compare with the other examples we have mentioned. The Last Supper is more important. Unfortunately it is hung in the darkest position, unframed of course. Here, too, we have a raised platform of three steps. The table is placed upon it, that is quite on the right of the picture, somewhat slantways. Christ sits at the head nearest the fore- ground. Most of the disciples are seated on the further side. The Master has partially turned round to the left so that his full face is visible, and leans over with earnestness to S. Peter who is seated on this side. He holds the bread in both hands as in the S. Polo exa«mple. S. John is on his right resting his head on his hands. It is Judas, I imagine, who sits next to him and leans over stretching his right hand to a glass of wine on the ground. The face of S. John is truly pathetic, but all the heads are worthy of notice. That of Christ himself is quite comparable in its refine- ment and beauty to the noble, if more accepted type of the S. Simeone Grande example. The principle of service is emphasized in the attendant maiden who enters on the left and in the mendicant on the right. There is also, as a further touch of Rembrandtesque realism, a lad nearly nude on the steps about the picture’s centre, and a dog as in the S. Rocco example. There is also a window in the right-hand corner with a bit of landscape and, almost lost in the background, an attendant. The picture is untouched, but withered and dark with many discolour- ments. The colour scheme is visible, but only barely so. The blue drapery on the mendicant’s figure was once a fine bit of modulated colour. It will be noticed that in both this picture and that of the S. Moise ’ The S. Trovaso Church example, which is also a ruin, is not by Tintoret at all. It is an old copy of the picture in our National collection. 70 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Church I have emphasized the fine impersonation of the disciples. The notion of Ruskin that Tintoret made them deliberately rustic and even boorish admits of no real defence. The opinion is merely, in the S. Trovaso and S. Rocco Cenacoli, supported to this extent, that in those inferior compositions he represents them more decisively what they unquestionably were, men of the common folk. But even in the S. Trovaso example, which Tintoret by no means painted carelessly,^ we have heads indicative of real distinction and moral elevation. The appeal of Peter is poignant in its emotion, and several of the figures on the left are not wanting in the quality which is otherwise not so conspicuous, the dignified demeanour in harmony with such a subject. The curious fact is that it is precisely for these certainly inferior examples of the subject, from the artistic no less than the religious point of view, that we possess preparatory oil-studies. The inferior result appears to be rather due to misfortune than haste, a certain falling-off of interest in the design. Neither works are represent- ative of Tintoret’s more thoughtful and inspired work, where we have not merely dignity and earnestness and a surprising variety of characterization depicted, but as I have already noted, the painter in certain cases really would seem to wish to contrast the spontaneous simplicity and devotion of the common man of the people with the more artificial appearance of it in the sacerdotal caste. We will now turn to the S. Rocco Chapel where the work of this master, once praised so highly by Ridolfi for its design and colour, is in a sad state, mainly owing to neglect, and is only to be seen under conditions which are little better in some cases than total obscurity. The most interesting of these eight pictures are the four in the choir. We will start with the lowest on the left side, which in some respects is the most worthy of study. This is best described as The Death of S. Rocco. The saint is sup- ported by two men in a vaulted dungeon, two fine heads, and reclines on ' It is, of course, much repainted, mainly in the figure of Christ and the background. Even admitting, with Thode, that the overturned chair may be significant of the confusion of Judas, the composition certainly lacks dignity. ^ There are in fact two claimants as such for the S. Trovaso Cena. The one I ex- amined myself in the Caen Gallery certainly appeared to me a genuine oil-study, there are even one or two slight variations. Miss Phillipps mentions another (p. 49) which she calls “ a sketch,” formerly in the possession of Messrs. Sully. Plate CXLIX BATTLE OF CAVALRY 1^ ( ‘ ’ i *"'• 'Mi « ( JT V^- - / - . -■ ■ ' '''*^ iK .• k V i -■' t i !H THE WALLET OF OBLIVION 71 a tomb or a stone pallet. His staff is by his side. The noble figure of an angel in blue drapery flies toward him from the right. This angel’s glory is the only lighting of the picture. Beneath this angel is a female figure leaning over a sick prisoner, also a beautiful figure. Beneath the sain- there are two prisoners in chains, one lying at full length, his head invist ible. To the left there is a grate in the floor, and through this a man’s head appears. A man on the left stoops toward him. To the left of S. Rocco there is the half-clothed figure of a prisoner whose hands are clasped as he devoutly gazes towards the divine messenger. On the right of the richly painted female figure beneath the angel there is a man leaning on a table in a white shirt. The folds of this are finely painted. Another man leans over him. On the extreme right is another male figure with face in profile; he is a splendidly modelled nude figure and wears a red cap. And, finally, in the central foreground, shackled, sits an old man gazing at the angel with folded hands and devotional intensity. This large composition ^ is indeed most carefully elaborated. It is hardly necessary to point out the broad human and, as we might say, democratic sympathy of a painter, who could thus depict the legal outlaw without a single touch of coarse brutality. He evidently takes the view of the saint himself, or that fine pagan philosopher, Apollonius, when placed in similar circumstances. An inferior painter would have piled up the contrast between the saint and the felon. The emphasis here is on essential humanity in the prisoner in bonds, whether deserved or not, and in either case ministered to by spirit, whether embodied in the saintly man or the divine messenger of heaven. I think Thode is quite mistaken in his belief that this picture is re- painted throughout. It has been rather absolutely neglected. There may be some restoration ; but much is, to start with^ highly improbable in such an edifice. I could not detect it, and through all the strata of dirt and discoloration the fundamental tones are surprisingly rich. The painting of the angel’s hair has certainly not been touched, it is quite beautiful. Ruskin gives a long description of the picture above it,^ which I found ‘ About eight by twenty-four feet. ■ It is a curious fact that Ruskin, who calls the previous picture “ wholly uninterest- ing,” calls it by an impossible title, indeed only seems to have seen the figure of the 72 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET the hardest of all to see. To me it appears rather a confused composition, and the reproduction I have secured does not assist much. I will, there- fore, here make way for a bit at least of Ruskin’s description. “ Two of the horses meet in the midst, as if in a tournament; but in madness or fear, not in hostility. On the horse to the right is a standard-bearer, who stoops as from some foe behind him, with lance laid across the saddle- bow, level, and flag stretched out behind as he flies, like the sail of a ship drifting from its mast. The central horseman, who meets the shock of the storm, or enemy, whatever it be, is hurled backward from his seat like a stone from a sling. This figure with the shattered tree-trunk behind it, is the most noble part of the picture. “There is another grand horse on the right in full action. Two gigantic figures on foot, on the left, meant to be nearer than the others, would have injured the picture, had they been clearly visible. Time has reduced them to perfect subordination.” We can only regret that Time did not arrest his flight at such a point. He is not, as a rule, so kind to artists. How Ruskin saw all this I cannot imagine, unless he managed to stop the sun shining through the window above. I believe it to be a kind of glorious intuition. But though I cannot vouch for all the details I can attest how his description reflects absolutely the energy and masterful impression of the painting. And placed as it is, already more than half ruined with neglect as a work of art, it is only right that the statement of its content, whether wholly true or not, should remain for ever that of a man of genius. In such a case it is only the fact that the spirit is far more important than the letter. The work immediately opposite The Death of S. Rocco is one of similar size, entitled S. Rocco in the Hospital. Though not a subject pleasant to everybody, we have it here treated with real dignity. The saint, a figure in dark blue drapery, placed nearly in the picture’s centre, stoops over a sick man. To the left of this a woman presses forward with that eager look of inquiry or enthusiasm this painter de- picts admirably in several works. There are three almost nude figures angel. I presume the explanation is that after taxing his eyes to the point of inspiration over the one above it they closed in sheer exhaustion before the one beneath it. It is a curious example of the nature of the tax which the inspection of such works do make upon the best faculties. Plate CL ROCCO IX HOSPITAL THE WALLET OF OBLIVION 73 grouped round her. On the right is another group with a woman holding a tray. The composition is the same size as that opposite. It does not possess, of course, anything approaching the same interest. The canvas is much dried up and the dark brown colour scheme, which is rather deficient in the distinctive tones of Tintoret’s work, though in part perhaps due to the subject, may of course suffer from restoration, but I question whether there has been any drastic repainting such as Thode states. The picture above it possesses interest mainly for its fine landscape, the wild features of which are emphasized by Ruskin. S. Rocco is on the extreme left, holding a pilgrim’s staff and stretching out his hands. There are other figures, a large figure of a man in brown costume resting on the right being worthy of particular notice for its design, also sheep and cattle. The picture was always cool in colour, much more characteristic of Tintoret than the one beneath it, and is now much faded, and of course very difficult to see properly. It is like its fellow opposite practically an opus perdituvi. The two pictures in the body of the chapel, that is the S. Rocco in the Desert and The Pool of Bethesda^ together with an Annunciation and a N. Rocco before the Pope^ are well described by Ruskin in his Notes; and in the first two examples we find so much injury that it would be loss of time to dwell on them at length. Ruskin appears to me rather too severe on this Anmmciation. The conception, it is true, is not very remarkable for Tintoret, but the angel who appears on a cloud to the left before the Virgin as she steps out on what appears to be a sort of balcony, is a fine and graceful figure. It is at least a different class of work altogether to the Berlin monstrosity. The S. Rocco before the Pofe appears to me rather frozen up with the assistance of a restorer. But it was never quite a success. The landscape in the N. Rocco in the Desert^ the higher of the remain- ing two, was once no doubt full of interest and beauty, but it has vanished like a faded cloud. What Ruskin means by saying there is only one figure in it I cannot conceive. On the left a man stretches out his hands. There are also figures in brown and green drapery, and the saint is, I suppose, the figure in the centre. In the third division of the picture we find women and children and a man whose muscular development appears II L 74 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET to have grown under the supervision of Michelangelo. The dog is quite excellent. Ruskin’s assault on the painter for his predilection for Renaissance architecture in the picture below ^ has been very possibly stimulated by his annoyance that this architecture is the most important feature remaining in the picture’s ruin. Nor do I quite see why the paralytic should not be permitted to “shoulder off” his bed, it being assumed that he was sufficiently cured to do so. The truth is that in cases where we confront works like these, in which we are conscious of such irreparable losses, we are subject to a very intelligible desire to kick down the little that remains. But there are one or two fine features none the less. The figure in the centre is still a noble presentment, and real mastery of composition is displayed in the grouping of so many figures. The colour is, however, faded and withered beyond redemption. Venice contains other pictures passing like the above into the shadows of the sepulchre, not merely in her churches, but also in the Scuola itself. The Baptism of the S. Silvestro Church is one of them. This picture, I regret to say, appears to have lost much even since the time Ruskin saw it, who praises it strongly. Like another fine Baptism of this master, placed in even darker surroundings in the S. Giorgio Church at Verona, its colour is rapidly disappearing. In the S. Silvestro work there is a large obviously spurious addition at the top with, if I recollect rightly, cherubs and the Divine Father. But the rest is a supremely reposeful and beautiful picture. The figures of Christ and the Baptist are exceptional. In the refinement and thoughtful tranquillity of the countenance of Christ the painter has given of his best. In no Baptism^ either by Tintoret or anyone else, do I find such traces of tender and religious feeling, not altogether dissociate, however, from romance. I think myself both the dove and the two angels are part of the original picture. Christ^ here stands simply in the clear waters of a mountain brook. The Baptist stands on the verge of a small cascade down the rock at the side. The landscape. This is the Pool of Bethesda subject for which there is a large oil-study in Lord Brownlow’s possession. The nude here will compare in its refinement of drawing to the figure of the Gesuati Church. Plate CL I THE POOL OF BETHESDA THE WALLET OF OBLIVION 75 with its contrast of light and shade, and its sense of largeness, was once most remarkable; even Ruskin seems to have seen something of it, and dwells at considerable length on detail. But the picture is now so terribly dried up with dirt or incense or both that little remains but a rare kind of peach gloom still exhaled from the picture as from something that was supremely precious, the pathetic residue of a colour scheme, which was most exquisitely rich and delicate. The altar picture in the S. Zobenigo Church is by one or two degrees more clean and less corroded, but it suffers from its conditions yet more, and not least from its totally discordant white marble frame. It is tragic that when these guardians should happen to concede that accessory to a picture’s beauty their selection should be considerably worse than none at all. The subject of the picture is T%vo Saints^ adoring the ascending Chi'ist. Here, too, the mists of oblivion are settling rapidly. The truth is that both these pictures are painted in Tintoret’s most refined period of colour harmony, not long after The Finding of the Ci'oss,'^ iho. pictures are untouched, but the pigment has much dried up and the glow, subtlety, and delicacy are perceived through a mist. I even mistook at first a portion of the flesh-colour of Christ’s figure for white drapery, the articulate form is so impaired. The figures of the Saints and two angels are in better con- dition. The cherub-angel may have been slightly touched by a restorer. We may here conclude our review of this pathetic province of Tintoret’s creations. It is the record of precious work already covered with the twilight of their history, a veil over the beauty of colour, no less than its frequent disappearance, a darkness which is fast closing from which there is no return, and which leaves behind merely the pale and uncertain reflection of a memory or a tradition. Sic transit gloria mundi. For pictorial art, even the best preserved, such a motto is inevitable. ‘ SS. Catherine and Augustine. Miss Phillipps is here incorrect. The head of S. Augustine is perhaps the finest bit of the picture. There is a touch of Tiepolo in the Christ. Miss Phillipps describes both in her chapter entitled “ Late Work.” It is to my mind quite impossible that either could have been painted after the Ca7ia Marriage. CHAPTER XIX WORK IN ADVANCED AGE I T is impossible to determine with any precision work which was executed by Tintoret either immediately prior to the Paradise^ or in the brief period which elapsed between that date and his death in 1594. It is, however, probable that all the extant work now to be seen in the S. Giorgio Maggiore and II Redentore churches falls into one or other of these periods. But even here with regard to an example or two the doubt is possible, and as to other works elsewhere even this degree of certainty is out of the question. It is generally assumed that Tintoret was occupied with some portion of the work executed upon the Ducal Palace right up to his commission for the Paradise. I have dealt with a considerable portion of this in other chapters, and do not propose to deal with the whole of what is there now attributed to him exhaustively in the present work. Over a very considerable portion of this, even where the influence of his genius and characteristic design is felt, the co-operation of assistants or the posthumous embellishments of the restorer are so decisively impressed on the works in their present condition as to remove them entirely from the list of authentic works. And even in such a Sala as the delle Quatro Porte, where the master’s hand is more visible, or on the ceiling of the Ingresso to this hall, the pictures have suffered so much in one way or another as to make the detailed description of them of less value, having regard to the further fact that this portion of his work is precisely that which can be found exhaustively described by previous English writers. There are, however, two or three pictures in this palace which do not fall under such a category, in addition, that is, to the Paradise itself, which I shall deal with in the following chapter. Two of these are in the Anti-Chiesetta Sala, and are now known respectively as S'S'. George., Margaret and Louise of Toulouse., and the 76 Plate CLIII Ducal Palace. Venice SS. ANDREW AND JEROME Plate CLIV Ducal Palace, Venice SS. MARGARET, LOITS, AND GEORGE Plate CLV MADONNA, CHILD, SAINTS, THREE TESORIERI, AND ATTENDANTS DETAIL, LEFT HALF WORK IN ADVANCED AGE 77 NvS. A ndrew and Jerome. These pictures are wholly intact and are both of them of a rare and restrained beauty, works of art in the finest sense as distinct from pictures which rather fall into the more generalized character of composition belonging to a decorative scheme. Our latest English biographer appears to think they are among Tintoret’s late work; she would even appear to regard the N. George and the Dragon of our National Collection, which is most certainly painted in the last period of the painter’s career, as a study for one of them. In my judgment there is absolutely nothing to support such a view but the fact that the two pictures contain the figures of S. George and a dragon. Even Thode connects the execution of these works with that of the Quatrain. This opinion has at least so much to be said for it that the technical execution is in both cases of the very highest quality. But so far as the impression of the effect itself carries it is certainly not, in my judgment, to this conclusion. I am, in fact, strongly inclined to the view that both these pictures, most certainly the NN. Andrew and Jerome., were executed a very considerable time before any other portion of Tintoret’s extant work for the Ducal Palace was executed. In this connection it is of importance to note that neither of these pictures were in position when Ridolfi made his list of the works of Tintoret for this Ducal Palace, at least he omits them altogether. It is not an unreasonable inference that the date of their execution is wholly independent. Such a conclusion is the one I arrive at from the works themselves, and more particularly from the SS. Andrew and Jerome^ which appears to me executed at a date considerably previous to the other. The type of work is, no doubt, of a more mature accomplishment than that we find in such pictures as the Martyrdom of St. Christopher in the S. Maria dell’ Orto Church, or the St. Helena of the Brera Gallery, but it is certainly more reminiscent of that work than any other work we now find in the Ducal Palace. It falls between such work and the St. Jerome of the Vienna Gallery and such a picture as the Camerlhighi^ and Madonna and Saints in the Venetian Academy, pictures which, if they fall into the period when Tintoret was working for the State, fall in quite the early part of it. The St. George picture is an appreciably richer colour-scheme; and, even in technique, is ' The colour of the nude S. Sebastian may be compared with that of the S. Andrew for this deep mellow quality. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 78 sug'g'estive of a somewhat later date. But neither of these pictures can belong to what we may distinctively call Tintoret’s last period of work, such work, I mean, as we identify with pictures of the type of The St. George and the Dragon in our National Gallery, the House of Mary and Martha at Munich,^ and The Battle Scene of the Prado. The picture which does stand much closer in date to the Quatrain is unquestionably the Origin of the Milky Way. However, these are no doubt controversial points upon which no real consensus of opinion is likely to be secured. The colour of these two fine works is, as a general effect, a grayish- brown, opposed with gray, black, or purplish-black, and a warm russet tint, the flesh-colour in the St. Jerome and St. Andrew being peculiarly rich in its mellow or rather deep golden tone. In the other picture the saint or princess sits astride on the dragon’s neck, whose head is pierced by a lance, with the broken shaft at her feet. She looks round with confiding tenderness at St. George, who stands behind her holding up his hands, not, as some have suggested, from any surprise at her feat, but by way of blessing. The position of the lady is itself symbolical as an attitude of victory. And if there is any touch of ungainliness in the posture the impression is absorbed within the austere beauty of the other two figures, the entire impression being one of tranquil completeness. The companion picture is even more sober and mellow and quiet both in its technique and colour. In its modulation of tone and atmo- spheric quality within the range accepted it runs beyond the power of analysis. St. Andrew holds a great wooden cross against the sky, broken by the splendid outline, as in Mr. Crawshay’s Adam and Eve., with yet more supreme power, of various leaves. A book lies open on a wooden stand, painted in the most masterly way. The modelling of the nude is of the same noble style of execution, concrete truth without any strained emphasis or detail. Except for a few touches on the figure of St. Andrew these pictures appear to be just as the painter left them. There is one other picture in the Ducal Palace upon which I would like to add a word or two to my previous reference to it. This is the Resu7'rectio7i a7id three Senators now placed over the door of the last room but one among the vaults of what I understand is called the Archaeologico ' A picture considerably earlier than the other two. Plate CLVl Ducal Palace, J’eiiice THE DEPOSITION WITH KNEELING DOGES LEFT SIDE OF PICTURE WITH S. SEBASTIAN Plate CLVII Ducal Palace, I'cuicc WORK IN ADVANCED AGE 79 Museo. This picture also must have been painted quite in the early days of Tintoret’s work for the State, if indeed it was painted for the State at all, which is more than doubtful. It is on the whole the finest conception by Tintoret on this subject. Most people, and I confess myself to be one of them, would prefer to see the anachronism removed, but it is quite possible to find even an aesthetic enjoyment in these stolid impersonations of religious devoutness as a real heightening, by way of contrast, to the singular beauty and grace of line of the rest of the composition. The imaginative resource displayed in the design of these two angels repre- senting as they do the quiet beauty of adoration, and the exquisite rhythm of aerial motion, is far more penetrating than even that we find in the S. Rocco Scuola example where their task consists in the removal of the sepulchral stone itself. The wings of this hovering angel are painted in a manner which is even superior to the painting of the angel in the S. Rocco Scuola picture, where he is descending upon Elijah, a piece of work so highly praised by Ruskin. These armed recumbent soldiers in the foreground, too, are painted in such a way as to rival the very finest work of this kind in the Venetian school, not even excluding Giorgione. There is, in fact, loving attention to detail throughout. And if there is the inevitable reluctance to accept the figure of the risen Christ I can think of no presentation, unless it be possibly that of Fra Angelico, which is not received at least with the same measure of reluctance. In any case this landscape, which shines with its rich and tender blues through the suggestively broken arch of the middle distance, completes a composition which is not merely religious, but a poem of rare intuitive delicacy. Before passing on to the two churches on the other side of the Grand Canal I should like to draw attention to a series of six pictures, which, according to the statement of Ridolfi, though he only mentions four of them, were painted after the Paradise. They hang in the small church of S. Caterina and relate exclusively to the legendary history of that saint. Though in design extremely characteristic work of the painter’s last period, and instinct with imagination of the boldest type, the total effect of these pictures in their present condition is something of a disappointment which the reproductions do not fully explain. The truth is there has been some very clumsy restoration over the 8o THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET greater portion of this work, under which process not merely the original colour has to a great extent vanished, but the impression produced is one of the freest design conceivable struggling to detach itself from the bonds of a technique entirely discordant with its power and spontaneity. Of these six pictures, placed three on each side of the chapel to right and left as you enter, the three on the right, which relate to the earlier and less extraordinary part of this saint’s history, are in the best light, and on the whole appear to be in best preservation. Unfortunately these are precisely the ones where the inspiration of the design and execution is least remarkable. I shall attempt no detailed description which, so far as the design is concerned, may be gathered from the reproductions.^ It is quite possible to obtain from them the fine conception of the saint here depicted in its combination of queenlike dignity and saintlike fervour and humility. The execution of these works could never have been very equal in its quality throughout even in its original state. But at least in these rapidly painted works there is, even under the present depressed conditions, a surprisingly bold and vivid realization of the tremendous experience tradition has associated with a beautiful and saintlike woman. Though studies rather than finished compositions, the vitality and imagination displayed is most remarkable. Turning our attention now to the work executed for the S. Maggiore and II Redentore churches, there are two features in this work I would in the first instance emphasize. I will take each in turn with the illustrations that apply to them. Though this work was undoubtedly, in the most important portion of it, among the latest executed by Tintoret, we find in two compositions, namely, tho, Deposition of the Mortuary Chapel of the S. Giorgio Maggiore Church, and the Crowning with Thorns of the II Redentore Church, that is, the very two examples which we have good reason to believe were the last^ executed among all the works in these two churches, not merely no declension in artistic power, but examples of the finest achievement, ' Plates XXIV, XXV, CLX, and CLXI. ^ The Mortuary Chapel was only finished in 1592, that is, two years before Tintoret’s death. There are points so closely allied both in conception and execution between the pictures that I think we may safely date the Crowning with Thorns about the same time. Plate CLX LEGEND OF S. CATHERINE ) Plate CLXI LEGEND OF S. CATHERINE Plate CLXII II Redent ore, Venice THE ASCENSION WORK IN ADVANCED AGE 8i which in a real sense surpasses every previous conception of this master, and in one case there are many of them on the same subjects, so far as we are now permitted to see them/ I have already ^ referred at considerable length to the composition of this Deposition. Among all the religious pictures of Tintoret I hardly know of one where we find a picture so absolutely as he left it, and placed at the same time under conditions so favourable from every point of view for its comprehension and enjoyment. It is precisely at the right height ; it is absolutely alone with the profundity of its appeal in a chamber over a bare altar, a chamber wholly unadorned and solitary in every other respect save the solemnity of its associations ; and, though the light secured is hardly as strong as we might desire, on a bright day it is at least amply sufficient. The power and imagination implied in the execution is on an equality with the penetration, beauty, and harmonious relation of the design throughout. It is not that superlative technique we find in the Quatrain, or even in the SS. Andrezv and Jerome of the Ducal Palace. It is rather the absolute mastery of a painter of unrivalled experience, whose ease and power over the most expressive quality of his medium, no less than over the use of the brush, permits him with extraordinary swiftness, yet without a trace of undue haste, so to transcribe his conception in colour that while it entirely unfolds the depth of its significance and essential beauty it does not proceed one step further beyond the point necessary for the exposition of the imaginative content. It shares, in short, the quality of the finest poetry through an absorption in the subject wholly free from any ulterior or conscious intent of merely consummate work, whether it be fine writing or fine painting. It appears to be almost as spontaneous as the finest poetry is so. As regards its colour, it possesses in its richness, purity and depth precisely that which we look for almost in vain in the S. Caterina series. And this in great measure accounts for the fact that the photographic record gives such a very poor account of it. Of course the same certainty of date cannot be affirmed with regard to the Crownmg with Thorns. But that it was painted after the Paradise and considerably after the Ascension in this church, appears to me about ^ See Chapter XIII. ^ Vol. i, pp. io8, 109, 177, 178. II M 82 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET as certain as any fact of the kind can be where documentary evidence is absent. This presentment of Christ, the features of the face itself, resembles most closely that of the Christ in the Deposition just considered. They both of them appear to me the highest point of attainment reached by Tintoret in his conception of the Son of Man, that effort to reveal the divine in the human, to combine a supreme repose and dignity, with a reserve of strength both of emotion and intelligence, from which the most distant trace of weakness, in the sense of effeminacy, is removed. And this inherent manliness, even in the noblest Hellenic conception of the term, is, in the emphasis here attached to it, unique among such delineations of the Italian, or indeed any school of art. We have not here, as admittedly we do have in many pictures of Tintoret, a deflection from the traditional conception in the direction of a human seer or teacher, which appreciably impairs not only our aesthetic sense of corporeal beauty, but also the depth and suggestion of the spiritual significance itself. We retain all that, but over and beyond that we have something more. What we find here is a conception, the originality of which mainly appears to consist in this, that this Ideal is sought for under a different and, as it appears to me, a yet more penetrating process. It strives to grasp that Ideal not by generalization, but by creative characterization, not so much by the refinement of feature after feature, until in the hands of inferior artists the only effect secured is an attenuated reflex of abstract virtue, and indeed in the case of almost every painter but that of Tintoret, Michelangelo, and possibly Titian in one or two of his greatest works, implying a loss of essential power, but rather with express intent to emphasize, as the source of supreme spiritual strength and vision, more than of supreme refinement and tenderness of emotion, the divine or intrinsic substance of our common humanity. To put the same truth in a rather different way, this delineation of Tintoret does not merely assert its appeal as an impersonation of goodness, or of healing might, or even of the principle of self-sacrifice, it is pre-eminently and in visible shape robust and heroic. It belongs, as a part of its essence, to the lineage of Prometheus. And this note of original rather than conventional or academic inspiration is just that which distinguishes it from the Christ ' I should except the head of Christ in Michelangelo’s Entombment of our National Collection. Plate CLVIII AHASUERUS AND ESTHEF (. - Plate CLIX AHASUERUS AND ESTHER WORK IN ADVANCED AGE 83 before Pilate in the S. Rocco Scuola, though there is a much closer approach to it in the Ecce Homo. At the same time, in this stress upon the superiority of this present- ment, I do not primarily include in my comparison the sublime figure of the Crucified in the S. Rocco Crucifixion.^ or even that in the Gesuati Church. It will, I think, be felt that in both these examples the funda- mental source of inspiration for the painter himself was rather the concep- tion of the Son of God than that of the Son of Man. But if the sublime majesty of the S. Rocco example in particular places that achievement, not as I think necessarily a greater achievement, on a somewhat different plane of imaginative creation to that we find, as I should say, invariably in other religious pictures of Tintoret, we must at least admit that it is an essential constituent of such a superhuman ideal that there is in the aspect of it, which we may perhaps sufficiently define as its masculine and indeed heroic integrity, so far as the idea of heroism is compatible with Godhead, no diminution or attenuation whatever. To preserve the sense of this is, in fact, perhaps the most wonderful part of Tintoret’s achievement. Another point to notice in this Crowning %vith Thorns is the entire absence of emphasis upon the more brutal aspect of the scene. We are permitted to contemplate the endurance of a heroic spirit without the wholly unnecessary addition of the conceivable ferocity of the inhuman instrument of punishment. In the Flagellation of the Capitoline Gallery,^ which I do not believe is the work of Tintoret at all, this spirit of reticence is absent, as it is in almost all delineations of this subject, and particularly so in the two examples of Titian. Nay more, in this picture we have our thoughts diverted from the ignominy and mere suffering itself to the source of the spiritual strength which such could neither assail nor weaken. These four angels in the upper part of the picture are among the most beautiful Tintoret ever painted. The way the light falls on the drapery of the one clasping his hands is a lovely bit of painting. The design and technique of the work are alike excellent, the model- ling of the Christ’s figure being carried much further than in the picture * The painting itself is certainly not Tintoret’s. Miss Phillipps accepts this picture and never mentions this fine work in Venice at all. The Crowning with Thorns of the Venetian Academy is evidently a fragment of what was a fine authentic work. That in the Croceferi is too doubtful and merely worth the bare mention. Holborn, however, accepts it as well as a Presentation which does not exist. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 84 we have last considered. The picture is very dirty and may have some touches of restoration, but dryness and dirt are the main difficulties, and even through these the richness and general tones of the original colour remain.^ We have referred already to Titian’s famous works on this subject. The conception of that in the Louvre is most insistent on the coarseness and brutality of the sentence as administered. It is supposed that Tintoret much admired the late work in the Munich Gallery, and he is even stated to have begged it from Titian. I very much question whether Tintoret was a man who would, under the strained relations we know existed between them, have begged anything from Titian, least of all this picture. There is no doubt some very fine colour in it, and a kind of freedom and breadth which ordinary people may have associated with the work of Tintoret, and so, for all I know, the story may have arisen. No doubt there are aspects of the picture for which Tintoret may have expressed an admiration — regarding it as a bold experimental study or improvisation the peculiar virtues of which he was pre-eminently qualified to understand. But that he should have thought it a really great and characteristic work of the genius of Titian is simply impossible to believe. He could no more have regarded it as such than his modern English exponent and admirer, Mr. Ricketts,^ so regards it, and indeed anyone who either cares for or knows what good drawing is. The general coloured impression may be fine, and the picture is not lacking in a certain distinction inseparable from the genius of the master who painted it; but the execution of it is clearly that of an old man, both confused, and in parts wholly inarticulate, rather presenting the appearance of an improvisation than that of a complete picture. The second point I would draw attention to in reference to the work of these two churches is the fact that in one of the large choir pictures of ^ Thode remarks it is completely repainted, and it is the only remark he vouchsafes. The pigment is rather withered, but the restoration is not that of drastic repainting at all. I expect Thode had not the patience to examine it. My attempts to procure a photograph have failed, I regret to say. ^ The idea of this apologist that part of this messed look may be due to the im- pertinent additions of Tintoret’s own handiwork is impossible in any case, and most impossible of all if we assume that he really admired the picture. The impertinence of such meddling is only to be equalled by the audacity of the suggestion. ^ H- Plate CLXIV THE MANNA IN THE WILDERNESS WORK IN ADVANCED AGE 85 the S. Gioro-io Mae^iore Church we have to look back to work of a much earlier date for certain features of its execution, the plastic power of it for example, and even more to the delightful freshness and idyllic character of its spirit. Indeed, even the tranquillity of such a composition as The Flight into Egypt is not so remarkable as it is in The Gathering of the Manna of this church, or it is certainly not so expressly emphasized in the manner of the latter’s careful and detailed execution. The main defect of this beautiful picture, executed at the earliest not many years previous to the Paradise^ is the absence of a distinct focus, for we can hardly admit that either the figures of Aaron and Moses on the right, or the group of fair women in the centre quite meets this demand. But in the presence of such a subject and landscape we perhaps do not feel this defect so pressing as we might otherwise do. The way the painter introduces us to all the occupations of these women and others, wood-carrying, washing, cooking, and spinning, reminds us of that judicious attention to the rhythm of graceful movement which belongs to his earliest and least experimental method of work. In the close relation of the subject to the beauty of Nature we breathe again something more of the repose of the Hellenic spirit, which in much of the S. Rocco Scuola work seemed to have taken flight altogether. If there are still any who refuse to admit that this painter is not at least fully the rival of either Titian or Veronese in his plastic treatment of the human form I would invite such to view some of these charming women of Israel through a glass. They will be found to stand out in relief from their environment with the truth of Nature itself. The emphasis in the S. Rocco example of this subject is on the actual fall of the manna, the miracle of it, and the grateful delight of the congregation who rush to secure it. Here it is a mere incident of the wanderer’s life with the continuity of its supply. It is the bread received almost, it would appear, as the benefits of Nature herself, the running water, her trees, and flowers. The painter’s thought is concentrated on the symbolism of this food in the history of the chosen people. As surely as these fathers of old time did eat of manna in the wilderness, so also the children of the later covenant receive the bread and wine of the Master’s table. Such a deeper significance is unquestionaly suggested by the beautiful and thoughtful woman’s face on the left, with the branch of thanksgiving in her hands, to which there is a real parallel in the picture of Moses striking the Rock. It 86 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET is clearly shown also in the figure of Moses, here obviously typical of Christ, and the close association of this picture with the companion picture opposite of the Last Supper. It is not, therefore, a straining of its legitimate significance if we infer that something of its superb sense of refreshment and repose was, even in the poet’s conception of it, infected with the grace and love of the banquet whereof it was symbolical. This Last Supper^ though unquestionably painted as a companion picture, in its execution resembles far more nearly the work we identify as Tintoret’s latest period. It was probably the last in order of completion and shows signs of a rapidity, which in certain directions approaches sheer haste or carelessness. The impersonation of Christ in this picture is not nearly so remarkable as in that of several on the same subject. The work cannot compare for one moment in its general spirit with the profound earnest- ness and grasp of ideal significance we find in the S. Polo example. In a portion of its incidents it is wholly decorative. But despite of all this it is essentially imbued with the poetry and romance ^ of the companion picture. And, indeed, in the presence of this chamber, made as it were magnetic with the half-veiled mystery of angelic spirits, though we must admit that such an aspect does not approach the profounder realism of the S. Polo masterpiece, yet with its poetry or its symbolism, however we regard it, it is no unworthy, as it is certainly a most highly characteristic close of all this indefatigable master’s effort to depict this significant moment of human history, this immortal love-feast of Christ and his disciples. As a further note on these pictures we may observe they appear to be painted on canvas of precisely similar quality. The Cena would seem to have sulfered most from the effects of time, dryness and the like, but neither appear to have undergone any drastic restoration. The colour scheme displays a preference to light tints in the ordinary tones. The pink, though not common in this shade with Tintoret’s more ordinary tones, and entirely absent from the Paradise^ does occur, if rarely, in the S. Rocco Scuola, and is found in even a lighter tint on the Vienna S. Jerome. * Quite two of the most beautiful figures in the picture are the female attendants, the one on the left under the nimbus of spirits and the other looking on thoughtfully from the extreme right. The disciples are painted too much as if Tintoret had begun to get a little tired of them. WORK IN ADVANCED AGE 87 I shall refer to the remaining' pictures more briefly. The Ascension in the II Redentore Church is not so important a work as the Crownings and it is in a worse condition. I think it must have been executed some time before the Paradise. Though the figure of Christ, here extending his arms in the attitude of blessing, is not lacking in real dignity, there are traces of that weakness of conception invariably present in the figures of Palma Giovine. The angels, though beautiful, are not exceptionally so for Tintoret, the two descending messengers of comfort here being, however, the portion of the picture that is least restored. In the too emphatically red tones of the glory in the upper part the work has probably suffered most. With regard to the four other pictures in the S. Giorgio Church, I think, in the case of two certainly, even the original execution is not entirely from the hand of Tintoret himself. It is fruitless speculation to inquire whether such assistance was supplied exclusively by Domenico or others. Though in the main part of his work it is certain Tintoret relied entirely on himself and had no school in the strict sense, yet in the latter part of his life, and almost certainly when engaged upon the Ducal Palace decora- tions, he does appear to have followed the course almost invariably adopted by Venetian artists, and availed himself to a limited extent of such assist- ance. The mere hypothesis of drastic repainting will not alone account for the equivocal character of some of those works, particularly in the Sala del Collegio. The painting here of NN. Damien., Cosnias, and Others certainly rather suggests restoration than much assistance which would interfere with the design, which is evidently Tintoret’s, though a rather bad example of it. The composition lacks focus and has too many figures apparently added for no other reason than that of including another saint or two. The picture is full of extraordinary energy, and there is noble design in the conception of the saint and the angel at the top, but it is difficult to believe that such a picture was painted anywhere near to the finest three in this church. But it is Tintoret throughout, and not least in that face of a knight on the right side of the picture. What the Martyrdom of S. Stephen looked like when it was executed would require a vivid imagination to conceive. In many places the pigment is now denuded to the bare canvas, and being directly exposed 88 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET to sunlight the colour has almost entirely gone out of it. The foreground figures, as will be seen in the reproduction, are very finely designed and were undoubtedly the work of Tintoret throughout. The isolation and resignation of the martyred saint are grandly depicted. As a whole the composition suffers from the defect that it consists too much of three sections divided by nearly parallel lines. This Christ is a nobler present- ment than in the previous Ascension^ but the picture is too much of a ruin to repay detailed description. There is a drawing in the British Museum on the same subject, but the conception is entirely different. In our picture, as in the Scourging of the other church, the absence of any emphasis on the cruelty of the ordeal is very conspicuous. The removal of S. Paul from the foreground is a point which Ruskin notes with praise. The other two pictures far more certainly suggest collaboration of some kind. The Coronation of the Virgin in its extreme formality is, in fact, assuming the design to be Tintoret’s, very difficult to bring into line with the latest work of all. The Madonna is dignified, but not a remarkable figure for Tintoret, especially at this period of his life, and there is too much space here between the figures. As in the other picture, which is clearly painted to order rather than marked with genuine inspiration, that is. The Resurrection and Morisini Family^ the main interest of the painter appears to have been directed to the characterization of his portraits. This Resurrection is not even such a vital work as that in the Cassiano Church, the least important of the works in that edifice. If these two pictures were painted from designs of Tintoret himself, it is impossible not to believe that for the execution of both Domenico was in large measure responsible. Before closing our review of Tintoret’s compositions with some account of the Paradise^ it may not be without interest to refer to one or two, which are traditionally regarded as having been left unfinished by him and completed by Domenico. There is, for instance. The Glory of S. Marziale in the church dedicate to that saint. Thode does not refer to it. For myself I believe this picture one practically finished by Tintoret in the latter part of his life. It seems in good preservation, and, so far as I can see, is an authentic, if not remarkable work from his own hand. Even the suggested defect of the small size of the saint’s head is rather like him in the particular form we have it here. Plate CLXIII A. Giorgio Jlaggiore, Venice MARTYRDOM OF S. STEPHEN WORK IN ADVANCED AGE 89 The two pictures entitled The Betrayal of Joachim and The Adoration of the Magi in the choir of the S. T rovaso Church present, however, a far more interesting" problem. It is quite clear that these pictures were not only not completed by Tintoret, but even assuming the design to be his, it may be doubted if any part of the visible painting" is by his hand. And what is more, both pictures are practically in their original condition. They are both largfe works and really fine compositions. The two girls on the left of the Joachim picture, one bringing" in a tray of doves in a nest and flowers, and the other with arms uplifted, are admirably designed. Other figures, such as the man in red drapery stooping in the foreground, are but little inferior. The distant landscape, too, is quite delightful. There is a raised dais on the right with a man protesting as he mounts the steps. A high priest, who faces the audience, lays his right hand on this man’s shoulder by way of reprimand, while another official is apparently reading the tale of misdeeds from a roll. These figures are excellently composed, and there are a number of others on the left bringing gifts to the temple. The companion picture opposite is very much of the same quality. The Virgin and Child are not satisfactory, but the figures in the foreground are surprisingly good, though rather representative of Bassano at his best than Tintoret. The robes of the Magi are splendidly elaborate and the young man on the right is quite excellent. Also, just as in the companion picture with its doves, rabbits, calf, and other animals, so here the cow and the young man looking through a window in charge is downright good painting. At the same time the conclusion is as unquestionable that this painting is not that of Tintoret. It is lacking in his fluidity and imaginative fervour, hard and flat in parts, not his brushwork, and some of its tones, notably the reds, are not his. The question is, therefore, are we to assume that the designs are his completed by his son, as tradition states, or is there any other alternative? For myself I am inclined certainly to the view that Tintoret had something to do with their composition, and indeed if it was an undoubted fact that Domenico did * really complete these excellent works in the condition we find them, such a conclusion would be irresistible. The real difficulty consists in the fact that we know so little what this painter could do or could not do unaided. His ability such, as it was, is simply lost as a defined entity in the achievements of the man of genius he assisted. We can affirm beyond II N THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 90 dispute that there is no extant work which has the least pretensions to be an independent composition of his, not even the Crucifixion in this very church, or the Madonna of the Rosary at Bologna, which can rank on the level with these two compositions. Indeed, if he painted pretty nearly all that we see, it is quite clear that his ability was, when fully on its mettle, something very different from what Ruskin imagined it to be. Whether more careful research would carry us much beyond the conviction that this was certainly the fact, may be doubted. In any case, for myself I believe that the problem of the genesis of these two really interesting pictures, the most interesting in this church after the Temptation of S. Anthony^ where we do certainly find the authentic hand throughout, must remain a problem for ever. CHAPTER XX IL PARADISO T he Paradise^ which covers the entire breadth of the wall over the throne in the great Council Hall of the Ducal Palace may be regarded as the close of Tintoret’s life-work. He lived between three and four years longer and painted several pictures, some two or three of which are, as we have seen, of real importance. We have, how- ever, no sufficient ground for contesting the statement of his first bio- grapher that he took some such view of it himself, relinquished his passion for fresh employment, and directed his effort as an artist mainly at least, and by way of relaxation, to the project of elaborating a number of studies of design for the future instruction of students. In any case he would require a considerable rest after the execution of the Paradise. The death of his daughter Marietta in the year this great work was completed would also, no doubt, tend to make him unwilling to accept important com- missions. I have discussed and described this stupendous undertaking for a man of seventy years of age in an independent Essay. ^ Such a work not only merits exceptional attention, but demands it, for in its present condition it cannot be wholly intelligible without it. Such an attention is sometimes spoken of depreciatingly as “literary.” It is true that the interpretation of art is attended with difficulties, as it is also subject to abuses. The desire to put in everything and anything as an excuse for fine writing or literary display is a defect of the age. But if ever the careful and judicious exposition of all that a great work of imaginative genius implies is in its right place and desirable, it is surely here where the content of that work is literally steeped in ideal ' The book is entitled “The Paradise of Tintoretto” (Pear-Tree Press). It contains twenty-two illustrations procured at the author’s expense. Some time I intend to revise it and add yet further illustrations. 91 92 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET significance of one kind or another, and the technical aspect of it has been much impaired by various injuries. There are critics who hold, no doubt, an opposite view even in regard to this picture. For such its interest is simply that of a composition of design and colour. And all will readily admit that is also a view of it of the greatest importance. Indeed, to com- prehend that alone, including in that some real attempt to recover the original impression of the picture when first placed in position, requires far more attention and makes a far greater demand upon the imagination of those who attempt it than all but the small minority are either prepared or able to give. What at first sight is more surprising is the fact that it is precisely those who most belittle any attempt to interpret the substantive poem of the picture, its ideal content, who advance the most astounding views as to its worth as a decoration, or upon the purely technical quality of its execution. Thus the critic I have once before ^ referred to, and whom I merely cite as representative of not a few of the same persuasion, after brushing aside such “literary” exercises as an irrelevance, refers to this Paradise as a “machine” so unequal in its execution that Tintoret, who, as we know, in the same writer’s view of him, was only too ready to plunge about with his brushes like a child from the wholly morbid craving for work, “ could not even in his old age have painted large portions of it.” It is no doubt true, and the fact is stated by Ridolfi himself, that Tintoret did not paint all of it, for he was assisted in putting the separate portions together by his son Domenico. Though Ridolfi does not say so, I think it also quite possible that the son may have assisted in transferring studies to the larger scale before the several parts were taken from the Scuola^ in which Tintoret painted the work substantially before bringing it to the Ducal Palace. But the very nature of such inequality as we find in the execution of this enormous picture proves conclusively that Tintoret was responsible for the final impression of it all, that the design through- out was his own, and that probably in the case of all the principal figures he placed on the canvas every fraction of paint that was placed there. The nature of his loving attention to this work is well illustrated by the fact that, even in the case of the two side choirs of seven and nine angels, ^ See Chapter XIV. ^ The Scuola della Misericordia, which was placed at the artis ’ disposal. Plate CLXV Plate CLXVI Walker Gallery, Liverpool STUDY FOR A PARADISE B Plate C LX VI I THE PARADISE IL PARADISO 93 which in most photographs of the picture you cannot see at all, but which is the only part of the picture I have had the opportunity to study in every square inch of the canvas at close quarters, I will vouch for it absolutely that no one touched those two slips of originally exquisite work but Tintoret himself. Of course the main ground of such views is pure ignorance. In the small residue of difficulty that remains the strangeness will disappear if we will only remember that in the greatest art, in virtue of the fact that it is, as life is, an organic whole, it is impossible to separate the ideal from the formal content, or at least to wholly exclude either without doing injury to one side or the other. In other words, if we attempt to estimate the value of this picture as a work of art without attempting to understand its significance to the artist himself as an endeavour to transfer to the painted canvas the poem of Dante, we merely evade the problem of the picture. And there is one way, and only one way, in which we can undertake all that this work pro- poses, and that is by following the track of the artist himself as he pene- trates with more and more directness and definition into the core and marrow of his subject, until passing from figures of pure generalization he places before our vision a representative assembly of historical Christen- dom itself, mutually related under one supreme and dominant conception. The picture is not merely a decoration ; it is not even primarily painted for aesthetic delight. It is a pictorial interpretation of poetic truth ; nay, it is more, it is a universal instruction and For souls not lent in usury The rapture of the forward view. As a merely pictorial work and part of a scheme of decoration it is open in many directions to criticism. The place for which it was painted presented the gravest difficulties, difficulties such as neither Tintoret nor anyone else could have entirely surmounted. At the very crucial point of the composition, the centre of the work, the space available is out of all proportion in its contraction to the huge breadth ^ of the same. That this ' The work at its full breadth is about 8o feet. It is usually called about 32 feet high. For this measurement I cannot vouch. If only the picture could have been the height at its centre which it is in the sections of the S. George and S. Christopher groups, it would have immensely improved the possibilities of design. 94 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET fact alone, or even materially, was the fact which induced the painter to throw over his Louvre study I do not believe for a moment; but it is true enough that this spatial limitation hampered and indeed injured the main structure of his design. But despite of this most serious defect, I am fully convinced and as certainly that the work is a great one, great with the type of greatness we apply that term to the Crucifixion of the S. Rocco Scuola. It is probable that even in its original condition it was neither the most impressive, beautiful or most readily intelligible of Tintoret’s works, but at least it must always have been the most extraordinary, and there is real ground for the contention of Ruskin that it is the most thoughtful. The most satisfactory proof of this can only be obtained from an exhaustive analysis of its content such as I have attempted elsewhere. Here I shall limit myself to recalling a few salient facts relating to its composition, the mere summary of what it includes, and some suggestion of what it may imply to a reflective mind. It was in the year 1587 that the Venetian Senate decreed that the picture of The Coronation of the Virgin^ painted by Guariento of Padua, should be replaced, or what remained from devastation of fire, by a picture more in harmony with contemporary art. These authorities appear to have deliberated a considerable time over the selection of a painter. Many designs were inspected, and finally Paul Veronese was chosen, with Francesco Bassano as his assistant. Veronese died in 1588. This made another election necessary. That Tintoret had even in the first instance done everything in his power to obtain the commission cannot be doubted. His advanced age was probably responsible in part for the rejection ; but on the death of his friend there was no other rival in the field, and he obtained the coveted work. But it is more than probable that before this date he had made designs. In a letter written by the Venetian Ambassador to the Court of Spain in 1587 to his brother it appears that Tintoret was at that time at work on a sketch of, as therein described. The Last Judg- ment for Philip II of Spain. Some writers have assumed this to be the Prado study of the Paradise brought to Spain by Velasquez. This of course is not at all likely. The mere title is not perhaps of much importance, but what appears to me in- superable as a difficulty is the fact that the Prado study is not so much a study as an exact replica of the final composition ; it has every appearance IL PARADISO 95 of being a replica on a small scale of previous studies, in which the painter had already substantially thought out the composition, and was rather reproducing it for some patron than extemporizing the actual design/ It is impossible to believe that it was not executed after the Louvre study. And it will be as well here to dispose once for all of the question of preparatory studies for the Paradise^ several aspects of which have been wholly omitted by all previous writers. No doubt Tintoret made many studies for different portions of his composition, or even for some of the historical personages represented, precisely as he, with even more certainty, made them for the S. Rocco Crucifixion and for much the same reasons. These have, as we should expect, entirely vanished. There are, however, to my knowledge four extant studies in oil each of which possesses a claim of some kind to be regarded as a study for this picture. We have the two famous ones of the Louvre and the Prado, both of which I admit, though as explained below the Prado replica raises real points of difficulty. There is also a small oil-study in the Liverpool Gallery ^ in which the two principal figures of Christ and the Madonna are posed much as they are in the final work. There is, however, no further resemblance and, though the study is undoubtedly by Tintoret, I hardly think the facts of its design alone sufficient to determine the date of its execution. The remaining oil-study is of much greater interest, and hitherto it appears to have been absolutely overlooked.® This is a large composition formerly in the possession of Colonel Ralph Vivian and exhibited on two occasions at Burlington House. It is a large work, being not merely a study for the entire picture, but alone among all including the lines of the actual space in the Chamber it was eventually intended to fill. Most unfortunately I have been unable to trace this picture since it was sold ^ and have only seen an old engraving of its content still in the former owner’s possession. From this it is impossible to arrive at a really satisfactory conclusion upon the artistic merits of the work. Judging, however, on this second-hand ' The figure at the base of the Prado study very possibly supports this. I have dis- cussed the difficulties connnected with this study at length in my Essay. " See Plate CLXVI. ^ I myself had never heard of it when I wrote my Essay. * I was informed it was sold a few years ago but was unable to trace it through the name of the firm given. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 96 evidence I should myself say that the authenticity of the design at least as from Tintoret’s own hand is beyond all question. We have here not merely a composition which is on the face of it intended expressly to occupy the very position of the Paradise in the Ducal Palace,^ but it differs so entirely from all other studies we know of or the final work, and is, so far as I can judge, so reminiscent of Tintoret himself in its general spirit and sweep of line, that the hypothesis of its forgery appears to me quite impossible. Taken simply as design it possesses all the vitality of an original impulse and conception, and as such is of greater interest than the Prado replica, comparable therein to that of the Louvre study itself. In this composition Christ is a large full-faced and partially draped figure^ sitting on cloud on the left (not the right) of the Madonna who leans forward, standing on cloud, with hands folded in tender supplication. The background here is sky, or more probably a glory, which is defined by a circle of cherub heads. All else in the composition is new to us. It implies, in fact, as we have it, prodigious sized figures, if worked out to scale with the spaces for which it is designed. For we have here only one sweep of cloud dropping away in a curve from the upper corners and carried the entire length beneath the Christ and the Madonna. Upon this cloud we have seated slantwise, in lines, which have on both sides the two central figures as their focus, the circles of the Blessed ranged one behind the other on either side, broken here and there by angels, with a background of angels. Immediately beneath the centre and between these tiers of circles, as they commence on either side, there is a group of finely designed figures, who are for the most part historical, one of the most arresting being a woman’s figure in the left foreground, a beautiful design of a woman very partially draped. There is no counter- part of the angelic group at the base of the final work, or of Ruskin’s so-called Angel of the Sea, and the adoring angel above him. The arch- angels are here represented as in the Last Judgment by two descending angelic figures to the left of Christ blowing trumpets and a further 1 The actual lines of the doors are at least indicated in the engraving with the line of the background of the dais. Its size is stated to be 49 by 152 in. ^ The figure of Christ, as we have the design in the engraving, is certainly more reminiscent of Palma Giovine, but I do not think on such evidence this amounts to much. On the left from the spectator’s point of view. IL PARADISO 97 noble angelic figure ascending below them who carries a censer. To the right of the Madonna and above the circles we have other flying figures of Cherubim and Seraphim. In this respect we have no doubt a closer approach to the final composition, but the grouping is entirely different, or rather it is only half-a-dozen figures in all, flying in various directions. The importance attached to music, on the other hand, rather affiliates it with the Louvre study. The spaces finally allotted on either side to the group of S. George and S. Christopher are here occupied on the left by some of the Blessed, and on the right by angels as musicians with various musical instruments. But it would be tedious with my present knowledge to attempt further description. The main point is that we have here an entirely novel composition, and yet, so far as I can judge, one impossible to attribute to any other hand than that of Tintoret. Its defects as a composition to fill in the huge spaces of the final work are obvious enough. It must have been rather a kind of preliminary attempt to grapple with the difficulties, to get hold of central features. To fix the precise chronological position it occupies I find impossible on the design alone; nor is it very important. Except as further evidence to the immense pains our master lavished on the encogitation of his subject, the main interest of this study would doubtless be that of the quality of its execution as a rival of the Louvre work. On that head I much regret I can express no opinion at present; and indeed know of no other writer who has expressed an opinion or, for that matter, referred to this important work at all. By the close of the year 1590 the final result of all previous effort was in position in the Great Council Chamber and open to the public inspection. Ridolfi informs us that it was received with acclamation both by the Senate and the art world of Venice. Tintoret was publicly thanked and asked to fix his remuneration. This he left to the liberality of the State, and finally accepted an appreciably smaller sum than that proposed. Now, as already stated, the Louvre study is a far more attractive work than the Prado replica. In the former we have an original impulse of inspiration. In fact, it would be difficult to find an oil-study by any artist of this size which for the beauty of its colour, its consummate ease and power of execution, and the interest of its design, is more remarkable. It is only comparable with the Prado picture on the one ground of rapid II o THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 98 execution. It is a really exquisite coloured work and in excellent preserva- tion. Under its admitted fascination several writers have contended that Tintoret made a great mistake in ever departing from it. Such critics, quite apart from grounds still more important, simply assume that a design of this character, if elaborated on the huge scale of the actual com- mission,^ would have been likely to prove an equivalent pictorial success, even from the entirely external point of view of aesthetic beauty. The Louvre picture differs from the final work in this that its figures are mainly composed in their mutual relation to a decorative scheme of form and colour. We can identify a few of the figures no doubt, but, as com- pared with the later design, there is practically no attempt to depict the representative types of historical Christendom in famous personalities. The point of the artist’s departure is the subject of Guariento’s picture,^ and he takes this coronation rather as the centre of his decorative composi- tion than the key to its ideal significance, which is what the enthronement of Christ, as the source of Light and Blessedness, becomes in the revised composition. Indeed his indifference to this aspect of his design is so great that he appears to introduce the four evangelists in two places. No doubt in the close relation of the Louvre design to the beauty of Nature, her gorgeous cloud and colour of sunrise, its conception may be said to embody symbolically and in a certain way the idea of the mystic Rose. But the expression of Spirit here is rather in the nature of an accident; and the movement of form and facial significance could in these generalized figures, even if made far more prominent, never have become as it did in the final work the mode of expression to which everything else became subordinate.^ What, as I think, Tintoret did realize when he at last found himself confronted with the huge spaces of canvas he had undertaken to cover, was that something more is required than merely representative figures, without definite historical significance, to maintain a vital personal 1 In my Essay I have pointed out the great difficulty that would have been experi- enced in elaborating on a large scale under the proportions of the final work the circles of the Louvre study. They would have become horizontal lines. See Essay, Chapter II, pp. 26 and 27. ^ This, of course, rather suggests that it was earlier than Colonel Vivian’s study. ^ In my Essay I have followed carefully various aspects of this motion as signifi- cant of ideal or spiritual expression. Plate CLXVIII CHRIST AND THE MADONNA IL PARADISO 99 interest in a work of such proportions and to secure a sufficient basis for his extraordinary powers of characterization to work upon. And for the very reason that this necessitated a profounder study of the essential ideas of Dante’s poem it was inevitable that in the evolution of the work he should approach more closely the ideality of that poem, and part without regret from features in his previous vision the beauty of which was exclusively decorative or sensuous. To paint masses of sunlit cloud in the fashion of a Turner was not his object and indeed had never been his object; and it increasingly became less so as the real object became clearer to his mind of unfolding the heaven of the Blessed, the actual strength, variety and beauty of the Life of Christendom itself, realized in legend or history, as far as possible divorced from every earthly condition and united among the angelic host in one presence of joy, praise and thanksgiving beneath the one radiating Light of the eternal Son of God. Before an ideal of this nature the notion of sunlit clouds, the loss of which not a few critics have deplored, simply shrivels up, vanishes. And he is wholly consistent. He does in the final work introduce one instru- ment of music, but it is merely as a symbol of the personality of King David. He will have no other, neither harp or harpist, only the most direct expression of the soul, the human voice. No doubt such a change implies a certain pictorial loss. The group of musicians beneath the central group of Christ and his apostles in the Louvre study, is one of the most spontaneous and beautiful.^ It is one we may be sure a Veronese would never have parted with. It is replaced by the arc of the four evangelists. The design of them is that of a master of composition, but the loss to picturesque effect is undeniable. From the ideal point of view, however, this group is, only in a degree, subordinate to the two figures immediately above, the focus point of the picture. Whatever may be the view entertained of the success of Tintoret in this effort of substitution, either as a fact, or as possible within the limited range of his art, it must at least be admitted that those who insist on estimating the importance of his composition exclusively by the tests of decorative colour and design, ignore what became the most absorbing interest of the painter himself in its creation. ^ The two groups in the Vivian study of musicians show the same beauty of design. lOO THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET If any one still holds the view that the result, pictorial or otherwise, is mechanical, I would be the last to ignore his right to proclaim his dis- illusion. The Prado study is no doubt a poor thing as a mere picture compared with its forerunner; and being little more than a sketch of outlined form without the original afflatus of creation behind essential to the success of that type of work, may very possibly lie under such a reproach, though the execution itself is anything but mechanical. Beyond this admission, and as applied to the final work, such a phrase conveys to myself no meaning whatever. If the blindness rests with myself I can only humbly acknowledge my good fortune in being thus deceived by what I may perhaps be permitted to describe in no mechanical terms as the fossillized product of an exhausted volcano. At the same time I can only reiterate my surprise that a growth of vital interest in the profounder and more ideal content of an imaginative theme, and an increased effort to reproduce the life and exalted experience of the departed spirits of saints and martyrs with every conceivable mode of graceful or subtle movement and facial expression, and to substitute the beauty of innumerable cherubic forms of animate flesh and ecstatic faces for the regular contours of aerial cloud, should have produced such an extraordinary result. I presume it is a case in which the man of genius attempted too much. What he did attempt at any rate we will now endeavour, as briefly as possible, to describe. High up and central are Christ and the Madonna enthroned upon winged cherubs, the former on the right and higher in position. Christ leans on a globe of dark crystal facing the Madonna, who bends towards her Son in tender yet dignified obeisance. Above these figures there is a glory, and the glory around the head of Christ is the illuminating focus of the entire picture as the light radiates from circle to circle.^ The less emphatic halo round the Madonna’s head is enriched by the seven stars, typical of the seven churches. In the glory between these figures floats the Dove of the Holy Spirit. To this centre fly the archangels Gabriel and Michael, from right and left respectively. The former carries the Annunciation lily triple flowered, and the latter the scales and the sword he is about to deliver up. ' The Prado picture contains the Holy Father and a few other variations. Plate CLXIX Ducal Palace, Venice S. JOHN AND ADAM AND EVE DETAIL OF PARADISE Plate CLXX Ducal Palace, Venice MOSKS WI TH TABLES OF STONE DETAIL OF PARADISE Plate CLXXI Ducal Palace, Ve7iice DAVID DETAIL OF PARADISE IL PARADISO lOI The first circle is formed by the angelic host, and this angelic flight entirely occupies the upper portion of the picture. The Cherubini and Serafini are on the left, and the Thrones and Principalities on the right. The latter carry globes and scales. Immediately below Christ and his Mother are the four Evangelists, also enthroned on cherubic cloud, which here falls away in a receding arc. These figures of the original messengers of the Gospel are divided, two on either side, by the figure of an angel rising in adoration. He is probably intended for the archangel Raphael.* Following this arc on the left, but at a slightly higher elevation, there is a row of figures, representing the Law and Wisdom of Israel, King David with psaltery on the left, then Solomon, with the fine form of an angel swooping down upon him, and two other prophets. Below King David is the figure of Moses with the tablets of stone. On his right and close to the cherubic arc, upon which S. Mark is seated, Noah floats in space with the ark above him and the dove of mercy. On the further side of Moses there is the aged figure of Abraham with his son Isaac. Then, stretching away to the left, we have different groups of martyrs, such as S. Barbara with her tower, the noble figure of S. Justina, the patron saint of Venice, here clad in splendid folds of dark drapery, with the blue figure of S. Agnes behind her, and a little lower down S. Catherine and her wheel. There is further a group round S. Rocco, and one, at the extreme verge of the canvas, of S. Francis and S. Anthony of Padua. At the base of this side, as a kind of supporting pillar, is the gigantic figure of S. George, holding a banner, with other martyrs. His armour, is, how- ever, barely insisted on except symbolically in the shield, and it is to be noticed that Tintoret absolutely excludes from his final work any group of knights, whether of the Cross or otherwise, clad in steel, to correspond with the picturesque group in the Louvre study. Here as elsewhere he will have nothing that is not in essential harmony with his fundamental idea. In a similar manner on the right of the picture, corresponding with the arc of Wisdom, we find seven impersonations of the other apostles, the most prominent being S. Peter with the keys, on the extreme right. ’ Such is Ruskin’s view. The point is not free from real difficulty, which I have dis- cussed in the Essay, pp. 54, 55. 102 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET The beautiful miniature of Adam and Eve floating in space corresponds in position to the Noah on the other side. The figure of S. Paul, also throned on cherubic cloud, and a most noble characterization, with his book and sword of martyrdom, corresponds with that of Moses on the other side. All the principal figures have in fact been placed in their relative position with preconceived intention. Moses obviously represents the Old Law of the Covenant, and S. Paul the new one of the Spirit of Liberty in the Gospel of Christ, and so on in the other examples of related configuration.^ Corresponding to the assembled martyrs on the left we have that masterly group of the four great Latin Fathers of the Church, SS. Jerome, Gregory, Ambrose, and Augustine, with S. Monica leaning over^ from behind as she rejoices in that personal glory of her own in Paradise, as Dante calls her beloved son S. Augustine. Other fair women are around her, and at the limit of the canvas on this side, corresponding to the S. Francis group, the man pre-eminent above all other saints for his simple and selfless love, we have the beautiful presentment of the Magdalene supported by four angels. I know of no other combination of ideas in the entire compass of this picture which demonstrates more emphatically the genius of its creator than this. At the base of the picture here, to correspond with the S. George group, we have the even more interesting figure of the mighty S. Chris- topher carrying a huge globe with its star of light reflected from the radiance of Christ and typical of the Divine burden, both of himself and that of Christ Himself. This fact of the legend is further accentuated by the group associated with him of Rachel and her ingathered children. Beneath the archangel Raphael there is another angelic figure rising in adoration, just above the lowest verge of the picture. Ruskin assumes this to be the guardian angel of Venice. I consider this figure more prob- ably simply an angel grouped with the other six, or rather eight, adoring angels at the picture’s base.® Both these two figures are irreparably injured. There are finally two choirs of angels of seven and nine angels re- spectively on the two slips of canvas placed on the further side of the two ^ See Essay, pp. 28, 29. “ In the Prado Replica she looks away to Christ, not leaning over. The humanity is made more essential. ^ See Essay, pp. 21, 22, and 56, 57. Plate CLXXII SS. MONICA AND AUGUSTINE THE MAGDALEN Plate CLXXIII Ducal Palace, Venice SAINT CHRISTOPHER DETAIL OF PARADISE IL PARADISO 103 great doors through which this Hall is entered. I have already testified to the exceptional beauty of their execution and presentation in their original state, for both have been seriously injured. Such are the principal groups of the picture which admit of identifica- tion. They are executed for the most part in darker relief against a back- ground which consists of remoter circles of purely representative figures, fading away or partially absorbed in the light blue veil of aetherial mist. Except for a mere fringe of cloud clinging to the angelic figures at the picture’s base the entire composition represents a Life of Spirit in the pure aether of the heaven of heavens. As for the particular beauty of either groups or figures in this immense work I must refer the reader, if desirous of more information, to my Essay. As a work of colour it is much injured by dryness, discolouration, and in a certain number of places by the loss of pigment to the bare canvas. It has suffered very little from restoration, but there are some curious problems raised by the present appearance of the canvas.^ It is a picture which, in its present condition, and unless viewed under the most favourable light conditions, is almost certain to disappoint all but the very few who are able to discount from such a disadvantage. For the tendency then is, with the dried-up condition of the pigment, and the almost entire loss of the scintillating glow of separate colour tones in the deeper shadows, for the entire scheme to decline into an iron gray blue, with a few patches of warmer colour, especially in the upper centre, which looks almost black in the deepest shadows. These always dark, but originally of the rich deep glow so characteristic of this master, were thus emphasized the better to define the various planes of the composition, and to accentuate yet further the central focus of its lighting. Thus in the Prado picture the archangels are in white drapery which is finally changed to dark. Under favourable light conditions the picture is extremely rich and above all atmospheric in its quality. In fact, the entire absence of hardness and crude local tint is what, despite all losses and discolouration, still distinguishes it, or did in the years 1 909-11, from all inferior and restored work of the Ducal Palace. ^ Such as the oblong rent at the bottom of the picture. See Appendix to Essay for a full discussion of the state of canvas. The author when writing this work had the great advantage of seeing the picture removed from the wall to the level of the ground facing the windows. 104 the art and genius of tintoret The colour scheme is that of Tintoret’s latest and most comprehensive period, though much of the delicacy and, above all, the transparent depth of the colour harmony has vanished, and in certain places it is baked or dried beyond all recognition.^ It is this present pathetic condition, which has made the statements, even of experts, with regard to what it is or is not as a coloured surface not merely inconsistent but diametrically opposite to each other. As anyone will recollect who has perused the famous Essay upon Michelangelo and Tintoret, John Ruskin greatly admired this picture. The first writer of any importance to take the trouble to find out, and in his day without photographs it was a considerable trouble, what in fact the ideal wealth of this work amounted to, describing the same in something of its own spirit to others not possessed of either his vision, knowledge or opportunities, his name will always remain in honourable association with it. He even called it “ the most precious work of art now existing in the world.” As I have said in connection with another remark he made upon the S. Rocco Crucifixion^ such hyperbolical language rather expresses a per- sonal mood, in this case the sense of superlative pricelessness, than the infallibility of a judgment. It is uttered, of course, with absolute conviction, is the result of much reflection ; but it is the language of a man of genius who has concentrated his attention on certain characteristics of the work, has been himself moved by it to an incomparable degree, and is pre- eminently influenced by certain conclusions of his own on its significance as human art relatively to certain features of human life he regards of supreme importance to its future well-being, and further upon its value as an exposition of ideal truth which the future of Art appears to him as little likely or able to repeat in a subject of analogous import, or with the same spirit. We may also find in it a certain reflection of a sense of the previous neglect of its importance, even some breath of his own afflatus of dis- covery. For myself I regard this opinion as mainly the summing-up of what ‘ For a complete description of the colour effect I must refer the reader to my Essay. Much in it with regard to Tintoret’s artistic development requires revision, but upon the description of the picture I have little further to add. IL PARADISO 105 he has found in the wealth of the pictorial work itself, and above all in its ideal wealth rather than in its aspect of aesthetic beauty. It is a careful reflection upon this which has, at least in my own case, most assisted in making a statement so sweeping intelligible; and inas- much as the considered judgment of a writer so thoughtful and sincere becomes a matter of genuine interest to follow on the lines which appear most readily to lead in a similar direction, I propose to add the result of my own reflections. Human art is precious from many varied points of view, among which its commercial value is one of the least important in determining its essen- tial preciousness. A work of art may be of supreme value in the sense that it expresses with a possibly unrivalled completeness the finest work of the master, both as a consummate craftsman and an artist of exceptional im- aginative genius. And though other works may be more representative of certain manifestations of his power, it is assumed the work we thus select for supreme praise exhibits in a wholly unique way those characteristics we regard as most typical of his genius, and most perfect in their present- ment. The Bacchus and Ariadne of Titian, the San Sisto Madonna and Child of Raphael, the Flight into Egypt of Holman Hunt and the Wellington Memorial by Alfred Stevens, appear to me works which approach very closely to this character. A representative work of Tintoret complete in the above sense the Paradise most assuredly is not, nor indeed ever was. The execution is, no doubt, mainly his own, and throughout is work that only a painter of superlative gifts could have achieved. There are, however, portions of it where, if we cannot wholly detect the hand of an assistant, the work is indicative of excessive haste, is not and never was entirely satisfactory, and indeed, would, here and there, hardly seem to have been finished, though reviewed on the plane of rapid improvisation accepted.^ Compared with the same master’s Bacchus and Ariadne or his Miracle of the Slave, not to mention others, the Paradise as a technical achieve- ment, except in the one marvel of its almost infallible swiftness and power, is not by any means the most representative example of Tintoret’s most * Such a criticism applies almost exclusively, so far as I have been able to detect, to some of the angels at the base of the picture. It appears to be the last portion completed. The design of course is wholly Tintoret’s. II P io6 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET consummate powers as a painter. Even if we take a broader view of it as an effort of imaginative creation, many, if not the majority, would prefer as an alternative the S. Rocco Scuola Crucifixion^ contending that this masterpiece was not only a more superb example of executive power, but was a more complete organic whole, while in the range and profundity of the ideas unfolded to thought it was no whit inferior, to say the least. Mere size, though a truth for the thoughtless to gape at, counts for less than nothing in a verdict of this nature; and in this particular work being, as already explained, not entirely relevant either to the power of the human vision to comprehend as a whole, ^ or to the ideal requirements of the composition selected, it is to that extent injurious to the work and an obstacle to the alleged preponderance of its merit. Are we therefore to assume that the cogency of such arguments, and I admit their cogency, disposes of all further interest in this statement of Ruskin? I do not think so. To interpret that we must, if we desire to make it intelligible to ourselves, above all keep before the mind the point of view from which, so I believe, this famous critic was considering the work when he expressed his opinion upon its preciousness. He was, in other words, pre-eminently concerned with it as a manifestation of Spirit, the emotion and intelligible record of such, whether expressive of the soul of the artist who created it, or in virtue of the intrinsic worth and imagin- ative appeal of its ideas or feeling to our sense of nobility, beauty and delight, and even more than this in virtue of the direction and sustenance they contribute to the ethical or profounder significance of our human existence. All must admit the fine arts to be this in one way or another. I am not, however, concerned now to discuss the limits within which such a view of Art is necessary or legitimate, but to discover, so far as I am able, the sense in which Ruskin applied to this picture the phrase, “the most precious of all existing works of art.” I think we have found, with a fair approach to certainty, that it could not have been either in the sense of absolute artistic completeness or con- summate execution. But such are not the exclusive tests of values in creative art. With some of the greatest works in music and the drama, no 1 The present position of the picture also, in my own opinion, who have seen it on the ground, injuriously reduces in size the central group of Christ and the Madonna. IL PARADISO 107 less than painting, we find that supreme excellence is not only compatible with a certain incompleteness of effect, or at least a certain bold adventure in the means employed to secure the expression, but that it is of the very nature of the content grappled with that this should be so. It is this very violence to the formal structure, the very nature of the peculiar stress of emotion precipitated in the work, which, beneath the touch of some of the greatest, becomes an additional source of mysterious suggestion, a revela- tion of infinite range, possibilities of expansion or fatal destiny, tragedy or triumph, a mirror of the profoundest depths of human experience. The King Lear of Shakespeare and the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven appear to me famous compositions of this character. And, indeed, it is not difficult to discover a certain parallel between these two works and the greatest Crucifixion of Tintoret and this Paradise respectively. This Crucifixion^ as I have endeavoured to show, also par- takes to a singular degree, more obviously perhaps than the Paradise^ of the qualities of mystery and infinitude. But for my present purpose I would merely draw attention to one point of distinction between the two works. The former is based as a composition on historical fact,^ while the latter is throughout entirely a creation of the imagination. And, indeed, so far as it is built upon a previous synthesis of ideas, that also is a poem, an imaginative creation. No doubt the imagination is as vital in one as the other; but I do not think this destroys the force of the distinction in the use I propose to make of it. The Crucifixion is based on historical fact, and though it may be difficult to imagine a future work on the same theme which shall fully match this masterpiece in power of execution, imaginative penetration, a catholicity of vision combining such essential ideality with a tranquil, almost austere spirit of comprehen- sion, yet it is true that other painters have in similar works achieved supreme results, and mainly so in that very direction where the historical fact is assumed of eternal significance to the race. With the Paradise the case is otherwise. ' There are, no doubt, critics, professional or otherwise, in Germany, America, and even England, who dispute the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth altogether. I am not prepared to deny to such an ingenious mind, but at least with Dr. Estlin Carpenter I think we may deny to them, in so far as they are really serious, both commonsense and every vestige of historical imagination. They are the kind of people who, as Matthew Arnold would remark, will “ say anything.” io8 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET That composition is not built upon a fact of universal history, but essentially upon a fact of the human soul’s history. It is the birth of a sublime impulse in the human heart; and in the first instance we cannot perhaps sum it up better than by describing it by its generic term, aspira- tion. This movement of the soul does not so much respond to as transcend the contradiction of human nature, the resolution of which is depicted as a death unto life in that other great work of this master. For the resolu- tion here is not in suffering, but in eternal joy and peace. It is not so much the surrender of a finite self to a Divine Presence within before which we “die daily.” It is the expansion within which the death and the cross of shame itself vanishes in victory. Call it what you please, the for- ward view, the entrance into the glory to be, the faith in things not seen, the resolution of all the weight of this unintelligible world — however we strive to describe it, it is at least the passage from the mutable and contra- dictory to the complete or completer whole, to the more permanent and the more stable. And while this vision depicts this Ideal as attained in forms of animate life and movement conformable to the traditions of actual history and one of the positive religions of mankind, in the sincerity and imaginative ardour of its creation, as also in the case of the poet Dante, these traditions and historical figures persist as the necessary basis of form, or the means of giving emphasis and variety to the essential significance of the work, which is and remains the expanding growth of the artist himself in his own ideal and exalted vision. It is this at least, whatever else it may be, as a psalm of David or the Song of Joy of Beethoven. To meet it with logic is to destroy it, to take it for what it neither is or pretends to be. Whether Dante believed that he had actually described the “house of many mansions” is a question of little importance compared with the fact that he regarded the Paradise of the Blessed as a present reality in his vision, not a future one, and one which, supported by the divine love of Beatrice, he was actually permitted to enter. And in the same way this old painter, such at least is the tradition, was fully aware that his creation was in its essence not a counterfeit of future truth, but the present “uplift of the soul,” a dream of sunrise before the dawn. The question may be asked, where is the use or vital interest to our- selves in thus dreaming over worlds not realized? Apart from the aesthetic IL PARADISO 109 point of view, is it not labour lost to attempt thus to translate into the form of a pictorial content a divine event, which some of the wisest conceive to be, regarded thus as a “divine event,” an inadequate conception of any consummation, which shall solve the problem of spiritual growth within the timeless reality. Human art is not metaphysics. We have here at least the marvellous imaginative creation of one mind. But for ourselves, too, its reality, even as thus described, possesses a deeper significance. In our thoughtless subjection to the superficial appearance of temporal condition we may indeed ask what profit there can be in dreaming over the unrealized. With some of the greatest creators the thought has been just the reverse. Michelangelo not only believed in omens and dreams, but not a few of the faces of his sculptured figures are themselves faces charged with dreams. It is our prerogative to have dreams; it is yet more our prerogative to reach forward to the hope which is able to create them, the faith which is able to renew them, and the love which can convert them into miracles of the real Presence. With Michelangelo at least we may abide in their mystery, the mystery of a Dawn as yet unfolded. The truth of this fact or mystery, however we name it, is indeed rooted in our life. We all of us are, in our own degree, like the architecture of Egypt, in Hegel’s famous simile, waiting Memnonic-wise for the day. We move in a world of the unrealized, and in so far as our effort possesses any aim at all it is directed towards some such ideal of completeness. This impulse of Tintoret’s poem does not merely correspond with the operative principle of human life and thought, it throws into full relief the impulse of human art itself. For art also is, in one definition of it, the gathering and arranging of material by imagination, so as to possess in it the harmony and helpfulness of life, its passion and emotion.^ And this is but another way of affirming that it aspires, in the perfect fusion of form and content, to the condition of complete expression, the unity of pure music. A definition of this kind is no doubt open to criticism; it does not certainly exhaust the notion of art; but at least it attempts to grasp that aspect of it which there is a tendency in our own day to explain in a manner which suffers that which is most necessary to explain to be inex- plicable, that is human invention, or the seeking after something we have ^ From Ruskin’s “ Modern Painters.” In his “ Stones of Venice” he indeed speaks of “ the noblest forms of imaginative power ” as “ something of the character of dreams.” I lO THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET to find, the enthusiasm in the sense defined by Plato in the Phaedrus, which seeks until it finds that in which the soul can rest satisfied. This reference to the operative principle in thought and life may appear rather vague, and it may be of profit to elucidate it yet further with a few simple illustrations. In one of his Essays Emerson conceives the soul of man as on a stairway; his conception of it as a centre of expanding circles is still more pregnant. It has similarly been conceived as a rising tide, or an atmo- sphere which unites and enlarges within others which enfold it. It is our nature to become something we are not. In the vital moments of experi- ence we are vividly aware of this. In the “ Les Miserables ” of Victor Hugo, which would illustrate my point in many ways, the experience of the good bishop M. Myriel is thus described; “ At such moments, offering up his heart at the hour when the flowers of the Night deliver their perfumes, he could not have said, maybe, what was passing in his mind: he felt something fly out of him and something descend into him. He dreamed of the grandeur and presence of God, of future eternity, that strange mystery.” This is, no doubt, imaginative fiction. If historical fact would appear • to be more impressive, an example, still generally regarded as such, may be adduced from the experience of a robber. It was on a similar wave of exalted consciousness that the repentant thief was carried into fellowship through the self-related contrast with a sublime innocence, receiving in return the declaration, “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Nay, even here the truer record will to some rather appear to have been in the present tense than the future. And indeed it is possible for the record to be disputed altogether. We will examine, then, the news in currency at this moment. I read in the paper of this morning that one of the most dangerous criminals ^ of Paris, with the guillotine already in sight, as his last message to the world sends a few words of farewell or sympathy to his mother. What the pre- cise significance of that act was in the sight of God we do not know. On the face of it we are at least entitled to assume that, as in the case of Hugo’s bishop, something did “fly out and something also even appreciably ' One of the so-called motor-gang, March 1913. The message appears to have been given in no spirit of bravado. IL PARADISO III descend.” Let us assume at least in the first case it was the still unex- tinguished affection of a son, and in the second that which the mother may have accepted as a gleam of radiance to her own life, and what another poor woman, when she actually witnessed a similar execution, described as the sunlight of God upon Binder’s head. In the noble commentary of Ruskin on the 19th Psalm it is assumed, as the Psalmist assumes, that the glory of the stellar sky and the illumin- ating ordinance of the clouds are the visible symbol of a divine glory, which in the language of this writer surrounds man for ever, changeless, in its fullness insupportable, infinite. This eternal glory is further defined in the declaration of another passage from the book of Psalms, that the law of the Lord is perfect. His testimony sure and His statutes right. It is irrelevant here to offer any opinion how far we are entitled to regard the beauty and sublimity of Nature, in so far as we are able to view these as facts independent of conscious life, as themselves declaratory of a spiritual order, other than that attached to them by our own symbol- ism and poetry. What is of importance to note is that this assumption of a spiritual and ideal wealth in which our present life is surrounded, and in virtue of which it becomes more stable and complete, is a simple fact attested by our relations of family or citizenship, and the content of our aesthetic, ethical and religious experience. Even in the presence of the works of great art we feel an enlargement so that we do not hardly, as the saying is, know ourselves again. In the words of Meredith: As light enkindles light when heavenly earthly mates The flame of pure emits the flame of pure, Magnanimous magnanimous creates. And men are in the secret of the spheres Whose glory is celestially to bestow. In these lines some may mark a distinct approach to the conception of Ruskin. It was from a noble sense of default in such a labour of harmonious creation that Socrates offered his expiatory sacrifice as the final act of his life. Indeed, we may affirm without straining that in later times an ideal content of the same kind, or, at least a certain broad conception of it, received the name of the kingdom of heaven, a kingdom indeed ' “ Alsace-Lorraine.” I 12 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET upon earth and yet wholly ideal, identical with no positive organization of men, which is ever being realized and yet is never wholly consummated, the first fruits of a kingdom or a Paradise of absolute spiritual communion and fruition. It is possible that some may be ready to identify such an ideal terri- tory, such a spiritual community of the faithful and virtuous, to which any conscious being on this earth, or indeed beyond it, may belong in so far as he shares the like spirit of gracious and elfective harmony, with the glory of God, his living garment previously referred to, or at least the most essential efflux of it. Whether it be so or not, and in whatever sense we may regard its relation to the Divine Spirit, it partakes at least of the truth no less than the power of expansion which is inseparable from such a Spirit, and par- takes in virtue of this going-beyond-itself of the soul which we have above defined as its transcendency. A power such as this, in so far as it receives illustration in human art, may be expressed in diverse ways, with entirely different degrees of vital significance. In The Concert of Giorgione, one of the few pictures at least which most critics concede to him, though Mr. Ricketts still defends the Titian attribution, we have the effort to immortalize the unity of fellowship between friends attuned thereto within the concordant medium of musical sound. It is a noble effort to seize and retain in a work of art one of life’s exquisite moments. The essential quality of the raptus is, however, here one of aesthetic beauty. It is a moment of our finite exist- ence which passes with the passing of the music. In one sense, of course, even this is not entirely finite experience. In entering the world of har- monious beauty we take possession of a reality which not merely expresses what is deepest in our life, but expresses that which is not finite in the sense that our individuality is self-inclusive. What we may be possessed of are finally “broken arcs” perhaps, but they have been arcs in a real heaven none the less. It is an earnest at least of a larger self-completeness in which we lose for the time being, or tend to lose, the boundaries of our isolated life, become participators in an ideal communion. And a profound and distinguished thinker of our own day ^ has compared our participation in poetry with the participation in the absolute and self-complete itself. It ^ Bernard Bosanquet, “The Principle of Individuality and Value,” p. 375. Plate CLXXIV Ducal Palace, Venice SERAPHINI AND THRONI DETAIL OF PARADISE Plate CLXXV Ducal Palace, Venice Ducal Palace, Venice CHOIR OF ANGELS ON RIGHT FIGURE FROM LEFT-HAND CHOIR DETAIL OF PARADISE DETAIL OF PARADISE IL PARADISO 113 is the opening of the walls of our house, that wall about which the poet above cited again writes so truly and finely : Now, what is it makes pulsate the robe? Why tremble the sprays? What life o’erbrims The body — the house, no eye can probe — Divined as, beneath a robe, the limbs? The house of Spirit, in short, wherein we live, move, and have our being. At the same time it is but the passing fullness, but a glimpse or earnest of the finer vision. The windows open but to close again, though the house of our life, not made with hands, may enlarge in the process. In the Paradise of our picture we have this transcendency of the unity of Spirit not only presented on a plane where the experience is assumed to be an eternal possession, but has the full depth and breadth of an ethical content superadded. It is not the mere satisfaction in the unity of aesthetic or ideal enjoyment ; it is not even merely the sense of a sublime fellowship with others. It is above all the final seal of fruition upon that noble type of aspiration which in the earthly life can never conceive itself to have fully attained, but is for ever pressing forward to the mark of its high calling, which will rest satisfied with nothing short of its resolution in the supreme Unity itself, adhering with insistance to the spirit of that word of Behmen, “ Only when I know God shall I know myself.” What this type of aspiration is in its purest quality we shall find uniquely expressed in its flight, mystery and apparent contradiction in those epistles of S. Paul we so rarely peruse as a simple human document. Its presence is here absolutely conditioned by one thing only, and that is pure and unselfish love. And its fruits are not the fruits of a reception, so much as they are the varied aspects of a vital energy, fruits of the Spirit. And its end is not a passive enjoyment of “ exquisite moments,” aesthetic or otherwise, but “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God.” In these letters we hear very much about glory and very little about enjoyment of any kind.^ Indeed, this very raptus of the soul is conceived as a move- ment from glory to glory. And the glory through which we move, and which descends as a nimbus of hope and confidence upon the soul itself, is ' And, indeed, when we do hear of it, it is in the spirit of the words, vwepTrtpia-aevofiai r j xap^ ini Traay Ty d\i\pH r}fiwv. The enjoyment is mainly in the consciousness of unity with the spiritual exaltation of others who are possessed of the same spirit. Q II THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 1 14 not discovered in the accumulation of any number of moments of life be they never so exquisite, but rather through travail (as was also the convic- tion of Socrates), infirmities and the tribulation which worketh patience, the glory no less than the peace being on him that “worketh good.” And whether this glory which is here passed through be indeed the glory of God which the heavens declare, it is at least in the view of the man who declared its presence in his own experience the only conceivable mode of passage to the perfect vision of that glory. And whatever we may think either of S. Paul’s experience or the truth of Tintoret’s picture, it is only through a full sense of the one that we shall be able to penetrate to the ideal significance of the other. And precisely as I conceive the epistles of S. Paul, in virtue of the personal afflatus of truth and sincerity which pervades them, as the reflec- tion of a real experience, are for all time as it were a mirror of the noblest type of human aspiration, precipitated with the translucence of the diamond itself in the immortal thirteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinth- ians, a model in a universal sense which carries us beyond certain aspects, it may be, of parts of the expression of these letters, and the truth which is more relative to the particular experience and culture of this great apostle to the Gentiles, so also it is surely no extravagance to say that the impulse of the painter of this picture adds a more universal note to its significance. He, too, in his travail of love is intent above all upon the ideal aspects of the glory attained. And the more we are able to grasp this the more we penetrate to the heart of it. The higher for him is also the higher for us, and is not, or may not for some be without that message of hope, wir heissen euch hoffen. For myself I am confident that though Ruskin might have developed his own thought in justification of the view we are discussing on other lines, I have at least struck at the root of it, the sense, that is, of the work’s sincerity and ideal transcendency. The tendency of our modern life and of much modern art and criticism is simply to ignore the very impulse from which this work has originated and to limit the scope of our experience to its earthly finitude, its purely phenomenal appearance. And with old traditions becoming on all sides more worn and thread- bare, it is not necessary for us to be either a Ruskin or a Carlyle to appre- ciate the value of such a work or to raise the question: “Where shall we IL PARADISO 115 look for the seer and prophet of old? ” Who shall borrow the wings of the morning with a flight to the Empyrean itself, shall exalt the content of our human faith or aspiration to the level of a universal expectation, shall sing, not as Shelley among the faded leaves whirled to their doom upon the West Wind, but with the Sons of God and make his incantation a prophecy? Modern art is not munificent in this respect, nor does it contain much promise of such munificence. We can point to the Symphony of Beethoven and may be reminded of the Love Triumphant of Watts, but the rivals of either are indeed a select company. Now I believe this last great work of Tintoret presents us with this type of aspiration in a degree of universality which is unique in pictorial art. It does not merely gather up, as the poem of Dante also did of course, in one garland of beauty the religious faith and aspiration of centuries, but further, in its significance as a personal poem, and in virtue of its animat- ing principle, it is human in the same sense we apply the expression to the artistic product of a Bach, Beethoven, or Robert Browning. Other painters have attempted to depict this theme. In this very Ducal Palace there is a large composition of Palma Giovine which may indeed most truly be regarded the same subject asTintoret’s picture, but is in part, no doubt, what its guardians exclusively call it, the Last Judgment. The doubt is excus- able, for whatever merits the picture may possess as a work of decorative colour and design, it is wholly destitute of any profound ideal significance whatever. Except for a conventional figure or two it is merely a medley of figures flying about in space. Of genuine human interest it possesses not a jot. It is not the creation of a man inspired by his subject, but of one who has to get an order off his hands by exhibiting what measure of ability he possesses in making a coloured picture, and filling it with flying figures, in every possible or impossible position. But compare Tintoret with the finest examples, works of men really moved and uplifted by the subject, the greatest of them. Fra Angelico and Luca Signorelli. These men of genius have indeed produced works of great beauty, of supreme interest both as art and as the expression of nobly religious and rapturous emotion. But the limitations of their religious outlook, and indeed the limitations of their artistic power of characterization and expression, could THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 1 16 not fail to withdraw their creations from sharing in any real sense that catholicity, that emotional ardour which carries us beyond the boundaries of any particular church, and makes us feel we are in touch with the aspiring flame of the noblest and wisest in all times and places. Alone among the painters of that revival of the art of painting Tintoret is in the essential animus of his work essentially modern, modern not in the sense Veronese would have been modern had he attempted in his prime what Tintoret achieved, wholly secular, that is to say, with his feet on the naked earth his fair mother throughout, with the glory and pomp of Venice ever before him, the beauty of her grand dames, the dignity and devotional solemnity of her hierarchy, the cherubic faces and bodies of her children, one and all transferred with his incomparable decorative gifts to the courts of heaven; but modern rather in the profounder sense of infinitely, almost wistfully thoughtful and ideal creation ; with the idea of the fundamental conception and emotion wafted as a breath upon all that is thus translated from regions of earth into an ideal territory. And he is modern precisely for the reason that Titian, when he attempts some approach to the subject in his Gloria of the Prado, becomes more than usually stilted and academic and sacerdotal, or in other words because he is more in unison with his subject, more profoundly moved in a religious sense, in other words more truthful and sincere. The conception of this great work is, no doubt, from such a compre- hensive point of view marked with real, if inevitable limitations. We could readily dispense with some of the martyrs of the Christian Church, if we might have thereby secured a place in this assembly for a Buddha, an Aeschylus, a Socrates, a Plato, or even a Dante. But the marvel of this treatment of the theme as compared with the work of other men is the superlative flow of its transcendent ardour and ideality. The angels, cherubs, and human saints and fathers are not the mere men and priest- hood either of Venice or any other earthly city; they are creations of a human soul. The angels are angelic, yet there is no loss of power, by which I mean spiritual power, in their manifestation as unfallen Sons of God, any more than there is in Blake’s own conceptions of Michael and Raphael. The cherubs are cherubic; they are not merely the suspended children of the grand dames of Venice, but in their exultant and flame-begirt ardour surpass every other attempt to depict this union IL PARADISO 117 of celestial radiance with the simple innocence of earth’s children. The saints, too, and martyrs are there with the defining instruments of torture we could so gladly dispense with, if they did not supply the key to their history. But at least the saints and martyrs neither see them nor know them, any more than a S. Francis is conscious of the stigmata upon his hands. In a word, we have not so much before us the creations of a sacerdotal church in lack of new subjects of devotion for its votaries, saints, martyrs, monks, and nuns, as the essential nature of every man and woman raised to its highest spiritual power under a condition of rapturous adoration and praise to the Giver of all good gifts, and in perfect union with the source of Truth and Righteousness. The human love of a mother for her son is as much in place as the adoration of the Christ himself. And the noble life of that son is indeed a part of the glory of the mother. Nor do I know of any more exquisite example of the refined human feeling of this artist than that he should distinguish the Magdalen from every other human figure in this picture by associating her with four beautiful angels in attendance. And as the culmination of all else in the final composition, the sole and eternal Source of the Spirit which is here unfolded as it descends through the enthroned Son of God and Man from circle to circle of human and celestial form remains veiled altogether, or only symbolized, as in Dante’s conception, in the glory above Christ, who at least in this picture is even more obviously related in his sonship to the earthly mother than in the supreme sense to the eternal Father. And whether this aspect of the characterization be viewed as a falling away in creative power or not, it is at least harmonious with the profound sense attested in this work of the essential nobility and potential greatness of the human spirit. Such, then, are a few of the reflections which in my own case appear to me to render in a real sense intelligible the bold and sweeping conclusion from which I started. I do not claim for a moment that they presume to reflect all Ruskin would have himself brought forward to justify it, but I am convinced that they are at least developed in my own way on the same vital and essential ground. It is one of the great works of human art which grips and fascinates the more it is explored, and in its present condition it is hardly worth the trouble of looking at unless it is so explored. ii8 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Among the priceless things upon this earth to-day, and they are still many for all who possess hearts no less than heads with which to approach them, and I can well believe that for genuine interest and delight the possession of the first condition is more important than the second, it is perhaps rather a foolish and vain task to apportion the measure of their pricelessness. In the case of Ruskin, as I have said, the verdict is obviously in some real measure the grateful expression of a personal obligation. That also I have experienced in my own case, and in my own way have attempted to justify. And indeed I may candidly confess that among all the works of old masters I have ever seen, I know of none I would rather have seen in the full beauty of its original freshness than this Paradise. Such a piece of confidence is innocent enough and even equivocal. It is, indeed, but the pathetic truth that the work is now in great measure a ruin, though still appreciably remote from the completeness of ruin which has already settled upon the Last Judgment of Michelangelo. But whatever may be the worth, or comparative worth of these works as rivals with each other or any other work of art, precisely as the immortality of that fresco in the Sistine Chapel will continue in the memory of the range, power, and wonder it has associated with the arts of men, as also in the emulation of great imaginative work which such a memory is calculated to awake, as with the blast of its own angelic trumpets, in future generations, so too I am confident we may, at the close of an account of this last great work of our Venetian master, so insufficient in many directions, claim for his vision of Paradise an immortality of the same character, and indeed a fellowship therein with those Titan poets of his own Italy, Dante and Michelangelo. CHAPTER XXI THE DRAWINGS U NTIL but a few years ag'o it was generally assumed to be contrary to Tintoret’s ordinary methods to make preliminary studies for his paintings in any medium whatever. While it was admitted that a few oil-studies existed and a few drawings of more or less authentic character, the fact was emphasized that the number even of these was very small compared with those of a certainly authentic character we possess from the hand of Michelangelo, Raphael, and other old masters. What was of yet more importance in establishing such a conclusion, it was pointed out that even those we did possess were not of great importance, the drawings at any rate, and it was perhaps rather assumed than proved that they supported the view deduced generally from the nature of the actual paintings we possess that the art of this master was essentially that of a rapid improvisatore^ who worked out his compositions straight away with a kind of inspired fui'ore^ at least in those cases where the work of temperament so impetuous could claim to possess the quality of inspiration. The purchase, in the spring of 1907, by the British Museum of a portfolio containing over eighty original ^ studies in tempera, with a few in chalk, pencil, and sepia, similar to others already known, has rendered a reconsideration of such a conclusion inevitable. ' It has in fact reopened the entire problem of this master’s methods of work. For myself I believe that even apart from such a discovery a more exhaustive knowledge of the material we possessed previously, combined with a more rational conception of what was actually implied in the painting of the great masterpieces, which in some condition or another are still extant, would have been quite sufficient to modify the extreme view above stated. As a matter of fact we have more oil-studies which are certainly authentic by ^ At least only half a dozen or so are doubtful, or clearly copies 120 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Tintoret than, to my knowledge at any rate, by any other Venetian master. But I am not so much here concerned with them, and have already referred to most of them in other sections of this work. The truth is, that up till quite recently writers have never threshed the question out with an exhaustive review of the facts. They have assumed that because the tradition existed that Tintoret worked in a furore^ his furore must therefore have been extemporized in the form of its ultimate manifestation. The example of Michelangelo, who was also conceived by his contemporaries to work in a similar spirit, might have at least suggested the possibility that such an emotional condition is not necessarily incom- patible with the most laboured preparation. It was further assumed that because the actual execution of some of this master’s greatest works is carried out with extraordinary rapidity in the actual brushwork, as we see it on the surface, such necessarily excludes all previous tentative effort. And in conclusion it was assumed that the careful description his first biographer gives us of the nature of his artistic methods of work, all his studies and so forth from natural or artificial objects, to which I have already referred,^ could only have been applicable to his studentship. Ridolfi as a matter of fact does not say so, and indeed rather suggests at the conclusion of his biography that such laborious hours of artistic experiment were throughout the larger part of this career never wholly abandoned, rather that, together with much work on paper in one medium or another, this was a life-long feature of the night-work of this extra- ordinary man. At the same time he adds that while he unquestionably made large drafts upon hours usually dedicate to repose, he was always a recluse, very reticent, like our Turner, on what he did or did not do, and only the closest intimates ever got into his studio at all. With such facts or suggestions before us we will now briefly survey the more important drawings actually extant, mainly that in the Albertina Library, the Venetian Academy, the Uffilzi Gallery, and the few genuine ones in the British Museum.^ This will not include the new tempera studies of the latter collection, which I think it will be more convenient to enumerate in an independent list,® merely referring to them as a whole or ^ See Chapter ix, p. 115. ^ And I should add the four or five in the Chatsworth Collection which I describe in the Catalogue. “ Appendix A. V Plate CLXXVI Albertina Library, Vienna STUDY FOR AN ASSUMPTION SOMEWHAT DOUBTFUL THE DRAWINGS 121 to one or two examples in so far as they enforce the general conclusions of this chapter. The most prominent feature of these drawings is that they are rather tentative efforts to fix an incipient or only partially realized conception of a subject than carefully finished or elaborate studies. Drawings of this character would have very little chance of preservation, and the marvel is not that we have so few of them, but that we have any at all. Artists in the prodigal days of these old masters did not exhibit the experiments of their hours of incubation. These were carelessly thrown on one side when the final work was completed and another commenced. In the Albertina collection we have (No. 108) such a bold sketch in coloured ink and sepia of the central group in the Worship of the Golden Calf. The famous priestess in this is very appreciably smaller than in the completed work. In the same collection (No. 118) there is a sketch in pen and ink and sepia for The Stoning of S. Stephen. This may be a study for the well-known picture, though in detail it differs very considerably. There is also a yet finer study on the same subject in the older British Museum collection (No. 190). It is an extremely bold monochrome sketch of great vitality. The composition is entirely different from any known work. There is a governor seated on a throne behind the saint, who is surrounded by four splendidly delineated men stoning him. As in the S. Cassiano Crucifixion the heads of the crowd are only just seen above the level of the ground. Then there is that better known and still more authentic pen and ink sketch^ in the Venetian Academy of the Origin of the Milky Way, with the addition of an incumbent figure in the foreground finally removed. The others in this collection (there are eight in all) are not of much value, and for the most part extremely doubtful. No. 119, a very bold sketch, and No. 125 a study in sepia of three figures and a cherub, are very possibly from his hand. Among the very dubious ones is a sketch (No. no) for The Miracle of the Slave. In the Uffizi collection, which contains ten drawings attributed to Tintoret, there is also a study of this subject which appears to be genuine.^ There is also here a sketch in pen and ink for the subject of the Brazen Serpent, and two clearly authentic drawings of two angels supporting the dead Christ (Nos. 738 ’■ No. 121. ^ That is the Venetian Academy. " See Plate XXXIII. It is No. 736. II R 122 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET and 465)/ the latter, which is the finest, being in charcoal. These may be studies for a picture mentioned by Ridolfi and lost, unless it is the small picture in the Louvre which, however, is almost certainly not by Tintoret. No. 728, which is the sketch for a Deposition, most certainly bears some resemblance to the ideas of the Bridgewater House picture, candles being here carried by two women. The feeling, too, displayed in the drawing of the three women in the foreground is fine. No. 734 is a bold head of a man in charcoal and white on brown-gray paper. A study for a Cenacolo (No. 732), unlike any extant composition, in sepia and white, and again most emotionally expressive, is at least worthy of mention. Returning to the yet more important Albertina Library collection many of those exhibited with the authentic or possible examples are ob- viously copies of well-known works, or even possibly of drawings either lost or unknown to me. Thus No. 125 appears to be a copy by a German artist of an original drawing of S. Paul transported by angels to Paradise, a beautiful idea, but Tintoret was evidently a great admirer of the apostle of the Gentiles. His now almost ruined oil-portrait of him in the S. Stephano Church in Vicenza, and his presentation of him in the Paradise are noble delineations, both of them. He painted also several Conversions of S. Paul, according to Ridolfi, which have vanished, while the only Martyrdom of S. Stephen we possess is a ruin. Again, No. 116 in this collection is a most interesting, if possibly modern study, in Tintoret’s style of Christ and an angel in the garden of Gethsemane. Real pathos and emotion is shown in it, and something of its history would be of real interest, whoever was responsible for it. It may even be a rough transcript of one of Tintoret’s lost Gethsemanes. But whoever drew it was a real artist. Nos. 113, 114, 109, 102, 119, are all copies of Tintoret’s extant work in the S. Rocco Scuola or else- where, some of them bad ones, and all of them weak in handling. No. 121, on the other hand, has every appearance of being a wholly authentic draw- ing for The Discovery of the Holy Cross hy S. Helena. The composition ^ Miss Phillipps refers, I presume, to these drawings as a fine drawing of a Resurrection (p. 136). It is, however, not a Resurrection, and there are two of them. She refers to no others. THE DRAWINGS 123 differs from that of the famous painting. S. Helena kneels on the right. Three men are raising the Cross. There are two women in the background and architecture. A really fine drawing. No. 124 is again a bold and vigorous authentic sketch in which S. Paul (?) and a bishop are being carried off in the clouds over a field of confounded riders and horsemen. This drawing is squared, as so many are in the British Collection, for future use. The collection also contains a rough, but interesting sketch in sepia (No. 126) of angels transporting souls from purgatory towards the Madonna and the infant Christ. The expression of the Madonna is quite exceptionally sweet and gracious. And lastly, in addition to a study or copy of the S. Polo Cenacolo (No. 115), a most remarkable drawing I shall refer to again, we have one (No. 115) in pencil, on yellow paper, with some additions of body colour, mainly blue and purple, of an Assumption, of which this work contains a reproduction. Though I will not vouch for it with the absolute certainty I do for some of the others I think the attribution far more reasonable than any other alternative I can suggest. It is a really fine and most sensitive drawing, and in its eco- nomical display of figures in adoration an improvement upon the large works of Tintoret himself. It must be admitted that many of the previous British Museum Collection are extremely dubious.^ There are about a score of them alto- gether. Thus the study in red chalk of the Doge Nicolo da Ponte receiv- ing the sword of Justice is clearly a copy of the Ducal Palace picture. No. 2, which is a sketch in pen and indian ink, is just one of those kind of drawings for which something may be said, but upon which assurance is impossible. We do not know enough of Tintoret’s genuine work of this slight character to form any certain conclusion, beyond one, in my own case, of grave doubt. All we can say is that the vitality of the work appears to be beyond the reach of Palma Giovine, though one or two of this collection by him approach it. The study for a Martyrdom of S. Lawrence (No. 4), which is very confused in its definition, though the man on horseback behind is power- ful, is again extremely doubtful. In No. 6 we come to the first among ^ The drawing’s in the Christchurch collection are all too doubtful to merit detailed attention. 124 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET these studies that can put in any really emphatic claim of authenticity, for the same remarks apply to No. 5 which I made of No. 2. This No. 6 is a very fine study indeed in sepia with white lights on green paper of The Wrestling- of Jacob and the Angel, which I have had reproduced for this work. We see here precisely the same hand that we find in the studies for a Crucifixion, which I have also reproduced, a drawing which we may definitely say no other man but Tintoret could have made, and which gives us the absolute focus of conviction.^ Moreover, it is clearly related to the Turin fragment. It is simply invaluable as a standard of comparison. That and the sketch for the Origin of the Milky Way, and this Wrestling of Jacob are all of them absolute certainties in this type of Tintoret’s work. The next study for a portion of some Moses striking the Rock I am also inclined to think authentic. It is little better than a scrawl, but the vitality here is at any rate prodigious, as may be seen in the drawing of the women holding a bowl on the right. It has no connection that I know of with any extant authentic work, or even the rather doubtful picture formerly in the possession of Mr. William Butler, but as a pen and ink drawing it is more likely to be from the hand of Tintoret than anyone else. No. 8 is a pen and ink study, with monochrome work and white lights of Callisto at the bath. It has real beauty and interest, and there was apparently in Charles I’s collection a picture by Tintoret on this sub- ject. I doubt, however, whether this is actually a drawing by him, though his influence is clear enough. But some of these figures altogether lack the decision of his handling, and the hand of the figure on the left is a mere mess. Of course it may be a sketch by someone of either the above- mentioned work of his or some other. ^ Doubts also cling to the next example, which is a sketch in sepia on olive green paper of a Deposition, where we have two Maries, and the Madonna in the foreground, with the body of Christ carried down behind. The doubt is possibly not so definite as in the last example.® No. 10 is an excellent drawing in its way of a ^ I am not sure where this drawing is at the moment. If it is No. 120 in the Venetian Academy collection my note on that must be a confusion, for I seem to have a doubt. I think, however, it is at Lucca. ^ Sir Sidney Colvin apparently accepts it as genuine. ^ The figures in the background certainly look a genuine bit of Tintoret’s work. Plate CLXXVIl London, British Mnseum JACOB WRESTLING WITH THE ANGEL (A Sludy) Plate CLXXIX Lucca Museum STUDY FOR A CRUCIITXlOX 1 ”1 Plate CLXXXVI Accademia, Veince DRAWING FOR ORIGIN OF MII.KY WAY THE DRAWINGS 125 Cenacolo containing many figures. Its addition of beggars, two on right and one of left, reminds one of Tintoret, though the composition is unlike any known picture. It looks, however, to me more like a copy of some work than a tentative study at least at all resembling the typical manner of Tintoret. Palma Giovine, in so far as it is the work of either, is far more probable. No. II is a gruesome subject, and quite inferior to our master’s handi- work. The sketch in pen and sepia of a Slaughter of the Innocents is again not very distinctively Tintoret, though there is in it a suggestion of the parapet and a figure falling over it reminiscent of the S. Rocco picture. The collection includes a number of Vitellius heads in pencil on blue- tinted paper. Some are copies of others. There are some very doubtful ones in the Christchurch Collection. More important is the fact that the original Collection possessed, even previously to the purchase of the tempera studies already referred to, two of a similar character. One is a very rough study of an Adoration of the Magi. The shadows are brown with yellowish white lig'hts on a mono- chrome basis of greenish gray. The other is an Assumption of the Virgin. It must be admitted that the above result obtained from the drawings previously possessed by our British Museum Collection is not very satis- factory. With the exception of the Wrestling of Jacob there is not much here in common with the best examples we find in the foreign collections mentioned. We come now, however, to some account of the treasure-trove which makes our National Collection of Tintoret’s drawings unique, in other words, the upwards of eighty in tempera, purchased as stated in 1907. These had been for several generations in a private collection in Valparaiso. Their subsequent history is unknown. Unquestionably authentic, a certain amount of attention was necessary to bring them back to their present excellent condition. But the removal of the varnish and egg glazes and the renewal of the dried and crumpled paper has been wholly successful. The interest of these studies is not only that of themselves, but also one of indirect importance in relation to previous collections. The drawings of previous collections not only vary, as we have seen, in their quality and type, but generally include a number of copies of Tintoret’s finished works. 126 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET For this reason even such an admirable pen and sepia drawing with pencil shading as that in the Albertina Library (No. 1 15) of the S. Polo Cenacolo raises the serious question whether a drawing so complete as a replica of the final work could possibly be from Tintoret’s own hand. The drawing is unquestionably a finer one than that (No. 10) in the British Museum, though even that in certain details resembles Tintoret’s manner more than that of any other readily assignable master.^ It is not only a finer drawing, but, I mean the Vienna example, is more conceivably authentic. That Tintoret could do and did such work is proved by the fine drawing in Mr. Heseltine’s possession of the entire Last Judgment which I do not see how we can dispute apart from the fact that it contains variations.^ But even if this Albertina Library drawing be genuine, and I should be very glad to accept it, it must have been an exception to Tintoret’s ordinary methods of conception as we find them in these tempera studies. As I have already insisted, repeating the conclusion already arrived at in this work, the theory of improvised effort has been too easily accepted as an explanation of Tintoret’s finished paintings. It would be little to say that these studies now discovered generally are inconsistent with such a method of work. The surprising fact about them is that so far as they carry us they point to an amount of tentative experiment and unsparing persistency in the working out of a design which is amazing. Moreover in the few subjects we can identify with complete works the final result of these studies is still so far from the ultimate achievement that we naturally are dubious whether we have even here the entire process. They seem to contradict directly that dictum of Ruskin that a great painter conceives the general lines of a given composition in a flash of intuitive synthesis, and can set it down there and then like Shakespeare without blotting a line.® For myself I have always been sceptical about such a power, whether predicated of Shakespeare, Mozart, Handel, Tintoret, or any one else. No doubt when at the right heat and under a condition of sufficient ^ The drawing of the legs of some of the figures is so Tintoret-like that it must be deliberate imitation from any other than his own hand. ^ If there is any study now in Venice, as Mrs. Bell affirms in her biography, for the Ducal Palace Last Judgment I should very much like to know where it is. The Museo Civico is, so far as I could make out, a false scent. ^ They in fact belong to precisely that class of drawings w’hich Ruskin calls “experi- mental,” and which he thinks no great master used. b Plate CLXXVIIl British Miiseitm, London TEMPERA STUDY THE DRAWINGS 1 27 absorption in the subject some men of genius have done what to the ordinary craftsman will appear a miraculous continuity of practically flawless creative adventure. But the beginnings of such work are gener- ally precisely that portion of an artist’s work of which we know least, and not unfrequently we never could know more for it has been accomplished in the unseen chambers of the artist’s soul and intellect.^ But however this may be these studies of Tintoret remind us much more closely of the tentative search after a finally inevitable result such as we meet with in the notebooks of Beethoven. Whatever we may think of the necessity or use of some of them, at least it is clear that an artist who adopted such a method of thinking out his thoughts on paper in any considerable propor- tion of his practice would come to express such thoughts in visible form with the ease and rapidity that a trained musician transfers his musical ideas to manuscript. It is quite possible to see actual disadvantages in the possession of such a fluency. The changes rung in some of these studies are very slight. As we follow the thirty odd variations upon the one subject of The Temptation of S. Anthony^ we begin to wonder where the kaleidoscopic process will stop. The value of such a process will clearly depend upon the continued vitality of the creative impulse expressed, the power of the artist to control the mere whim of change within his fundamental sense of design, and his conceptive effort to embody the cumulative results of such experiment. Of course our conclusion upon the success of such a method in the case of the studies can only be based very tentatively on the limited number we possess. Many of these do not refer to subjects of which there is any completed work on the large scale. With regard to the rest all we can say is that though our verdict is on the whole favourable,^ yet we do require a good deal more evidence than is at present to hand to make our conclusion entirely satisfactory. One thing, however, these studies do prove quite conclusively, so far as they can prove anything at all, and that is they make all charges of carelessness or haste in the effort of composition appear rather ridiculous. The question, however, remains how far we are entitled to regard them as representative of ordin- ary methods of work and of a really substantial part of that work. ' In considering the value of such a statement the extraordinary memory of artists exceptionally gifted such as Handel and Mozart, for example, should not be overlooked. “ The elimination of the lion from the drawings on the Miracle of the Slave is the most obvious example of an advance. But it does not stand by any means alone. 128 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET The first inference I deduce from the subjects of these studies is that they were througfhout made in Tintoret’s mature artistic life. They are neither the efforts of early apprenticeship, nor have they any connection with those designs in which, according to Ridolfi’s account, he proposed, after the completion of the Paradise, to embody hitherto unexpressed con- ceptions which might form, in the language of this biographer, “a seal {sugelld) upon the infinite number of works already executed.” By seal, I imagine, the writer means simply the coping-stone of his labour, inven- tive suggestions for the use of the school. The further conclusion appears to me almost as irresistible that a master who could put himself to the trouble of throwing off some thirty odd studies on a single subject and a considerable number on several others could only have secured such facility through a great amount of similar effort on other subjects. It is, of course, highly probable that a practice of this kind would only have prevailed in this sort of prodigality during certain periods of his career, we may almost assume they would be the earlier and less occupied part of it. The drawings in this collection for two of the Miracles of S. Mark would support this; and though the S. Anthony series is totally unrelated to the finished work in the S. Trovaso church, it is at least corroborative that this picture is a comparatively early one. On the other hand, I think we may justly assume as an infer- ence both from the facility of these tempera drawings and the equally masterful control of the pen or brush in those three most convincing drawings previously mentioned, that the custom of making preparatory designs for compositions or important parts of them, whether in pen and ink, monochrome or tempera, was never wholly abandoned. As I have already often enough contended, the great works, whether in the S. Rocco Scuola or elsewhere, assume the necessity of such work ; nay, the very rapidity of the execution of such a masterpiece as the great Crucifixion strongly confirms this. Everything points to the fact that the design was practically worked out before any portion of it was transferred to the canvas, and that in all essentials there were no corrections of any import- ance upon the final work. The studies comprised in this recent acquisition cover in all some fifteen or sixteen subjects. The artistic effect secured varies very con- siderably. Pi .ATE CLXXXI British Aliiseum, Loudon TEMPERA STUDY FOR MIRACLE OF THE SLAVI: Plate CLXXXII British Museum, Loudon STUDY FOR TEMPTATION OF ST. ANTHONY THE DRAWINGS 129 Setting aside the three or four copies of another hand, some have been thrown aside at a very early stage. Others are flashed off with the brush as an instantaneous contrast of extreme light and shadow. The drawing' of The Adoration of the Magi in the previous collection is an extreme example of this. What this extraordinary sketch contains beyond the merest indication of the mutual relation of the figures, is the essential emotion of the theme which was to dominate in the composition from beginning to end. In others there is a very considerable elaboration of intermediary tints, which make some of these improvisations quite exquisite modulations of colour. Very rich in this respect are the nine versions of Christ giving the Keys to Peter, though there are one or two others even more subtle and delicate. In every example there is the same masterful ease and velocity of execution. The S. Anthony series may possibly suggest the doubt in some of its varieties, whether we have not here the mere play with a theme for amusement’s sake such as is a little difficult to justify in a worker so gifted. On the other hand, we must not lose sight of the amazing rapidity with which the majority were thrown off. They are and were never otherwise intended to be than the entirely secret experiments of the studio, or even it may be, here and there, the diversion of an hour or so. How they have come down to posterity at all is the marvel, more especially in the case of an artist so modest and so reticent. They are executed further on coloured paper either of bluish-gray or gray-brown (as in the example No. IV), or in the case of the S. Anthony series on a still richer tone of brown red, or rather yellowish brown, for they have darkened somewhat. Where the lighter tinted paper is used the extreme lights are put in with a creamish white and yellow, the paper itself being left bare, or but faintly tinted up and down to represent the middle lights, the darker shadows being sketched in with reddish brown, or where the general colour effect is more rich, with a vinish purple. Where the darker paper is used less employment is made of the bare paper, though there are examples. No. 47 is one, where much of the paper is left uncovered, not to mention those cases where the study is prematurely thrown aside. The use made of the bare paper is not the least interesting feature of these studies. Such a fine economy of means implies in itself much practice, no matter how great the ability. The reproductions may here and there II s 130 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET suggest it, though it is impossible to follow thus the finer aspects of such a technique as, for instance, in one of the war allegories (No. 85) where a few strokes of paper suggest a gleam of the sky. In conclusion I would observe that the squared examples show us that Tintoret for the most part worked on paper already prepared in this way rather than squared after the study was complete. Also I rather incline to the view, differing here from Sir S. Colvin, that all the colour studies were thrown off without any direct reference to a model of any kind. They are the improvisations of knowledge. Such is some account of the contents of this remarkable appearance of authentic work practically lost for three centuries. It points to an extraordinary pertinacity of this master in the process of evolving some of his compositions, and in the nature of its execution even suggests a method which extended at intervals over a large portion of his career. I have compared the process to the notebooks of Beethoven. The comparison at least to a musician’s work is full of real suggestion in the present instance. Tintoret was not only a fair musician himself, but as we see it here the expression of emotion through the medium employed is even more vital than that of form. It is precisely this melodic or harmonic progression of the emotional possibilities of a theme that we find him experimenting upon here even more than the purely formal structure. There is nothing like it among the extant studies of the old masters. It is almost impossible to believe that a man who could throw so much significance into the mere line as in those Crucifixion studies, or into the dashes of coloured modulation contained in these tempera drawings could have done anything else but execute hundreds of them. I am quite prepared to admit that if he did so the result may not have been always or in all respects favourable to the best interests of his work. Nor even if it was not so, is it by any means the only aspect of his extraordinary powers which could point the way to temptation from which the ordinary artist has no need of prayer to be delivered. But whatever use genius may have made of its incomparable capacity, these studies are at least one more proof of the extraordinary curiosity and ardour of their artistic temperament. They still further enlarge our knowledge of this master’s versatility, and carry this impulse of unsatisfied creative energy yet a step further back from the works that so many have ventured to characterize as improvisation. They extend yet Plate CLXXX British Mtiseuni, London STUDY FOR CHRIST GIVING KEYS TO S. PETER THE DRAWINGS 131 further the distance which lies between the type of execution we generally identify with that of the pictures in the Upper Hall of the Scuola di S. Rocco, and the consummate perfection of the Ducal Palace quatrain and all other work nearly allied to it. The breadth of achievement is most certainly astonishing. CONCLUSION A n undeniable feature of much of the art criticism of the present day is its tendency to shrivel up into its shell before the finer and profounder aspects of pictorial composition, to ignore the range of emotional power it may express, and to prefer, or at least to celebrate any style of execution rather than one which is by the elaboration and subtlety of its effort equal to the task of unfolding the delicacy and more ideal associations of human life and thought. In the vision of such connoisseurship the function, or rather the definition, of pictorial art would appear to associate itself with that singularly thoughtless and inadequate conception of Emerson that it consists in the detachment of certain objects from the variety of their environment, and in presenting them pictorially with such emphatic directness and absolution as shall compel an interest comparable to that we have experienced in respect to any other objects so represented, no matter what the nature of them may be. Under this extraordinary view the function of pictorial art is not so much the nobler one of revealing to us the infinite range of spiritual ascent or descent which is implied in the content of a profound human experience, the endless gradations of aesthetic or ethical quality, or as we say, ideal significance, which are unveiled in the objects which form part of the imaginative synthesis either in colour or design of different workers in the art: it is rather the essentially material one, resembling- in this respect the function of a Co-operative Store, which by its concentration of attention upon various objects of the visible world around us in a certain order of succession conducts us finally to the incontrovertible, if rather commonplace conclusion, how many good and excellent things there are which may be thus enlisted for display. As Emerson puts it with a bonhomie and despotic assurance only possible to genius: “A dog, drawn by a master, or a litter of pigs, satisfies, and is a reality not less than the frescoes of Angelo . . . But I 132 CONCLUSION 133 also learn that what astonished and fascinated me in the first work astonished me in the second work also; that excellence of all things is one. The best pictures can easily tell us their last secret.” Of the greatness and genius of Emerson I have the profoundest admiration. But if any part of the condemnation of that greatness involves an explanation of the above passage as truth to my own intelligence I must admit that to that extent I am condemned. The first part of the sentence is an endurable approach to possibility of recovery, but that last sentence is flatly the leap of the foot into the gulf. It is a strange apparition in the high quality of these famous Essays. Can we wonder that such a road leads to the conclusion that all human painting fades at last as the mere bauble when placed side by side with the eternal picture of Nature, or the panorama of moving men and women in the busy street? That such is not by any means the conclusion of the type of criticism, whose general attitude to the painter’s art I have thus affiliated with this passage from one of the classics of English literature, may be readily conceded. The reply will be prompt enough that no critic who has his wits about him, is likely to confound what has not been unreasonably regarded as the most miraculous craft of the human hand with the mere photography of the natural object in the sense at least that the personal communication of the artist’s spirit to his work makes the object depicted wholly incomparable with that in the order of Nature. Is it really necessary to point out that the intrinsic worth of a portrait of Sargent does not consist in the nearness of its approach to the lady we passed on our neighbour’s doorstep, but in the nature of the artistic presentment itself, in the masterful character of the technique, and the peculiar directness and concentration of the vision which has made this artist so famous in contemporary work? The shell of Rembrandt is not interesting because it is one “of a succession of excellent objects” in what would appear to be in this view a kind of illimitable cinematograph, but because it is the shell of the master Rembrandt. These are commonplaces of criticism no doubt, or rather the alphabet of any review of human art whatever. But I am not so sure that their general admission disposes of the most important term in the indictment which primarily induced me to cite the passage. We may have praise enough and to spare of the force and directness 134 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET of our fashionable portrait painter, but I do not find contemporary criticism quite so willing' to point out how it is that portraiture of this type, with all its brilliancy of immediate effect, and even in the work of an artist most g'ifted to achieve it, is, if compared with the portraiture of the gfreatest, and relatively to such, precisely the kind of picture which in the words of my text “ tells us so easily its last secret.” There is also in our wake no doubt considerable instruction of one kind or another which may assist in the promotion of the purchase of a picture by Morland, or one of Chardin, and indeed even stimulate some quixotic craving" for a sample of our latest and most confirmed modernity from which all the “reality” of Nature, save that of the naked babe or barbarian, unclothed and unashamed, has apparently vanished. But I do not discover a similar anxiety to display before the public who g'apes upon the barbarian, that infinite world of the unseen or overlooked which separates the “reality” of Morland’s pig's and stables from the “reality” of Michaelangelo’s frescoes, or even from that of any picture Watts ever painted, not excluding his dead heron, to say nothing of Blake’s or Tintoret’s angels. After all, it may be said, one star differs from another in its glory, and there may be an artistic and indeed ideal excellence in the painting of dogs and flagons no less than in that of Madonnas, prophets, or even angels. It may be urged that this is the true inference from Emerson’s dictum, and as such it should suffice. Even if the inference were legitimate, which it is not, it will not suffice, though some measure of stellar light be conceded to Chardin, and Morland be accepted as a comet, mainly con- sisting, shall we venture, in the possibilities of its tail. For human art, and ever less and less so in the degree it rises to its essential notion, is not summarized in the painting of objects or the excellence of such pre- sentment; it is first and above all a human document. And inasmuch as it is so, expressive of a particular sphere of human experience, a unique personality, a distinctive temperament, rounded in its finer achievements in an organic whole as truly conjoint with the life of its creator as a flower on its stem, it necessarily partakes of every mode of human excellence and inferiority.^ It may be as shallow as the vanity or egotism of master ^ Precisely in the way we are assured by philosophers that the logical process is the reshaping of a world of content by the universal of intelligence. CONCLUSION 135 Shallow himself, or as mysterious and profound as it is possible for the imagination to make it, and as we find it in a large portion of the S. Rocco School decorations and the Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes. So far from it being the truth that the last secret of the masterpieces of painting is an open one, which is easily read or can be easily told, it is not merely untrue, but, in so far as it is true, and there is always truth of some kind even in untruth, emphasis is placed on precisely that aspect of human art which the genuine student will do his best to ignore. The secret of great art is indeed an open one, but it can only be divined, in any real approach to the fulness of its content, by the rarest and most gifted, who have already assumed that it is practically inexhaustible : and the truth can only be reflected by those who are already possessed of the ideal nourishment and not a little of the emotional impulse of the soul which was thus inspired; and so far as the immediate impression is concerned, in the most aetherial crystal and purest flavour of its essence it cannot be told at all otherwise than by the indirect suggestions of genius responsive to emotions of a like quality.^ The surprise, therefore, is not so much that the interpretations of the greatest art we possess in this country alone is so rarely undertaken with genuine penetration in the critical commentary, as that there should be an admitted reluctance to acknowledge the profounder interest of the content altogether. And the result of this can only be that the public are either left with the impression that all the expert can discover in great art is a technical excellence to the craftsman about which they know nothing and care less; or at most that the essential object of such art is, as stated in the passage from which we started, to point out objects they would other- wise have passed over in the mirage of actual life and Nature. But to draw attention to that we should otherwise have “passed by,” though unquestionably true of a real function of art, as it is of science, and illus- trated as it may be by an oft-quoted passage of one of Browning’s Mono- logues, is indeed of very trivial importance unless the emphasis be placed upon the particular means employed for arresting that attention, and the new significance which the facts thus selected assume in the ideal synthesis ' A thoughtful writer upon Art has indeed put it still more strongly: “ The faults of the highest Art may be easily and clearly described by words ; but there are literally no words for its most refined beauties, nor are there those words to express the want of those beauties in Art that has all the ordinary appearances of truth.” Leslie’s “ Handbook for Young Painters,” p. 256. 136 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET of the poet or painter who unfolds them as a part of the content of his own spirit. The flowers in the foreground of the Bacchus and Ariadne of Titian are the flowers of a poet, the flowers of a new world and not of the old one; and the main interest, I imagine, is rather to discover how they vitally coalesce in their beauty and order with the world in which they grow, than to enable us to point out their more mundane sisters to our friends in the natural garden. In the critical work of the last century the studies of one man of genius appear to be unique in the insatiable and unflinching effort to con- centrate attention upon the ideal content of imaginative art and the quality of emotion which it expresses, in so far as we are able to contrast such aspects with its more wholly aesthetic and technical structure. In his attitude to human art throughout, to a degree that most would admit is without a parallel in the history of artistic criticism, John Ruskin sub- ordinates every other consideration to this fundamental truth, as he con- ceives it, and as I think rightly conceives it, that a work of art is a “human document,” and as such reflects with a truth commensurable to its powers, some fragment of human experience, in which all intelligence, be it never so separate from the studio and the coteries of artistic fashion, may generously partake. And most certain at least it is that during his own day, and the influence both direct and indirect is still indisputable, for the ordinary and simple citizen who desired assistance authoritative and sincere both to his own powers of perception, and even more, for the gift is less common, to those of his emotion in his review of great works, above all of Italian art, these writings have been more instructive than all other works upon art of the same century put together. It is easy to criticize literature of this character, to discover defects in an exposition which above all strives to secure a recognition of the artistic function as an instrument of ideal, emotional and finally ethical or religious instruction. But whatever may be the defects of such a principle of interpretation as applied in all its particularity by this acknowledged personality in English literature, the fact remains that human art, with its organic world of beauty and ideal and symbolic truth, is here and can only be under a frank recognition of this nature placed in the exalted position which it may justly claim as the creation of man’s spirit, vital as such to his welfare as are the worlds of the State, Church and Science. A significance such as CONCLUSION 137 this no doubt can only be enforced by its collective effects, or by an original creative manifestation which exemplifies their noblest achieve- ment. It can only be interpreted by gifts of no common order, and which by their virtue and power are certain to challenge opposition from the careless and thoughtless for whom the infinite significance of art is a con- ception to which no serious meaning can be attached ; men who regard its purpose as exhausted in the mere achievement and perfection of a craft and the enjoyment of an hour. I am not contending, of course, that this conception of personality, in one form or another, as an element in art, is either absent from our common interest or the modern criticism it excites. I merely urge that the full nature of the consequences implied is rarely admitted. The opinion has been recently expressed by a distinguished critic of the day,^ and on precisely a ground such as this, that Leonardo da Vinci and Giorgione are the most interesting painters who have ever lived. It is even affirmed that here at least critics one and all are agreed. If any such consensus does exist in critical circles it is about the first I ever heard of that was so complete. For myself, while admitting to the full the fascination of both these supreme masters, I find it difficult even to com- pare, still more so to estimate finally, an interest derived from the patheti- cally few works which we still possess from the hands of either of them with that accumulated from the work of not a few other famous masters, where we possess not merely the supreme example here and there of their distinctive genius but are able to follow the entire process of growth from the seed to the blossom and it may be yet beyond, as is possible in the examples of Raphael, Titian, Velasquez, Rembrandt and Turner, not to mention any other names. The reply that the mere accumulation of material, even of masterpieces, does not necessarily enhance the interest, hardly meets the contention. Surely the interest itself assumes a different character as our knowledge is enlarged of the world from which they originate,^ and we become more and more admitted to the nature of its evolution. There is no doubt the argument that where the handful of works which remain are in themselves of superlative interest the very ' By Sir Claude Phillips in an article in the “ Daily Telegraph.” ■ At least it is in so far as the moulding and greatness of souls is what we essentially care for more than the mould of their paint. II T 138 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET limitation of our attention to these becomes a stimulus to the imagination as it expatiates upon the unrealized wealth which powers so extraordinary might have created or which have actually vanished ; and in this way an artist much of whose work has been lost may possess a real advantage in creating such an interest over another whose legacy, if much greater in quantity, and even more various in content, suffers from inevitable defects of inequality and from the almost as inevitable confusion of the authentic hand with that of the school and the restorer. It is even a possible con- tention that our interest in the poet Aeschylus might suffer a sensible diminution if we were in possession of all the dramas he wrote. Such a contention certainly marks the limit of reason in the argument, and personally I do not subscribe to it, for it seems to assume that our present interest may be a factitious one. What I do, however, suggest is that an appreciable amount of the interest in these two painters, in so far as it is an interest in personality, is due to causes independent of their actual paint- ings. This is no place to examine what the nature of that legacy is, but in the case of Leonardo, where the fascination appears to me most nearly to approach the supreme degree emphasized, it is surely due in no small measure to our knowledge of the activities of this intelligence in other directions, as poet, architect, inventor and man of science. Even in that of Giorgione the incidental fact of his unique significance in the develop- ment of the art and his influence upon such a master as Titian are factors not to be ignored. The interest is there, it will be said, however it may be explained. The interest is there unquestionably, but unless the mean- ing of the assertion is that such a supreme interest can fully coexist with an admitted pre-eminence of some other painter, it is in clear conflict with the facts. Take the case of Sir Joshua, for example, who expresses in his “ Discourses ” his allegiance in unequivocal fashion to the genius of Michelangelo above all other painters. There can be little question that our painter and sculptor Alfred Stevens would entirely have endorsed this with an emphatic testimony even more in the sense perhaps of the interest asserted. The interest of Pater in the now happily recovered La Gioconda is no doubt an example of the extraordinary fascination that such a picture could exercise on a critic so disposed in temperament and artistic sensibility to unravel the possibilities of its mysterious subtlety. But after all, a question of this kind will depend very much on the particular CONCLUSION 139 characteristics of the greatest work which most engages the attention of either critics or artists as of rarest and most precious worth in its final appeal to themselves and relatively to the ideal of art itself. There will always be those upon whom the qualities of austere simplicity and sincerity, the open vision of the Ideal, rather than the most subtle measure of its efflorescence, a transparent depth rather than the more elusive suggestion of ideal content will exercise a more irresistible attraction ; and for myself, though the fact may carry little weight, I confess I am unable to under- stand how the fascination even of this romantic Mona Lisa, ay, though Her penetrating, calm and subtle smile do, in the language of one of our modern bards. Express the sum of all this soul ^ had seen, can weigh for a moment with the interest of that last or last really im- portant picture Tintoret bequeathed as the seal upon his life-work, the one painted I mean for the Mortuary Chapel of the S. Giorgio Maggiore Church in Venice. And indeed, the more we think on it, the more, it seems to me, we shall come to the conclusion that an interest of this kind must vary with the personal predilections of different men, and in truth, as in the case of Ruskin, will or may vary in the weight of its supremacy with the course of a single life. The main difference between a Ruskin and the ordinary connoisseur is, I imagine, the quite extraordinary force of wholly sincere interest and fascination which various men of exceptional imaginative genius could arouse in him while he was more or less exclusively absorbed in the study of their masterpieces. Such is surely the attitude most to be admired in anyone, whether such study be devoted to Turner, Tintoret, Botticelli, Giotto, Carpaccio, or any other name of an artist whose achievement and personality is com- parable in its fascination. So far as the mere question of supreme pre- eminence is concerned, it is surely a heavy draft on our credulity that we should be required to believe that any such claim will ever be established, though biographies are rife enough, written, too, by capable men, in which such a claim has been gravely asserted to my knowledge on behalf of Titian, Raphael, Rembrandt, Velasquez, and Michelangelo, for each in ' The soul of Leonardo that is, not Mona Lisa. 140 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET turn and for all with the like confidence. After all it is, as Mr. Samuel Weller once observed in excusing his own rather masterful preference for a creator of interest of another character — “it’s nature.” Conscious that heaven’s breath smells wooingly on the temple our spirits have approved it is most assuredly natural that we should seek here a coign of vantage against all comers whereon to erect our mansionry. The misfortune is that in our own case, if not in that of Mr. Weller, one simple truth bars the way. Art of the highest range and achievement is in a real sense unique and incomparable. Such a fact can hardly escape our notice in the case of the sister arts of music and poetry, when we attempt, that is to say, to weigh in the balance Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, or Handel, or strive to co-ordinate the grade of immortality in which we would range an Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Dante, Milton, Goethe, and Victor Hugo. It is true that in the world of poetry a Trinity has been often accepted. But as often again the orthodox dogma has been declared to be Unitarian, and I have met with examples of still more varied heterodoxy. The simple truth is that in the world of art as in that of life uniformity of creed is not essential, even if it were possible. Differentiation is here as elsewhere on this Earth a condition of vitality. My enthusiasm for Tintoret is a growth which has received strength from many sources hardly counting at all in the fascination which his genius exercised on famous men of his own profession, such as Velasquez, Turner, or Whistler. The question of exclusive pre-eminence I place entirely on one side. My object rather in this concluding chapter of my work is once more to emphasize in what I myself conceive the essential greatness and interest of his art to consist. That he was a giant in a generation of giants, this the most superficial review of what he achieved will declare to us. That in what has been distinctively called the absolute power of oil-painting, the audacity and exuberance of his imagination, the supreme perfection of his technique in a certain portion of his work, no less than the freedom and vitality of its quality throughout, he stands among the acknowledged masters, these are truths which I have previously illustrated, and whether acknowledged or not they are not the character- istics of his genius as a painter which I wish to emphasize now. In the summary of the achievement of Titian our latest and most able biographer lays some stress on the consensus among famous masters such CONCLUSION 141 as Rubens, Velasquez, Vandyck, Watteau, and Reynolds, for the admis- sion of his unique supremacy. It is added that no opposition is known to the writer which does not imply some limitation in the opponent. For myself I am inclined to think that the inclusion of Sir Joshua in such a unanimous jury would have rather surprised that enthusiast for the design of Michelangelo. The inclusion on such a bench of infallibles of the admirable Watteau appears to myself to point to a certain limitation in the person responsible for the selection of such a jury. Whether Velasquez, in a certain sense the most distinguished artist named, really held the opinion that Titian was the greatest master of oil-painting is possible, for there is extant evidence that he said so. I have not much respect for the evidence. It is at any rate certain that if imitation be the sincerest flattery all that we know of the relation of his art to Titian and Tintoret respectively tends to discredit the evidence. He not only copied Tintoret’s work in a way unattempted, so far as I know, with the work of Titian, but the influence of the former painter on his own development appears to myself as demons- trable as the absence of such an influence, equally direct at least, in the case of Titian. I lay no stress whatever on such facts. The technique of the Spanish master approached more closely that of Tintoret from the first. Any consensus of the kind, whether admitted or not, is sufficiently explained by the limitations in the imaginative outlook of every one of these masters thus summoned into conclave, if contrasted with the art of Tintoret in the very feature of it, to which I am proposing to attach supreme importance. We willingly concede to Mr. Charles Ricketts that among the great painters of Venice Titian is “ the most typical figure of the Renaissance,” that he expresses its fervour, its opulence, its ease, its spacious catholicity, its delight in the beauty of Earth to an extraordinary degree. But the spirit of this Renaissance, as thus characterized, by no means exhausts the significance implied in the change from the life and art of the Middle Ages to that of our Modern world, which, in a real sense, is derivative from them both. It is far from exhausting the significance or the philo- sophy of several of the greatest men who lived in the flood-tide of it, men such as Michelangelo, Bruno, and Shakespeare. A definition of greatness in art is not unfrequently cited with approval as “strength tempered by sweetness.” It is one which illuminates. For 142 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET a certain type of greatness it may be as pertinent as any likely to be pro- posed. In the art of Greek sculpture, more especially that which im- mediately followed the art of Pheidias, in that of Sophocles himself, and with varied emphasis either on the strength or the sweetness in the crea- tions of Virgil, or even his archetype Homer, Raphael, Titian, Vandyck, Mozart, Racine, and a host of others both painters and poets, down to Watts and his revered friend Lord Tennyson, we are conscious both of its pertinency and suggestiveness. But even in some of these, and Titian is one of them in a part of his work, the illumination is rather one of form than of the depth of ideality unfolded. And as an expression of the great- ness of the type of art we associate with the names of Aeschylus, Aristo- phanes, Dante, Durer, Shakespeare, Bach, Rembrandt, Balzac or Beethoven, and others of such an ancestry, its insufficiency can hardly be disputed. Such greatness is barely summarized at all by a reference to the power, marvellous though in some of these it may be, with which such are able to subordinate a magnificent energy, a prolific ahundantia to the growth of a flower of exquisite sweetness and delicacy. This may consti- tute a part of the wonder, but it does not penetrate to the heart of it. To suggest this we must draw attention to qualities in the artists themselves, the sincerity of their impulse, the passion and range of their sympathies, the quality of the imaginative vision, its extraordinary grasp of the mystery, the reticence, the splendours, the darkness of the natural world, no less than the arcana of the spiritual world. If we reflect upon the achievement of the Paradise of Dante it is not so much either the strength or the sweetness of the music embodied in its poetic form that most arrests us as the quality of the conviction and love which was able to impress on this entire flight through the Empyrean of the Blessed the fragrance of a unique exaltation. We discover the same quality of inspiration and grandeur wafted through the uprise, the billowed incandescence of the immortal Sanctus of Bach’s B minor Mass. That undisturbed song of pure concent, Ay, sung before the sapphire-coloured throne. To Him that sits thereon. The dignity, the august serenity and opulence of Titian may find some reflection in the depth and calm of his blue Mediterranean. But it CONCLUSION 143 remains an inland sea. Beyond lies the storm and shadow of the open Atlantic. Strength and sweetness, the euphrosyne of the Greek, the Goddess fair and free of Milton, the “nothing in excess” of a Joubert or an Arnold are admirable qualities in human art, and never more necessary to insist upon than in our own day of anarchic novelties. But neither one nor the other attain to all we refer to, I admit in a way that only partially conceals our inability to define it, as the inspiration of such a song as the Birds’ Chorus in Aristophanes, the greatness of the Agamemnon of Aeschylus, of the Sistine Chapel ceiling yet again, or of the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven, and indeed of a picture or two of Tintoret. Among the dissentient voices to the estimate of Titian’s rank as a painter above noticed a rather audacious reference is made to the “angry treble of Mr. Ruskin,” that “cry of the pelican in the waste of Victorian England.” True genius is always elusive, and the attempt to pillorize it with a brilliant phrase is rarely successful. The pellets may fly, whether with barbed point or on butterfly wings, but they pass through a shadow on the wall. The man himself remains strangely unconcerned in the sunlight. It is, I believe, the correct defence of such an ineffective pastime to point out that it indirectly establishes the devotion of the worshipper to his hero. That of Swinburne, a case recently commented upon, to the adorable memory of Victor Hugo or Dickens by the readiness with which he consigns the simulacra of Carlyle and Matthew Arnold to the stocks. Such a critical method is in fact a kind of Rembrandtesque chiaroscuro in which figures are shown in emphatic relief by the depth of shadow massed behind. I would, however, point out that in thus assuming Ruskin to be among the false prophets, Mr. Ricketts has not merely overlooked one of the most remarkable traits of this remarkable man, but has permitted one of the most pertinent illustrations of it to slip his memory. In the voice of Ruskin there may have been something more than an echo of Jeremiah, but there was also something more than a trace of Ezekiel. Most memorable of all to my mind is that deep undercurrent of common sense and sanity which insists, even to weariness, after due conviction, upon the correction of its denunciatory ardours and categorical 144 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET judgments. In that section of the “Modern Painters” entitled “The Wings of the Lion,” which is to some extent a retractation of views previously expressed, a eulogy is passed upon certain features of the art of Titian which coincides absolutely with the fundamental conception of his able biographer. Reference is here made to the superb realism, universality, and virility of his art, and in a yet more memorable passage to his religion, “occult like that of Shakespeare behind his magnificent equity,” surely a liberal enough temper which the most modern of our moderns is not likely to extend. Our review of this section of Ruskin’s most famous work is not completed with this reference. This “Wings of the Lion ” chapter, from the fifth volume of the original edition, contains some of the most beautiful and thoughtful writing on Venetian art ever written, and some exquisite description of the work of Veronese. Not a little of its detail, however, is open to the g'ravest criticism, and its ultimate conclusion, so far as it is consistently intelligible at all, is based on a wholly false conception of the true relation of the artist to his work and his public. These defects are so detrimental to any true comprehension of Tintoret’s life-work, that I shall endeavour to explain with some care the reasons which, as I think, justify this emphasis upon my regrettable divergency from so famous a writer. As already will appear from the passage cited, Ruskin’s testimony to the profounder humanity and the noble qualities in the art of Titian and Veronese is unreserved. It is, in fact, as already stated, to some extent a re- tractation of views previously expressed. But he does not, unfortunately, permit himself to stop here. He further considers it in relation to religion and the future of Venetian history. Much that he says, starting from his point of departure that the Venetian School is the “ last believing ” school of Italy, is at least in regard to many of the painters of this school wholly just. He insists rightly that the very temper which made them consistent opponents of Papal interference is rather a sign of religious liberty than necessarily a proof of religious indifference. At any rate we find such a noble spirit immortalized in the history of Paolo Sarpi. But on the other hand, no thoughtful reader of this section who has made an independent study of the works of Titian and Veronese, can arrive at any other conclusion than this, that Ruskin here attaches a CONCLUSION 145 religious significance to this work, or rather a certain spirit of religious conviction, which it does not possess. It is a fine, a true, and indeed magnificent testimony of such a thinker that “no untouched Venetian picture ever excited one base thought otherwise than in base persons anything may do so,” but the difficulty only becomes all the greater of harmonizing such a testimony with the extrordinary conclusion, the intolerable anticlimax I should call it, which terminates this remarkable piece of writing. We have in short disclosed here an antithesis between two different and indeed wholly contradictory attitudes of this writer to his subject- matter. What is attempted is nothing less than the attempt to wear the mantle of Savonarola, and shall we say that of a Goethe or a Matthew Arnold at the same time. On the one hand there is an obvious desire to be absolutely just to the greatness of the work of the most famous Venetian artists; on the other there is a still stronger undercurrent of conviction that the art of Venice is primarily responsible for its degeneration and spiritual debacle. This conflict of attitude finally compels the expression of views which, if they mean anything at all, cancel in effect almost wholly the superb catholicity of the admissions already made, and leave the ideal content of this chapter in hopeless confusion. The extreme apex of this essential incongruity of philosphical outlook cannot be more forcibly illustrated than by comparing the passages already cited and yet more their context, with the really astounding thesis of the following sentence: “No Venetian painter ever worked with any aim beyond that of delighting the eye, or expressing fancies agreeable to himself or flattering to his nation.” Such a sentence simply pulls the reader up with astonishment. We may well ask what becomes of the religious convictions of the painters previously eulogized, and of the poetic or rather Shakespearean equity of Titian? What becomes of the “great religious mind of Tintoret?” What becomes of the “tragic power” of Veronese, a statement which we have already in our mind gravely questioned? In a sense, no doubt, every artist only expresses ideas selected by himself in due relation to the content pro- posed. If we choose to call them “ agreeable to himself,” we are at liberty to utter a commonplace which is meaningless apart from the inquiry into the nature of their content. But it is pretty plain that Ruskin does not II u THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 146 mean this, his aberration in reality goes much deeper. What his meaning is seems to be simply this, that in decorating such edifices as the Ducal Palace and other public buildings in Venice with the works we actually find in them, the Venetian artist abused his trust as a Venetian citizen. Interrogations leap for answer from any candid mind. What could these men have done otherwise than what they did do, if we assume the temper of that work to be what this writer assumes it to be ? Ought they to have trooped into a monastery? Is it not then an appropriate, rather we would say one of the noblest tasks of pictorial art to celebrate the civic glory and the famous exploits of nations or individuals in public buildings? Is it not just the paucity of such works in England that all lovers of art deplore? How else can its function as the servant and embellishment of the common life be exercised? The truth is that Ruskin here sacrifices all his real penetration into the supreme worth of this great Venetian art upon the altar of an entirely false conception of the function of art. It is his extraordinary thesis that Tintoret should have painted his Paradise, or Titian his Assunta not simply with a view of placing in public buildings their greatest works, not even as expressing thereby genuine convictions, but with the deliberate intention of making converts. As the writer expresses it such art was “reckless in aim,” or with a phrase that is still more self-contradictory, “ while entirely noble in its source, it was wholly unworthy in its purpose.” ^ Such a view of pictorial art is untenable. The purpose of a great work of art is its significance and what it contains, not in ends which lie outside it. It is as false if we apply such a conception to the work of Fra Angelico, Basaiti and Bellini as it is to that of Tintoret or Bassano. It is a view which, it is hardly necessary to remark, is not even consistently upheld by Ruskin himself.^ The teaching of art is indirect, indirect as that of Nature herself. Shakespeare indeed speaks of it as another mode of '' To state that a mind which in all its roots of power, its belief and so forth is perfect can “war in careless strength and wanton in untimely pleasure ” is simply to my mind writing nonsense. Thus in his “ Queen of the Air” we find the sentence, “ All lovely art is rooted in virtue and often didactic in expressed thought, the latter is not its special function, but rather to be didactic by being beautiful ” (sec. 108). Such a statement absolutely confounds this section of the “ Modern Painters.” CONCLUSION 147 Nature.^ Browning insists on it in a well-known passage of his “ Ring and the Book,” the one commencing with the lines: But Art, — wherein man nowise speaks to men, Only to mankind, — Art may tell a truth Obliquely, do the things shall breed the thought. Nor wrong the thought, missing the mediate word. Art is vital expression, but indirect admonishment. The sermon she preaches must be sought for no less than in stones or the running brooks. She is no missionary to the heathen. She may even preach to the Church those truths the Church has still to learn from the worshipper of stocks and stones. She is as dumb to the ascetic as she is to the sensualist. Though much Venetian art is, and could only possibly be, the mirror, and we may add to a limited extent the foster-mother of an increasingly sensuous and material civilization, it is the actual life, the vanity and materialism of Venice herself, which are responsible for the weakness, the germs of dissolution inherent in that life. It was this which, when such strength and virility as she possessed in men like the Bellini, Carpaccio, Titian, Tintoret and the rest had passed away, she found her- self unable to rejuvenate and replace. It was not the arts she supported which proved her avenging angel, nor even the flattery, so far as it is the fact, but her own thoughtlessness and inability to deduce from them all and everything that might have roused her from lethargy, and even helped her in Browning’s words to “save her soul.” It has always seemed to myself a remarkable fact that, though Ruskin has interpreted with profound sympathy and penetration the significance of the Hellenic spirit and the beauty of its mythology, he should trace almost exclusively to its influence the decline of Italian painting.^ As a ^ “ Winter’s Tale,” iv, 4. As a matter of fact Venetian art was almost as much the healthy growth of the Venetian people as that of Greece was of Greece, and a gain to Greece in contrast to Rome, which was without any such native incorporation of the Spirit of Beauty and failed to give any such objective satisfaction to its citizens. Vide Hegel’s “ Philosophy of Hist.,” trans., p. 323. “ How far more profound is that remark of Hegel that “Art received a further support and experienced an elevating influence as the result of the study of antiquity ; through this study the West became acquainted with the true and eternal element in the activity of man.” “ Philosophy of History,” Bohn’s trans., p. 427. The whole section is most instructive and illustrates our noblest modern art most pertinently. 148 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET fine modern writer has said, “We can never be too Pagan if we are truly Christian.” Not to see, or at least to fully acknowledge, the deeper union of religious idea and ideal beauty which is the vital force of some of the noblest thought and art of modern times, and which is essentially based on the attempt to combine the freedom of the Hellenic spirit with ideas more directly borrowed from Christian tradition, is a serious defect in much of the outlook of Ruskin, though his writings in so many respects illustrate it. In this very chapter he lays stress on the impossibility. What is still more strange is that where the religious aspect of art is under discussion, there should be no attempt whatever to define that quality in “the religious mind ” of Tintoret, as he calls it, which he at one time held mainly distinguished him from Titian. Throughout this chapter religious conviction, so far as it is retained in the argument, is simply treated alike as conventional and ignored as a part of the significance of the artistic product. There is no recognition ^ whatever in any Venetian painter of that intimate acceptance which, as we say, carries with it the soul, the real fibre and enthusiasm of personality. We may with some reason doubt whether, as Ruskin here maintains, the nobility of Titian’s Assunta is due in any respect to the fact that Titian believed in his subject. It may be even questioned whether this great man, this friend of Aretino, had in the earlier portion of his career a whole-hearted belief in anything save his sense of faculty as an artist, and the beauty and enjoyment of life he set himself to express in conformity with an ideal of beauty which would primarily appeal to his patrons no less than satisfy his artistic sense. But, however he reconciled such an artistic Ideal with his Catholic orthodoxy or his pagan associates, at least in the case of the Paradise of Tintoret the glowing faith of the painter is absolutely inseparable from the art’s significance. The picture is impossible without it. It is just as inconceivable as the profounder convictions of a Watts or a Millet are inseparable from their ideal crea- tions. It is true enough that when he undertook the painting of his Cruci- fixions, Depositions and the rest, he had no idea of setting himself up as a ' At least what recognition there may be in the beginning of the chapter is stultified and ignored in its conclusion, CONCLUSION 149 reformer. We may be thankful he did not. By this I do not mean, of course, that an artist may not hope indirectly to support the ethical and even the religious sense of the community. But his main thought and purpose are obviously to penetrate the scope and ideal substance of the themes selected conformably to the principles and medium of his art. It is in that and only in and through that his personality will assert itself. And it is pre-eminently due to the fact that this painter was moved in spirit by the wonder, pathos and glory no less than the beauty of the subjects selected that he was bound to dispense with a purely conventional inter- pretation. And this spirit, sensitive, vital and delicate, is an essential factor in their significance, and not the least important claim in their greatness. I expressed in a former work the opinion that in the entire breadth of the works of Titian we may look in vain for “ the beauty of the profoundest passion, the fairest love or the most noble self-abnegation.” To those who have studied his two Entombments this may appear an overstatement. But on a general view of that work and in its contrast to that of Tintoret it is wholly just. In breadth of sympathy with and capacity to express the most poignant and most delicate emotions of the religious heart, no less than the most human and most typical on the plane of our common humanity the art of Tintoret is supreme among Venetian painters. It is this sincerity at the root of this master’s life-work which is the secret for many of a fascination it is often somewhat difficult to explain and justify. In this respect the title given to the famous Japanese artist Hokusai, namely Shinshi, the man of sincerity, is also appropriate to the Venetian. And indeed the careers of these two extraordinary men offer points of interesting affinity. Both were expelled from the studio of their masters either for insubordidation or innovation of some kind. Both were regarded by the artistic hierarchy of their times with a certain prejudice and suspicion. Both forced their way to a somewhat belated and reluctant recognition by means of a perseverance and devotion to their art which in its strenuousness is reminiscent of the symbol embodied by Hokusai of a great fish working its way up the water-fall. Both accomplished amazing tours de force almost without example in the annals of painting. Both cared little or nothing for material advantages. Both finally were men of the keenest and most kindly humanity, were possessed with the consciousness THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 150 of exceptional powers, yet were to a singular degree impressed by the unexplored possibilities of their art/ Upon the defects, and they are many even in the art of a Tintoret, I have frequently dwelt in the course of this work, and they are more usefully dealt with in connection with the particular works where they are most en evidence. The “stormy brush,” as Turner called it, of this painter, the meta- morphosis of his style in its approach to a freedom of technique unknown before presents an inequality of aesthetic result which is absent from the work of his greatest contemporaries. There may be a serenity and self- sufficiency in that of Titian, which is more comparable to the ambient sunshine and composure of the world of Shakespeare, if we are prepared to close our eyes to the most exquisite manifestation of its spiritual beauty, its turbulent depths, its “open questions,” and its mystery. Nor would I suggest that in this greater emotional impetuosity we secure, as against the strong rivals, in all respects a full compensation. I am rather reminded of the description Balzac gives us of his own type of artistic creation, in which an artist “ should precipitate himself into his work, like Curtius into the gulf.” There is something of this in Tintoret’s own approach to his pro- digious undertakings. There are without question defects inseparable from such a spirit. But the parallel of these two extraordinary men is not to be pressed. The Muse of our Venetian master was a maiden of celestial lineage, chaste and severe. Her favours were petitioned in the spirit so finely expressed by Goethe in his Faust Dedication. Or rather it would be yet truer to say that on the greatest occasions, to borrow the magnificence of Milton, the invocation was not addressed at all to Memory and her siren daughters, but through “ devout prayer to that eternal Spirit, who can enrich with all utterance and knowledge; and send out his Seraphim with the hallowed fire of his altar to touch and purify whom he pleases.”^ ^ So Hokusai, after seventy years of work, added these pathetic words on his death- bed, “ But five years more and I might have been a true painter.” Tintoret’s remark, “The further you go in the profounder grow the seas,” is common property. From the second book of his “ Church Government against Prelaty.” It is of interest to remember that Milton visited Venice and stayed there a month some forty-four years after the painter’s death. He might have actually met Ridolfi. CONCLUSION 151 But if there is more of a Milton than a Balzac^ in Tintoret all three were seers in their way, gifted with powers of intuition which in most inspired moments attains to something of prophetic strain. That in a review of an art so varied I should win anything approach- ing an unqualified assent to my own conclusion, even if I were able to pin it to a sentence, which I am neither able to do nor think it necessary, would be unreasonable to expect. There is, to mention no other obstacle, the personal equation, the individual appeal of the art itself to different temperaments, different modes of thought and perception, an effect which no argument of any kind can appreciably modify, which it is impossible to forecast, and which colours all judgment, including our own. The world of art now open to the student, whether of the East or the West, continually enlarges its boundaries. If the great works of the past become daily more priceless in the view of the market, it becomes year by year more difficult to appraise them in the residue of their original beauty and worth. We become absorbed in the enchantment of other treasures before we have opened our eyes on the half of our possessions. Most pathetic fate of all, we lose all true sense of enchantment out of sheer weariness. Our enthusiasm is drowned or dismembered of its wings in the voracious flood of our critical wisdom. Whatever may be the view taken by individuals of this legacy it will, subject to the permissive acceptances of Time, continue to impose on our world, as it did upon that of its origins, the condemnation of greatness, which is to explain it and the conflict of opinion it excites. We have here, in society with Titian and Giorgione, a herald of our modern virtuosity of touch, our sensitive mastery of the medium. And in the view of myself and others its influence on the technique of Velasquez, and indirectly on some of the Dutch and later schools is as indisputable. But if the main arguments we have followed previously have any truth in them such points of technical scholarship are not the main source of its interest. The world in which we find ourselves boasts itself of its freedom of vision and selection. It may be admitted we have no Inquisition to bother us in the way it vexed a Veronese. I am not so confident that either the organ-voice or even the mountain nymph of John Milton are the spirits ' The less austere Frenchman is satisfied with nothing short of concubinage. 152 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET most in fashion to direct us on our journey. We are wont to move some- what heavily, when we have anything that can claim to support us at all. The genius of beauty we invoke would often appear to have little affinity with the Muses of Mount Helicon, or even with the Graces of Tintoret. But though we may have all the world to choose from in the creation of either our poetry or our pictures, the question still confronts us, precisely as it confronted Tintoret, whether we have discovered any voices without, or any superlative conviction within capable of charging us with the passion and imaginative vision inseparable from any great artistic achieve- ment whatever. The assurance is indeed presented that, given the unique charm and resource of an artistic personality, it is immaterial in what direction we are led. If the goal of our desire be not exactly “ripeness is all,” we may at least possess our souls with confidence that in the mode of vision lies the essential secret. We cling with the rags and tatters of our devotion to the oracular Art for Art’s sake, with its still more oracular motto. Nihil tetigit quod non ornavit. It is my own conviction, and it is but the truth I have taken from the noblest and most thoughtful remains of others, that the most precious art now existing gives the lie direct to any such anodyne of comfort. Great art is above all associated with a content of ideal, or if the term be pre- ferred, of spiritual significance, some fragment of those stores of reason and worth laid up in the divine substance of the world, and the historical process in and through which this divine substance is unfolded.^ An ideal content of this nature is as certainly in the organic whole of the art product a creation not merely of human intelligence, but of one particular intelligence working through the instrumentality of a trained eye and hand upon a visible medium, and impressing upon the entire growth the virtue and afflatus of his own most intimate being. But in art ^ Compare the dictum of our modern philosopher: “ In any art the more artistic the work is, the more form is there, i.e., the more measurable, definable, calculable, is it — the more rational or intellectual. . . . Nobody doubts that artists are more emotional than ordinary men; nobody ought to doubt that they apply more intellect than ordinary men.” Nettleship, “Remains,” i, 6i. But the entire passage must be read for true under- standing, otherwise we may flounder over such an epithet as “ more calculable.” Great art is essentially incalculable, but it is not because it is unintelligible. So also George Meredith in the person of Alvan, “ The brainless in Art and Statecraft are nothing but a little more obstructive than the dead.” CONCLUSION 153 that is truly great or noble this penetration into the arcana of reality itself, this “fundamental brain-work,” this actual incorporation of idea, however we may describe the appeal to the human mind, is indispensable. Without it the profounder significance of that aurora of personality in the art itself vanishes. It is a simulacrum rather than a divine Spirit which moves on the face of the waters ; and though its creations may delight the passing hour and beings as thoughtless as itself and as vain, they pass with the hour. Only a spirit which is itself deep can unveil the beauty of those open and unfathomable seas which to explore was a Tintoret’s ambition. For ourselves, who are unable to paint a Paradise, because our heaven is limited to a gulf of infinite Space, who cannot paint a Crucifixion without confounding it with the vision of the unconverted thief, without disrobing it of all its mystery, all its imperial splendour as the triumph of a Divine Spirit over the forces of darkness and the grave, who cannot even recall the Graces and divinities of Greece without smothering half their immaculate repose, dignity and loveliness with the merciless attrac- tions of our own unappareled nudity, it is a reasonable contention that the art of painting has ceased to be the vehicle of the noblest aspiration and content of our life. To return with entire wholeness of heart to the Past is no doubt impossible. The arts we possess must assuredly be the reflection of the human spirit as we discover it around and within ourselves. But we have not explained the art either of Michelangelo or Tintoret, or more truly have not assimilated the heart and substance of what is therein depicted, if we imagine we can replace such art — and it will all vanish sooner or later like the fabric of a dream — with the mere accom- plishment of a clever craftsmanship, a virtuosity, a presentment of surfaces, be it never so original and surprising. Talent for talent’s sake is, the truth cannot be too often repeated, whether it be the talent of epigram or paint, but a mere bauble. It is only talent working with joy in the cause of universal ends which lifts humanity to its full power. Nor can we hope to rival, still less to surpass the greatest achievements of the Past if we fail to retain convictions of the soul as absorbed in the sense and inspiration of an order of life more ideal and nobler than our own, or are unable to unveil the significance of this world of beauty and delight, pathos and tragedy, in which we live and move, with a penetra- tion at least as profound. II x APPENDICES APPENDIX I DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS PURCHASED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM IN 1907 T hese drawings were purchased in an oblong album of rich crimson morocco binding of the seventeenth century. They were collected, according to the inscription below, late in the seventeenth century by Caspar d’Haro e Guzman, ambassador at the Papal Court. The inscription runs as follows: DISEGNI DE GIA COME TINTORETO Raccolti in Roma Dali’ Ecc'"°. Sig*'®. DON GASPARO D’HARO E GUZMAN Marches! del Carpio, E Elicce del Conseglio di Stato Della Maesta Catholiea di CARLO SECUNDO Suo Ambasciatore Ordinario, et Extraordinario Alla Santita di Nro Sig’’®. Papa INNOCENCIO UNDECIMO E nd j'682. Eletto Vice Re, e Capitan Gule del REGNO DI NAPOLI. According to one account this album had been for several generations in private hands at Valparaiso. When purchased the drawings were in a rather precarious condition. Over most of them had been passed at an early date a coat of mastic varnish, and over many of them also an egg-glaze.' Both of these had in course of time decayed, leaving a dim surface through which it was very difficult to detect the quality and detail of the original work. These varnishes, after some delicate experiment, have been now successfully removed, and except for inevitable darkening the drawings are practically as they were left by the master. ' I borrow these facts from the interesting account given by Sir Sidney Colvin in two articles contributed to the “ Burlington Magazine ” of January and February 1910. 155 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 156 I propose now to give a bare summary of the contents of this album. I take the numbers of the drawings themselves. /. This is a bold figure of S. John Baptist. It would rather appear to be part of a larger drawing which included possibly Christ being baptized. There is a hand outstretched to the fleece of the symbolic lamb in the left-hand corner. The ground tint is dark with bold purplish and yellow lights, almost white at the brush edges in places. II. This is the Adoration of the Magi,^ referred to in the text, which does not belong to the album collection. It is the idea of Sir Sidney Colvin that Tintoret secured this effect from artificial magnettes such as Ridolfi describes. If he did so it is all the more surprising how he has been able to infuse so much emotional suggestion into these figures of Mary, Joseph, the Magi and these fluttering wisps of cherub. The shadows are here even more eloquent than the lights. Brown- gray paper visible. III. This would appear on the whole to be a different subject from those that follow and sufficiently described as Christ healing the Sick. At the same time a figure is apparently brought upon a bier. There are a number of other figures and an architectural background. Fine figure of woman facing the bier. The figure of Christ is not obviously present at all. IV. This is also not easy to identify with a particular subject. There is a figure mounting some steps, a conspicuous figure at the bottom of them, and an architectural background. The Presentation of the Virgin has been suggested, but the delineation of the figures is too sketchy to admit of any conviction. There is a man on horseback on the left and other figures. The ground is a blue-gray; the outlines are dark with lights in yellowish white and light red. V. This has been called Christ healing on Sabbath Day, but it is more probably another study for Christ raising the widow’s son. There are eight figures, and what is probably a bier. The steps and architecture are absent. The colour of the paper serves as ground, a rich brown. Lights much as in the last. The next nine designs all probably refer to the one subject of Christ giving the Keys to Peter. So far as I know there is no extant work on this subject, nor is it one mentioned by Ridolfi. VI. This is perhaps the most beautiful in colour of all on this subject. I have secured some approach to a reproduction in colour. The principal figure rather resembles a woman than a man, and I took the subject at first for S. Catherine healing the Sick. But it probably goes with the others. The blue of Christ’s drapery is beautifully modulated. There is a distant landscape with angels and cherubs above as in VII and VIII. VII. This is clearly Christ giving Keys to Peter, though the keys are not very visible. It is not so articulate as the previous study, but the colour is extremely rich and Blakelike. There is a dove and cherubs above. Christ is here on the right. VIII. This is another design of same subject in tempera monochrome very ' There is a reproduction of this in Miss Phillipps’s biography. APPENDIX I 157 dark and rich. Christ stands on a rock or stone step on the right and presents keys to Peter as before. The grouping is somewhat changed, as also that of the cherubs. The light from holy dove above descends on keys. IX. This is in ordinary bistre wash heightened with yellowish white. It is arched. The apostle kneels in the foreground. Very light sketch on dark gray- brown paper. X. Evidently the same subject, but Christ here on the left and more cloud above and no cherubs. The drapery on Christ’s figure is carefully outlined, but all other outlines extremely vague. The feeling, however, is preserved, and the delightfully toned paper contributes to the effect. XI. S. Peter is here on the left receiving keys. The figures behind are squared. The size of this design is smaller than the above. The colour is of a bluish green over tinted paper. XII. This is one of the more finished tempera designs. S. Peter kneels on the left. The background of the earlier designs is absent, and the colour is more yellow than in the last. XIII. We have here merely blue paper with the bistre wash. Christ clearly handing keys. Figures behind with tree and mountain beyond. Lights are mainly left to blue paper. Bold penwork. XIV. Same shape as last, but two principal figures reversed. Rays of light descend on keys. Palm-tree on left. Fine characteristic work of Tintoret. Drawing here as fine as in any. Paper rather damaged. XV. Appears to be a rough sketch on light-blue paper ground of the Magdalen in the desert. A vase of some kind stands by her mat. Behind the nude figure is a Cross. The outline is in red. She has dark auburn hair, and her head is supported on a stone. A forcible design. XVI. This is little better than a mere scrawl on squared paper. Sir Sidney Colvin considers it a design for a Conversion of S. Paul. No doubt that was a favourite subject. My idea was Manoah's Sacrifice. Whatever it is it contains a man and woman near what appears to be an altar, and an angel descends on the left. It is painted on a brownish ground and the lights put in boldly, as in No. i. XVII. This is a design for an altar-piece. The saint who is the principal figure is apparently S. Mark. Lion is couched beneath. The saint is curiously young looking, and there is a book on lectern close to him. Above are God the Father, Virgin, Christ, and Saints with cherubs and Holy Dove. It is painted in tempera, as also the following, over squared paper. XVIII. Apparently a further study for same subject, though quite differently composed. Christ hovers over the saint. There is a figure on the right of S. Mark and a monk, and two saints below, one of whom points upward. The face of the saint is very weak, and it is a rather conventional design altogether. XIX. This is one of the copies by an inferior hand, in this case of the last mentioned subject. XX and XXI are tempera designs for The Rescue by S. Mark of a ship-wrecked Mariner. Both resemble the extant picture in the Royal Library in Venice. The THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 158 saint is not placed in quite the same relation to the boat, and the finished work is not oblong as these studies are, and in the painting there is far more breadth of sky and seascape. In one of these studies we have a suggestion of a lion. They are both fine examples of Tintoret’s power in this medium of tempera. The boats appear to be as solid and buoyant on the waves as in the final work. In both of them, but particularly in XXI, the foreshortening of the mariner or Saracen, is masterly, and the speed of execution prodigious. Designs XXII-XXVI are for the Miracle of the Slave, or rather the central group of it. In not one of these five studies do we find either S. Mark or the slave in the foreshortened position finally accepted. The slave in all of them faces the spectator, in all the saint descends in much more ordinary fashion, feet foremost, and in all the symbolic lion descends in company with him. Probably the elimination of the lion and the reversal of saint’s movement into the “plunge of an osprey ” came together. In XXII, XXIII, XXV, XXVI, the lion is on the left side, but in XXIV on right. In XXIII the governor appears to be first suggested in the middle ot the design. In XXIV we find him on the right, as in finished work, but in none of them on his throne. We have here also the first appearance of broken tools. In XXV and XXVI he is tried on the left, and the position of the slave is considerably changed in XXV, which is here reproduced in Plate CLXXXI. Two of these designs are squared. The colour is not so rich as in some of the previous examples, but it is something more than mere monochrome. In XXIII the flesh-colour of slave is very red. Design XXVII^ is a strong contrast to the above examples of dramatic move- ment. A pope is seated within a spacious hall surrounded by cardinals and councillors. It is probably the investiture of a saint, who here kneels before the pope, with the habit of his order. A dignified ceremony is admirably expressed and the colour is full of suggestion. We now come to the series of thirty-four designs in tempera (XXVIII-LXT), for the one subject of the Temptation of S. Anthony, a series which occupies a rather disproportionate space of the collection. Of these L is certainly a copy by an inferior hand, and I incline to reject XLVIII as the work of Tintoret. This leaves thirty-two designs in which this master appears to have revelled in the por- trayal of every type of concupiscent and luxurious femininity and bestial animal shape. No picture of his reproduces any portion of this prolonged nightmare. In all the genuine studies there is extraordinary vigour and vitality of execution. In some the monochrome tempera technique is used, but in most the figures are relieved in the colours of nature on a ground of warmish brown or brown-red. The lights are sometimes left, but as a rule the flesh tints are modelled with great freshness and certainty, with a wonderful glow in particular examples. The degree of finish varies greatly. Thus in XXXVI, XXXIX, and XLVI we have very articulately modelled form, while XXVIII is simply a flash of outlines. I propose ' Illustrations in one of the “ Burlington Magazine” articles, which also contains reproduc- tions of last two designs. APPENDIX I 159 to note merely the most prominent differentia which arrest attention as we pass through this extraordinary adventure of design. XXVIII. This is one of those designs in which a number of women only are grouped about the saint — stretching forward and generally seeking to overwhelm the poor man with their fascinations, here of a rather vigorous type. This is one of the most rapid and masterly of the entire series. It is an apparition, a whirl of lines, a genuine piece of nightmare. Could hardly have taken more than a quarter of an hour or less to complete. A light is flashed on the scene from the left. The tones are white and gray on a yellow-brown basis, apparently the paper itself. XXIX. S. Anthony is here placed on the right. The women stretch towards him from the left. It is not so effective as the last, and the colour is too pink. XXX. Another variation of the Temptation under the guise of the last two. Practically in monochrome and the execution, while being very rough, is not so effective or inspired as in XXVIII. The pose of the female figures are too sug- gestive of mere haste. XXXI. Another variation. This is a fine study. The woman with her back to spectator is well modelled and the hair gracefully suggested. Three prominent female figures. Colour throughout splendidly rich. XXXIII. Here we have the motive of luxury of living introduced no less than that of concupiscence. A female figure on the right presents the saint with a dish. There appears to be an Amazon or soldier behind, helmeted. The saint holds up his hands in prayer. It is not so fine in execution as some others — XXXV for example — mere roughness of haste. XXXIV. This, too, is inferior to the next in execution, and extremely dark. The saint is here in the middle with a prominent not very comely woman on each side and others. His expression is rather defiant. There is the drawing of a head on the back of it. XXXV. This is for quality one of the finest in the entire series. The figure on left is well modelled and it has a splendidly drawn head at the back of it. The saint is here quite prostrate, pathetically so, and no wonder, for some of the women appear to be beating him with torches. His staff and bell lie on the ground. A dog, too, is introduced, and would run off with what remains of drapery on the saint. Though the execution is rapid enough, the impression is almost that of a complete picture. XXXVI. The saint here sits facing us with staff by his side and a few animals are introduced. The nude figure of woman on the left more carefully modelled. Group of women round, with a dog barking in concert. The head of the saint is a mere mess. XXXVII. A variation of last, but the banquet theme is added, and one of the women kneels on right on cushions with five others, one of whom presents a dish. In execution not so interesting as some, though not without fine colour. XXXVIII. This also is a variation on the last, and though probably genuine is an inferior study with an excess of purplish quality in the tone. One of the i6o THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET women here has a crown on her head, and the saint sits on the bare ground. It is larger in size than most. XXXIX. Very rough but vigorous in execution and thrown aside apparently before all the figures behind are clearly indicated. The female figure on the right with back to spectator is, however, carefully drawn. The saint is here kneeling on the ground. XL. The banquet and lust of earthly glory here more prominent. One woman offers a crown, another a dish. The saint himself glances round with composure. The colour of this study is more rich with flashes of purple crimson in it. XLI. A very slight variation on the last. The purple still strongly empha- sized, mainly no doubt because it was first to hand. Seven women and saint seated. XLII. A more important variety of the kaleidoscopic process. The women here are more vigorous. One, holding a sword, drags at the poor saint’s drapery, another is equally insistent behind. S. Anthony folds his arms. The banquet theme is absent. This study is squared. XLIII. Also painted on squared paper. The figure on left same as in last. That on the right is here in a standing posture. The saint is on the ground and appears to have had about enough of it, and indeed the women are more insistent than ever. XLIV. One of the larger studies (13 by lof inches). Here the saint, fully draped, appears only to be just disturbed while reading. The banquet and Amazon motives both present. The helmet of the female figure on left admirably put in. The study is more carefully executed throughout and the woman in the left foreground excellent. XLV. Whether this is a copy or not it is distinctly inferior in execution and messy. There is a vaulted arch in background. XLVI. A certain amount of variation. There is a figure on left whose stream- ing hair resembles a Red Indian’s feathers. The colour throughout not so good as several. The two female figures in front are well modelled. A woman, crowned, sits on the right of saint. It is one of the smaller size (12 by 10 inches). XLVI I. Another extremely rapid improvisation upon the last. Platter, sword, and rod of office are all being presented. The saint folds his hands and kneels on one knee. The rich brown basis is here hardly covered in parts. XLIX. The more ordinary variation of the female seductive theme with the saint seated in the middle. The colour is fairly rich, but the drawing not so good. LI. In this we have the first introduction of the bestial animal theme. The beasts, here seen rushing upon the saint seated in the middle, have in some cases features of brutal or sensual humanity. Here in one corner we have a terrific kind of Gorgon’s head; among the others the wolf, or rather grififinized wolf, and a cock of the infernal regions are conspicuous. Saint is badly drawn. LII. This is a variation on the above. The Gorgon’s head on the left is changed into a Medusa head with white locks. A skull insinuates itself among a crowd of voracious animals, with a wild boar on the left and a griffin on the right. Plate CLXXXIII British Mtiscum. I.ondon TWO STUDIES FOR AURORA AND TITHONUS (?) APPENDIX I i6i The saint’s face is remarkable for its benign aspect; he kneels on the ground stretching out his left hand. Some of the colour is very rich, with a yellow glow upon it. It is quite one of the finest for colour. LIII. The animals here, too, are sufficiently frightful, but there are signs of weariness in the execution and the drawing generally more hasty. Three female figures among the animals. LIV. The saint appears to be here in some kind of a cave or dungeon. There is a nude figure of a woman among the beasts holding a snake in her hands. A toad of some kind emerges from beneath her form. General rapacity of all these repugnant forms. An effective design. LV. The dungeon in this has two arched outlets through which the bestial shapes crowd. There is an exceptionally monstrous one on the left with a long neck and a head which combines the feline cunning of a cat with the ferocity of a wild Indian. Female tempter still present, more evil and repulsive than ever. There are some fine flashes of colour. LVI. Here it is a female figure that rushes in through one of these gruesome portals. The beasts, too, are carefully definite in their hideosity. One on the left with claws is beyond all description. It has just sufficient of the human to make it most grossly inhuman. The saint is not so well drawn. All lights but the highest seem to be left to the bare paper. LVI I. Another variation. Only one female figure present. Snakes and quite an ordinary cow’s head are among the glaring horrors. LVIII. Though the forms and colours are here simply dashed on the paper this is one of the most effective of this portion of the designs. There are more than one female figure among the prowling nightmare of wolves and griffins, and basilisk-eyed cats. One female appears about to hurl a small cannon at the saint, another crawls towards him. Saint himself clasps hands and looks round in con- sternation. The lights appear to be entirely painted. LIX. This is a variation of the next and not so effective, though there are changes in the forms of the beasts. LX. This is one of the more important studies and painted on squared paper. The saint here reposes on the left with hands folded. All around him glare the beasts, vulture lions among those already named. A female figure or two partially draped are seated on the ground, contemplating the scene of terror. LXI. This is the final climax of the drama. Here we see all these monstros- ities, whether feminine or bestial, scampering off before the rush of a heavenly light at the top, which has the indications of a red seat upon it. It is a very rapid study, the mere outlined improvisation of a thought. This ends the series. LXII-LXV are designs of a nude reclining female figure. LXII is no doubt an inferior copy by another hand of LXIII. The modelling is not carried far in any example. In LXV this figure reclines in some sort of grotto, with what appears to be a very roughly indicated landscape and a river. Her left hand is behind her head, on which it rests. The shading of the figure is a dark vinous purple, and the paper shows clearly on the body. In LXIV, the most powerful of II Y i 62 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET the three, there is a more definite suggestion of landscape. She is here propped on cushions half in purple, shade and half in light, under a canopy, and the con- trast between the gray paper and the shadow is most effective. In designs LXVI and LXVII (see Plate CLXXXIV), both blocked for enlarge- ment after their execution, we have studies for an oblong group of Diana with her maidens, or Diana and Callisto, related both in grouping and spirit to the Hampton Court picture of the Nine Muses. ^ LXVI is apparently the theme of Diana and Callisto. This was not varnished, and there has been no discolouration. In both the colour effect and modelling is only partially supplied by colour, and otherwise effective use is made of the toned paper. The modelling is carried furthest in LXVII with purplish tones, here inclining to blue. LXVIII and LXIX are designs for a reclining nude female figure lifting a veil, it would seem, from her head, while an aged man watches her intently from behind. The subject of Aurora and Tithonas has been suggested at the moment of the former’s awakening. The male figure is barely indicated in LXVIII.^ In both the suggestion of the proportions of this tall female figure is very noble, and though extremely rapid there is not a touch which does not carry significance. The lighter study is in monochrome heightened with white on gray paper. In LXIX the modelling is carried further, with colour, and there is a wave of luminous sky over a mountain outline in the background. The man behind, here clearly delineated, rests his right arm on a stone. In the first volume of Waagen’s “Treasures of Art in England,” there is a description of a picture in the Munro collection which is curiously reminiscent of these studies and is accepted as a Tintoret by this writer. The description is as follows: “ An allegorical representa- tion. An undraped figure upon a couch, her left arm raised over her head and holding a veil. An old man undraped with long beard near.” There are, however, the further additions to the composition of “ the head of a young man with a helmet seen from under a table. A spaniel is barking at him. Cupid is seen sleeping in the distance.” I do not know where this picture is, and it is quite possible it may have no connection. Designs LXX and LXXI are yet more difficult to interpret. A nude figure is represented sitting on what appears in LXXI to be a cask. Facing this figure stand or bow several figures, some nude, others in armour. One presents a lute and a volume of music, another some kind of organ, another a sword. An attendant behind brings a jar. Sir Sidney Colvin thinks the intention is to represent the Arts and Arms doing homage to Bacchus. This may be so, though in XXII (see Plate CLXXVIII) the figure is by no means obviously that of a man. LXXI, which is almost an exact reproduction in strong pencil lines on brown tinted paper, may be by another hand, but the inferiority is not so conspicuous as Sir Sidney Colvin would have us suppose, and there are distinct variations, even an additional figure added. The six designs which follow {LXXII-LXXVII) have hitherto baffled all attempts at interpretation, and I have no solution to offer. The central motive is ' See Plate CLXXVIII. ^ Reproduction in biography of Miss Phillipps. Plate CLXXXIV Plate CLXXXV TEMPERA STL'nV ■ ■ s'V-j '■!«» ' ■?* .f APPENDIX I 163 that of a woman starting up from a sitting posture by the side of what appears a rough sort of cradle, from which (in LXXIT) a male child starts up. In all but LXXV the woman has placed her foot on a corpse. In LXXV the dead body appears to have been thrust into an open grave. In LXXII the woman is supported by a figure behind, and there is another figure on the right holding up two swords or javelins and an arrow. The sex of the prostrate figure though not clearly indicated would seem to be female. In all these designs the surrounding figures are protective or the bearers of gifts. In LXXV there are six of such figures, and one with a small crescent in her hair may be intended for Artemis. In LXXIII, which is the finest in colour, there are three. There has been no varnish here and the colour is both soft and delicate, an excellent tone. This drawing has been squared after execution. The colour in LXXV is also a fine and rich one, and the devotional attitude of the woman most arresting. On the back of this is a splendid head of a man in charcoal touched with white. Other drawings of this head exist. The five designs (LXXVLII-LXXXIl) have obviously reference to a mytho- logical subject, and Sir Sidney Colvin’s acceptance of it as the Descent of Hercules into Hades to fetch Cerberus appears to fit in very well with these designs. His own description I shall here venture to borrow, for I cannot better it.^ “ In one design (that is LXXX) the hero, stepping forward in the foreground over two prostrate figures on his right, holds up a smoking torch in his left hand and reaches downward with his right to grasp, so we must imagine, the chain of the three-headed hound who is below invisible. The two prostrate figures in front, one of them crowned, are intended, no doubt, for Theseus and Peirithous, for whose rescue the hero wrought, in the case of Theseus successfully, and whose chains are shown lying broken beside them. In the background are huddled the powers of hell, one standing looking on, one, a horned demon, fleeing. In the design (LXX/X) we see in the lower left-hand corner the three heads of Cerberus, whose chain Hercules has grasped, while he still holds the smoking torch aloft. Some of the infernal powers are more clearly defined, one by his trident as Pluto, another as Proserpine. In these two drawings the composition is upright; in a third it is oblong, the hero occupying the centre with Cerberus in leash, clouds of smoke streaming from his torch, the figures of unchained prisoners and affronted janitors being differently composed.” Designs LXXXLII-LXXXV are powerful studies for a subject which I took at first to be Samson striding over the battlefield, but is more probably merely an Allegory of War. LXXXV, of which the present work contains a reproduction, is the finest of this series. The design is substantially the same in all three. We have an open country, in the foreground bodies of the slain, over which stalks ferociously the Genius of War. To right and left reapers are interrupted in their work. The sickles of peace make way for the sickle of Death. In the distance there are figures of the pursuing and pursued. Flaming farms and houses under ' This labour of Hercules is the only one known to Homer. Od. ii, 623. ^ Plate CLXXXV. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 164 an angry trail of cloud close the picture. These studies are thrown off with extraordinary rapidity on the gray-green paper with cream-white flashes of colour and a brownish toned shadow. LXXXVI is a design probably intended for an allegory of Peace. A female figure kneels on the shore holding out her arms to Neptune, her back turned to the spectator. Neptune is followed by a train of sea-gods and spreads the wealth of commerce at her feet. In the background is a suggestion of shipping. We are reminded of Venice as Oueen of the Sea in the Ducal Palace. There is one further design which I have only seen in the Exhibition of a part of these studies in the public Gallery, It is a study for an Assumption of the Virgin and was there numbered XXXIII. It does not resemble any work that I know. The Virgin rises above a sarcophagus as in the Gesuiti picture, and two angels appear to be supporting her, and there is a group of angels on either side. A number of figures are grouped in the foreground on either side in adoration. The composition is rather stiff and conventional, and cannot be compared with the drawing in the Albertina Collection. The execution is bold and rapid enough, practically in monochrome tempera. AAA// was absent on all occasions when I have seen these designs. APPENDIX II L ist of subject-pictures or frescoes and female but not male portraits other than self-portraits referred to by Ridolfi and now lost or incapable of identification. I. A large Female Figure on the Casa Zeni in fresco. II. A Conversion of S. Paul with many figures, also in fresco. Traces still extant in Ridolfi’s time. III. Fresco for the Guild of the Sarti representing The Life of S. Barbara. IV. A figure of 5 *. Christopher on a wall near above, also in fresco. V. Two pictures placed on view in the Merceria, one a portrait of himself with a bas-relief in his hand, the other of his brother playing the zither. Peculiar lamp-light effects. VI. A subject-picture praised by Titian offered for sale on the Rialto. VII. Two figures of S. Augustine and S. Paul painted for the doors of the organ of the Servite Church. VIII. An Annunciation on the organ of the above. IX. Beneath the last-mentioned The Slaying of Abel by Cain. X. An Annunciation for an altar of the same Church. XI. In the Madeline Church the Preaching of Christ. He also mentions what is apparently the Magdalene Repentant of the Escurial. XII. Another picture in same church which contained many figures, the Magdalen being one. XIII. In the S. Benedetto Church a picture of the The Virgin with other Saints. XIV. A Nativity for same Church. XV. An Annunciation on the organ of this Church. XVI. Also The Woman of Samaria at the Well for the same Church. The Devonshire Collection possesses a picture on this subject. XVII. For the Church of S. Anna he painted The Tiburtine Sybil bringing the Emperor Octavian, the Madonna and Child in a flood of light. XVIII. He substituted another picture for this, not described. XIX. In the year 1546 he painted in fresco on the walls of the Arsenal The Feast of Balshazzar. XX. Painted for the church della Trinita three pictures (in addition to the two in the Academy, Venice). They were: The Creation of Eve. XXI. The Creation of Fishes. XXII. The Creation of Animals. 165 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 1 66 XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXV. XXXVI. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. XL. A large fresco on the walls of a house near the Ponte dell’ Angelo, a battle-piece, with cavalry, and above it, between the windows, there were figures in various attitudes. On the house of a dyer near the Ponte Laterano a fresco of Ganymede with Eagle. In the Consiglio Maggiore of the Ducal Palace a picture of the Emperor Frederick’s Coronation at the hands of Pope Hadrian. Destroyed by fire. Another picture in same hall of Pope Alexander III with Cardinals and Prelates excommunicating above Emperor. He seized the dramatic moment of consternation among all present when the Pope hurled down the extinguished candle which the rabble endeavoured to snatch from his hands. Destroyed as last-men- tioned. In the Sala del Scrutinio of same Palace a Last Judgment over the throne. The figures appear to have been nude and the design more like that of M. Angelo’s fresco than the extant example of Tintoret. Also destroyed by fire. A Battle of Lepanto in same hall. Also destroyed by fire. A fresco, in collaboration with Veronese, on the arch of triumph for Henry HI. A Conversion of S. Paul for the Church of S. Zobenigo. In the Church of S. Felice a S. Rocco and Saints. Ridolfi praises the colour scheme. In the Capella del’ Sacramento a Last Supper. An Agony in the Garden also for this Chapel. In the Church of S. Moise, Our Lady of the Graces. In that of S. Giovanni and Paolo, a decorative scheme divided apparently into three divisions of which the subjects were: i. Abel killed by Cain. ii. The Sacrifice of Isaac. iii. The Brazen Serpent. In the Church of S. Francesco della Vigna a Deposition. Possibly a portion of it remains. See Chapter XHI. In the Church della Carita a Descent from the Cross. This may be the one in the church at Munich. See Catalogue. In the Church of S. Girolamo a Crucifixion in which Christ is sus- tained by the Almighty Father. The saints Hadrian, Francis, and Anthony kneel at foot of Cross. This may be the complete account of the Turin picture. A picture of SS. Cosmas and Damian with the Madonna and other Saints in the Clouds. A Crucifixion in the Church of S. Cosmas della Guidecca. It was apparently the figure of Christ alone like that of Velazquez in the Prado. APPENDIX II 167 XLI. XLIl. XLIII. XLIV. XLV. XLVI. XLVII. XLVIII. XLIX. L. LI. LII. LIII. LIV. LV. LVI. LVII. LVIII. LIX. LX. LXI. LXII. LXIII. LXIV. A Gethsemane in the Church of S. Silvestro. In the Church of S. Croce a Christ sustained by an angel, with a portrait of the Pope Sextus V. An Assumption of the Virgin in the Church of S. Stephano. This is just possibly the picture in S. Polo. For the Guild della Giustizia a S. Jerome in a cave covered with planks, the Saint praying and visited by the Madonna sustained by four angels, as Ridolfi expresses it, of great vitality. The picture was much praised for its minute delineation of the age and penance depicted on the countenance of the Saint. A fresco on the Casa de’ Gusoni depicting M. Angelo’s Dawn and Twilight. Two frescoes hard by depicting Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. In the Campo di Stefano a fresco figure of S. Vitale on horseback. Frescoes of nude figures over some windows near the above. Four frescoes of subjects taken from Ovid on the Casa di S. Gervaso. They were: i. Jove and Semele. ii. Apollo flaying Marsyas. iii. Aurora dismissing Tithonus. iv. Cybele crowned on a chariot drawn by lions. Above these a long fresco of figures of men and nude women. An Ascension in Lucca Cathedral. Not now in the Cathedral so far as I know. Frescoes in a villa at Vicenza. In the Church of S. Francesco in Genoa a Baptism of Christ. In the Church of S. Malteo at Bologna an Annunciation. In a church of Chioggia a Crucified Saint. For the Guild della Croce at Belluno the following pictures: A Gethsemane. Secondly a Christ before Pilate. May be the Earl of Dudley’s picture but this appears to be a study. It was exhibited Royal Academy in 1871. The nude figure of a N. Jerome in a Wood painted in Murano. Appar- ently a fresco. Much tender feeling shown in the picture. A picture in Currano of the Visitation of Elizabeth by the Virgin. Possibly the Bologna picture. For Ridolphus II a picture of Jupiter placing the youth Bacchus in the arms of Juno. Is this possibly our Origin of the Milky Way'l For the same patron a picture of Hercules and Silenus. For the same one of Hercules and a mirror with female figures. Eight pictures of various poetical subjects painted for Philip II of Spain. Of course the battle-piece in the Prado and others may be among them. The Bath of Callisto for the King of England. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 1 68 LXV. A Scourged Christy painted for the Cardinal Aldobrandino. Ridolfi gives exceptional praise to the beauty of this. Picture in Acca- demia may be a fragment. LXVI. A picture containing several saints painted for the English ambas- sador. LXVII. Also one of The Woman taken in Adultery for the same patron. May be one of the extant examples. LXVI 1 1. Also The Dead Christ in the Arms of His Mother for the same patron. May be the Brera example, though, according to Thode, this was painted for a public building in Venice. LXIX. Painted for the French ambassador. A large Nativity. May be the one in the Escurial or that at Boston, if latter is a genuine ex- ample. LXX. Also for same patron an Inferno with many nude figures. LXXI. Painted for Sign. Giovanni and Jacobo van Huffel a Nativity. In their possession when Ridolfi recorded the fact. This, too, may be one of the extant pictures. LXXII. For the same patrons, a Madonna and Child with S. Joseph and the archangel Michael. LXXIII. For the same patrons portraits including two of women, one being Tintoret’s wife, holding a fan of feathers. LXXIV. Painted for Signor Nicholo Corradeno a Resurrection and a portrait of a Youth with a book in his hand. LXXV. Two frescoes painted by the artist in his youth in the Casa de’ Miani alia Carita. Part of this frieze represented the Course of Human Life, and part the Rape of Helen. Imitated styles of Schiavone and Bonifazio. LXXVI. A fresco apparently in the house of the procurator Giovanni da Pesaro depicting a symbolic scene of the four Seasons with figures and landscape. The pictures or frescoes were divided, and in the Autumn there were Bacchantes with youths crowned with vine leaves and grape clusters. LXXVI I. For same patron an Apollo in the midst of the Muses sounding the lyre. A ceiling picture or fresco. May be Mr. R. Banks’ picture. LXXVIII. Also for same patron an Adonis parting from Venus. LXXIX. Also for same a Jove and Semele. LXXX. A number of pictures as a frieze for Count Pisani the subjects of which were taken from Ovid. These are possibly the Modena examples, but Ridolfi’s words rather suggest a continuous frieze merely divided — and not oval pictures. LXXXI. A figure of S. Mark writing a hook, in the patron’s possession when Ridolfi wrote. LXXXII. Also for the same Sign. Gussoni the Portrait of a Lady clothed in classic drapery. APPENDIX II 169 LXXXII I. Also for same patron, Cain killing Abel with God reproving the deed. LXXXIV. Also for same A Conversion of S. Paul. LXXXV. For the procurator Morosino, or in his possession, a Madonna and Child surrounded by a circle of Saints, an arched picture. LXXXV I. Also for same a Vidcan at the Forge. LXXXVII. Also for same a S. Lawrence in his Martyrdom. May be Christ- church picture or that may be the study. LXXXVII I. Also for same a Madonna and Child. LXXXIX. Also for same a Study of the Council of Trent with above-mentioned Doge among the notables assembled. XC. Painted for senators Carlo and Domenico Ruzini a Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. XCI. For same patrons a Flight into Egypt. XCII. For same an Apollo crowning the Muses with laurels, and another picture. XCIII. Painted for Sign. Luigi Mocenigo a Portrait of the Wife of the Doge Luigi Mocenigo. XCIV. Painted for Sign. Tommaso Mocenigo Portrait of himself and Wife adoring the Madonna, with other portraits of senators and the children of the possessor, represented as cherubs at the feet of the Madonna and holding various musical instru- ments. This must have been a remarkable picture. XCV. In the then possession of Sign. Lorenzo Delphino a Portrait of his Wife and six pictures of stories from the Old Testament as follows, an Adam and Eve. This may be Mr. Crawshay’s picture. XCVI. An Abraham and Hagar. XCVII. A Lot with his Daughters escaping from Sodom. XCVIII. An Abraham and Isaac. This may be the picture in the Uffizi. If they were all up to this standard they were fine indeed. There is also the Castle Howard picture, which, however, is doubt- ful at best. XCIX. A Susanna in the Garden. Probably one of the extant works. C. A Boaz and Ruth. CL In the then possession of Sign. Pietro Corraro a S. George and the Dragon. The queen is represented in flight, but Ridolfi says there were several dead figures. However, this might easily be an error, and the picture our National Gallery example. CII. In the then possession of Sign. Malapiero several portraits of ancestors, a senator, and among others the portrait of a lady draped in blue, a singularly pathetic picture, Ridolfi remarks, cm. In the then possession of the two brothers Barbarigo another Susannah, perhaps the other extant work, and a small picture of The Muses, probably an oil study, z II 70 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET CIV. In the then possession of Sig. Vincenzo Zeno, himself a talented amateur, a Christ riding on an triumphant to Jerusalem. CV. In the same possession a Woman taken in Adultery in which Christ points to the writing on the ground. This may be the Palazzo Doria picture, but it is rather a doubtful work. Thode thinks it is the Dresden picture. CVI. In the Casa Grimani a large picture of The Magdalen in Tears before the Redeemer. evil. In the Casa Foscarini, at Carmine, a Resurrection. Maybe Mr. Farrer’s picture. CVIII. A picture once in the possession of the Mocenigo family of Herod sitting at Table with Herodias, and the Head of S. John the Baptist being brought in. CIX. In the Casa Baoba a Caprice of Dreams entitled San Pantaleone. Probably a fresco in a room depicting the vision of the four stages of Life. CX. In the Casa Priuli a S. Jerome. May be the Vienna example. CXI. In the Casa Mula a San Vido, being a Caprice of the Muses with Apollo. May be the picture of Mr. Ralph Banks. CXII. In the then possession of Count Vidmani two pictures, one a Baptism. CXIII. Also a fine example of The Woman taken in Adultery. Ridolfi lays stress on the beauty of the woman led before Christ, also on the fine relief of the figures which points to the Dresden example, but not very probably. CXIV. In the then possession of Sign. Gozzi a Last Supper. CXV. In the then possession of Sign. N. Crasso a picture of Hercules furiously ejecting Silenus from the Bedchamber., with other Figures. CXVI. In same possession a Portrait of the Artist in his Youth. This can hardly be the portrait of the Earl of Wemyss. There is, of course, that of the Duke of Bedford. Also portraits of the poet Maffeo Veniero and others of the family. CXVII. In the then possession of Sign. Bergonico the portrait of A Man of middle Age, who touches with one hand an instrument of torture and with another holds a handkerchief. CXVI 1 1. In the then possession of an artist an Adoration of the Magi. This may be the picture in the possession of Sir George Phillips. Another is stated to be at Boston, and there is that in the Carlisle Collection. CXIX. In same possession a further Susannah at the Bath. CXX. Painted for the Guild of the Rosario di SS. Giovanni and Paolo, an oval picture of the Virgin giving crowns to SS. Domenico and Catherine, with angels scattering flowers, and saints below. CXXI. Also a battle scene between the Turks and the Venetians. APPENDIX II 171 CXXII, Also for same Guild the altar-piece of a Crucifixion, the dead rising from the tombs; a soldier is breaking the legs of one of the thieves. The Virgin has swooned at the foot of the Cross, where she lies with the Maries. The Magdalen clasps {annodatd) the Cross in passionate devotion. The picture Calvert saw and destroyed by fire. CXXIII. In the Church of S. Margherita a Last Supper. CXXIV. For the same church an Agony. CXXV. Painted for the Guild of the Mercantanti a Nativity, and a picture of the Magdalen on the organ. Such a list is, of course, to be accepted with reservation. But it is clear that in many cases Ridolfi knew the pictures had been painted by the artist for the individuals who possessed them. It is also no unreasonable assumption that he had personally inspected the majority at least. I have only to add that we cannot fail to be surprised how so much valuable work can have disappeared. I have suggested possible resemblances to my knowledge of extant pictures, but there are few of importance. It is pathetic to think of this loss, especially among the portraits of women and the classical subjects. And it is rather curious that despite all this variety of subject, a point of interest Avorth analysis in itself, there are not a few which, in the light of our present possessions, we look for in vain. Among all the references to The Muses there is nothing similar to what was once such a superb picture, the Hampton Court example. We have no reference to such a subject as Christ in the House of the Pharisee of Bethany. And from the reverse point of view, though there are four examples given of Cenacoli and four of Gethsemane, I know of no authentic work of this subject outside Venetian churches. IfTintoret represented afresh composition in each of these cases, which is almost certain in the case of the Last Supper, he must have treated that subject in at least nine or ten different ways. NOTE ON CATALOGUE I KNOW of no catalogue of the extant work of Tintoret even remotely approaching the type of catalogue which would prove of most value to those who are most likely to consult it. The present catalogue is appreciably, I hope, a nearer approach; more I do not claim for it. Not a few writers have contended that the works of this master are so “endless,” anything like an exhaustive catalogue is impossible. Such a view I hold to be founded, so far as it has any foundation at all, on ignorance or indolence, or both. The number of works which pass under his nam.e in the private and public collections of Europe is no doubt very considerable. To obtain a first-hand knowledge of all of them is beyond the power of any single individual. Even if it were possible, this is but half the task. We have still to sift as best we may the good grain from the tares. But the acceptance of a reasonable principle in the final display of our results is at any rate possible. Lists that are a mere string of subjects, or rather names of subjects, which tell us nothing of the present condition of the pictures named, or of the authority under which they have been accepted, which include such a picture as the Deposition at Caen with the other works on the subject by this master without a word of explanation, which is the case in a carefully selected list of an eminent critic, a list, too, which excludes all the pictures but one in the Escurial, and all the historical pictures at Munich, or which accepts in like silence, as Thode does, the so-called Legends of the Ferdinandeum at Innsbruck, or the almost equally legendary three legends on the organ of the S. Cassiano Church, to say nothing of other pictures upon which divergency of opinion is at least permissible, for the pictures at any rate do exist, is not merely misleading but awakens a mistrust which on a conscientious mind is indelible. Such lists may impose on persons who are ready to be imposed upon by mere names and numbers, but can carry little real instruction either to the lover of pictures or the expert student. The catalogue of Mr. Charles Ricketts in his “ Life of Titian ” is an excellent example of the rarer and more valuable type of such a catalogue. It makes a real attempt to give a concise judgment of the actual condition of the work and the nature of the responsibility accepted for including it as a genuine work of the master. I have so far followed this example that I mark with an asterisk every work I have not myself seen and cite the authority upon which I justify its inclusion. As to such works I limit my responsibility wholly to the reference made to a particular writer and student of the subject. The catalogue of Thode, which in other respects is one of the most complete 173 174 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET in other directions, is admittedly very defective in its reference to works in English private collections.! ‘Without question there are a very large number of works in England which are regarded by their possessors as genuine examples. Something approaching an estimate of what this number is may be gathered from the valuable compilation of Mr. A. Graves, recently published with the title of “A Century of Loan Exhibitions.” In this we find that considerably over loo works have been loaned to public exhibitions during the last century and a half, all of which claim to be genuine examples of the master, and not a few of which are inevitably excluded from the present^catalogue for the simple reason that I have no further authority for stating that they are what they are reputed to be. No doubt a compilation of this kind is of immense value in its reference to modern pictures, and even those of some old masters. But in the case of Tintoret to merely copy the subjects of pictures from such a list without further knowledge, on the mere ground that they have been previously exhibited in public exhibitions as works of Tintoret, would be to play false to the fundamental test of my own catalogue. Of course by far the majority of the pictures in this work are known to me in one way or another. A certain number I have given very good reasons for rejecting altogether, and not a few of the others, though included, I regard as certainly doubtful, as for example the Leda here exhibited by a Mr. Norton at Manchester in 1857, O’" Striking of the Rock formerly in the Butler Collection, or the two Dukes of Ferrara in the Earl of Carlisle’s collection. With regard to those I have rejected it is only necessary to mention such a work as the Nativity, ex- hibited twice in this list by Lord Methuen, an obvious copy to those who have seen the original, to emphasize this fact how little reliance is to be placed on the mere acceptance of such works by those responsible for such exhibitions. Judging from my own knowledge of private collections in England, I should say that there was very little to be found in such of wholly indubitable work of the type to which I myself attach such an adjective. Though, as I say, setting on one side a considerable number of the portraits, I am acquainted already with most of the pictures here mentioned in one way or another, there are one or two examples which have certainly surprised me. There is, for example, the picture which is indiffer- ently called “a finished model for Paradise" and II Paradiso," exhibited by George Vivyan at the British Institution in 1835, and by Col. Ralph Vivian at Burlington House in 1896. This important study has, so far as I know, never been mentioned by previous writers, and previous to the perusal of this work of Mr. Graves I had not heard of it. I have already, in the chapter on the Paradise, described the nature of the limited knowledge I have since secured. There are other pictures equally unknown to me, the titles of which are at least unique as the work of this master and most attractive. Such is the Virgin presenting Christ to S. Francis, exhibited by George IV and William IV in the British Institution. There is a spurious Virgin and Child at Hampton Court, but otherwise I do not know what this picture is or where it is. The Dead Christ with Angel, and S. Francis, exhibited in 1854, another similar example. Despite, then, the multiplicity of this list I am still of opinion that though not NOTE ON CATALOGUE 175 by any means exhaustive my own catalogue contains every composition of any distinctive importance existing at the present time. I am also convinced that as compared with the output of Rubens and his pupils, or even as compared with the exclusive works of Rubens, the number of extant works of Tintoret which have any truly convincing claim to authenticity is relatively small. Taking subject- pictures first, including oil-studies and all but the quite subordinate decorative work of the Ducal Palace or the S. Rocco Scuola, we have in my present list upwards of 260-270 works altogether. So great an uncertainty attaches to not a few of them that I think it would not be an unfair inference to assume that this number gives us an approximate estimate of the entire extant authentic production of this type in good or indifferent preservation. Portraits present, no doubt, greater difficulty. It is probable here that several portraits of real importance have been omitted, to say nothing of others of average or very doubtful authenticity. On the other hand, even among those personally known to me, some eighty in all, some twenty or so are extremely doubtful or even certainly unauthentic, though actually included, and of the remainder included upon the authority of others I should unquestionably carry the pruning knife further. I very much question, therefore, whether the extant authentic work in this direction is in ap- preciable excess of the number of portraits in this catalogue, which amounts to about 140 in round numbers. Of the lost works we know little apart from the pages of Ridolfi. The number of these, whether in fresco or on canvas, if we exclude portraits, would be under that last-mentioned figure. This would bring up our number of 260 to 400. The calculations of portraits lost or in oblivion is no doubt a more difficult matter. Ridolfi actually mentions about a dozen or so, but he also makes vague and indefinite statements from which we might infer that the production of Tintoret in this direction was quite extraordinary. I have given good reasons elsewhere for discrediting such a testimony. On a careful consideration of the evidence I believe that the number actually executed would be nearer 200 than 300 and that another sixty or so added to the number of this catalogue would not be an unreasonable limit to all the work of this type in the least representative of his powers. This would give as a round number for every conceivable work in oil or fresco of any real importance, some 600 works in all. Such a calculation is admittedly approximate, and of course, particularly in the direction of portraiture, may be too parsimonious. But at least it is based on facts. I have taken the trouble to work it out, and I think it of interest and even instructive to make it, because statements are still rife on the nature of Tintoret’s prodigality which are based on no real research, calculation or reliable evidence whatever. The more we consider what the magnitude of so many of these works actually was, and what is implied in their creation and execution, even for an artist of his extraordinary executive power, the more it seems to me some such estimate will appear the only one consonant either with commonsense or prob- ability. Hitherto not a few have been only too ready to accept almost anything and everything as the work of his hand on the simple or indolent and thoughtless THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 176 faith in his incomparable “inequality,” or his super-prodigal possibilities as a creative artist. I have only cited numbers from catalogues where identity was difficult or im- possible. As to the measurement of canvases I have relied entirely on the state- ments of others either in catalogues or artistic works. The descriptions I have taken from Waagen’s “Treasures of Art in England ” are as a rule only of value in so far as they inform us of the existence of such pictures. This critic is not very reliable as a judge of Tintoret’s work. He never tells us the size of the works, and very rarely the nature of the composition, or the actual condition of the picture. His standard work would have been of much greater value had he reported more facts and less of his opinions. No doubt not a few of these pictures have changed hands since. I have ascertained the truth in some cases, but not, I am afraid, with regard to many. '•Cf - I- x '; r, Cl- k A > : ./-(cv , . ^. 0 ., . "i- Pt- x i AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET IN PUBLIC F-r»^ 7U uv. See vol. ii, p. 17. Described as thirty-five years of age on canvas. One of the finest portraits in the Gallery. ■ 255. Portrait of Man with black Beard., holding a Glove. ^ CKCvu-fc- Portrait of Old Man and Youth. See vol. ii, p. 17, Plate CXI I. Canvas suffers from dried condition. 242. Portrait of Man. See vol. ii, p. 17. Canvas injured. 19I by 14 in. 240. Portrait of Young Man. Same size as last. ^Portrait of Marcantonio Barbaro. See vol. ii, p. 17, Plate CXIII. 47I- by 39 in. -Portrait of Nicolo da Ponte. See vol. ii, p. 17, Plate CX.In very fine condition and exceptionally noble work. , V C-' b. Vienna Academy. 6 13. Alessandro Contarini. See vol. ii, p. 16. A fine portrait in excellent state. 8. Procurator of Contarini Family. See vol. ii, p. 16. Excellent condition. Portrait of Doge Priuli. [ > ■ Portrait of a Procurator of S. Mark. See vol. ii, p. 16, Plate CXVII. Perfect preservation and remark- able for masterly brushwork. Portrait of Octavian Grimani, 1 560. See vol. ii, p. 16, and Plate CXCV. Fine portrait. Portrait of Doge Trevisano. See vol. ii, p. 16. Portrait of the Procurator Mocenigo. These two last genuine, but less distinguished works. Portrait of Thomas Mocenigo. See vol. ii, p. 16. Excellent portrait in good condition. 34 * 21. -32. 33 * 47 - AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 179 BELGIUM Brussels, Musee des Beaux-Arts. Portrait of an Old Man. Seated in an armchair. Left hand grasps a glove. Good condition, but both this and the next very doubtfully authentic. Portrait of a Man. PKaU “The Martyrdom of S. Mark mentioned by several writers is not now in the Gallery or Catalogue. ls A c\m. ~ A T it ■ ■ BRITISH ISLES London, National Gallery. 5 - The Origin of the Milky Way. See vol. ii, p. 37, and Plate XII. Good condition, all but a little retouching on Jupiter, and superb execution. Executed between 1575-8. The pen-and-ink study of the Venetian Academy includes another figure. Originally from the Orleans Collection. c.i>. ~S. George and the Dragon. (L.) See vol. ii, p. 77, and Plate XXIII. A late work in fine condition. Apparently the first in our National Collection. — The Washing of the Disciples' Feet. ( ; (•''-> ,T « 4 - 0 . Good condition. Interesting for its superb rendering of S. Peter and inferior delineation of Christ. Stated>by RHolfi to have been painted for 7 • the King of England. ' . ' ' - Liverpool, Walker Gallery. , . 1 . m. ^ - l- • • • -84. The Court of Heaven. (L.) ^ - V ^ p : Whether a study for the Paradise or not this is a certainly authentic and most interesting oil-study. See Plate CLXVI. The Entombment. See vol. i, p. 175. Except for attrition in one or two places, notably on the face of the man in striped shirt, the work in good condition and unrestored. A fine genuine work. Both these pictures in Roscoe collec- tion. Hampton Court. “Esther before Ahasuerus. See Plate CLIX. Painted considerably before the Escurial Palace picture. It is a replica with differences in the colour scheme. So far as I could see, unrestorcd though considerably darkened. 81 by 105 in. The Nine Muses. (L.) " See vol. ii, p. 46, and Plate CXLVI. Inscribed: “Jacomo Tintoretto in Venetia.” Ruined as a work of colour from the artist’s hand by over- varnishing and over-painting. 80 by 121 in. i8o THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET V Hampton Court — continued. 1 14. Portrait of a Gentleman. ■ p U^rr/K, •V i (5 141 : : O'- ■r^\\ V'' - ''•'I • S u f 0 -(f^ See vol. ii, p. 18, and Plate CXV . In Charles I’s catalogue accepted as Tintoret in preference to Titian. Mr. Charles Ricketts accepts it as a Titian. I incline to the older attribution, though date very early. On the base of column is written “Ann. XXV. 1545.” Good condition. A Dominican Monk. Though rather smooth technique the authenticity of this portrait is possible. Both beard and ear look genuine work. I should with more Ct certainty reject the claims of The Knight of Malta. q p- crn ; ■ fr( Edinburgh. 63. Head of a Venetian Nobleman. Head alone visible. Authenticity very doubtful. i4byiiin. 92. Portrait of a Senator. Dark-complexioned man with gray beard, white collar, and black costume. A finer portrait, with real claim to be Tintoret’s hand. 32 by 28 in. The three allegorical pictures, though reminiscent of Tintoret’s style, or rather ^ the mannerism which passes for it, I question altogether as genuine work. The Winter is best both in composition and execution, but they stand and fall together, and I should certainly reject them. Waagen remarks that they show the gaudy ^ colouring of the master in his total degeneracy. A ridiculous and false conclusion from a fairly accurate critical premiss. Dublin, National Gallery. * Portrait of a Gentleman. Three-quarter figure standing at a table. Black dress lined with brown fur. Inscribed “ 1555, Aetatis 29.” 45 by 31 in. Accepted by Thode and Holborn. Exhibited at Burlington House in 1882. Newcastle-on-Tyne Cathedral. , The Feet-Washing. _ . . A replica of the Escurial picture. Execution not equal to that work, and it has suffered from attrition and over-varnishing. Would not venture tow . to exclude hypothesis that Tintoret is in part responsible. If a copy it is superior to that in the S. Marcuola Church. See vol. i, p. 54. Oxford, Christchurch Library. There is nothing here either among the drawings or pictures, four of which are attributed to Tintoret, I will vouch for. The study of The - • Miracle of the Slave is either a copy or a copy of a copy. The St. Lawrence Martyrdom is perhaps the nearest approach to a possibility, and is a SfV fiitvi' C^. Xcl£?fe> .9KW^ Vvtii tffvuvvXi^A/i . AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET i8i \w ^ picture mentioned by Ridolfi ; it was hung in too dark a place for proper inspection. The drawings are entirely doubtful. I saw about fourteen. I think The Crucifixion in the Merton College Chapel is either the work of Domenico or some imitator. IN PRIVATE COLLECTIONS The Duke of Abercorn. C - * Portrait of a Senator. ^ 'f) -VlakL, hifC. Half length. > Crimson fur-lined robe, black cap. Architectural back- ground. 44 by 34J in. * Portrait of a Senator. (.Vo.-, W • Half length. Crimson fur-lined robe. Dark background. 42 by 32 J in. * Portrait of a Senator. Head facing to left. Velvet coat trimmed with ermine. ' Holborn my authority for these portraits. Ralph Bankes, Esq., Kingston Lacy. Apollo and the Muses. See vol. ii, p. 47. Apollo is seated on throne in the centre. A figure . of real dignity. On either side a group of three Muses. One on the left in green drapery holds a book. Clouds above with two cherubs. Beneath Apollo a vista of landscape. Picture according to Waagen originally a ceiling picture from the Grimani Palace, Venice. A fine undoubted work gone rather dark, but in fair preservation kUr ck r Lord Barrymore. ( K1'’C Syyu !K ry\^ Portrait of the Venetian Admiral Barbarossa. See vol. ii, p. 12. Admiral in full armour standing by open window on left through which is seen a seascape and galleys. 48 by 36 in. A fine portrait, but not wholly convincing. The painting of the face rather sug- gests Bassano or Veronese. The landscape is much more like Tintoret. Assured conviction impossible. Good condition. This picture referred to twice over in Holborn’s catalogue. ^ The Family of Pellegrina. See vol. ii, p. 25. Two men and a lady are seated at a table on the left in an open portico with a garden and landscape. Two young ladies finely dressed stand up behind. On the right enter the two sons from the chase with hares in their hands, and dogs; and a huntsman is seen in the background. Though the description does not entirely agree with that of Ridolfi, I think there can be no doubt this is the picture he refers to with praise. It is a large picture, at least life-size figures, and a certainly -authentic work, though rather hasty in parts of its execution. The canvas would appear to be reduced in height, and a considerable portion of the landscape lost. This injures the composition. There has not been any drastic repainting, but the pigment suffers considerably from neglect, and L vf 4,. !.(.V Wfrii/ -Su , lu-u lUJ ■ IaaaiJGsx r' 1 / - -r(' • i82 the art and genius of tintoret ..li. Lord Barrymore — continued. in parts, notably in the costumes of the ladies, there is a certain amount of inferior over-painting. The heads are, I think, without exception in- tact, though some suffer from attrition. The picture has now been admirably cleaned since I first saw it, and is one of the finest and most , clearly authentic examples of Tintoret’s work in private English collec- tions. There is, however, no indication that the canvas has been reduced. Thode and others wrongly place this picture in Lord Brownlow’s posses- sion. Mr. Smith Barry possesses a small monochrome drawing by another hand of this picture. S. Catherine. An oblong oil-study of the Saint standing on cloud. Though not ' free from doubt, I think this study has distinct claims to be regarded as a genuine work. Fair preservation. ‘ ‘ Duke OF Bedford. • ' ' ' 2. Portrait of Vesalius. Rightly doubted by the catalogue as a work of Tintoret, though Waagen accepts that attribution. Though boldly executed I do not think it painted either by Titian or Tintoret. Self-portrait. See vol. ii, p. 27. Half-length figure standing in black dress facing to the right. Left hand rests on hilt of sword. This portrait and another of A Man Unknown, which would appear to be by the same hand, are quite possibly by Tintoret, though not with the force of his most authentic work. Waagen has no doubt it is a self-portrait. If it is it may be the early one mentioned by Ridolfi. But for reasons elsewhere given I doubt .. this. The execution and colour are good and the preservation excellent. Bridgewater House. ^ 104. Portrait of a Man. Holds a large open book, seated. Tintoret’s more careful work. Good condition. From Orleans collection. 15. Portrait of Venetian Senator. Appears to me most convincingly authentic of the three. Ascribed by catalogue to Marietta. In the bold masterly manner of the Vienna work, if here rather slight and sketchy. 106. Portrait of Venetian Nobleman. Waagen ’s praise of this portrait is unsupported by the canvas. This authority and others refer to the hands as injured by restoration. To me they appear badly drawn and incomplete to start with, though they may have suffered also since. It is impossible as an authentic work, far too smooth and hard throughout. If Marietta is responsible for it she certainly could not have painted the Vesalius portrait at Munich. From the Orleans collection. S Pk-Wa. f'Kd : t- (a'^KA- iJ — I . : ^ 5; fete ii- til IW; 2V0 l \a ft-*- * ‘ AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 183 TIu, Entrnibme^'- ''^‘\ (j-eXw tv /, i See vol. i, p. 177 et seg. Much over-painted and over-varnished; tt.’ ^^^fs probably an authentic fragment of the mutilated picture formerly in the ^ .CUl~«/t;Mi.v<4 ^'r C»rwVVv*vt*" e/tA # L ' f yi. ^ * Christ curing the Paralytic. -r'y ^ % --A'-r'- ; - v An oil study for the Church of S. Rocco picture. 38 by 74 in. * Portrait of Aretino and a General of Charles V. . ' ; , 25 by 29 in. * Portrait of a Senator. (a . > cf) Charles Doane, Esq. * Portrait of a Venetian Nobleman. A man in a black robe trimmed with gray fur. Exhibited at Burlington House in 1881. Holborn is my authority, but he does not appear to have seen it. T Earl of Carlisle, Castle Hovsiard. ^ Two Dukes of Ferrara. ^ 3 4 Whole-length figures, kneeling in a church, attended by a page. Waagen appears to have no doubt as to authenticity. It is certainly a fine work, the portraits most carefully elaborate, but the execution is very close, and in the accessories rather flat for Tintoret, and the red on the 'Cixv*' 4 W. Op s>- pi'-. • '■ *.i •> 1 • , ‘ ^ I 184 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET R-, ■jy. CiAAVvItw-; n;^ Y .VaX A-^1 I/Ia^ > ^ ':■% The authenticity of this work is very doubtful, and the study for an ,5 Ascension in this gallery is^certainly net by Tintoret. [Messrs. Colnaghl| - Moses strikinglhe Rock. ^ Moses in the centre in crimson drapery with dog at his feet. Rock on the left from which water issues and women receive it. Hills and landscape. 46 by 72 in. Execution of this work very coarse and hasty. lVwvi/v <’1 VV-'Aiv^ '^-*^ AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 185 It has some fine colour, and it falls together fairly well at a distance, for which it may have been painted. Both Berenson and Holborn accept it. Whether genuine or not it is an inferior work, and it does not appear to have suffered from restoration. If a school picture, it is unquestionably a clever one. From the Charles Butler collection. . R. Crawshay, Esq. Adam and Eve. , See vol. ii, p. 37. 0 In excellent condition ; an example of the master’s p! finest powers. 48 by 38 in. The Marquis of Bute. Allegorical Subject. S' Female figures, with others bringing jewels by way of offering 52 by 48 in. ^ Allegorical Subject. Companion picture. Female figures crowning an old man with laurel If genuine examples, both of Tintoret’s most slight and hasty decorative style. Fair condition. In Old Masters’ Exhibition, 1912. *A Doge of Venice. An old man in robes of office. Holborn, with Doubt whether any have seen it. l\ A , > .. -i, 1 Ltju. vn ' tL ■ others, ^ccept it. tCc{‘ vx^V 'X (LL'- OlyL.\''pl N A ViCLir^Aa^ lA' Waagen calls it The Duke of Devonshire. ^ ^ C * Christ and the Woman of Samaria.' ■ ImLa [T I did not see this work when I visited Chatsworth an attractive picture of delicate colouring, and accepts it without reserva- Samson and Delilah. s . ■, 1 ^ Delilah seated in the left foreground with Samson’s head, an entirely recumbent sleeping figure, on her lap. Two female figures behind. A - man approaches from the right, leaning forward on spear. Architectural background with mailed figures approaching. A carefully executed work in good condition. _c' * Portrait of the Admiral Nicolo Capello. If this portrait, is still in the Devonshire cohesion it must-be in London’; I did not see it at Chatsworth. Waagen’s description, which is eulogistic, would appear to place it about the time when the fine portrait of A Procurator in the Gosford House collection was painted, that is, at the end of the seventies or even later. The Portrait of the A rchbishop of Spulatro is a fine one of the carefully executed type accepted as genuine by Waagen and others. I think the attribution impossible. Apart from other grounds such a detailed back- ground is without any parallel in the portraiture of this master. tfv-C- £: w- t S ! ; « . /< ) V Pi II B B THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 1 86 The Duke of Devonshire — continued. Drawings. 276. The burning of Troy and Rescue of Anchises by Aeneas. Burning buildings on the left and many figures in flight. Aeneas in the fore- ground with father on his back. An undoubtedly authentic drawing in monochrome, bold and spirited. 273. Virgin and Child appearing to a Doge, with other figures. I think this is also a genuine drawing, quite possibly a sketch for one of the Ducal Palace pictures. The style resembles more nearly the tempera drawings of the British Museum. 274 and 275. Both connected with the Martyrdom of S. Catharine. Though bold and original work in the spirit of Tintoret, the actual technique is not so convincing as in the two previous examples. W. G. Cavendish Bentinck, Esq. * Portrait of a Naval Officer. ~ Three-quarter figure standing by a table on which is a suit of armour. Sea and shipping through window. Inscribed “Andreas Barbadicus.” 45 by 37 * Portrait Subject. A gentleman, lady, child, and page. 74 by 94 in. , . r # Portrait of Venetian Naval Officer. ,pA ^Portrait of a Contarini. All these portraits have been exhibited in various Exhibitions of Old Masters at Burlington House. Holborn, who is my sole authority, only includes them on secondary evidence. Thode ignores them, though he mentions another picture. The Presentation in the Temple, probably even more dubious in the authority attached. Mr. Doetsch. Portrait of a Lady . ,1. ; ■, 4 Vouched for by Berenson and accepted by Thode and others on his authority. ; ■ ; 'x "-^Oc u-. The Marquis of Exeter. /> - 1 ^ £pr>- { *The Entombment. Waagen described this picture as noble in character and warm in colouring. He gives unfortunately no details of composition. It is still, I understand, in the family’s possession. Hamilton Palace. (.56ia) *The Ascension. n -]v.„ Waagen describes this picture as very dramatic and animated in ' particular figures. ^ v Portrait of an Admiral. ■tw-. T.- Red curtain and sea with ship for background. Waagen described it as “grandly conceived.” AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 187 Frank Farrer, Esq. rf'd, . ^ ^ The Resurrection. CpKSlb ^ Holborn and others refer to this as a study for the S. Rocco Scuola picture. This it is not. It is an independent composition of inferior importance and very careless in part of its execution. I think it, however, ' authentic and unrestored. / —The Raising of Lazarus. i-x- Christ is on the left in the foreground and all the other figures are fLi Drawing of the Last Judgment. This is a complete study on gray paper for the entire subject of the S. Maria dell’ Orto picture. It has arched top. There are traces of real variation. Though close and detailed work for a drawing of Tintoret the execution of this fine drawing would certainly appear to be authentic. 24 by 12 in. Christ led to Judgment. A small but most suggestive study with reed pen and bistre for a Denial of S. Peter. Christ is led away in the background on the right and is depicted in the act of turning to look at Peter, who is grouped with others in the foreground by a fire on the right. I find this drawing more convincing than any of those earlier drawings in the British Museum whose technique it most nearly approaches. The woman on the left of the fire is extremely Tintoresque in her pose. Sir George Holford. Portrait of a Venetian Nobleman. This fine portrait was exhibited at the Burlington Art Gallery this year (1914). It was not included in the catalogue, but appears to be the portrait of a Procurator in Holborn’s list. The nobleman faces the spec- tator, and the portrait is undoubtedly genuine and has suffered very little. The execution is somewhat hasty, the hands being merely sketched in and the painting of the curtain on the right is merely blocked in, but the portrait itself is arresting. On the left there is a small window with landscape. There are these letters and figures on the canvas : m . xxviii . M . Ill . and beneath them a M d xlviii, apparently the year when portrait — i i88 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET ; Sir George Holford — continued. was painted. Tintoret would be thirty years of age, i.e., two years older than his sitter. A / ly ■■ ' o, 7'kOi A -icgILuAd {"(ff — Portrait of a Member of the Foscari Family. •- , Probably the portrait I saw at Dorchester House, which also appeared ^ ■/ ^ genuine work. Holborn mentions another portrait in the then posses- sion of Captain Holford. I have not seen it, unless it is the first one !,. described. I also know nothing about the Raisin o f Lazarus he also Ivf' vy-f -I, X . H. oi.* .C > .(•' , includes. Waagen mentions two portraits, but nothing further. Francis Howard, Esq. Leda and the Swan. See vol. ii, p. 45. 58|- by 58^ in. The figure of Leda, nude, save for jewelled necklace, reclines on a dais covered with white and green drapery. A crimson curtain behind, and in the top left-hand corner a parrot in a cage. To the right, as in the Uffizi ezample, there is the Swan caressed by the right arm of Leda. Both colour and execution alike unsatisfactory as the work of Tintoret. The crimson is not that of this master, and whether originally his work or not it has clearly suffered from repainting. T 5^. fVfij Mr. Arthur James. f * Portrait of Andrea Barhadigo and another portrait. Berenson my authority. Lord Kinnaird. *The Conversion of S. Paul. Waagen accepts this in his supplementary volume, though he remarks the subject is “strangely treated.” It is probably a rough and rather doubtful oil-study. G. D. Leslie, Esq., R.A. Pharaoh's Daughter and the Infant Moses. See vol. ii, p. 15. 52 by 30 in. Small full-length figures of two women in landscape. One on the right in red drapery with yellow sash holds the babe. The other, in yellow dress, with small crown on head, prepares the cradle. Stag hunt in middle distance. Three women approach on left. Landscape with river and distant wood. I am informed it was a favourite picture of Watts. It is not entirely finished, and, so far as it is carried, appears to be entirely painted in tempera, in this respect resembling the certainly authentic Diana, formerly in Ruskin’s posses- sion. It is a picture not merely of aesthetic interest, but one of supreme interest to the student of Tintoret’s method of technique. The picture has suffered to some extent from attrition, which makes it more difficult to decide how far the tempera was merely to serve as a basis for oil pig- ment or glazes which may even here already have been used to some I AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 189 extent. The head of the right-hand figure appears to be completely finished. A most delightful and imaginative work. Waagen mentions a picture upon the same subject in the possession of Lord Dunmore, an oil sketch. I know nothing further of this or the portrait of Admiral Capello he describes in that nobleman’s possession. F. R. Leyland, Esq. s * Portrait, supposed of Aretino. ■ Three-quarter length. Hands on book placed on pedestal. This and another portrait in the same possession were exhibited at Bur- lington House in 1884. Holborn describes both, but his evidence is secondary. Mono Collection. ^ "^Galleys at Sea. In foreground long fifty-oared boat gorgeously decorated. Armed warriors on deck and heads of galley slaves visible. Some fifty other gunboats visible. Gray-green sea and stormy sky. 14 by 72 in. The only picture attributed to Tintoret by Dr. Richter in his catalogue, and probably an unsatisfactory, if not doubtful work. The Countess of Lindsay. * Adoration of Shepherds. Holborn describes this, and it was exhibited at Burlington House in 1895. The size given is 41 by 59 in. I have no first hand authority for its authenticity. I overlooked it. The Earl of Lonsdale, Lowther Castle. *The Magdalen. Waagen describes this as a whole-length figure of executed with great energy. * Portrait of a Venetian Nobleman. Waagen describes this as an excellent portrait. life size and The Duke of Northumberland. *Ecce Homo. Waagen describes and accepts this as a beautiful and well-finished * Portrait of an Admiral in Armour. (r^‘ IaCc-' From the Barbarini Collection. The attribution is that: of Waagen in correction of a previous one to Titian. Holborn mentions another portrait of A Young Man. This would appear to be the portrait (43 by 38 in.) exhibited at Burlington House in 1908 (No. 133). A half-figure with dark fur-trimmed robe. I took it to be a genuine portrait in Tintoret’s rapid style of execution. THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET The Duke of Portland, Welbeck Abbey. * Portrait of a Man Unknown. He has his left hand on a book and with his right is pointing to some object. Waagen describes and accepts this picture as one of “animated feeling and carefully painted.” —Viscount PowERScouRT. ’ '-v Vu.-J,-.' , } ■: - *S. Mark Preaching. h cu,!., - SfA/ ^ ^ A large picture described by Holborn and exhibited at Burlington ^ House in 1878. The Saint is said to be a portrait of Tintoret himself. ' * The picture is also stated to contain portraits of Titian, Pordenone, and Giorgione. 51 by 1 21 in. It was painted for the house of the Marchese Sanudo of Venice, so Lord Powerscourt informs me. ( The Earl of Radnor, Longford Castle. ^ *146. Portrait of a Man. Half length. Right hand on bust of Lucretia, left hand on hip. Silver-handled sword. 44 by 34^ in. Waagen describes this as a fine work of Tintoretto. Holborn also includes it. It has been ascribed to Titian. ■■ *144. Portrait of a Venetian Nobleman. On wDod' Date MDXXXX. Waagen, by no means a severe critic, says ' ' it is a good picture by another hand. It is almost certainly not authentic. Hazlitt does not mention it in his catalogue. Sir W. B. Richmond, R.A. ^ . Portrait of a Man. He holds a letter in his hand inscribed: domine preb. ripb. INNOCENT. Exhibited at Burlington House in 1872 and 1902 when I saw it. Though included by Holborn I do not think the portrait a genuine work. The hands are impossible as the work of such a painter. Lord Rosebery. f'lc/vU'tvttrftL , * Portrait of Admiral Verier. In the lists of Berenson and Thode. Charles Newton- Robinson, Esq. — ■ c ' An Entombment. ■ VX A genuine oil-study for no composition known to me. Exhibited at Burlington House in 1910. At the same exhibition there was a Nativity exhibited as a Tintoret by Lord Methuen, probably the sketch included by Holborn. It is a very bad copy of the Escurial picture. There was also a spurious production exhibited by the Earl of Powis (52). O' fN AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 191 Mrs. Arthur Severn. — Diana. L Full-length figure of Diana reclining on a bank, head bare, with a pink jacket of a huntress, a dog being on the right. The hound and lower portion of figure roughly blocked in and unfinished. One of the comparatively few completely convincing works of Tintoret in private collections, Leighton much admired it, and its charm is irresistible. It is painted in tempera throughout. The face, which was finished, but is now slightly injured, suggests that the intention was to leave the finished work in the present medium. The quality of colour is both rich and delicate, and the power and precision of execution is a marked feature throughout. 42J by 41 in. Annunciation. The angel Gabriel holds an upright triple-flowered lily. The Madonna kneels in white and green. Holy Dove in cloud above. Appears to be a study for a larger work, and though the general tone of colour is rather uncommon for this master, the execution is such as hardly to admit of dispute. Ruskin also possessed another study for an An- nunciation which has been sold, as also the study for the Ducal Palace picture already included in this list. G. Salting, Esq. (late). - - * Portrait of Ottario di Stra, 1567. ( ' Yc, Holborn and Berenson vouch for this. I do not know where it now is. Earl Spencer. Portrait of a Man Unknown. C ^ 4 , t -xxxiv. ) Exhibited in the Grafton Gallery, igi i. I think it a genuine, if rather average work, particularly in the accessories. The Duke of Sutherland, Stafford House. 136. A Pope surrounded by Cardinals. An oil-study of hard technique which, though accepted by Waagen, is certainly not from the hand of Tintoret. 3. So-called Portrait of Titian. From the Orleans Collection. Difficult to see and much dried up. Execution, though fine in its way, very smooth for a genuine work. Waagen accepts. I doubt it entirely. 6. So-called Portrait of Aretino. Still more difficult to inspect. Difficulties at least as great as in the last case. 320. Portrait of Man Unknown. There is a slight resemblance to Tintoret himself. Execution more masterly than in the two previous cases. Convincing as an authentic work it is not. CreiM THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET i '( 192 The Duke of Sutherland, Stafford House — continued. 319. Portrait of Doge Grimani seated. The condition of the picture is very dirty and it was in a dark posi- tion. So far as I could see its claim to authenticity appeared to me stronger than any other in the collection. These pictures have now been sold. The prices given very much support the above opinion. The last picture alone fetched an important figure. The Earl of Shrewsbury, Alton Towers. *JosepKs Dream. Waagen describes this picture as careful in execution and poetical in landscape. A . ■ The Earl of Wemyss, Gosford House. Adoration of Magi. A fine oil-study of work in the Scuola di S. Rocco. It is essentially identical in composition. The colour has darkened, but it is in excellent condition and the finest oil-study I know of for this Scuola, superbly rich and more like a complete picture. 37 by 45 in. -Portrait of a Senator. See vol. ii, p. 24, and Plate CXXI. Three-quarter length. Crimson velvet robe bordered with ermine. Dark background. One of the finest and most convincing portraits of this master in England. For breadth of handling and power it would be hard to rival anywhere. In very fair preservation. 54 by 39 in. —Self-Portrait. See vol. ii, p. 27, and Plate VIII. Painted on black marble. A portrait of exceptional interest. We have here the careful elaboration of the more finished style of Tintoret’s portrait work. The ears are beautifully modelled and the hair of the beard painted like that in the Sansovino portrait. I have no doubt that Tintoret painted both these portraits and they are two of his finest. Perhaps absolute certainty on the question of self-portraiture is impossible. But everything points to the fact that it is a genuine self-portrait of middle-age and the most carefully executed of any now extant. 20 by 16 in. Feast of Cana Marriage. 'IDfx, 3"^ - Whatever this oil-study may be it is not by Tintoret and, even if it were, it could not possibly be a trial study for the Salute picture as Holborn and others state. The pictures in detail and spirit are the exact antithesis of each other. It may possibly be painted by the artist of the spurious Corsini Palace Christ in the House of Levi. It is even conceiv- ably by Bonifazio, but a Tintoret it is not, and further speculation is fruitless. *^’-- • \-<} ■''>' 1'7’i S' '.' Jc i’ ; A..-:' AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 193 s-^ f4't-*vAsA'V«,. jJ .J M i*Xt ^ ^ v\iit ^Xi ' The Earl of Yarborough. ,v ., S Consecration of a Bishop. Waagen calls this “a rich and fortunate composition,” and seems to have no doubt about the execution being Tintoret’s, which he calls “ very- careful. ” Whatever the composition may be I am certain that all the execution as we now find it is not that of Tintoret. It may be a wholly repainted picture, but for myself I do not believe it a genuine work at all. ' Descent from the Cross. . V.u. K" Possibly a genuine, but quite unimportant small- oil-study. Several other pictures are mentioned as being in this nobleman’s possession. Holborn mentions a Creation of Eve. As this picture is not referred to by Waagen I rather expect its very existence to be doubtful. At least the possibility of its being the picture mentioned by Ridolfi is extremely remote. There is also a portrait attributed to him, which, from Waagen’s account, is of quite inferior execution. The pictures at Haseley Court I have seen, but they do not justify an inclusion in the present catalogue. This remark applies to one or two others, and there are a few portraits mentioned by other writers I have not added, their authenticity being insufficiently supported. Thus there is the portrait of Cardinal Lorraine, ^ ' ' exhibited by the Earl of Chesterfield at Burlington House in 1871, and that of Paolo Paruta in the Leighton collection, exhibited in 1880, which in such a posses- sion, however, should have a distinct claim, but I am not sure where it is. p' te.- ) JIENMARK -1 Stockholm. * Portrait of G. Pesaro. Thode authority. FRANCE Besancon, MuseR Villemot. *A Nobleman with two Sons. Thode authority. See vol. ii, p. 21. M. Roth AN, Paris. • .'L - * Portrait of Man with Statuette. Miss Phillipps my authority. See vol. ii, p. 23. Caen, Hotel de Ville. ' — The Last Supper. ■ See vol. i, p. 166. Oil-study for the S. Trovaso Cenacolo. Miss Phillipps states there is another gone to America. Though not entirely convincing, I think the Caen example a genuine work. There are a few slight variations. It is in good preservation. The Descent from the Cross P^cc\ -■o is either entirely repainted or more probably a copy. The Stuttgart replica has more in its favour, but that also is very doubtful. II c c h\ii' u.a) r - U>” Lo- ll Q-} ItL-i -- ^ (rA^r-yuJc, 194 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET l IvCi 1 3 "vt ft, '^yU. U'iVk. IM tfcvi ' ' Good in colour, and except for some restoration on head, in good condition. Style resembles work at Vienna. - 1472. Portrait of a Man. P' cxcvu.a. I think this is also a genuine portrait. Unrestored to all appearance, but suffers from dirt discoloration. ^ \uUirA Christ between two Angels. Very doubtful as genuine work though well executed. Ridolfi men- tions some such subject, but I do not think this is the picture. The other large Susannah (1468) is a school picture or a copy of a lost work. icp,)c. '"<5 '■ 2 " Chantilly. p 5 ^ * Portrait of a Man in Crimson Rohe. ^ Miss Phillipps vouches for authenticity and calls it fine and dignified. r GERMANY Berlin, Imperial Gallery. ■ ^ ^Luna and the Hours. (E.) ^ See vol. ii, p. 49, Plate LXVI. Excellent condition,' not without some trace of restoration. Originally in the Fondaco dei Tedeschi in Venice. J" .- Hhree Venetian Procurators before S. Mark. Date 1569 on pedestal. Picture ruined by restoration, particularly on head of Saint and the figures behind. g. .-!£ The Madonna and Child in Glory with two Saints. '■. ^ The SS. Luke and Mark least injured and best part of picture. f- KaT5X) . See vol. ii, p. 20. Fair condition. OL . . A ■ ' ■ ' Cassel. ^ - — Portrait of a Young Man. ^ Wears a ruff and gloves. Inscribed on a paper upon a table: anno SALUT is. MDLXXXV. Accepted by Thode and Miss Phillipps. A fine portrait, but very smooth work for so late a date, and not beyond question. he jsnt iA Y#v«j ^ See vol. ii, p. 37, Plate CXXXI. Very fair condition with traces of restoration. 61 by 90 in. ~A Knight in A rmour rescues two Women from a Tower. See Plate CXXXI I. Has been attributed to Domenico Tintoretto. Genuine work but not entirely finished. 61 by 50 in. —The Archangel Michael warring against Lucifer. (L.) See vol. i, p. 49, and Plate LXII. 159 by 94 in. Though somewhat withered in the pigment, in fair condition. Has been wrongly attributed to Domenico. The lower half of picture only conceivably by Tintoret. — The Holy Family, S. Catherine and Patron. See vol. ii, p. 19, and Plate CXXIV. 43 by 65 in. Quite intact and a genuine work though painted too hastily. • The Woman taken in Adultery. (E.) '.Af2.K " . (O;'’ Thode accepts this, and I think he is right. I should say it had been considerably repainted, but it is impossible to examine it carefully where hung. 72 by 150 in. — A Woman in Mourning. ( ■ This I take to be painted by Veronese or one of his school. Mr. Ricketts and others accept it as a genuine work. See vol. ii, p. 24. Cologne. * 0vid-^mdKj22dn32a. On Berenson’s authority. Dresden, Royal Gallery. Six Women with Musical Instruments. (E.) Munich, Royal Gallery. - Christ at the House of Lazarus. See Plate XLV. In good condition. Execution rather flat in parts, but splendid colour. Formerly at Augsburg. I rather doubt the genuine- ness of signature. - . &• ‘■f' I' M Hu.'.\T _ ' octagon. Bergamo, Carrara Gallery. A Lady dressed as a Queen. Accepted by Berenson, Thode, and others. The picture is, however, rather a disappointment and by no means certainly authentic. ScHLOss OF Schleissheim. — Crucifixion. '->u ITALY AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 197 Bellew^o, Pagani Family. 7 0=. ' ’ * Adoration of Shepherds. A large picture, seen and accepted by Holborn. From his note, we are reminded of the picture at Castle Howard. Probably doubtful. Thode does not mention it. Bologna, Public Gallery. S. — The Visitation. (E.) (.Vi-sA-t. ■ v See vol. i, p. 165. A beautiful early work in excellent state with the barest traces of restoration. From the Church of S. Peter Martyr. Under the Virgin are the words “ Magnificat anima mea Dominum,” and under Elizabeth, whose presentment is lovely, “ Benedicta tu inter Mulieres.” Head of Joseph on left extremely fine. A remarkable early work with a noble sentiment throughout, and painted with keenest delight. ^ • Christ 071 the Cross with Repentant Thief. A s«wfl" oil-study marked by profound emotion. Both figures in profile on a dark background. Canvas appears to have received an addi- tion at the base and the pigment much dried up. I see no reason to doubt authenticity. Brescia, S. Afra. * Transfiguration. Berenson and Thode authorities. No description I know of. I did not discover it. Ferrara, Public Gallery. — The Madonna of the Rosary is mainly, if not wholly, a work of Domenico. See Plate CCV. Florence, Uffizi. - Sacrifice of Isaac. (E.) See vol i, p. 169, and Plate XC. Fine condition. Omitted by all lists I know of. ^Self-Portrait. (L.) See vol. ii, p. 29, and Plate CXXV. Very doubtful as self-portrait, but interesting head. Good condition except for dryness. - 601. Portrait of an Admiral. ^ Good condition. - Portrait of Jacobo Sansovino. See vol. ii, p. 23, and Plate CIX. At the bottom inscribed: jacobo TATT i SANSOVINO. In excellent condition. 615. Portrait of an Old Man in Ermine Cape. See vol. ii, p. 23. Good condition. —Leda and Swan. See vol. ii, p. 44, and Plate CXXXHI. Excellent preservation. There is, I believe, a sketch on the back of this picture. 198 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Florence, Uffizi — continued. 3391. Portrait of Old Man with Cap and Red Scarf. Genuine portrait and good condition. Oil-study for Cana Marriage. Composition practically the same, but colour scheme different. Traces of restoration. The Entry into Jerusalem is a spurious production, and the Vision of S. Augustine is almost certainly a school picture, though accepted by Thode. Florence, Pitti Palace. -Venus ^ Vulcan, and Cupid. (E.) Goddess reclines on green drapery, behind her a red tent. She holds Cupid on her breast. Vulcan raises drapery over child. Mars in clouds driving chariot. 31 by 75 in. Good condition. See Plate CXC. -Madonna and Child. See Plate XLVII. Probably a fairly late work and most character- istic. Good condition. Careworn face of mother and the stormy environ- ment make picture remarkable. Deserves a better place. 59 by 38 in. —Portrait of Vincenzo Zeno. See vol. ii, p. 22, Plate CXCIV. The face has lost glazes but not otherwise in bad condition. Inscribed: vincentius zeno anno aetatis SVAE LXXIV. -Portrait of Luigi Cornaro. See vol. ii, p. 22, and Plate CXVIII. A fine portrait, but canvas very much dried up. 70. Portrait of a Man Unknown. . Authenticity doubtful. 410. Portrait of a Man. I think this is a genuine work. Condition good. 1 31. Portrait of a Man. « This also may pass as Tintoret’s average portrait work, but the colour of the face is hardly as he left it. 339. Portrait of a Man. I should relegate this to the same category as 70. The Resurrection (264) is a copy of the Venice work which I think is _ itself a Domenico or another artist. -The Deposition is a good copy of the Venetian Academy Deposition with the addition of one figure. Genoa, Palazzo Durazzo. Portrait of a Young Man. A genuine and really fine portrait. Lucca, Public Gallery. Oil-Sketch for the Miracle of the Slave. I see no reason to question this as a rapid note of Tintoret mainly in AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 199 browns and reds. There is a distinct variation in the pose of S. Mark. It is not so effective. Waagen mentions a fine oil-study for same subject (. P?- in S. Rogers, the poet’s, collection. Do not know where this is. Two portraits in this Gallery, both of which I accept, called”^ Senator ( a.nd'^A Young Man in the catalogue. Milan, Brera. £ S. Helena, Barbara, Andrea, and Donors. (E.) Excellent condition. 48 by 96 in. & -Pieta. See vol. i, p. 109, and Plate XCV. An exquisite work. Arched top. The canvas is drying up sadly and cracking much on the left. Wholly untouched and unrestored. 48 by 36 in. S. —Finding the Body of S. Mark. (E.) See vol. i, p. 81, and Plate XXXIV. Excellent condition through- out. 156 by 146 in. 88. Portrait of a Man. Probably an example of Tintoret’s average work. 1 01. Portrait of Young Man holding a Glove. I should be inclined to think we have here a work of Marietta. On one visit to this Gallery when all the pictures were off the walls, I came across an unquestionably genuine oil-study for the Slaughter of the Innocents in the S. Rocco Scuola. I have never seen it since. Milan, Museo Civico. — Portrait of Jacobo Soranzo. See vol. ii, p. 21, and Plate CXVI. A superb portrait for rapid characterization. Under glass and in perfect condition. ■f> I Milan, Palazzo Archivesco Villy. • • Woman taken in Adultery. The finest work by Tintoret on the subject and his colour and execu- tion throughout. So far as I could see (the picture is skyed) little or no restoration, though somewhat faded. The interest of this work centres in the fact that the note of indignation is against the seducer, who lies on the ground dragged in by another man. The accused woman stands on the left. A noble figure of a matron with a child in her arms stands on right. She represents clearly domestic life unviolated. Christ leans for- ward earnestly in the centre and there is a group of figures behind. In the Dresden and so-called Prado example the emphasis is on the act of Christ as one of healing and as an interruption of the work of healing the sick. Modena, Public Gallery. Fourteen Octagons from Ovid’s Metamorphoses. To fully judge the condition of these designs was impossible as they are placed so high. That they are original works I have little doubt. 200 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Modena, Public Gallery — continued. but some have certainly suffered very considerably, and it is more than probable they have been doctored in parts, though the general impression is that of Tintoret’s work. I indicate the general character, I do not pretend to have discovered the theme in the majority nor have taken much pains to do so. 1. ii. iii. iv. V. vi. Female The Falling of Phaethon. A Royal Personage in a Tower surrounded by flames, figure in foreground. Daphne changed into a Tree, pursued by Apollo. Children in a Boat. Suffers much from attrition. Man and Woman falling on a Sword. One of the best for colour. Man playing on a Pipe, woman on a violin. Execution authen- tically Tintoret’s. (362) Man and Woman Reclining. Image of statue behind. (389) Female Figure shooting arrows from a Cloud. Male figure reclines beneath. Corpses in foreground. (330) Europa and the Bull (?). Another Female figure in crimson drapery with wreath of laurels. Man lifting Veil from Female Figure. Landscape. , The God of the Sun gazing at carnage of slain bodies. (366) Figure falling through the Sun to all appearance. An old Man on the left and a young Woman in dark drapery on the right. Very Blake-like. (365) Male Figure blowing a trumpet on the clouds. Another falls be- neath him. (364) Two Kings and the figure of aGiant running away in the foreground. The Madonna and Saints in this gallery (237) may be an early work but I doubt it. The composition is too crowded though carefully executed. VII. viii. IX. X. xi. xii. Xlll. XIV. (347) (278) (349) (64) (378) (74) (337) (363) Padua, Museo Civico. The Magdalen washing Christ’’ s Feet, A hasty work, but I think genuine, of a late period. Headland hands of Magdalen and head of Christ quite equal to Tintoret’s work. Emotional power far superior to the inferior work of the Haseley Court picture or that of the Palazzo Corsini. It is a study rather than a finished work. Apparently untouched by restoration.- Parma. -The Entombment. See vol. i, p. 174, and Plate XCIV. Good condition all but one serious crack across the face of nearest angel. The Purgatorio in this gallery is certainly not painted by Tintoret. I don’t believe it to be a Domenico and cannot assign it, though a work of some interest. AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 201 Rome, Capitoline Gallery. ^ - The Baptism. This is a possible work, though the upper portion is extremely doubtful as Tintoret’s own execution. It may have been restored. See Plate XIX. The Ecce Homo and Flagellation are certainly not painted o&\-v^AAA'to-S , by Tintoret. The hands and feet would, I think, settle this. Domenico appears to be the executant. Whether he is entirely responsible for the designs is perhaps doubtful. Thode rejects all. Other writers accept all. Rome, Palazzo Colonna. Portrait of Old Man playing a spinet. See vol. ii, p. 23. Canvas in poor condition, and execution very hasty and unequal in parts. . —Three Women and a Man adoring Holy Spirit. (E.) See Plate V. Good condition and interesting portraiture, despite stiffness of composition. Portrait of two Be^iedictine Monks. See vol. ii, p. 23. Excellent condition and first-rate heads. 95. Portrait of Man Unknown. T o Fine authentic portrait in good condition. See vol. ii, p. 23. 94 and 1 13. Two more average portraits, 94 being even doubtful as a genuine example. —Narcissus by the Border of a Fountain. (E.) (’• See Plate CVII. Most interesting example of Tintoret in the gallery for its evidence of his close study of natural form. In capital preserva- tion. Undoubtedly genuine, though excluded from several lists. Rome, ©estfst-GAiASRY. ■ „ ^ e. \y ^ 'The Woman taken in Adultery. (E.) A large oil-study rather than a finished picture. Doubt is legitimate enough, but it is not wholly impossible. It shows an early, rather superficial grasp of subject, with a too preponderant interest in spatial realization, as in the Escurial Feet-Washing. Turin. - The Trinity. See vol. i, p. 128, and Plate LXXIII. This is merely a fragment; the rest tradition states, and the statement is supported by Ridolfi’s description, was burnt. It has been probably restored, though the exact nature is impossible to examine where the picture is hung. The emotion displayed is noble, and I think it must have been painted before the Cana Marriage^ somewhere near to the S. Cassiano Crucifixion, or slightly earlier. The drawing reproduced (Plate CLXXX) is connected with it. >VVA„ ('1-V (kSLi ' I II D D 202 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET WORKS IN THE CHURCHES AND GALLERIES OF VENICE Accademia. -Death of Abel. See vol. ii, p. 36, and Plate CXXX. Unrestored, but canvas stained and dirty. 55I by 86 in. -Adam and Eve. See vol. ii, p. 36, and Plate CXXIX. Better condition. Both painted for the della Trinita Church. 55J by 68 in. - The Miracle of the Slave. See chap, vi, and Plate XXXI. Excellent condition, though it has been cleaned. Painted for the Scuola di San Marco. 164 by 215 in. - The Crucifixion. See vol. i, p. 133, and Plate LXX. Seriously injured and restored in parts. Originally in the S. Severo Church, and after that in another Church. ' Deposition. See vol. i, p. 174, and Plate XCIII. Shows traces of repainting, especially in the flesh colour, otherwise good condition. -The Assumption. See vol. i, p. 118, and Plate LXHI. From the Church of S. Stin. Probably repainted throughout, but by a skilful hand which has followed all the important tones, and merely added hardness and absence of atmosphere. The Madonna in Glory and Saints. U Much repainted, or rather messed about by unskilful restoration, which is clearly separable from the more genuine work in a few places. -Madonna and Child., SS. Sebastian, Mark and Theodore, three Tesorieri and Attenda^its. See vol. ii, p. 26, and Plate CLV. In quite excellent condition, and admirable for tone and colour. Painted in 1566. 88 by 205 in. - Scourging of Christ. ( E . ) . . x x k v 1 1 . Part of a larger work. Good condition. Presentation in Temple. (E.) See vol. i, p. 93, and Plate XL. From the Gesuiti Church. A fine and uninjured work of Tintoret’s hand throughout. Thode entirely wrong as to repainting. 72 by g6 in. ~ S. Justina and three Tesorieri. 1 580. In good condition. See vol. ii, p. 26, and Plate CXXHI. The pictures numbered 227, 239, 215, and 243 are so doubtful or clearly unauthentic they may be passed by. The Woman taken in Adultery, as we now find it, is much more reasonably a Palma Giovine. AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 203 [237 234 ' 237 , -233 I think it has been considerably repainted, and entire conviction is impossible. 240. Portrait of two Senators. r This may, I think, be accepted. 236. Portrait of Antonio Capello. 'Pt .c.x’iK. Inscribed antonius capello, mdlxxiii. This is a genuine portrait, most certainly not Titian. Portrait of Battista Morosini\ Portrait of A ndrea Capello. A genuine portrait. Portrait of Battista Morosini. ( t U vau, ; Painted before 1573. A genuine work of the more careful type. Good condition. Portrait of A Ivise Mocenigo. R ■ c.?^t t h Also average work. I should reject all others in this Gallery. The - Jacoho Soranzo (245) is not without real traces of Tintoret in preference to Titian. But as such it is entirely doubtful. It has suffered much from abrasion, and in parts is very unlike Tintoret’s work. Perhaps the fact most in its favour is the statement in Cicogna that Tintoret painted two portraits of Soranzo. One is certainly at Milan. See vol. ii, p. 21. cxcvm) Designs on ceiling of Small Room containing Drawings. i. The Prodigal Son. An octagonal picture. A Female Figure impersonating Faith, seated on a cloud and looking over shoulder. 80 by 24 in. A Female Figure impersonating Justice, seated, crowned. She holds scales in left hand and sword in right. 24 by 80 in. Impersonations of Strength and Beneficence. Badly restored. Figure seated on Cloud looking upward. She holds crystal in right hand. Badly restored, but fine design. 11. 111 . IV. V. The Ducal Palace. Sala del Gran Consiglio. - The Paradise, 1590. See vol. ii, chap. xx. On East Wall. On the Ceiling. Four octagonal battle-scenes. See vol. ii, p. 55, and Plates CXXVI and CXXVII. They have been repainted throughout, but I see no reason to question authenticity of design. Sala dello Scrutinio. Capture of Zara. Repainted probably throughout. Consider the design and colour scheme to be most probably that of Tintoret. 204 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET COLLEGIO. -Doge Gritti before the Madonna and Saints. See Plate CC. Accepted by Thode, but the execution as we now have it is not that of Tintoret. -Marriage of S. Catherine with the Doge Donato in Prayer. See Plate IV. Most beautiful work in this Sala and least re- painted. - The Doge Mocenigo commended by S. Mark to Christ. - This work is to a great extent the production of assistants. If Ruskin’s study is authentic, it points to the fact that the design at least is that of Tintoret. Nicolo da Ponte before the Madonna and Saints. Most certainly only executed in collaboration with assistants. The figures in grisaille round the clock are almost darkened beyond recognition. Ante-Collegio. - Mercury and the Three Graces. -Bacchus and Ariadne. —Minerva expelling Mars. -Vulcan's Forge. These world-famous works were all painted in 1578. They are entirely unrestored, though injured to some extent by sunlight. See vol. ii, pp. 47, 48, and Plates XI, CXXVIII, and CXXXVIII. Ante-Chiesetta. ' SS. Margaret, George, Louis, and a Dragon. - SS. Andrew and Jerome. Both these noble works were painted probably before any others in the Ducal Palace, and admitted from some other building or collection. They are practically intact. See vol. ii, p. 77, and Plates CLIII and CLIV. Senato. The Descent from the Cross. In the centre Christ is borne by angels, and on either side kneeling angels. 81 by 360 in. Rejected by Thode and others. The figure of S. Sebastian closely resembles Tintoret’s work elsewhere. I think he had something to do with the design. But the picture has either been executed by assistants throughout, or heavily repainted all over. Ruskin accepted it, and the work is impressive. Ceiling. - Venice, Queen of the Sea. The execution was wholly that of Tintoret originally. The upper portion at least has been now much repainted. See Plate XV. 360 by 180 in. AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 205 The Doge Loredano before the Virgin is probably the work of Domenico Tintoretto throughout, acting under supervision of his father. ^0' - ' ■ . 5 ^ Sala della Quatro Porte. Ceiling. Zeus giving Venice the Empire of the Sea. A picture once of real nobility, now ruined by damp and restoration. Hera surrounded by Nymphs. Circular picture. Some vestige of original colour on the left hand figure. Venice Liberated. Ruined by injury and restoration. Venice rises, holding fetters, supported by two female figures. Below, the figure of Envy tortured by Snakes. Padua. A female figure with books. Something of the original fine silvery tone of colour. Istria. A female figure with a crown. She reclines on clouds, and holding wreath in left hand. Brescia. Figure with arms. Colour very fairly preserved, and a fine piece of decoration. Treviso. A male figure seated holding a sword. It has been restored, but with good colour. Friuli. Female figure seated in blue drapery. She returns sword to sheath. Though restored, still a beautiful bit of decoration. Ingresso. 426. Portrait of Tommaso Contarini. 1557. 428. Portrait of Vicenzo Morosini. 1 580. -424. Portrait of Paolo Paruta. 1590. CKCr Ceiling. — The Figure of fustice presents Sword to Doge Priuli. See Plate III. A fine work in fair preservation. Ceiling. Putti. 1 Nude infant holding sickle. 2o6 the art and genius of tintoret Ceiling — continued. ii. Nude infant in monochrome sitting with flowers between feet. iii. Infant reclining amid foliage. iv. Infant partially draped. All these delightfully decorative and in good condition. Size about 14 by 21 in. Musaeo Archaeologico. Portrait of Henry III. Most probably a copy as Thode and others hold. - Resurrection and three Senators. See vol. ii, p. 78, and Plate CLVII. A fine work in excellent condition. Palazzo Reale. - The Rescue of a Shipwrecked Mariner. See vol. i, p. 80, and Plate XXXV. In good condition. 104 by 84 in. -The Recovery of the the Body of S. Mark. See vol. i, p. 80, and Plate XXXVI. In excellent condition though darkened. 104 by 84 in. Seven Figures of Philosophers. The Diogenes is authentic beyond doubt. Four others I certainly accept. Ruskin appears to have thought them all Tintoret’s designs. Palazzo Giovanelli. Large Battle Scene. Restored in parts, but every appearance of being an original work. 72 by 192 in. I reject all the portraits. Palazzo Recanati. * The Departure of Queen Cornaro from Cyprus. Holborn for authority, who describes it. Probably a doubtful work. Thode does not mention it. CHURCHES IN VENICE San Cassiano. ~ Crucifixion. See vol. i, p. 138, and Plate LXXI. Becoming very dark with smoke and dirt. Not appreciably restored. 96 by 81 in. -Christ in Hades. See Plate LVIII. Gone very dark, but unrestored. AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 207 ~ The Resurrection. (E.) Christ ascends from tomb surrounded by angels. Below, S. Cecilia and other saints. Not important and difficult to see, but in fair condition. KiTI/v' San Caterina. (L.) - Six oblong p ictures on the legend of S. Catherine. Three on each side of the chapel. These genuine works have been badly over-painted, those on the left as you enter having most suffered. See vol. ii, pp. 79 et seq., and Plates XXIV, XXV, CLX, and CLXI. San Felice. ^ .S’. Demetrius in Armour. (E.) Semicircular top. Good condition, but considerably darkened though rich in colour. Armour finely executed. Gesuiti. Assumption of the Virgin. (E.) See vol. i, p. 118, and-PIate-TXIH-. Colour much faded, but so far as I could see unrestored. Painted in deliberate imitation of Veronese, and once a very effective work. 180 by go in. San Giorgio Maggiore. -The Gathering of Manna. (L.) See vol. ii, p. 85, and Plate CLXIV. -The Last Supper. (L.). See vol. ii, p. 86, and Plate LIII. Both these pictures, more par- ticularly this one, suffer from dryness, and a certain amount of repainting probably, though hardly appreciable on the first-named. -Martyrdom of various Saints. See vol. ii, p. 87, and Plate LXV. Fair condition. Resurrection. See vol. ii, p. 88. Not Tintoret’s execution throughout. Coronation of Virgin. Probably executed throughout by assistants. - Stoning of Stephen. See vol. ii, p. 87, and Plate CLXIII. Once a noble work, now ruined in colour and in parts threadbare. In Mortuary Chapel. - The Entombment. See vol. ii, p. 81, and Plate LIV. Excellent condition and un- touched, though darkened to some degree. A noble work. San Giuseppe di Castello. -N. Michael overcoming Lucifer. See Plate XIII. Unrestored and in fair condition. 120 by 60 in. (A.a_-VV 2o8 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET OsPEDALE Di San Marco. , -S. Ursula and her Maidens. (E.). See vol. i, p. 92, and Plate XLIII. Generally in good condition and unrestored. Canvas injured rather badly in one place. Beautiful colour. Large altar-piece. San Marco. Designs for Mosaics. Adoration of the Magi. A nnunciation. Baptism. Transfiguration. Presentation in Temple. In another part of Church. Last Supper. Marriage of Cana. The cartoons for present Mosaics executed in 1588. San Marcuola. Last Supper. 1547. ■ i- »<'• See vol. i, p. loi. Dried up, but colour in parts still remarkable. Canvas damaged. 240 by 192 in. S. Maria del Carmine. -■ Presentation in the Temple. (E.). See vol. i, p. 50, and Plate VI. 156 by 72 in. Fair condition but difficult to see. S. Maria dell’ Orto. - The Last Judgment. See chap, v, and Plate XXVII. Considerably repainted and dark- ened. -The Golden Calf. See chap, v, and Plate XXIX. Also restored to some extent. Otherwise in good condition. Same size as last-mentioned, 50 ft. high. -Martyrdom of S. Agnes. See vol. i, p. 90, and Plate XLII. Mainly restored in the upper part. 160 by 72 in. Martyrdom of S. Christopher. (E.). QacoaKS .•r-: 4 -c; 156 by 72 in. In good condition. ~S. Peter and the Cross. (E.). Good condition. These last two on either side of high altar. See Plate II. -Presentation of the Virgin. See vol. i, p. 117, and Plate XXX. An unframed picture in North side chapel. Gone dark and certainly restored in parts. Superb design and harmony of colour scheme. 156 by 72 in. AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 209 S. Maria dell Rosario (Gesuati). - Crucifixion. See vol. i, p. 136, and Plate LXXII. Going dark, but wholly untouched and generally in fair condition, but for dryness and incense smoke. An exquisite altar-piece. S. Maria della Salute. - The Marriage of Cana. 1561. See chap, vii and Plate XXXVIII. Colour dried up and becoming veiled in obscurity. An unrestored picture. Signature of Tintoret, but now unrecognizable where the picture hangs. Removed from the Convent of the Crociferi. 192 by 252 in. S. Maria Zobenigo. Ascension. (E.) See vol. ii, p. 75. Restoration here and there, but otherwise fair -- condition, though darkened. 132 by 48 in. Thode mentions four evan- - gelists on organ. I could not find them. ^ v S. Marziale. - Glory of S. Marziale. See vol. ii, p. 88, and Plate CXC. In good condition, though canvas worn at bottom. S. Moise. ^ < The Feet-Washing. See vol. ii, p. 67. Most obscure Tintoret in Venice. In a barely lighted chapel on left. Been added to at base. 200 by 250 in. S. Polo. - Last Supper. See vol. i, p. 102, and Plate LII. Large oblong unframed canvas, in fair light. But for dryness in admirable condition. One of Tintoret’s noblest works and quite untouched. Assumption. Accepted by Thode but very doubtful. Interesting head of Dante among Saints. Dried up and probably restored in the lower part at least. San Pietro Martire (Murano). I ascribe this Baptism to Domenico, though the design of some of ^ the figures considerably above his ordinary work. Thode accepts it. Il Redentore. Scourging of Christ. ( L . ) See vol. ii, p. 81 et seq. Darkened, and to some extent restored. A noble and remarkable composition. Canvas both dried up and dirty, but this is the main injury. II E e 210 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET II Redentore — continued. -Ascension. (L.). See vol. ii, p. 87. Much over-painted, particularly in the upper part. 132 by 60 in. See Plate CLXII. Church of S. Rocco. , p, See vol. ii, p. 73. Considerably repainted. 108 by 96 in. S. Rocco and the Pope. See vol. ii, p. 73. Fair preservation. 96 by 81 in. Pool of Bethesda. See vol. ii, p. 73, and Plate CLII. Much faded and injured. 96 by 240 in. S. Rocco in the Campo d' Armata. Faded and great injury. 72 by 240 in. - .S'. Rocco healing the Sick. See vol. ii, p. 72, and Plate CL. Much darkened and some restora- tion. 96 by 288 in. First of the four pictures in the choir. - Death of S. Rocco. See vol. ii, p. 70, and Plate CXLIX. Possibly painted on, but not as Thode states. The colour has darkened considerably. Same size as last. - A Battle-Scene with Cavalry. See vol. ii, p. 71, and Plate CXLIX. An extraordinary design for boldness, but practically invisible in present position. Faded and much injured. 72 by 288 in. .S'. Rocco and Beasts of the Field. Same size as last. Utterly faded in colour, and canvas in poor condi- tion. See Plate CL. S. SiLVESTRO. Baptism of Christ. (E.). See vol. ii, p. 74. Semicircular top with modern addition. Un- restored and once a very beautiful work, but passing now into absolute obscurity. 96 by 180 in. : : / S. Stephano. Last Supper. See vol. ii, p. 69. Darkened and faded though unrestored. An unframed neglected canvas, once full of artistic interest. 120 by 180 in. Sacristy. Washing the Disciples' Feet. See vol. ii, p. 69. Very dark and considerably injured. AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 21 I Agony in the Garden. ^ See vol. ii, p. 68. An extraordinary extemporization. Has been lately rather messed about. Gone much darker than when originally executed. 120 by 96 in. S. SiMEONE Grande. -Last Supper. See vol. i, p. loi, and Plate XLIX. Unrestored but over- varnished, dirty and dried up. A large almost square canvas and once a most important work. Still plenty of colour and noble design. S. Trovaso. - Last Supper. (E.). See vol. ii, p. 70, and Plate L. Inferior restoration over great part, also much faded. Two possible oil-studies for this work. One I have seen at Caen and believe to be authentic. The other. Miss Phillipps states, is now in America. -Temptation of S. Anthony. (E.). See vol. ii, p. 38, and Plate XIII. In good preservation. Adoration of the Magi. See vol. ii, p. 89. The Betrayal of foachim. See vol. ii, p. 89. These two last may be from designs or canvases commenced by Tintoret. Such is the tradition. The execution visible is by another hand. The Crucifixion in this church is most probably by Domenico. The Feet-Washing is a ruin and I do not think authentic, but a poor, if old, copy of the work in our National Gallery. There are no pictures by Tintoret in the S. Benedetto Church, or that of S. Francesco della Vigna, or that of S. Pietro in Castello as some English writers have stated. The Birth of S. fohn in the sacristy of the S. Zaccaria Church is hung so high it is impossible to express entire conviction upon it. I do not think it by Tintoret, and of Domenico and Marietta prefer the second alternative. The picture has merit, but is impossible to examine. ScuoLA Di San Rocco. For a detailed description of the seventy pictures on the walls and ceilings of the Refectory and two larger halls of this School, a number which includes the monochromes of the Upper Hall, I must refer to the Appendix of Vol. I of this work. 212 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Verona. S. Giorgio. The Baptism of Christ. A large authentic work, but impossible to examine. Is apparently un- restored, but much darkened. Resembles the example in the S. Silvestro Church, Venice. Landscape particularly fine. Museum Gallery. p Several pictures attributed to Tintoret. Of these the nearest approach to authenticity is the rough oil-study for “the Plague in Venice.” Vicenza, Church of S. Stephano. S. Paul. This picture, once a noble presentment of the apostle, is now irretriev- ably injured and restored. The apostle is seen standing in red drapery, holding a sword and pointing to a book. In the Museum Gallery there is no picture worthy of serious attention as the work of Tintoret. SPAIN Madrid, Prado. B. - Battle on Land and Sea. (L.) CCiisntui.s 12/ See vol. ii, p. 54. Good condition, e. - Joseph and Potiphar's Wife. Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Susannah and the Elders. ^ ' ^ /b The Finding of Moses. ft Esther before Ahasuerus. - Judith and Holof ernes. ' These six pictures are oil studies, possibly for a frieze and about the . . ^ same size, 23 by 60 in. They are not very convincing as authentic \ designs of Tintoret, though cleverly put upon the canvas with some approach to his style. Such a design as that of Joseph and Potiphar's Wife is hardly conceivable as his work at all. I rather doubt their authenticity. Judith and Holof ernes. (L.) f - ' u Colour rich and in fair preservation. Execution unequal, but painting of dress of Judith superlative. 73 by 100 in. - Death of Holof ernes. (L.) 1^, A companion picture to above. Same remarks apply. 77 by 126 in. Rape of Lucretia. (L.) C wf. Probably an authentic work, but not a remarkable composition for Tintoret on such a subject. Painted with too much haste, probably to work off a large commission for King of Spain. 74 by 98 in. Ch/ylo^, Ch^f/^iU-r W* 1 AUTHENTIC WORKS BY TINTORET 213 0>-n • — 412 -411 V- W • '^r Uf " t 3'o' - Moses and the Purification of the Women of Midian. (L.) See Plate CXXXVII. Authenticity has been disputed. I have no doubt whatever. The faces of some of the women could have been painted by no one else. Though unrestored I imagine it never to have been wholly finished. 115 by 71 in. Said to have been purchased by Velasquez. Oil-Study for the Paradise. ^ - Cl.-' See vol. ii, p. 94. Rather a reduced replica of final work than oil-study. Fair condition. Also tradition that it was purchased by Velasquez for Philip IV. 65 by 133 in. Characteristic execution, but poor colours and rather hasty work. Portrait of a Nobleman. See vol. ii, p. 23. Good condition and excellent portrait. The Portrait of an Admiral. . P-Aa This also is a portrait of exceptional merit and in good condition. The Prado Collection has a large number of male portraits impossible to enumerate with care from my own limited acquaintance. So far as my notes carry me I should say Nos. 419, 434, 414, 417, •'421, 430, and 433 io have all distinct claims to be regarded as authentic, though none are ^ equal to Tintoret’s best work in Vienna. Those xinder Nos. 416, 418, — 429, 432, and 1^38 should be certainly rejected. - 439V440* Portrait of Venetian Girl with red Scarf. Lji'L'.k See vol. ii, p. 29, and Plate X. These portraits are clearly of the p, same person. The tradition is that it is Marietta. They are certainly painted by Tintoret. _ The Christ and the Woman taken in Adultery described by Thode [i-.: ' (p. 20) as in the Prado, is not now in that collection. The Baptism A referred to with praise by Sir W^. Armstrong I could not find if it was hv Axu ever there. I think the first-named picture has been stolen. LH.xvwJ \ j Madrid, Academy. Oil-study of Last Supper in S. Rocco Scuola. Sk ' A small and certainly authentic study similar to that I once saw in the Brera Gallery of The Massacre of the Innocents. fiAt 3 RiT >, Escurial Palace. — Christ Washing Feet of the Disciples. (E.) \ _ ' See Plate XVI. Originally in the S. Marcuola Church, Venice. In excellent preservation. j S. Mary Magdalene in Adoration. ■ ' -cc According to Ridolfi originally in the S. Madalina Church, Venice. According to him it would be of an earlier date than the picture justifies, { ^ A; x but it has been injured considerably and repainted to some extent, though still very open in its execution. A beautiful picture even now. (/ 371. - ^ M - A/'i' ; A T; V > iK 0 ' }\ . 214 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Ij;); a Madrid, Escurial Palace — continued. —Esther and Ahasuerus. (L.) See Plate CLVIII. In fair state of preservation. A later work than the Hampton Court picture, which it differs from in its colour scheme, though identical in desiffn. ^ i- 1- ' - - The Natlity. (E.) ' , ^ See vol. i, p. 165, and Plate XXL A large upright picture unques- tionably by Tintoret, though omitted by the lists. It is earlier in date than the S. Rocco School picture, which it resembles to some extent in design. It is executed with great care and delight, and except for a little restoration on the Madonna, and possibly in the upper part, is in admir- able condition. The photograph gives no conception of its refined beauty, or the mastery of its execution. Lord Methuen has a copy of this picture by an inferior hand. - - Christ as the Man of Sorrows. (L.) A much injured work and probably a fragment. I should be unwilling to reject a work of such profound emotional quality. Thode accepts it, but I do not feel that its authenticity is assured. See Plate XCVI. Feast of Simon the Pharisee. (E.) pi . c t i '> ■ 1 - V See Plate CCI. If this is a genuine work it must have suffered from drastic repainting. But though rather weak in its composition I am inclined to accept it under the above reservation. It is far superior to the Haseley Court picture and that in the Palazzo Corsini, and the photo- graph is disappointing as a reflection of its power. INDEX Note. — The titles of works by Tintoret are printed in italics. Scuola = The Scuola di San Rocco. All churches are in Venice unless otherwise stated. Adam and Eve (Accademia), i, 44 note, 57; ii, 34, 36. (Mr. Crawshay’s), i, 60; ii, 7, 37, 44, 78. (Scuola), ii, 37. Adoration of Magi (Scuola), i, 157, 159, 164, 169; Gosford House study for, i, 159; Ruskin’s description of, i, App. II, E, 187, 188; ii, 5. For Castle Howard example see Catalogue, ii, 184. Adulteress before Christ (Prado). Disappear- ance of picture, i, 56 note. Other examples, see Catalogue, ii, 199. Angelico, Fra, i, 41, 56, 100, 106; ii, 79. Annu-nciation, The (Scuola), i, 159 note, 164. (S. Rocco Chapel), ii, 73. (Berlin), au- thenticity of, ii, 20, 73. Aretino, Tintoret’s relations with, i, 27, 48, 78; Study of in Titian’s “ Ecce Homo,” i, 195- Aristotle, i, 183 note. Art, Theory of “optical conception” as ap- plied to, i, 16, 20. Post-Impressionist, i, 34 note. Pyramidal form of, i, 148 note; Classical or Greek style in, i, 103 et seq.^ 144, 152. Realism in, i, 39, 79, 105, 143 note. Intellectuality of, ii, 152 and note. Assumption, The, as illustrative of Movement, i, 117, 1 18. (Accademia), i, 133. (Gesuiti), i, 118; ii, 14. (Scuola), i, 159 note. Baptism of Christ (Scuola), i, 61, 163, 166, 167. (S. Silvestro), i, 167 ; ii, 74. (Verona), ii, 74. Bacchus ayid Ariadne, i, 117; ii, 45, 47; by Titian, i, 116, 1 19 note; ii, 105. Balzac, H. de, ii, 150, 151. Battle-scenes, Pictorial treatment of by Tintoret, ch. xvii. Battle of Cavalry (Chapel of S. Rocco), ii, 71, 72. Beethoven, L. von, i, 162; ii, 4, ii, 115, 130, 142. Bell, Mrs. A., statement by as to study for second Last fudgment, i, 68 note. Belshazzar' s Feast, lost fresco of, i, 50, 63. Berenson, critic cited, i, 5, 19 note, 29, 50, 63, 1 18; ii, 19 note. Birth of Moses (Mr. Leslie’s), i, 48 note, 159; ii, 15. (Vienna), ii, 15. Bonifazio, query a master of Tintoret, i, 29 note. Bosanquet, Prof. B., cited, i, App. I, 180 note, 182 ; ii, 1 12. Botticelli, ii, 35, 49, 66. Calvert, Ed., authority cited, i, 3, 128, 144. Camello, Palazzo, i, 23, 24. Chardin, i, 16; ii, 134. Christ before Pilate (Scuola), criticism of, i, 162. Christ giving the Keys to S. Peter, drawings of, ii, 129. Chronology, interest of, i, 47. Contrast be- tween Titian’s and Tintoret’s work, i, 48. Increased ideality as fixing, i, 49. Problem of pictures in Madonna dell’ Orto and S. Marcuola Churches, i, 51, 54. Omissions in Thode’s survey, i, 60. Final results of author, i, 60, 61. See ch. iv. Colour, relation of implied to conscious life, i, 37, 38, App. I. As a means of ideality, i, 38; ii, 34, 35. Permanence of, how secured, ii, 64, 65. Obscuration of in certain works, see ch. xviii. Coolness of to enforce an ethical effect, i, 39; ii, 44. For Ruskin’s 215 2i6 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET theory of see i, App. I. Colour in great Crucifixion., i, 149, 150; in the Paradise, ii, 103, 104. See also ch. iii. Conversion of S. Paul, The, i, 21. Tintoret’s conception of the Apostle, ii, 122. Cook, T. E., biography of Ruskin by, cited, i, 83 note, 158. Cox, Kenyon, cited, i, 23, 24. Crowning with Thorns, The (II Redentore), ii, 82, 83. (Accademia), i, 80; ii, 83 note. For spurious example in Capitoline Gallery, Rome, see ii, 83, and Catalogue, ii, 201. Crucifixion, The, nature of pictorial treatment before Tintoret, i, 126, 127. Examples other than the “great” Crucifixion sum- marized, i, 144 note. (Schleissheim), full description of, i, 129-133; see also i, 55, 60, III, 139, 145. (Accademia), description of, i, 133-136; see also i, 45, 53, 57, 60, 84, 127, 145, 188 note. (Gesuati), i, 57, 60, 93> 136-138- (S. Cassiano), i, 58, 93. Refusal of National Gallery to purchase, i, 83, 138, 139. Nature of advance in “great” Crucifixion, \, 142; tranquillity of its effect, i, 147; its colour and technique, i, 149-151 ; final summary of importance of, i, 151-153; see also i, 58, 60, 61, 71 note, 100, in, 1 12, 122, 125, 127, 129, 139. Study in bistre for, ii, 124, also generally ch. x and xi. Dante, i, 113; ii, 4, 7, 99, 108, 117, 118. Deposition or Entombment of Christ, The, Tintoret’s treatment of compared with that of Mantegna, Raphael, Michelangelo, Titian, and Rembrandt, i, 171-173. Number of Tintoret’s works on, enumerated, i, 174. (Accademia), i, 56, 80,^174. (Parma Gallery), i, 174, 175. (Liverpool), i, 175, 176. (Brera), i, 82, 109, no, 174. (S. Giorgio Maggiore), i, 61, loi, 109, 174, 175, 177; ii, 80-83. (S. Francesco della Vigna), i, 176-178. See generally ch. xiii. Design, motto of Tintoret, i, 42-46. Relation of design to artistic colour, i, 35 et seq., vide ch. iii, and i, App. I. Relation of to music, i, 34 and note. In painting of nude, i, 38; ii, 33 and ch. xvi. Relation of to improvisation, see ch. xiv. Relation of to movement, see ch. xix, also under Move- ment. Labour of in “ great ” Crucifixion, i, 145, 148; ii, 6. Intellectual quality fof, i, 1 20 and note; ii, 82. Tintoret’s emphasis on, i, 42. Diana, picture of in'-tempera by Tintoret, i, 48 note. Diana and her Maidens, drawing of, ii, 162. Drapery, ideal significance of, i, 117, 148; ii, 49» 50- Drawings, see ch. xxi and vol. ii, App. I. Ducal Palace, date of work for, ii, 54. Nature of works for, ii, 76. Date of works in Anti-Chiesetta and description,'^" ii, 77, 78. Date of those in the ^Collegio, ii, 47. For battle-scenes in, ii, 55, 56. See ch. xxii for the Paradise, also Catalogue, ii, 203-6. Durer, A., religion of, i, 96, 97. Influence of his art in “great” Crucifixion, i, 149. See also i, 10, 40. Emerson, R. W., dictum of, ii, no, 132. Fall of Manna, The (S. Giorgio Maggiore), i, 55, 59, 61, in; ii, 85. (Scuola), Ruskin’s description of, i, App. II, 194. Feet Washing, The (Escurial), i, 54, 56, 80, 123. (S. Stephano), ii, 69. (S. Mois 4 ), full description of, ii, 68. (National Gallery), i, 80. (Newcastle-on-Tyne), i, 56 note. Finding of the Body of S. Mark, The (Brera), i, 80-82. Finding of the Cross, The (S. Maria Mater Domini), i, 55, 57, 91. (Brera), ii, 77. Gainsborough, power of brushwork, ii, 10, II. See also i, 49. Gethsemane (Scuola), i, 161, 163; Ruskin’s description of, i, App. II, 190, 191. (S. Stephano), i, App. II, 190 note; ii, 69. Giorgione, influence of on Venetian art, i, 10-14,49; ii) 151- His “ Fete Champetre,” ii, 35. Fascination of, ii, 137, 138, 139. Reference to his “ Concert,” ii, 112. Giotto, i, 99. Golden Calf, The Worship of the, see ch. v, i, 70, 71, also i, 51, 52, 81, App. II, 194 note. INDEX 217 Gonzala, G., visit of Tintoret to, and de- scription of eight pictures painted for, ii, 56-62. See also i, 25. Hegel, G. F., i, 2, 153, App. I, 242 note; ii, 147 note. Holborn, J. S., biographer, importance of catalogue, i, Preface. See also i, 80, 120 note, 128 note. Holmes, C. J., Work of cited, i, 33, 48 note. Hunt, Holman, Eclecticism of, i, 15. Hugo, Victor, i, 107; ii, no. Imagination, Two types of, in nude painting, ii, 33, 34. That of Tintoret, Rubens, and Veronese compared, i, 46, 66. Nature of, in works of S. Rocco Scuola, i, log, no, 158, 162. Imaginative penetration, exam- ples of, i, 64, 82, 87-89, 109, 137, 138, 167, App. II, E, I, 3, 5, 10; ii, 42, 43,47, 48. See also i, 49, 64 ; 11,79,107, 109, 152, and under Design. Kugler, i, 4. Last Judgment, The (Madonna dell’ Orto), date of same, i, 51, 55. For description of, seech, v; see also i, 98, 124, 130 note. For Mr. Heseltine’s study for, i, 64 note. (Ducal Palace), date of fire when de- stroyed, i, 30. Supposed extant study for, i, 68 note; ii, 51. Last Supper, The (S. Marcuola), i, loi. (S. Simeone Grande), i, 102. (S. Polo), i, 30, 100 note, 102, 103. (Scuola), i, 165; study for, ii, 5 note. (S. Trovaso), i, 166; ii, 70; studies for, ii, 70 note. (S. Stephano), ii, 69? 70. (S. Giorgio Maggiore), i, in; ii, 86 . Leonardo, see Vinci. Lepanto, Battle of , i, 30; ii, 51. Man 'with a Baton, The, disputed authenticity of, ii, 20. Mantegna, i, 98, 149, 171. Marietta, see under Robusti. Marriage of Cana, The, comparison of Tintoret’s conception with those of Jan Steen and Veronese, i, 85-87. Refusal of National Gallery to purchase, i, 83. For description see ch. vii. See also i, 45, 53, 57, 137, 149, 155, 193 note. Massacre of Innocents, The (Scuola), i, 120, 164, 169, 193 note. Ruskin’s description of, i, App. II, E, 188, 189. Brera study for, ii, 5. Meredith, G., i, 15, 89; ii, in. Meynell, Mrs., i, 37 note, 181. Michelangelo, i, 41, 55, 67, 68, 97, 112, 121, 144, 149, 171, 172, App. II, E, 193; ii, 118, 153. Generally for influence on Tintoret see ch. iii. Milky Way, The Origin of the, i, 57, 117; ii, 37. Study for, ii, 124. Millet, J. F., i, 16, 49; ii, 36. Milton, J., ii, 150. Miracle of the Slave, The, studies for, i, 76. Date of, i, 51, 61. See also i, 53, 55, 56, 57, 71, 117. Generally for description see ch. vi. Moses striking the Rock (Scuola), Ruskin’s description of, i, App. II, E, 192. Movement, Tintoret’s studies in, i, 115. In Art of Titian, i, 116, 118. Angelic flight, i, 117. Exaggerated, i, 123. In S. Rocco Crucifixion, i, 122; see Crucifixion. In Paradise, i, 117, 124; ii, 98, 100; seech, ix. Muses, The Nine (Hampton Court), present condition of, ii, 46 note. Date of, i, 61. Nativity, The (Scuola), i, 161, 165, 166, 187 note. (Escurial), i, 165; ii, 49. Osier, W. R., biographer of Tintoret cited, i, 80, 164 note, 176, 177. Palma, Giovine, Tintoret’s criticism of Last Judgment of, i, 68. Vienna .S'. Jerome ascribed to, ii, 15. Paradise, The, for history of, and full descrip- tion see ch. xx. Final significance of, ii, 106-118. See also, i, 4, 16, 30, 61, iii, 1 17, 125, 139, 151 note, 169; ii, 4, 7, 30, 35» 49. 64, 86, 142, 146. Pater, W., i, 71 ; ii, 49, 138. II F F 2i8 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET Pellegrina family, Portrait of, ii, 25. See Catalogue for description, ii, 181, 182. Pheidias, i, 2, g8, 149. Phillipps, E. M., biography cited, i, 19, 22, 51, 69 note, loi, 156, 160, 167; ii, 17 note, 19, 23, 48, 55 note, 56, 75. Phillips, C., ii, i8. Pighetti, Jacobo, epitaph on Tintoret, i, 32. Ponte, Nicolo da, genuine portrait and copy of, in Vienna, ii, 17. Ponte, Jacobo da (Bassano), i, 24, 25 note. Portraiture, Variety of style, ii, 12. Limita- tions of Tintoret’s achievement, ii, 24, 25, In subject-pictures, ii, 25. Self-portraits, ii, 27-31. Estimate of number, ii, 13; see generally for examples, ch. xv. Posthumous Works, ii, 88-90. Presentation of Christ in the Temple, The (Accademia), i, 55, 58, 133 note. (Carmine), h 5O) 53 ' (Scuola, Circumcision), Ruskin’s description, i, App. II, E, 189. Presentation of the Virgin, The, i, 57, 129; ii, 49. Raphael, Cartoons of, i, 104-6. Bible of, i, 162. See also i, 3, 21, 44, 144; ii, 105, 137- Reade, Charles, cited, i, 180. Realization, Spatial, Principle of in Tintoret’s work, i, 44, 45, 56. Affinity with solid modelling, i, 80; ii, 85. Ideal realization, ii, 148. Religion, Definition of, i, 96. Significance of in Art, i, 95-97, 105, 106. Rembrandt as religious painter, i, 173. Art of Durer and Michelangelo compared with that of Tintoret, i, 97-99, 107. Titian as religious painter, i, 99, 107, 108. Dramatic charac- ter of Tintoret’s treatment, i, 99. See also for conception of Son of Man, ii, 82, 83. Increased ideality as illustrated byCenacoli, 1, 61, loi, 102. Grand style as expressive of religious art, i, 105-108. See also ii, 1 16, 148, and generally ch. viii. Rembrandt, i, i, 37, 41, 49, 89, 107, 173; ii, 2, 4, 6. 10, II, 24, 29, 35, 65, 137. Reni, Guido, “Susannah” of, criticized, ii, 41, 42. Reynolds, Sir Joshua, criticism of Tintoret by, summarized, i, 97 note. Criticism of great Crucifixion, i, 122; ii, 3. See also i, 3 > 49 > 85, 183. One of Ruskin’s supreme colourists, i, App. I, 179, 183. Ricketts, Charles, opinion on art of Giorgione, i, 12. On present condition of S. Rocco School decorations, i, 158. His estimate of Titian, ii, 140, 141. His picture “The Plague,” i, 15. See also i, 5, 48, 78 note, 107, 1 19 note, 165; ii, 18, 20, 24. Ridolfi, Carlo, value of his biography, i, 18, 19. See also i, 23, 28, 30, 50, 51, 65 note, 1 15, 127, 128, 143, 154; ii, 34 note, 48, 51, 53 > 66, 77, 79, 92, 97, 122. Robusti, Jacobo, see under Tintoretto. Robusti, Domenico, son of above. Estimate of talent as artist, ii, 10 note, 90. His will and death, i, 31. See also i, 137 note; ii, 21, 89, 90. Robusti, Marietta, daughter of Jacobo, i, 28, 29, 93; ii, 21, 24, 91. Rocco, The Scuola di San, when work com- menced for, i, 155, 156. Nature of works executed in, i, 157. Ruskin’s evidence of injury to, i, 158. Peculiar technical means employed, i, 48 note, 158, 159. Studies extant for work in, ii, 5 note. Used as School of Art, i, 73 note. For description of decorations, see ch. xii and i, App. II, E. Rubens, Peter Paul, prodigality of, i, 46 ; ii, 175. Coarseness of, i, 38, 66. Realism of, i, 67. His “Susannah” compared with Tin- toret’s treatment of theme, ii, 40, 41. See also i, 72, 121 ; ii, 5, 35. Ruskin, John, historical significance of his estimate of Tintoret, i, 3, 4. His theory of nobility of colour, i, 36 et seq., App. I. Injustice to Michelangelo, i, 43. On colour of the Cana Marriage, i, 89. Dictum on great Crucifixion, i, 141, 153. Effect upon of S. Rocco decorations, i, 158 note. View of Tintoret’s emphasis on rusticity, i, 166. His criticism of Raphael’s cartoons consid- ered, i, 104. Dicta on the Paradise dis- cussed, ii, io/\etseq. Opinion on religious aspect of Venetian art criticized, ii, 143 INDEX 219 et seq. Importance as a writer on Art, i, 35 note; ii, 143. See also i, i, 64, 70, 79, 83 note, 91, 92, 1 19, 133, 148, 160, 165 note, 166, 168, 174, App. II, E, notes; ii, 7» 35. 38, 43» 52, 62, 72-75. Sacrifice of Isaac, The (Scuola and Uffizi), i, 168, 169. Scuola della Misericordia, ii, 92 note. Shakespeare, William, i, 32, 72, 180; ii, 4. S. Agnes, Miracle of, description of, i, 90-91. S. Benedetto, loss of pictures painted for church of, ii, 66. S. Caterina, six pictures in church of, i, 60 ; ii, 79-80. S. ferome (Vienna), disputed authenticity of, ii, 15, 16. See also i, 59, 120 note, 138; ii, 87. S. Paul, favourite apostle of Tintoret, see ii, 122. S. Rocco, legendary history of, i, 134. S. Ursula and her Maidens, i, 92, 93. SS. Andrew and ferome, ii, 77, 78, 81. SS. George, Margaret and Louis, ii, 78. Steen, Jan, work of, compared with Tintoret’s treatment, i, 85. Stevens, Alfred, ii, 12, 138. Symonds, J. A., dictum of, on Christ before Pilate, i, 163. Susannah and the Elders (Vienna), i, 39 note, 59. (Vienna and Louvre), comparison of Tintoret’s compositions of, wuth those of other masters, ii, 38-43. Second example attributed in Louvre, ii, 38 note. Taine, H., i, 75. Temptation of Christ, The, i, 157, 163, 167- 168. Temptation of S. Anthony, The, ii, 38, 90. For studies on same theme see ii, 158-161. Thode, H., German biographer, i, 4. Chrono- logical studies of, i, 50. Poor judge of technical problems, i, 93 note, 118, 130 note, 133 note; ii, 71. See also i, 56 note, 58, 102, 1 12 note, 129, 173; ii, 15, 17, 20, 22, 55 note, 41, 51, 88. Tintoret, development of art of, i, 5, ch. iv. Intellect of, i, 14. Imagination of, i, 16, 17; see also Design. Date of birth, i, 18. Studentship of, i, 19, 115. Marriage of, i, 21. Personal characteristics, i, 25, 27. Relations with Aretino, i, 26. Friendships, i, 19, 25. Refusal of knighthood, ii, 22. Death and burial of, i, 30. Will of, i, 31. Artistic motto of, i, 42 et seq. Relation of Art of, to that of Michelangelo, i, 43, 67, 98, 1 14. Admiration of Titian, i, 45. Hellenic influence in art of, i, 55, 91, 93, no. Evolution in religious convictions of, i, 106-113. Two periods of artistic activity of, i, 125. His art as improvisation, see ch. xiv. Powers as craftsman, ii, 10, 12. Power of Epic realization, ii, 52, ch. xvi. As a landscape painter, i, 93 note ; ii, 8, 73> 75> 85. Carelessness of, i, 123 note; ii, 86. Love of seclusion, i, 28; ii, 120. Parallel between his career and that of Hokosai, ii, 149. Estimate of his total output as a painter, ii, 175. Titian, Bottega of, i, 19, 20. Artistic devel- opment of, i, II, 47,49. His “ Assunta,” i, 77, 78, 1 18, 1 19. His “ Baptism” (Capitol) criticized, i, 167. Nature of technique of, i, 44, 48, 90. His art as related to move- ment, i, 1 16, 1 17. His Depositions, i, 172. His “Crucifixion,” i, 144. As a religious man, i, 99, 107, 108. One of Ruskin’s colourists, i, App. I. See also i, 5, 7, 18, 19 note, 25, 34, 125, 179; ii, i, 5, 14, 28, 35, 49. 137. 142. 144. 146, 151- Turner, W. M., estimate of Tintoret, i, 3. See also i, i, 19, 46, 49, 114, 179; ii, 99. Vasari, estimate of Tintoret, i, 3. Velasquez, his “Mirror of Venus,” ii, 36. Su- preme as craftsman, ii, 10. His “ Surrender of Braga,” ii, 54. His witness to Titian’s supremacy, ii, 141. See also i, i, 49, 179; ii, 24, 94. Veronese (Paolo Calliari), friendship with Tintoret, i, 24. Tintoret’s approach to his style, i, 1 18. His treatment of Cana Mar- riage theme, i, 86-88. A competitor for S. Rocco School decorations, i, 153. Treatment of Susannah theme, ii, 40. Su- preme master of decoration, i, 122, 136, 220 THE ART AND GENIUS OF TINTORET 144. His death, ii, 94. See also i, 116, 137. 183; ii, 94. Vesalius, doubtful portrait of at Munich, ii, 20. Vescovi, Faustina dei, Tintoret’s wife, i, 21, 22, 29, 30, 52, 53. Vescovi, Marco dei, Tintoret’s father-in-law, i, 22, and note on purchase of Tintoret’s house. Vinci, Leonardo da, his famous “Cena,”i, 103 et seq., also i, 98, 100, loi, 144; ii, 63 note, 137- Visitation, The (Scuola), i, 164 ; ii, 3. Ruskin’s description, i, App. II, E, 189, 190. (Bologna), i, 64. Full description in Catalogue under Bologna. Vivian, Colonel Vivian’s study for Paradise, ii. 95- Waagen, “Treasures of Art in England,” cited, i, 104; ii, 27, 46. Worth of as critic, see ii, 69 note and Preface to Catalogue. Watts, G. F., i, 16, 39, 106; ii, 34, 44, 48. Whistler, i, 15, 16, App. I, 183; his opinion of Tintoret as portrait painter, ii, 21, 140. Wrestling of Jacob, The (study), ii, 124. Zanetti, i, 55. CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. Plate CLXXXVII LEGEND OF S. CATHERINE li Plate CLXXXVIII THE BETROTHAL OE S. CATHERINE 1 Pi .ATE CLXXXIX Ducal Palace, Venice THE FORGE OF VUECAN Plate CXC S. Marciliano, Venice S. MARCILIAN WITH SS. PETER AND PAUL Pitti, Florence VENUS, VULCAN, AND CUPID ikfee!^ Plate CXCI MARK PRESENTING DOGE MOCENIGO TO CHRIST f Plate CXCIl Ducal Palace, Venice Px'\OLO PARUTA Plate CXCIII Accademia, Venice DOGE ADVISE MOCENIGO 1 >•1 ■- f 1 -'"■-nr Vr ■«:?v li t'ijL. l"i.’ . T-;«-- ' - ' Plate CXCIV Pitti, Florence VINCL:NZ0 ZENO 4 'I •i. ■m y'* 0 ?- Plate CXCV Academy, P'/euiia OCTAVI ANO GRIM AN I Plate CXCVI Louvre, Paris MAN UNKNOWN Plate CXCVII MAN UNKNOWN MAN WITH A GLOVE Plate CXCVIII Plate CXCIX MAN WITH A BATON LUCK Plate CC Ducal Palace, Venice DOGE GRITTI BEFORE THE MADONNA EXECUTED BY ASSISTANTS - *^ . " -A'^S^ ’ V.; V '( - „|j < 3 »--'.^.. , ., : >.- •' • H. f^i .. Plate CCI CHRIST IN THE HOUSE OF LEVI ; ; ;;i. *• • p 1 ' j; < ' ' •' • "■• ■ '^•' . ■' f, ■'•- .-■C V.. .y;^:: - ■' - . ■■■ ' ■, - : '• "-y:.'.. . . - r% -:.' • • .. ' • '■ - V - ,' •■•’^ .- ' . ■>.>r^.. r. ..■ •• '■■ . .'•■■ '.:■ ■;■ ■ ■'■ ■■ " '• ,'. ■•.'■ . . ■;■ -,;.• ' ..■ ; ■ ■ .-■’■'iv .■ " ' X, > . •’••. ’ • -•;•'• • ...1- - •. ' ■ V • ■■ V - ■■ -T', V' ' * ■ - •. ' ■' ,/y V y;,,^ ■ >■*' ■ '.. . y, Plate CCII LVCA^ . CAi', v/f t.T ECCE MVU£R VT COGNOVIT QVOD IF.SV5 ACCVBVIT IN DOMO PHAR15AU 5TAN5 RETRO ■ 5ECV5 PE.DL5 LIV^ IACHRIMI5 CCEPIT RIGflkt Pf.fT5 rPET CAPIUIS 5V1S TERCEBAT.rr 0:5CVlABMr^ LTV.VCVEVT-O A/NCtRAT Palazzo Corsini^ Rome CHRIST AND THE MAGDALEN SCHOOL PICTURE Plate CCIII QUERY GEXUIXE STE’nV Plate CCIV Gallery, Parma PURGATORIO BY UNKNOWN ARTIST Munich NOBLEMAN AND SON BY DOMENICO TINTORETTO Plate CCV Fev) ara MADONNA OF ROSARY BV DOMENICO TINTORETTO Caen DEPOSITION A COPY Accademia, Venice DEPOSITION BY TITIAN (tr 'V' . 1 *; ' * ■’ ■: : i'll '-V; ' Wam ■ t-' < ..I I*' k •sl i.'v '. V- '. I ■Jv ! ' '.. ». . ,4 :£.,| ■I ' ' ’:' ' ' ' '■ ; ■ ’ ' ' ‘ f ' ' mp^mrzm: •> ,.:Imj ■ ■ , ■ ‘- .\ \ i <■) ,',' "I'll',* v' .' >'7' '-"h I . #«■ >rl 0 ■ M ■ -*." \ ■' y ' « '.'y-hr , ... ^ I'/S