Some may object that the drawing of the shepherd is atrocious, and that the figures are of disproportionate sizes.  Such failings, they say, cannot be laid to a great master’s charge.  This is an appeal to the old argument that it is not good enough, whereas the true test lies in the question, Is it characteristic?  Of Giorgione it certainly is a characteristic to treat each figure in a composition more or less by itself; he isolates them, and this conception is often emphasised by an outward disparity of size.  The relative disproportion of the figures in the Castelfranco altar-piece, and of those of Aeneas and Evander in the Vienna picture can hardly be denied, yet no one has ever pleaded this as a bar to their authenticity.  Instances of this want of cohesion, both in conception and execution, between the various figures in a scene could be multiplied in Giorgione’s work, no more striking instance being found than in the great undertaking he left unfinished—­the large “Judgment of Solomon,” next to be discussed.  Moreover, eccentricities of drawing are not uncommon in his work, as a reference to the “Adrastus and Hypsipyle,” and later works, like the “Fete Champetre” (of the Louvre), will show.

I have no hesitation, therefore, in recognising this “Adoration of the Shepherds” as a genuine work of Giorgione, and, moreover, it appears to be the masterpiece of that early period when Bellini’s influence was still strong upon him.

The Vienna replica, I believe, was also executed by Giorgione himself.  Until recent times, when an all too rigorous criticism condemned it to be merely a piece of the “Venezianische Schule um 1500” (which is correct as far as it goes),[28] it bore Giorgione’s name, and is so recorded in an inventory of the year 1659.  It differs from the Beaumont version chiefly in its colouring, which is silvery and of delicate tones.  It lacks the rich glow, and has little of that mysterious glamour which is so subtly attractive in the former.  The landscape is also different.  We must be on our guard, therefore, against the view that it is merely a copy; differences of detail, especially in the landscape, show that it is a parallel work, or a replica.  Now I believe that these two versions of the “Nativity” are the two pictures of “La Notte,” by Giorgione, to which we have allusion in a contemporary document.[29] The description, “Una Notte,” obviously means what we term “A Nativity” (Correggio’s “Heilige Nacht” at Dresden is a familiar instance of the same usage), and the difference in quality between the two versions is significantly mentioned.  It seems that Isabella d’Este, the celebrated Marchioness of Mantua, had commissioned one of her agents in Venice to procure for her gallery a picture by Giorgione.  The agent writes to his royal mistress and tells her (October 1510) that the artist is just dead, and that no such picture as she describes—­viz.  “Una Nocte"[A]—­is to be found among his effects.  However, he goes on, Giorgione did paint two such pictures, but these were not for sale, as they belonged to two private owners who would not part with them.  One of these pictures was of better design and more highly finished than the other, the latter being, in his opinion, not perfect enough for the royal collection.  He regrets accordingly that he is unable to obtain the picture which the Marchioness requires.