It would be mere repetition, after all that has been written on the Dresden “Venus,” to enlarge on the qualities of refinement and grace which characterise the fair form of the sleeping goddess.  One need but compare it with Titian’s representations of the same subject, and still more with Palma’s versions at Dresden and Cambridge, or with Cariani’s “Venus” at Hampton Court, to see the classic purity of form, the ideal loveliness of Giorgione’s goddess.[43] It is no mere accident that she alone is sleeping, whilst they solicit attention.  Giorgione’s conception is characteristic in that he endeavours to avoid any touch of realism abhorrent to his nature, which was far more sensitive than that of Palma, Cariani, or even Titian.

[Illustration:  Hanfstaengl photo.  Dresden Gallery

VENUS]

The extraordinary beauty and subtlety of the master’s “line” is admirably shown.  He has deliberately forgone anatomical precision in order to accentuate artistic effect.  The splendour of curve, the beauty of unbroken contour, the rhythm and balance of composition is attained at a cost of academic correctness; but the long-drawn horizontal lines heighten the sense of repose, and the eye is soothed by the sinuous undulations of landscape and figure.  The artistic effect is further enhanced by the relief of exquisite flesh tones against the rich crimson drapery, and although the atmospheric glow has been sadly destroyed by abrasion and repainting, we may still feel something of the magic charm which Giorgione knew so well how to impart.

This “Venus” is the prototype of all other Venetian versions; it is in painting what the “Aphrodite” of Praxiteles was in sculpture, a perfect creation of a master mind.

Scarcely less wonderful than the “Venus,” and even surpassing it in solemn grandeur of conception, is the “Judith” at St. Petersburg.  Morelli himself had never seen the original, and includes it in his list with the reservation that it might be an old copy after Giorgione, and not the original.  It would be presumptuous for anyone not familiar with the picture to decide the point, but I have no hesitation in following the judgment of two competent modern critics, both of whom have recently visited St. Petersburg, and both of whom have decided unhesitatingly in favour of its being an original by Giorgione.  Dr. Harck has written enthusiastically of its beauty.  “Once seen,” he says, “it can never be forgotten; the same mystic charm, so characteristic of the other great works of Giorgione, pervades it; ... it bears on the face of it the stamp of a great master."[44] Even more decisive is the verdict of Mr. Claude Phillips.[45] “All doubts,” he says, “vanish like sun-drawn mist in the presence of the work itself; the first glance carries with it conviction, swift and permanent.  In no extant Giorgione is the golden glow so well preserved, in none does the mysterious glamour from which the world has never shaken itself