can see the mind, if not the hand, of the great master.  The Anonimo tells us this “Birth of Paris” was one of Giorgione’s early works, a statement worthy of credence from the still Bellinesque stamp and general likeness of one of the Shepherds to the “Adrastus” in the Giovanelli picture.  In pose, type, arrangement of hair, and in landscape this fragment is thoroughly Giorgionesque, and we have, moreover, those most characteristic traits, the pointing forefinger, and the unbroken curve of outline.  The execution is, however, raw and crude, and entirely wanting in the magic quality of the master’s own touch.[59]

[Illustration:  Dixon photo.  Hampton Court Palace Gallery

THE SHEPHERD BOY.]

Finally, on Morelli’s list figures the “Shepherd” at Hampton Court, for the genuineness of which the critic would not absolutely vouch, as he had only seen it in a bad light.  Perhaps no picture has been so strongly championed by an enthusiastic writer as has been this “Shepherd” by Mr. Berenson, who strenuously advocates its title to genuineness.[60] Nevertheless, several modern authorities remain unconvinced in presence of the work itself.  The conception is unquestionably Giorgione’s own, as we may see from a picture now in the Vienna Gallery, where this head is repeated in a representation of the young David holding the head of Goliath.  The Vienna picture is, however, but a copy of a lost original by Giorgione, the existence of which is independently attested by Vasari.[61] Now, the question naturally arises, What relation does the Hampton Court “Shepherd” bear to this “David,” Giorgione’s lost original?  It is possible, of course, that the master repeated himself, merely transforming the David into a Shepherd, or vice versa, and it is equally possible that some other and later artist adapted Giorgione’s “David” to his own end, utilising the conception that is, and carrying it out in his own way.  Arguing purely a priori, the latter possibility is the more likely, inasmuch as we know Giorgione hardly ever repeats a figure or a composition, whereas Titian, Cariani, and other later Venetian artists freely adopted Giorgione’s ideas, his types, and his compositions for their own purposes.  Internal evidence appears to me, moreover, to confirm this view, for the general style of painting seems to indicate a later period than 1510, the year of Giorgione’s death.  The flimsy folds, in particular, are not readily recognisable as the master’s own.  A comparison with a portrait in the Gallery of Padua reveals, particularly in this respect, striking resemblances.  This fine portrait was identified by both Crowe and Cavalcaselle and by Morelli as the work of Torbido, and I venture to place the reproduction of it beside that of the “Shepherd” for comparison.  It is not easy to pronounce on the technical qualities of either work, for both have suffered from re-touching and discolouring varnish, and the hand of the “Shepherd” is certainly