(3) The accessories in the picture confirm the
        identity—­e.g. the St Andrew’s Cross, or
        saltire, is on the Colonna family banner;
        the bay, emblem of victory, is naturally
        associated with a great captain; the rosary
        may refer to the fact of Prospero’s residence
        as lay brother in the monastery of the
        Olivetani, near Fondi, which was rebuilt
        by him in 1500.

II.  Admitting the identity of person, chronology
        determines the probable date of the execution
        of this portrait, for Prospero visited
        Venice presumably in the train of Consalvo
        Ferrante in 1500.  He was then thirty-six
        years of age.

III.  Assuming this date to be correct, no other Venetian
        artist but Giorgione was capable of producing
        so fine and admittedly “Giorgionesque”
        a portrait at so early a date.

IV.  Internal evidence points to Giorgione’s authorship.

It will be seen that the logic employed is identical with that by which I have tried to establish the identity of Signor Crespi’s picture.  In the present case, I should like to insist on the fourth consideration rather than on the other points, iconographical or chronological, and see how far our portrait bears on its face the impress of Giorgione’s own spirit.

The conception, to begin with, is characteristic of him—­the pensive charm, the feeling of reserve, the touch of fanciful imagination in the decorative accessories, but, above all, the extreme refinement.  All this very naturally fits the portrait of a poet, and at a time when it was customary to label every portrait with a celebrated name, what more appropriate than Ariosto, the court poet of Ferrara?  But this dreamy reserve, this intensity of suppressed feeling is characteristic of all Giorgione’s male portraits, and is nowhere more splendidly expressed than in this lovely figure.  Where can the like be found in Palma, or even Titian?  Titian is more virile in his conception, less lyrical, less fanciful, Palma infinitely less subtle in characterisation.  Both are below the level of Giorgione in refinement; neither ever made of a portrait such a thing of sheer beauty as this.  If this be Palma’s work, it stands alone, not only far surpassing his usual productions in quality, but revealing him in a wholly new phase; it is a difference not of degree, but of kind.

[Illustration:  Anderson photo.  Querini-Stampalia Collection, Venice

PORTRAIT OF A MAN (Unfinished)]

Positive proofs of Giorgione’s hand are found in the way the hair is rendered—­that lovely dark auburn hair so often seen in his work,—­in the radiant oval of the face, contrasting so finely with the shadows, which are treated exactly as in the Cobham picture, only that here the chiaroscuro is more masterly, in the delicate modelling of the features, the pose of the head, and in the superb colour of the whole.  In short, there is not a stroke that does not reveal the great master, and no other, and it is incredible that modern criticism has not long ago united in recognising Giorgione’s handiwork.[10 8]