On the 2nd of December in that year “Io tician di Cador Dpntore” gives a receipt for money paid him on completion of some frescoes at Padua, and from this date on there are frequent letters and documents in existence right down to 1576, the year of his death.  Is it not somewhat strange that the first thirty-five years of his life (as is commonly believed) should be a total blank so far as records go?  The fact becomes the more inexplicable when we find that during these early years some of his finest work is alleged to have been executed, and he must—­if we accept the chronology of his biographers—­have been well known to and highly esteemed by his contemporaries.[149] Moreover, it is not for want of diligent search amongst the archives that nothing has been found, for Italian and German students have alike sought, but in vain, to discover any documentary evidence relating to his career before 1511.

The absence of any such trustworthy record has had its natural result.  Conjecture has run riot, and no two writers are agreed on the subject of the nature and development of Titian’s earlier art.  This is the second disquieting fact which any careful student has to face.  Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Titian’s most exhaustive biographers,[150] have filled up the first thirty-five years of his career in their own way, but their chronology has found no favour with later writers, such as Mr. Claude Phillips in England[151] or Dr. Georg Gronau in Germany,[152] both of whom have arrived at independent conclusions.  Morelli again had his theories on the subject, and M. Lafenestre[153] has his, and the ordinary gallery catalogue is usually content to state inaccurate facts without further ado.

Now, if all these conscientious writers arrive at results so widely divergent, either their logic or their data must be wrong!  One and all assume that Titian lived into his hundredth year, and, therefore, was born in 1476-7; and starting with this theory as a fact, they have tried to fit in Vasari’s account as best they can, and each has found a different solution of the problem.  There is only one way out of this chaos of conjectures—­we must see what is the evidence for the “centenarian” tradition, and if it can be shown that Titian was really born later than 1476-7, then the silence of all records about him during an alleged period of thirty-five years will become at once more intelligible, and we may be able to explain some of the other anomalies which at present confront Titian’s biographers.

I propose to take the evidence in strictly chronological order.

The oldest contemporary account of Titian’s career is furnished by Lodovico Dolce in his L’Aretino, o dialogo della pittura, which was published at Venice in 1557.  Dolce knew Titian personally, and wrote his treatise just at the time when the painter was at the zenith of his fame.  He is our sole authority for certain incidents of Titian’s early career:  it will be well, therefore, to quote in full the opening paragraphs of his narrative: