a softened form, in Christian times. Still, I admit that there is little
confidence to be placed in the mere concurrence of the Venetian
Chroniclers, who, for the most part, copied from each other: but the
best and most complete account I have read, is that quoted by
Galliciolli from the "Matricola de' Casseleri," written in 1449; and, in
that account, the words are quite unmistakable. "It was anciently the
custom of Venice, that _all the brides_ (novizze) of Venice, when they
married, should be married by the bishop, in the Church of S. Pietro di
Castello, on St. Mark's day, which is the 31st of January." Rogers quotes
Navagiero to the same effect; and Sansovino is more explicit still. "It
was the custom to contract marriages openly; and when the deliberations
were completed, the damsels assembled themselves in St. Pietro di
Castello, for the feast of St. Mark, in February."
9. CHARACTER OF THE VENETIAN ARISTOCRACY.
The following noble answer of a Venetian ambassador, Giustiniani, on the
occasion of an insult offered him at the court of Henry the Eighth, is
as illustrative of the dignity which there yet remained in the character
and thoughts of the Venetian noble, as descriptive, in few words, of the
early faith and deeds of his nation. He writes thus to the Doge, from
London, on the 15th of April, 1516:
"By my last, in date of the 30th ult., I informed you that the
countenances of some of these lords evinced neither friendship nor
goodwill, and that much language had been used to me of a nature
bordering not merely on arrogance, but even on outrage; and not having
specified this in the foregoing letters, I think fit now to mention it
in detail. Finding myself at the court, and talking familiarly about
other matters, two lay lords, great personages in this kingdom, inquired
of me 'whence it came that your Excellency was of such slippery faith,
now favoring one party and then the other?' Although these words ought
to have irritated me, I answered them with all discretion, 'that you did
keep, and ever had kept your faith; the maintenance of which has placed
you in great trouble, and subjected you to wars of longer duration than
you would otherwise have experienced; descending to particulars in
justification of your Sublimity.' Whereupon one of them replied, '_Isti
Veneti sunt piscatores._'[64] Marvellous was the command I then had over
myself in not giving vent to expressions which might have proved
injurious to your Signory; and with extreme moderation I rejoined, 'that
had he been at Venice, and seen our Senate, and the Venetian nobility,
he perhaps would not speak thus; and moreover, were he well read in our
history, both concerning the origin of our city and the grandeur of your
Excellency's feats, neither the one nor the other would seem to him
those of fishermen; yet,' said I, 'did fishermen found the Christian
faith, and we have been those fishermen who defended it against the
forces of the Infidel, our fishing-boats being galleys and ships, our
hooks the treasure of St. Mark, and our bait the life-blood of our
citizens, who died for the Christian faith.'"
I take this most interesting passage from a volume of despatches
addressed from London to the Signory of Venice, by the ambassador
Giustiniani, during the years 1516-1519; despatches not only full of
matters of historical interest, but of the most delightful every-day
description of all that went on at the English court. They were
translated by Mr. Brown from the original letters, and will, I believe,
soon be published, and I hope also, read and enjoyed: for I cannot close
these volumes without expressing a conviction, which has long been
forcing itself upon my mind, that _restored_ history is of little more
value than restored painting or architecture; that the only history
worth reading is that written at the time of which it treats, the
history of what was done and seen, heard out of the mouths of the men
who did and saw. One fresh draught of such history is worth more than a
thousand volumes of abstracts, and reasonings, and suppositions, and
theories; and I believe that, as we get wiser, we shall take little
trouble about the history of nations who have left no distinct records
of themselves, but spend our time only in the examination of the
faithful documents which, in any period of the world, have been left,
either in the form of art or literature, portraying the scenes, or
recording the events, which in those days were actually passing before
the eyes of men.
10. FINAL APPENDIX.
The statements respecting the dates of Venetian buildings made
throughout the preceding pages, are founded, as above stated, on careful
and personal examination of all the mouldings, or other features
available as evidence, of every palace of importance in the city. Three
parts, at least, of the time occupied in the completion of the work have
been necessarily devoted to the collection of these evidences, of which
it would be quite useless to lay the mass before the reader; but of
which the leading points must be succinctly stated, in order to show the
nature of my authority for any of the conclusions expressed in the text.
I have therefore collected in the plates which illustrate this article
of the Appendix, for the examination of any reader who may be interested
by them, as many examples of the evidence-bearing details as are
sufficient for the proof required, especially including all the
exceptional forms; so that the reader may rest assured that if I had
been able to lay before him all the evidence in my possession, it would
have been still more conclusive than the portion now submitted to him.
[Illustration: Plate V.
BYZANTINE BASES.]
We must examine in succession the Bases, Doorways and Jambs, Capitals,
Archivolts, Cornices, and Tracery Bars, of Venetian architecture.
_I. Bases._
The principal points we have to notice are the similarity and simplicity
of the Byzantine bases in general, and the distinction between those of
Torcello and Murano, and of St. Mark's, as tending to prove the early
dates attributed in the text to the island churches. I have sufficiently
illustrated the forms of the Gothic bases in Plates X., XI., and XIII.
of the first volume, so that I here note chiefly the Byzantine or
Romanesque ones, adding two Gothic forms for the sake of comparison.
The most characteristic examples, then, are collected in Plate V.
opposite; namely:
1, 2, 3, 4. In the upper gallery of apse of Murano.
5. Lower shafts of apse. Murano.
6. Casa Falier.
7. Small shafts of panels. Casa Farsetti.
8. Great shafts and plinth. Casa Farsetti.
9. Great lower shafts. Fondaco de' Turchi.
10. Ducal Palace, upper arcade.
PLATE V. 11. General late Gothic form.
Vol. III. 12. Tomb of Dogaressa Vital Michele, in St. Mark's atrium.
13. Upper arcade of Madonnetta House.
14. Rio-Foscari House.
15. Upper arcade. Terraced House.
16, 17, 18. Nave. Torcello.
19, 20. Transepts. St. Mark's.
21. Nave. St. Mark's.
22. External pillars of northern portico. St. Mark's.
23, 24. Clustered pillars of northern portico. St. Mark's.
25, 26. Clustered pillars of southern portico. St. Mark's.
Now, observe, first, the enormous difference in style between the bases
1 to 5, and the rest in the upper row, that is to say, between the bases
of Murano and the twelfth and thirteenth century bases of Venice; and,
secondly, the difference between the bases 16 to 20 and the rest in the
lower row, that is to say, between the bases of Torcello (with those of
St. Mark's which belong to the nave, and which may therefore be supposed
to be part of the earlier church), and the later ones of the St. Mark's
Façade.
Secondly: Note the fellowship between 5 and 6, one of the evidences of
the early date of the Casa Falier.
Thirdly: Observe the slurring of the upper roll into the cavetto, in 13,
14, and 15, and the consequent relationship established between three
most important buildings, the Rio-Foscari House, Terraced House, and
Madonnetta House.
Fourthly: Byzantine bases, if they have an incision between the upper
roll and cavetto, are very apt to approach the form of fig. 23, in which
the upper roll is cut out of the flat block, and the ledge beneath it is
sloping. Compare Nos. 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. On the other
hand, the later Gothic base, 11, has always its upper roll well
developed, and, generally, the fillet between it and the cavetto
vertical. The sloping fillet is indeed found down to late periods; and
the vertical fillet, as in No. 12, in Byzantine ones; but still, when a
base has such a sloping fillet and peculiarly graceful sweeping cavetto,
as those of No. 10, looking as if they would run into one line with each
other, it is strong presumptive evidence of its belonging to an early,
rather than a late period.
The base 12 is the boldest example I could find of the exceptional form
in early times; but observe, in this, that the upper roll is larger than
the lower. This is _never_ the case in late Gothic, where the proportion
is always as in fig. 11. Observe that in Nos. 8 and 9 the upper rolls
are at least as large as the lower, an important evidence of the dates
of the Casa Farsetti and Fondaco de' Turchi.
Lastly: Note the peculiarly steep profile of No. 22, with reference to
what is said of this base in Vol. II. Appendix 9.
_II. Doorways and Jambs._
The entrances to St. Mark's consist, as above mentioned, of great
circular or ogee porches; underneath which the real open entrances, in
which the valves of the bronze doors play, are square headed.
[Illustration: Fig. I.]
The mouldings of the jambs of these doors are highly curious, and the
most characteristic are therefore represented in one view. The outsides
of the jambs are lowest.
_a_. Northern lateral door.
_b_. First northern door of the façade.
_c_. Second door of the façade.
_d_. Fourth door of the façade.
_e_. Central door of the façade.
I wish the reader especially to note the arbitrary character of the
curves and incisions; all evidently being drawn by hand, none being
segments of circles, none like another, none influenced by any visible
law. I do not give these mouldings as beautiful; they are, for the most
part, very poor in effect, but they are singularly characteristic of the
free work of the time.
The kind of door to which these mouldings belong, is shown, with the
other groups of doors, in Plate XIV. Vol. II. fig. 6 _a_. Then 6 _b_, 6
_c_, 6 _d_ represent the groups of doors in which the Byzantine
influence remained energetic, admitting slowly the forms of the pointed
Gothic; 7 _a_, with the gable above, is the intermediate group between
the Byzantine and Gothic schools; 7 _b_, 7 _c_, 7 _d_, 7 _e_ are the
advanced guards of the Gothic and Lombardic invasions, representative of
a large number of thirteenth century arcades and doors. Observe that 6
_d_ is shown to be of a late school by its finial, and 6 _e_ of the
latest school by its finial, complete ogee arch (instead of round or
pointed), and abandonment of the lintel.
These examples, with the exception of 6 _a_, which is a general form,
are all actually existing doors; namely:
6 _b._ In the Fondamenta Venier, near St. Maria della Salute.
6 _c._ In the Calle delle Botteri, between the Rialto and San Cassan.
6 _d._ Main door of San Gregorio.
6 _e._ Door of a palace in Rio San Paternian.
7 _a._ Door of a small courtyard near house of Marco Polo.
7 _b._ Arcade in narrow canal, at the side of Casa Barbaro.
7 _c._ At the turn of the canal, close to the Ponte dell' Angelo.
7 _d._ In Rio San Paternian (a ruinous house).
7 _e._ At the turn of the canal on which the Sotto Portico della Stua
opens, near San Zaccaria.
If the reader will take a magnifying glass to the figure 6 _d_, he will
see that its square ornaments, of which, in the real door, each contains
a rose, diminish to the apex of the arch; a very interesting and
characteristic circumstance, showing the subtle feeling of the Gothic
builders. They must needs diminish the ornamentation, in order to
sympathize with the delicacy of the point of the arch. The magnifying
glass will also show the Bondumieri shield in No. 7 _d_, and the Leze
shield in No. 7 _e_, both introduced on the keystones in the grand early
manner. The mouldings of these various doors will be noticed under the
head Archivolt.
[Illustration: Plate VI.
BYZANTINE JAMBS.]
Now, throughout the city we find a number of doors resembling the square
doors of St. Mark, and occurring with rare exceptions either in
buildings of the Byzantine period, or imbedded in restored houses;
never, in a single instance, forming a connected portion of any late
building; and they therefore furnish a most important piece of evidence,
wherever they are part of the original structure of a _Gothic_ building,
that such building is one of the advanced guards of the Gothic school,
and belongs to its earliest period.
On Plate VI., opposite, are assembled all the important examples I could
find in Venice of these mouldings. The reader will see at a glance their
peculiar character, and unmistakable likeness to each other. The
following are the references:
1. Door in Calle Mocenigo.
2. Angle of tomb of Dogaressa Vital Michele.
3. Door in Sotto Portico, St. Apollonia (near Ponte di
Canonica).
4. Door in Calle della Verona (another like it is close by).
5. Angle of tomb of Doge Marino Morosini.
6, 7. Door in Calle Mocenigo.
8. Door in Campo S. Margherita.
Plate VI. 9. Door at Traghetto San Samuele, on south side of Grand
Vol. III. Canal.
10. Door at Ponte St. Toma.
11. Great door of Church of Servi.
12. In Calle della Chiesa, Campo San Filippo e Giacomo.
13. Door of house in Calle di Rimedio (Vol. II.).
14. Door in Fondaco de' Turchi.
15. Door in Fondamenta Malcanton, near Campo S. Margherita.
16. Door in south side of Canna Reggio.
17, 18. Doors in Sotto Portico dei Squellini.
The principal points to be noted in these mouldings are their curious
differences of level, as marked by the dotted lines, more especially in
14, 15, 16, and the systematic projection of the outer or lower
mouldings in 16, 17, 18. Then, as points of evidence, observe that 1 is
the jamb and 6 the archivolt (7 the angle on a larger scale) of the
brick door given in my folio work from Ramo di rimpetto Mocenigo, one of
the evidences of the early date of that door; 8 is the jamb of the door
in Campo Santa Margherita (also given in my folio work), fixing the
early date of that also; 10 is from a Gothic door opening off the Ponte
St. Toma; and 11 is also from a Gothic building. All the rest are from
Byzantine work, or from ruins. The angle of the tomb of Marino Morosini
(5) is given for comparison only.
The doors with the mouldings 17, 18, are from the two ends of a small
dark passage, called the Sotto Portico dei Squellini, opening near Ponte
Cappello, on the Rio-Marin: 14 is the outside one, arranged as usual,
and at _a_, in the rough stone, are places for the staples of the door
valve; 15, at the other end of the passage, opening into the little
Corte dei Squellini, is set with the part _a_ outwards, it also having
places for hinges; but it is curious that the rich moulding should be
set in towards the dark passage, though natural that the doors should
both open one way.
[Illustration: Plate VII.
GOTHIC JAMBS.]
The next Plate, VII., will show the principal characters of the Gothic
jambs, and the total difference between them and the Byzantine ones. Two
more Byzantine forms, 1 and 2, are given here for the sake of
comparison; then 3, 4, and 5 are the common profiles of simple jambs of
doors in the Gothic period; 6 is one of the jambs of the Frari windows,
continuous into the archivolt, and meeting the traceries, where the line
is set upon it at the extremity of its main slope; 7 and 8 are jambs of
the Ducal Palace windows, in which the great semicircle is the half
shaft which sustains the traceries, and the rest of the profile is
continuous in the archivolt; 17, 18, and 19 are the principal piers of
the Ducal Palace; and 20, from St. Fermo of Verona, is put with them in
order to show the step of transition from the Byzantine form 2 to the
Gothic chamfer, which is hardly represented at Venice. The other
profiles on the plate are all late Gothic, given to show the gradual
increase of complexity without any gain of power. The open lines in 12,
14, 16, etc., are the parts of the profile cut into flowers or cable
mouldings; and so much incised as to show the constant outline of the
cavetto or curve beneath them. The following are the references:
1. Door in house of Marco Polo.
2. Old door in a restored church of St. Cassan.
3, 4, 5. Common jambs of Gothic doors.
6. Frari windows.
7, 8. Ducal Palace windows.
9. Casa Priuli, great entrance.
10. San Stefano, great door.
PLATE VII. 11. San Gregorio, door opening to the water.
Vol. III. 12. Lateral door, Frari.
13. Door of Campo San Zaccaria.
14. Madonna dell'Orto.
15. San Gregorio, door in the façade.
16. Great lateral door, Frari.
17. Pilaster at Vine angle, Ducal Palace.
18. Pier, inner cortile, Ducal Palace.
19. Pier, under the medallion of Venice, on the Piazetta
façade of the Ducal Palace.
_III. Capitals._
I shall here notice the various facts I have omitted in the text of the
work.
First, with respect to the Byzantine Capitals represented in Plate VII.
Vol. II., I omitted to notice that figs. 6 and 7 represent two sides of
the same capital at Murano (though one is necessarily drawn on a smaller
scale than the other). Fig. 7 is the side turned to the light, and fig.
6 to the shade, the inner part, which is quite concealed, not being
touched at all.
We have here a conclusive proof that these capitals were cut for their
place in the apse; therefore I have always considered them as tests of
Venetian workmanship, and, on the strength of that proof, have
occasionally spoken of capitals as of true Venetian work, which M.
Lazari supposes to be of the Lower Empire. No. 11, from St. Mark's, was
not above noticed. The way in which the cross is gradually left in
deeper relief as the sides slope inwards and away from it, is highly
picturesque and curious.
No. 9 has been reduced from a larger drawing, and some of the life and
character of the curves lost in consequence. It is chiefly given to show
the irregular and fearless freedom of the Byzantine designers, no two
parts of the foliage being correspondent; in the original it is of white
marble, the ground being colored blue.
Plate X. Vol. II. represents the four principal orders of Venetian
capitals in their greatest simplicity, and the profiles of the most
interesting examples of each. The figures 1 and 4 are the two great
concave and convex groups, and 2 and 3 the transitional. Above each type
of form I have put also an example of the group of flowers which
represent it in nature: fig. 1 has a lily; fig. 2 a variety of the
Tulipa sylvestris; figs. 3 and 4 forms of the magnolia. I prepared this
plate in the early spring, when I could not get any other examples,[65]
or I would rather have had two different species for figs. 3 and 4; but
the half-open magnolia will answer the purpose, showing the beauty of
the triple curvature in the sides.
I do not say that the forms of the capitals are actually taken from
flowers, though assuredly so in some instances, and partially so in the
decoration of nearly all. But they were designed by men of pure and
natural feeling for beauty, who therefore instinctively adopted the
forms represented, which are afterwards proved to be beautiful by their
frequent occurrence in common flowers.
The convex forms, 3 and 4, are put lowest in the plate only because they
are heaviest; they are the earliest in date, and have already been
enough examined.
I have added a plate to this volume (Plate XII.), which should have
appeared in illustration of the fifth chapter of Vol. II., but was not
finished in time. It represents the central capital and two of the
lateral ones of the Fondaco de' Turchi, the central one drawn very
large, in order to show the excessive simplicity of its chiselling,
together with the care and sharpness of it, each leaf being expressed by
a series of sharp furrows and ridges. Some slight errors in the large
tracings from which the engraving was made have, however, occasioned a
loss of spring in the curves, and the little fig. 4 of Plate X. Vol. II.
gives a truer idea of the distant effect of the capital.
The profiles given in Plate X. Vol. II. are the following:
1. _a._ Main capitals, upper arcade, Madonnetta House.
_b._ Main capitals, upper arcade, Casa Falier.
_c._ Lateral capitals, upper arcade, Fondaco de' Turchi.
_d._ Small pillars of St. Mark's Pulpit.
_e._ Casa Farsetti.
_f._ Inner capitals of arcade of Ducal Palace.
_g._ Plinth of the house[66] at Apostoli.
_h._ Main capitals of house at Apostoli.
_i._ Main capitals, upper arcade, Fondaco de' Turchi.
2. _a._ Lower arcade, Fondaco de' Turchi.
_b, c._ Lower pillars, house at Apostoli.
_d._ San Simeon Grande.
PLATE X. _e._ Restored house on Grand Canal. Three of the old arches left.
vol. II. _f._ Upper arcade, Ducal Palace.
_g._ Windows of third order, central shaft, Ducal Palace.
_h._ Windows of third order, lateral shaft, Ducal Palace.
_i._ Ducal Palace, main shafts.
_k._ Piazzetta shafts.
3. _a._ St. Mark's Nave.
_b, c._ Lily capitals, St. Mark's.
4. _a._ Fondaco de' Turchi, central shaft, upper arcade.
_b._ Murano, upper arcade.
_c._ Murano, lower arcade.
_d._ Tomb of St. Isidore.
_e._ General late Gothic profile.
The last two sections are convex in effect, though not in reality; the
bulging lines being carved into bold flower-work.
The capitals belonging to the groups 1 and 2, in the Byzantine times,
have already been illustrated in Plate VIII. Vol. II.; we have yet to
trace their succession in the Gothic times. This is done in Plate II. of
this volume, which we will now examine carefully. The following are the
capitals represented in that plate:
1. Small shafts of St. Mark's Pulpit.
2. From the transitional house in the Calle di Rimedio (conf.
Vol. II.).
3. General simplest form of the middle Gothic capital.
4. Nave of San Giacomo de Lorio.
5. Casa Falier.
6. Early Gothic house in Campo Sta. M^a. Mater Domini.
PLATE II. 7. House at the Apostoli.
Vol. III. 8. Piazzetta shafts.
9. Ducal Palace, upper arcade.
10. Palace of Marco Querini.
11. Fondaco de' Turchi.
12. Gothic palaces in Campo San Polo.
13. Windows of fourth order, Plate XVI. Vol. II.
14. Nave of Church of San Stefano.
15. Late Gothic Palace at the Miracoli.
The two lateral columns form a consecutive series: the central column is
a group of exceptional character, running parallel with both. We will
take the lateral ones first. 1. Capital of pulpit of St. Mark's
(representative of the simplest concave forms of the Byzantine period).
Look back to Plate VIII. Vol. II., and observe that while all the forms
in that plate are contemporaneous, we are now going to follow a series
_consecutive_ in time, which begins from fig. 1, either in that plate or
in this; that is to say, with the simplest possible condition to be
found at the time; and which proceeds to develope itself into gradually
increasing richness, while the _already rich_ capitals of the old school
die at its side. In the forms 14 and 15 (Plate VIII.) the Byzantine
school expired; but from the Byzantine simple capital (1, Plate II.
above) which was coexistent with them, sprang another hardy race of
capitals, whose succession we have now to trace.
The form 1, Plate II. is evidently the simplest conceivable condition of
the truncated capital, long ago represented generally in Vol. I., being
only rounded a little on its side to fit it to the shaft. The next step
was to place a leaf beneath each of the truncations (fig. 4, Plate II.,
San Giacomo de Lorio), the end of the leaf curling over at the top in a
somewhat formal spiral, partly connected with the traditional volute of
the Corinthian capital. The sides are then enriched by the addition of
some ornament, as a shield (fig. 7) or rose (fig. 10), and we have the
formed capital of the early Gothic. Fig. 10, being from the palace of
Marco Querini, is certainly not later than the middle of the thirteenth
century (see Vol. II.), and fig. 7, is, I believe, of the same date; it
is one of the bearing capitals of the lower story of the palace at the
Apostoli, and is remarkably fine in the treatment of its angle leaves,
which are not deeply under-cut, but show their magnificent sweeping
under surface all the way down, not as a leaf surface, but treated like
the gorget of a helmet, with a curved line across it like that where the
gorget meets the mail. I never saw anything finer in simple design. Fig.
10 is given chiefly as a certification of date, and to show the
treatment of the capitals of this school on a small scale. Observe the
more expansive head in proportion to the diameter of the shaft, the
leaves being drawn from the angles, as if gathered in the hand, till
their edges meet; and compare the rule given in Vol. I. Chap. IX. § XIV.
The capitals of the remarkable house, of which a portion is represented
in Fig. XXXI. Vol. II., are most curious and pure examples of this
condition; with experimental trefoils, roses, and leaves introduced
between their volutes. When compared with those of the Querini Palace,
they form one of the most important evidences of the date of the
building.
Fig. 13. One of the bearing capitals, already drawn on a small scale in
the windows represented in Plate XVI. Vol. II.
Now, observe. The capital of the form of fig. 10 appeared sufficient to
the Venetians for all ordinary purposes; and they used it in common
windows to the latest Gothic periods, but yet with certain differences
which at once show the lateness of the work. In the first place, the
rose, which at first was flat and quatrefoiled, becomes, after some
experiments, a round ball dividing into three leaves, closely resembling
our English ball flower, and probably derived from it; and, in other
cases, forming a bold projecting bud in various degrees of contraction
or expansion. In the second place, the extremities of the angle leaves
are wrought into rich flowing lobes, and bent back so as to lap against
their own breasts; showing lateness of date in exact proportion to the
looseness of curvature. Fig. 3 represents the general aspect of these
later capitals, which may be conveniently called the rose capitals of
Venice; two are seen on service, in Plate VIII. Vol. I., showing
comparatively early date by the experimental form of the six-foiled
rose. But for elaborate edifices this form was not sufficiently rich;
and there was felt to be something awkward in the junction of the leaves
at the bottom. Therefore, four other shorter leaves were added at the
sides, as in fig. 13, Plate II., and as generally represented in Plate
X. Vol. II. fig. 1. This was a good and noble step, taken very early in
the thirteenth century; and all the best Venetian capitals were
thenceforth of this form. Those which followed, and rested in the common
rose type, were languid and unfortunate: I do not know a single good
example of them after the first half of the thirteenth century.
But the form reached in fig. 13 was quickly felt to be of great value
and power. One would have thought it might have been taken straight from
the Corinthian type; but it is clearly the work of men who were making
experiments for themselves. For instance, in the central capital of Fig.
XXXI. Vol. II., there is a trial condition of it, with the intermediate
leaf set behind those at the angles (the reader had better take a
magnifying glass to this woodcut; it will show the character of the
capitals better). Two other experimental forms occur in the Casa Cicogna
(Vol. II.), and supply one of the evidences which fix the date of that
palace. But the form soon was determined as in fig. 13, and then means
were sought of recommending it by farther decoration.
The leaves which are used in fig. 13, it will be observed, have lost
the Corinthian volute, and are now pure and plain leaves, such as were
used in the Lombardic Gothic of the early thirteenth century all over
Italy. Now in a round-arched gateway at Verona, certainly not later than
1300; the pointed leaves of this pure form are used in one portion of
the mouldings, and in another are enriched by having their surfaces
carved each into a beautiful ribbed and pointed leaf. The capital, fig.
6, Plate II., is nothing more than fig. 13 so enriched; and the two
conditions are quite contemporary, fig. 13 being from a beautiful series
of fourth order windows in Campo Sta. M^a. Mater Domini, already drawn
in my folio work.
Fig. 13 is representative of the richest conditions of Gothic capital
which existed at the close of the thirteenth century. The builder of the
Ducal Palace amplified them into the form of fig. 9, but varying the
leafage in disposition and division of lobes in every capital; and the
workmen trained under him executed many noble capitals for the Gothic
palaces of the early fourteenth century, of which fig. 12, from a palace
in the Campo St. Polo, is one of the most beautiful examples. In figs. 9
and 12 the reader sees the Venetian Gothic capital in its noblest
developement. The next step was to such forms as fig. 15, which is
generally characteristic of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth
century Gothic, and of which I hope the reader will at once perceive the
exaggeration and corruption.
This capital is from a palace near the Miracoli, and it is remarkable
for the delicate, though corrupt, ornament on its abacus, which is
precisely the same as that on the pillars of the screen of St. Mark's.
That screen is a monument of very great value, for it shows the entire
corruption of the Gothic power, and the style of the later palaces
accurately and completely defined in all its parts, and is dated 1380;
thus at once furnishing us with a limiting date, which throws all the
noble work of the early Ducal Palace, and all that is like it in Venice,
thoroughly back into the middle of the fourteenth century at the latest.
Fig. 2 is the simplest condition of the capital universally employed in
the windows of the second order, noticed above, Vol. II., as belonging
to a style of great importance in the transitional architecture of
Venice. Observe, that in all the capitals given in the lateral columns
in Plate II., the points of the leaves _turn over_. But in this central
group they lie _flat_ against the angle of the capital, and form a
peculiarly light and lovely succession of forms, occurring only in their
purity in the windows of the second order, and in some important
monuments connected with them.
In fig. 2 the leaf at the angle is cut, exactly in the manner of an
Egyptian bas-relief, _into_ the stone, with a raised edge round it, and
a raised rib up the centre; and this mode of execution, seen also in
figs. 4 and 7, is one of the collateral evidences of early date. But in
figs. 5 and 8, where more elaborate effect was required, the leaf is
thrown out boldly with an even edge from the surface of the capital, and
enriched on its own surface: and as the treatment of fig. 2 corresponds
with that of fig. 4, so that of fig. 5 corresponds with that of fig. 6;
2 and 5 having the upright leaf, 4 and 6 the bending leaves; but all
contemporary.
Fig. 5 is the central capital of the windows of Casa Falier, drawn in
Plate XV. Vol. II.; and one of the leaves set on its angles is drawn
larger at fig. 7, Plate XX. Vol. II. It has no rib, but a sharp raised
ridge down its centre; and its lobes, of which the reader will observe
the curious form,--round in the middle one, truncated in the sides,--are
wrought with a precision and care which I have hardly ever seen
equalled: but of this more presently.
The next figure (8, Plate II.) is the most important capital of the
whole transitional period, that employed on the two columns of the
Piazzetta. These pillars are said to have been _raised_ in the close of
the twelfth century, but I cannot find even the most meagre account of
their bases, capitals, or, which seems to me most wonderful, of that
noble winged lion, one of the grandest things produced by mediæval art,
which all men admire, and none can draw. I have never yet seen a
faithful representation of his firm, fierce, and fiery strength. I
believe that both he and the capital which bears him are late thirteenth
century work. I have not been up to the lion, and cannot answer for it;
but if it be not thirteenth century work, it is as good; and respecting
the capitals, there can be small question. They are of exactly the date
of the oldest tombs, bearing crosses, outside of St. John and Paul; and
are associated with all the other work of the transitional period, from
1250 to 1300 (the bases of these pillars, representing the trades of
Venice, ought, by the by, to have been mentioned as among the best early
efforts of Venetian grotesque); and, besides, their abaci are formed by
four reduplications of the dentilled mouldings of St. Mark's, which
never occur after the year 1300.
Nothing can be more beautiful or original than the adaptation of these
broad bearing abaci; but as they have nothing to do with the capital
itself, and could not easily be brought into the space, they are omitted
in Plate II., where fig. 8 shows the bell of the capital only. Its
profile is curiously subtle,--apparently concave everywhere, but in
reality concave (all the way down) only on the angles, and slightly
convex at the sides (the profile through the side being 2 _k_, Plate X.
Vol. II.); in this subtlety of curvature, as well as in the simple
cross, showing the influence of early times.
The leaf on the angle, of which more presently, is fig. 5, Plate XX.
Vol. II.
Connected with this school of transitional capitals we find a form in
the later Gothic, such as fig. 14, from the Church of San Stefano; but
which appears in part derived from an old and rich Byzantine type, of
which fig. 11, from the Fondaco de' Turchi, is a characteristic example.
I must now take the reader one step farther, and ask him to examine,
finally, the treatment of the leaves, down to the cutting of their most
minute lobes, in the series of capitals of which we have hitherto only
sketched the general forms.
In all capitals with nodding leaves, such as 6 and 9 in Plate II., the
real form of the leaf is not to be seen, except in perspective; but, in
order to render the comparison more easy, I have in Plate XX. Vol. II.
opened all the leaves out, as if they were to be dried in a herbarium,
only leaving the furrows and sinuosities of surface, but laying the
outside contour nearly flat upon the page, except for a particular
reason in figs. 2, 10, 11, and 15.
I shall first, as usual, give the references, and then note the points
of interest.
1, 2, 3. Fondaco de' Turchi, upper arcade.
4. Greek pillars brought from St. Jean d'Acre.
5. Piazzetta shafts.
6. Madonnetta House.
PLATE XX. 7. Casa Falier.
Vol. II. 8. Palace near St. Eustachio.
9. Tombs, outside of St. John and Paul.
10. Tomb of Giovanni Soranzo.
11. Tomb of Andrea Dandolo.
12, 13, 14. Ducal Palace.
N.B. The upper row, 1 to 4, is Byzantine, the next transitional, the
last two Gothic.
Fig. 1. The leaf of the capital No. 6, Plate VIII. Vol. II. Each lobe of
the leaf has a sharp furrow up to its point, from its root.
Fig. 2. The leaf of the capital on the right hand, at the top of Plate
XII. in this volume. The lobes worked in the same manner, with deep
black drill holes between their points.
Fig. 3. One of the leaves of fig. 14, Plate VIII. Vol. II. fully
unfolded. The lobes worked in the same manner, but left shallow, so as
not to destroy the breadth of light; the central line being drawn by
drill holes, and the interstices between lobes cut black and deep.
Fig. 4. Leaf with flower; pure Byzantine work, showing whence the
treatment of all the other leaves has been derived.
Fig. 6. For the sake of symmetry, this is put in the centre: it is the
earliest of the three in this row; taken from the Madonnetta House,
where the capitals have leaves both at their sides and angles. The tall
angle leaf, with its two lateral ones, is given in the plate; and there
is a remarkable distinction in the mode of workmanship of these leaves,
which, though found in a palace of the Byzantine period, is indicative
of a tendency to transition; namely, that the sharp furrow is now drawn
_only to the central lobe_ of each division of the leaf, and the rest of
the surface of the leaf is left nearly flat, a slight concavity only
marking the division of the extremities. At the base of these leaves
they are perfectly flat, only cut by the sharp and narrow furrow, as an
elevated table-land is by ravines.
Fig. 5. A more advanced condition; the fold at the recess, between each
division of the leaf, carefully expressed, and the concave or depressed
portions of the extremities marked more deeply, as well as the central
furrow, and a rib added in the centre.
Fig. 7. A contemporary, but more finished form; the sharp furrows
becoming softer, and the whole leaf more flexible.
Fig. 8. An exquisite form of the same period, but showing still more
advanced naturalism, from a very early group of third order windows,
near the Church of St. Eustachio on the Grand Canal.
Fig. 9. Of the same time, from a small capital of an angle shaft of the
sarcophagi at the _side_ of St. John and Paul, in the little square
which is adorned by the Colleone statue. This leaf is very quaint and
pretty in giving its midmost lateral divisions only two lobes each,
instead of the usual three or four.
Fig. 10. Leaf employed in the cornice of the tomb of the Doge Giovanni
Soranzo, who died in 1312. It nods over, and has three ribs on its upper
surface; thus giving us the completed ideal form of the leaf, but its
execution is still very archaic and severe.
Now the next example, fig. 11, is from the tomb of the Doge Andrea
Dandolo, and therefore executed between 1354 and 1360; and this leaf
shows the Gothic naturalism and refinement of curvature fully developed.
In this forty years' interval, then, the principal advance of Gothic
sculpture is to be placed.
I had prepared a complete series of examples, showing this advance, and
the various ways in which the separations of the ribs, a most
characteristic feature, are more and more delicately and scientifically
treated, from the beginning to the middle of the fourteenth century, but
I feared that no general reader would care to follow me into these
minutiæ, and have cancelled this portion of the work, at least for the
present, the main point being, that the reader should feel the full
extent of the change, which he can hardly fail to do in looking from
fig. 10 to figs. 11 and 12. I believe that fig. 12 is the earlier of the
two; and it is assuredly the finer, having all the elasticity and
simplicity of the earliest forms, with perfect flexibility added. In
fig. 11 there is a perilous element beginning to develope itself into
one feature, namely, the extremities of the leaves, which, instead of
merely nodding over, now curl completely round into a kind of ball. This
occurs early, and in the finest Gothic work, especially in cornices and
other running mouldings: but it is a fatal symptom, a beginning of the
intemperance of the later Gothic, and it was followed out with singular
avidity; the ball of coiled leafage increasing in size and complexity,
and at last becoming the principal feature of the work; the light
striking on its vigorous projection, as in fig. 14. Nearly all the
Renaissance Gothic of Venice depends upon these balls for effect, a late
capital being generally composed merely of an upper and lower range of
leaves terminating in this manner.
It is very singular and notable how, in this loss of _temperance_, there
is loss of _life_. For truly healthy and living leaves do not bind
themselves into knots at the extremities. They bend, and wave, and nod,
but never curl. It is in disease, or in death, by blight, or frost, or
poison only, that leaves in general assume this ingathered form. It is
the flame of autumn that has shrivelled them, or the web of the
caterpillar that has bound them: and thus the last forms of the Venetian
leafage set forth the fate of Venetian pride; and, in their utmost
luxuriance and abandonment, perish as if eaten of worms.
And now, by glancing back to Plate X. Vol. II, the reader will see in a
moment the kind of evidence which is found of the date of capitals in
their profiles merely. Observe: we have seen that the treatment of the
leaves in the Madonnetta House seemed "indicative of a tendency to
transition." Note their profile, 1_a_, and its close correspondence with
1 _h_, which is actually of a transitional capital from the upper arcade
of second order windows in the Apostoli Palace; yet both shown to be
very close to the Byzantine period, if not belonging to it, by their
fellowship with the profile _i_, from the Fondaco de' Turchi. Then note
the close correspondence of all the other profiles in that line, which
belong to the concave capitals or plinths of the Byzantine palaces, and
note their composition, the abacus being, in idea, merely an echo or
reduplication of the capital itself; as seen in perfect simplicity in
the profile _f_, which is a roll under a _tall_ concave curve forming
the bell of the capital, with a roll and _short_ concave curve for its
abacus. This peculiar abacus is an unfailing test of early date; and our
finding this simple profile used for the Ducal Palace (_f_), is strongly
confirmatory of all our former conclusions.
Then the next row, 2, are the Byzantine and early Gothic semi-convex
curves, in their pure forms, having no roll below; but often with a roll
added, as at _f_, and in certain early Gothic conditions curiously fused
into it, with a cavetto between, as _b_, _c_, _d_. But the more archaic
form is as at _f_ and _k_; and as these two profiles are from the Ducal
Palace and Piazzetta shafts, they join again with the rest of the
evidence of their early date. The profiles _i_ and _k_ are both most
beautiful; _i_ is that of the great capitals of the Ducal Palace, and
the small profiles between it and _k_ are the varieties used on the
fillet at its base. The profile _i_ should have had leaves springing
from it, as 1 _h_ has, only more boldly, but there was no room for them.
The reader cannot fail to discern at a glance the fellowship of the
whole series of profiles, 2 _a_ to _k_, nor can he but with equal ease
observe a marked difference in 4 _d_ and 4 _e_ from any others in the
plate; the bulging outlines of leafage being indicative of the luxuriant
and flowing masses, no longer expressible with a simple line, but to be
considered only as confined within it, of the later Gothic. Now _d_ is a
dated profile from the tomb of St. Isidore, 1355, which by its dog-tooth
abacus and heavy leafage distinguishes itself from all the other
profiles, and therefore throws them back into the first half of the
century. But, observe, it still retains the noble swelling root. This
character soon after vanishes; and, in 1380, the profile _e_, at once
heavy, feeble, and ungraceful, with a meagre and valueless abacus hardly
discernible, is characteristic of all the capitals of Venice.
Note, finally, this contraction of the abacus. Compare 4 _c_, which is
the earliest form in the plate, from Murano, with 4 _e_, which is the
latest. The other profiles show the gradual process of change; only
observe, in 3_a_ the abacus is not drawn; it is so bold that it would
not come into the plate without reducing the bell curve to too small a
scale.
So much for the evidence derivable from the capitals; we have next to
examine that of the archivolts or arch mouldings.
[Illustration: Plate VIII.
BYZANTINE ARCHIVOLTS.]
_IV. Archivolts._
In Plate VIII., opposite, are arranged in one view all the conditions of
Byzantine archivolt employed in Venice, on a large scale. It will be
seen in an instant that there can be no mistaking the manner of their
masonry. The soffit of the arch is the horizontal line at the bottom of
all these profiles, and each of them (except 13, 14) is composed of two
slabs of marble, one for the soffit, another for the face of the arch;
the one on the soffit is worked on the edge into a roll (fig. 10) or
dentil (fig. 9), and the one on the face is bordered on the other side
by another piece let edgeways into the wall, and also worked into a roll
or dentil: in the richer archivolts a cornice is added to this roll, as
in figs. 1 and 4, or takes its place, as in figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6; and in
such richer examples the facestone, and often the soffit, are
sculptured, the sculpture being cut into their surfaces, as indicated in
fig. 11. The concavities cut in the facestones of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are all
indicative of sculpture in effect like that of Fig. XXVI. Vol. II., of
which archivolt fig. 5, here, is the actual profile. The following are
the references to the whole:
1. Rio-Foscari House.
2. Terraced House, entrance door.
3. Small Porticos of St. Mark's, external arches.
4. Arch on the canal at Ponte St. Toma.
5. Arch of Corte del Remer.
6. Great outermost archivolt of central door, St. Mark's.
PLATE VIII. 7. Inner archivolt of southern porch, St. Mark's Façade.
Vol. III. 8. Inner archivolt of central entrance, St. Mark's.
9. Fondaco de' Turchi, main arcade.
10. Byzantine restored house on Grand Canal, lower arcade.
11. Terraced House, upper arcade.
12. Inner archivolt of northern porch of façade, St. Mark's.
13 and 14. Transitional forms.
[Illustration: Plate IX.
GOTHIC ARCHIVOLTS.]
There is little to be noted respecting these forms, except that, in fig.
1, the two lower rolls, with the angular projections between, represent
the fall of the mouldings of two proximate arches on the abacus of the
bearing shaft; their two cornices meeting each other, and being
gradually narrowed into the little angular intermediate piece, their
sculptures being slurred into the contracted space, a curious proof of
the earliness of the work. The real archivolt moulding is the same as
fig. 4 _c c_, including only the midmost of the three rolls in fig. 1.
It will be noticed that 2, 5, 6, and 8 are sculptured on the soffits as
well as the faces; 9 is the common profile of arches decorated only with
colored marble, the facestone being colored, the soffit white. The
effect of such a moulding is seen in the small windows at the right hand
of Fig. XXVI. Vol. II.
The reader will now see that there is but little difficulty in
identifying Byzantine work, the archivolt mouldings being so similar
among themselves, and so unlike any others. We have next to examine the
Gothic forms.
Figs. 13 and 14 in Plate VIII. represent the first brick mouldings of
the transitional period, occurring in such instances as Fig. XXIII. or
Fig. XXXIII. Vol. II. (the soffit stone of the Byzantine mouldings being
taken away), and this profile, translated into solid stone, forms the
almost universal moulding of the windows of the second order. These two
brick mouldings are repeated, for the sake of comparison, at the top of
Plate IX. opposite; and the upper range of mouldings which they
commence, in that plate, are the brick mouldings of Venice in the early
Gothic period. All the forms below are in stone; and the moulding 2,
translated into stone, forms the universal archivolt of the early
pointed arches of Venice, and windows of second and third orders. The
moulding 1 is much rarer, and used for the most part in doors only.
The reader will see at once the resemblance of character in the various
flat brick mouldings, 3 to 11. They belong to such arches as 1 and 2 in
Plate XVII. Vol. II.; or 6 _b_, 6 _c_, in Plate XIV. Vol. II., 7 and 8
being actually the mouldings of those two doors; the whole group being
perfectly defined, and separate from all the other Gothic work in
Venice, and clearly the result of an effort to imitate, in brickwork,
the effect of the flat sculptured archivolts of the Byzantine times.
(See Vol. II. Chap. VII. § XXXVII.)
Then comes the group 14 to 18 in stone, derived from the mouldings 1 and
2; first by truncation, 14; then by beading the truncated angle, 15, 16.
The occurrence of the profile 16 in the three beautiful windows
represented in the uppermost figure of Plate XVIII. Vol. I. renders that
group of peculiar interest, and is strong evidence of its antiquity.
Then a cavetto is added, 17; first shallow and then deeper, 18, which is
the common archivolt moulding of the central Gothic door and window:
but, in the windows of the early fourth order, this moulding is
complicated by various additions of dog-tooth mouldings under the
dentil, as in 20; or the _gabled_ dentil (see fig. 20, Plate IX. Vol.
I), as fig. 21; or both, as figs 23, 24. All these varieties expire in
the advanced period, and the established moulding for windows is 29. The
intermediate group, 25 to 28, I found only in the high windows of the
third order in the Ducal Palace, or in the Chapter-house of the Frari,
or in the arcades of the Ducal Palace; the great outside lower arcade of
the Ducal Palace has the profile 31, the left-hand side being the
innermost.
Now observe, all these archivolts, without exception, assume that the
spectator looks from the outside only: none are complete on both sides;
they are essentially _window_ mouldings, and have no resemblance to
those of our perfect Gothic arches prepared for traceries. If they were
all completely drawn in the plate, they should be as fig. 25, having a
great depth of wall behind the mouldings, but it was useless to
represent this in every case. The Ducal Palace begins to show mouldings
on both sides, 28, 31; and 35 is a _complete_ arch moulding from the
apse of the Frari. That moulding, though so perfectly developed, is
earlier than the Ducal Palace, and with other features of the building,
indicates the completeness of the Gothic system, which made the
architect of the Ducal Palace found his work principally upon that
church.
The other examples in this plate show the various modes of combination
employed in richer archivolts. The triple change of slope in 38 is very
curious. The references are as follows:
1. Transitional to the second order.
2. Common second order.
3. Brick, at Corte del Forno, Round arch.
4. Door at San Giovanni Grisostomo.
5. Door at Sotto Portico della Stua.
6. Door in Campo St. Luca, of rich brickwork.
7. Round door at Fondamenta Venier.
8. Pointed door. Fig. 6_c_, Plate XIV. Vol. II.
9. Great pointed arch, Salizzada San Lio.
10. Round door near Fondaco de' Turchi.
11. Door with Lion, at Ponte della Corona.
12. San Gregorio, Façade.
13. St. John and Paul, Nave.
14. Rare early fourth order, at San Cassan.
15. General early Gothic archivolt.
16. Same, from door in Rio San G. Grisostomo.
17. Casa Vittura.
18. Casa Sagredo, Unique thirds. Vol. II.
19. Murano Palace, Unique fourths.[67]
PLATE IX. 20. Pointed door of Four-Evangelist House.[68]
Vol. III. 21. Keystone door in Campo St. M. Formosa.
22. Rare fourths, at St. Pantaleon.
23. Rare fourths, Casa Papadopoli.
24. Rare fourths, Chess house.[69]
25. Thirds of Frari Cloister.
26. Great pointed arch of Frari Cloister.
27. Unique thirds, Ducal Palace.
28. Inner Cortile, pointed arches, Ducal Palace.
29. Common fourth and fifth order Archivolt.
30. Unique thirds, Ducal Palace.
31. Ducal Palace, lower arcade.
32. Casa Priuli, arches in the inner court.
33. Circle above the central window, Ducal Palace.
34. Murano apse.
35. Acute-pointed arch, Frari.
36. Door of Accademia delle belle Arti.
37. Door in Calle Tiossi, near Four-Evangelist House.
38. Door in Campo San Polo.
39. Door of palace at Ponte Marcello.
40. Door of a palace close to the Church of the Miracoli.
_V. Cornices._
Plate X. represents, in one view, the cornices or string-courses of
Venice, and the abaci of its capitals, early and late; these two
features being inseparably connected, as explained in Vol. I.
The evidence given by these mouldings is exceedingly clear. The two
upper lines in the Plate, 1-11, 12-24, are all plinths from Byzantine
buildings. The reader will at once observe their unmistakable
resemblances. The row 41 to 50 are contemporary abaci of capitals; 52,
53, 54, 56, are examples of late Gothic abaci; and observe, especially,
these are all rounded at the _top_ of the cavetto, but the Byzantine
abaci are rounded, if at all, at the _bottom_ of the cavetto (see 7, 8,
9, 10, 20, 28, 46). Consider what a valuable test of date this is, in
any disputable building.
Again, compare 28, 29, one from St. Mark's, the other from the Ducal
Palace, and observe the close resemblance, giving farther evidence of
early date in the palace.
25 and 50 are drawn to the same scale. The former is the wall-cornice,
the latter the abacus of the great shafts, in the Casa Loredan; the one
passing into the other, as seen in Fig. XXVIII. Vol. I. It is curious to
watch the change in proportion, while the moulding, all but the lower
roll, remains the same.
[Illustration: Plate X.
CORNICES AND ABACI.]
The following are the references:
1. Common plinth of St. Mark's.
2. Plinth above lily capitals, St. Mark's.
3, 4. Plinths in early surface Gothic.
5. Plinth of door in Campo St. Luca.
6. Plinth of treasury door, St. Mark's.
7. Archivolts of nave, St. Mark's.
8. Archivolts of treasury door, St. Mark's.
9. Moulding of circular window in St. John and Paul.
10. Chief decorated narrow plinth, St. Mark's.
11. Plinth of door, Campo St. Margherita.
12. Plinth of tomb of Doge Vital Falier.
13. Lower plinth, Fondaco de' Turchi, and Terraced House.
14. Running plinth of Corte del Remer.
15. Highest plinth at top of Fondaco de' Turchi.
16. Common Byzantine plinth.
17. Running plinth of Casa Falier.
18. Plinth of arch at Ponte St. Toma.
19, 20, 21. Plinths of tomb of Doge Vital Falier.
22. Plinth of window in Calle del Pistor.
23. Plinth of tomb of Dogaressa Vital Michele.
24. Archivolt in the Frari.
25. Running plinth, Casa Loredan.
26. Running plinth, under pointed arch, in Salizzada San Lio.
27. Running plinth, Casa Erizzo.
PLATE X. 28. Circles in portico of St. Mark's.
Vol. III. 29. Ducal Palace cornice, lower arcade.
30. Ducal Palace cornice, upper arcade.
31. Central Gothic plinth.
32. Late Gothic plinth.
33. Late Gothic plinth, Casa degli Ambasciatori.
34. Late Gothic plinth, Palace near the Jesuiti.
35, 36. Central balcony cornice.
37. Plinth of St. Mark's balustrade.
38. Cornice of the Frari, in brick, cabled.
39. Central balcony plinth.
40. Uppermost cornice, Ducal Palace.
41. Abacus of lily capitals, St. Mark's.
42. Abacus, Fondaco de' Turchi.
43. Abacus, large capital of Terraced House.
44. Abacus, Fondaco de' Turchi.
45. Abacus, Ducal Palace, upper arcade.
46. Abacus, Corte del Remer.
47. Abacus, small pillars, St. Mark's pulpit.
48. Abacus, Murano and Torcello.
49. Abacus, Casa Farsetti.
50. Abacus, Casa Loredan, lower story.
51. Abacus, capitals of Frari.
52. Abacus, Casa Cavalli (plain).
53. Abacus, Casa Priuli (flowered).
54. Abacus, Casa Foscari (plain).
55. Abacus, Casa Priuli (flowered).
56. Abacus, Plate II. fig. 15.
57. Abacus, St. John and Paul.
58. Abacus, St. Stefano.
It is only farther to be noted, that these mouldings are used in various
proportions, for all kinds of purposes: sometimes for true cornices;
sometimes for window-sills; sometimes, 3 and 4 (in the Gothic time)
especially, for dripstones of gables: 11 and such others form little
plinths or abaci at the spring of arches, such as those shown at _a_,
Fig. XXIII. Vol. II. Finally, a large number of superb Byzantine
cornices occur, of the form shown at the top of the arch in Plate V.
Vol. II., having a profile like 16 or 19 here; with nodding leaves of
acanthus thrown out from it, being, in fact, merely one range of the
leaves of a Byzantine capital unwrapped, and formed into a continuous
line. I had prepared a large mass of materials for the illustration of
these cornices, and the Gothic ones connected with them; but found the
subject would take up another volume, and was forced, for the present,
to abandon it. The lower series of profiles, 7 to 12 in Plate XV. Vol.
I, shows how the leaf-ornament is laid on the simple early cornices.
_VI. Traceries._
We have only one subject more to examine, the character of the early and
late Tracery Bars.
The reader may perhaps have been surprised at the small attention given
to traceries in the course of the preceding volumes: but the reason is,
that there are no _complicated_ traceries at Venice belonging to the
good Gothic time, with the single exception of those of the Casa
Cicogna; and the magnificent arcades of the Ducal Palace Gothic are so
simple as to require little explanation.
There are, however, two curious circumstances in the later traceries;
the first, that they are universally considered by the builder (as the
old Byzantines considered sculptured surfaces of stone) as material out
of which a certain portion is _to be cut_, to fill his window. A fine
Northern Gothic tracery is a complete and systematic arrangement of
arches and foliation, _adjusted_ to the form of the window; but a
Venetian tracery is a piece of a larger composition, cut to the shape of
the window. In the Porta della Carta, in the Church of the Madonna
dell'Orto, in the Casa Bernardo on the Grand Canal, in the old Church of
the Misericordia, and wherever else there are rich traceries in Venice,
it will always be found that a certain arrangement of quatrefoils and
other figures has been planned as if it were to extend indefinitely into
miles of arcade; and out of this colossal piece of marble lace, a piece
in the shape of a window is cut, mercilessly and fearlessly: whatever
fragments and odd shapes of interstice, remnants of this or that figure
of the divided foliation, may occur at the edge of the window, it
matters not; all are cut across, and shut in by the great outer
archivolt.
It is very curious to find the Venetians treating what in other
countries became of so great individual importance, merely as a kind of
diaper ground, like that of their chequered colors on the walls. There
is great grandeur in the idea, though the system of their traceries was
spoilt by it: but they always treated their buildings as masses of color
rather than of line; and the great traceries of the Ducal Palace itself
are not spared any more than those of the minor palaces. They are cut
off at the flanks in the middle of the quatrefoils, and the terminal
mouldings take up part of the breadth of the poor half of a quatrefoil
at the extremity.
One other circumstance is notable also. In good Northern Gothic the
tracery bars are of a constant profile, the same on both sides; and if
the plan of the tracery leaves any interstices so small that there is
not room for the full profile of the tracery bar all round them, those
interstices are entirely closed, the tracery bars being supposed to have
met each other. But in Venice, if an interstice becomes anywhere
inconveniently small, the tracery bar is sacrificed; cut away, or in
some way altered in profile, in order to afford more room for the light,
especially in the early traceries, so that one side of a tracery bar is
often quite different from the other. For instance, in the bars 1 and 2,
Plate XI., from the Frari and St. John and Paul, the uppermost side is
towards a great opening, and there was room for the bevel or slope to
the cusp; but in the other side the opening was too small, and the bar
falls vertically to the cusp. In 5 the uppermost side is to the narrow
aperture, and the lower to the small one; and in fig. 9, from the Casa
Cicogna, the uppermost side is to the apertures of the tracery, the
lowermost to the arches beneath, the great roll following the design of
the tracery; while 13 and 14 are left without the roll at the base of
their cavettos on the uppermost sides, which are turned to narrow
apertures. The earliness of the Casa Cicogna tracery is seen in a moment
by its being moulded on the face only. It is in fact nothing more than a
series of quatrefoiled apertures in the solid wall of the house, with
mouldings on their faces, and magnificent arches of pure pointed fifth
order sustaining them below.
[Illustration: Plate XI.
TRACERY BARS.]
The following are the references to the figures in the plate:
1. Frari.
2. Apse, St. John and Paul.
3. Frari.
4. Ducal Palace, inner court, upper window.
5. Madonna dell'Orto.
6. St. John and Paul.
7. Casa Bernardo.
8. Casa Contarini Fasan.
9. Casa Cicogna.
10. 11. Frari.
12. Murano Palace (see note, p. 265).
PLATE XI. 13. Misericordia.
Vol. III. 14. Palace of the younger Foscari.[70]
15. Casa d'Oro; great single windows.
16. Hotel Danieli.
17. Ducal Palace.
18. Casa Erizzo, on Grand Canal.
19. Main story, Casa Cavalli.
20. Younger Foscari.
21. Ducal Palace, traceried windows.
22. Porta della Carta.
23. Casa d'Oro.
24. Casa d'Oro, upper story.
25. Casa Facanon.
26. Casa Cavalli, near Post-Office.
It will be seen at a glance that, except in the very early fillet
traceries of the Frari and St. John and Paul, Venetian work consists of
roll traceries of one general pattern. It will be seen also, that 10 and
11 from the Frari, furnish the first examples of the form afterwards
completely developed in 17, the tracery bar of the Ducal Palace; but
that this bar differs from them in greater strength and squareness, and
in adding a recess between its smaller roll and the cusp. Observe, that
this is done for strength chiefly; as, in the contemporary tracery (21)
of the upper windows, no such additional thickness is used.
Figure 17 is slightly inaccurate. The little curved recesses behind the
smaller roll are not equal on each side; that next the cusp is smallest,
being about 5/8 of an inch, while that next the cavetto is about 7/8; to
such an extent of subtlety did the old builders carry their love of
change.
The return of the cavetto in 21, 23, and 26, is comparatively rare, and
is generally a sign of later date.
[Illustration: Fig. II.]
[Illustration: Fig. III.]
The reader must observe that the great sturdiness of the form of the
bars, 5, 9, 17, 24, 25, is a consequence of the peculiar office of
Venetian traceries in supporting the mass of the building above, already
noticed in Vol. II.; and indeed the forms of the Venetian Gothic are,
in many other ways, influenced by the difficulty of obtaining stability
on sandy foundations. One thing is especially noticeable in all their
arrangements of traceries; namely, the endeavor to obtain equal and
horizontal pressure along the whole breadth of the building, not the
divided and local pressures of Northern Gothic. This object is
considerably aided by the structure of the balconies, which are of great
service in knitting the shafts together, forming complete tie-beams of
marble, as well as a kind of rivets, at their bases. For instance, at
_b_, Fig. II., is represented the masonry of the base of the upper
arcade of the Ducal Palace, showing the root of one of its main shafts,
with the binding balconies. The solid stones which form the foundation
are much broader than the balcony shafts, so that the socketed
arrangement is not seen: it is shown as it would appear in a
longitudinal section. The balconies are not let into the circular
shafts, but fitted to their circular curves, so as to grasp them, and
riveted with metal; and the bars of stone which form the tops of the
balconies are of great strength and depth, the small trefoiled arches
being cut out of them as in Fig. III., so as hardly to diminish their
binding power. In the lighter independent balconies they are often cut
deeper; but in all cases the bar of stone is nearly independent of the
small shafts placed beneath it, and would stand firm though these were
removed, as at _a_, Fig. II., supported either by the main shafts of
the traceries, or by its own small pilasters with semi-shafts at their
sides, of the plan _d_, Fig. II., in a continuous balcony, and _e_ at
the angle of one.
There is one more very curious circumstance illustrative of the Venetian
desire to obtain horizontal pressure. In all the Gothic staircases with
which I am acquainted, out of Venice, in which vertical shafts are used
to support an inclined line, those shafts are connected by arches rising
each above the other, with a little bracket above the capitals, on the
side where it is necessary to raise the arch; or else, though less
gracefully, with a longer curve to the lowest side of the arch.
But the Venetians seem to have had a morbid horror of arches which were
not _on a level_. They could not endure the appearance of the roof of
one arch bearing against the side of another; and rather than introduce
the idea of obliquity into bearing curves, they abandoned the arch
principle altogether; so that even in their richest Gothic staircases,
where trefoiled arches, exquisitely decorated, are used on the landings,
they ran the shafts on the sloping stair simply into the bar of stone
above them, and used the excessively ugly and valueless arrangement of
Fig. II., rather than sacrifice the sacred horizontality of their arch
system.
[Illustration: Fig. IV.]
It will be noted, in Plate XI., that the form and character of the
tracery bars themselves are independent of the position or projection of
the cusps on their flat sides. In this respect, also, Venetian traceries
are peculiar, the example 22 of the Porta della Carta being the only one
in the plate which is subordinated according to the Northern system. In
every other case the form of the aperture is determined, either by a
flat and solid cusp as in 6, or by a pierced cusp as in 4. The effect of
the pierced cusp is seen in the uppermost figure, Plate XVIII. Vol. II.;
and its derivation from the solid cusp will be understood, at once, from
the woodcut Fig. IV., which represents a series of the flanking stones
of any arch of the fifth order, such as _f_ in Plate III. Vol. I.
[Illustration: Fig. V.]
The first on the left shows the condition of cusp in a perfectly simple
and early Gothic arch, 2 and 3 are those of common arches of the fifth
order, 4 is the condition in more studied examples of the Gothic
advanced guard, and 5 connects them all with the system of traceries.
Introducing the common archivolt mouldings on the projecting edge of 2
and 3, we obtain the bold and deep fifth order window, used down to the
close of the fourteenth century or even later, and always grand in its
depth of cusp, and consequently of shadow; but the narrow cusp 4 occurs
also in very early work, and is piquant when set beneath a bold flat
archivolt, as in Fig. V., from the Corte del Forno at Santa Marina. The
pierced cusp gives a peculiar lightness and brilliancy to the window,
but is not so sublime. In the richer buildings the surface of the flat
and solid cusp is decorated with a shallow trefoil (see Plate VIII. Vol.
I.), or, when the cusp is small, with a triangular incision only, as
seen in figs. 7 and 8, Plate XI. The recesses on the sides of the other
cusps indicate their single or double lines of foliation. The cusp of
the Ducal Palace has a fillet only round its edge, and a ball of red
marble on its truncated point, and is perfect in its grand simplicity;
but in general the cusps of Venice are far inferior to those of Verona
and of the other cities of Italy, chiefly because there was always some
confusion in the mind of the designer between true cusps and the mere
bending inwards of the arch of the fourth order. The two series, 4 _a_
to 4 _e_, and 5 _a_ to 5 _e_, in Plate XIV. Vol. II., are arranged so as
to show this connexion, as well as the varieties of curvature in the
trefoiled arches of the fourth and fifth orders, which, though
apparently slight on so small a scale, are of enormous importance in
distant effect; a house in which the joints of the cusps project as much
as in 5 _c_, being quite piquant and grotesque when compared with one in
which the cusps are subdued to the form 5 _b_. 4 _d_ and 4 _e_ are
Veronese forms, wonderfully effective and spirited; the latter occurs at
Verona only, but the former at Venice also. 5 _d_ occurs in Venice, but
is very rare; and 5 _e_ I found only once, on the narrow canal close to
the entrance door of the Hotel Danieli. It was partly walled up, but I
obtained leave to take down the brickwork and lay open one side of the
arch, which may still be seen.
* * * * *
The above particulars are enough to enable the reader to judge of the
distinctness of evidence which the details of Venetian architecture bear
to its dates. Farther explanation of the plates would be vainly tedious:
but the architect who uses these volumes in Venice will find them of
value, in enabling him instantly to class the mouldings which may
interest him; and for this reason I have given a larger number of
examples than would otherwise have been sufficient for my purpose.
FOOTNOTES:
[58] "Olim _magistri_ prothi palatii nostri novi."--_Cadorin_, p. 127.
[59] A print, dated 1585, barbarously inaccurate, as all prints were
at that time, but still in some respects to be depended upon,
represents all the windows on the façade full of traceries; and the
circles above, between them, occupied by quatrefoils.
[60] "Lata tanto, quantum est ambulum existens super columnis versus
canale respicientibus."
[61] Bettio, p. 28.
[62] In the bombardment of Venice in 1848, hardly a single palace
escaped without three or four balls through its roof: three came
into the Scuola di San Rocco, tearing their way through the pictures
of Tintoret, of which the ragged fragments were still hanging from
the ceiling in 1851; and the shells had reached to within a hundred
yards of St. Mark's Church itself, at the time of the capitulation.
[63] A _Mohammedan_ youth is punished, I believe, for such
misdemeanors, by being _kept away_ from prayers.
[64] "Those Venetians are fishermen."
[65] I am afraid that the kind friend, Lady Trevelyan, who helped me
to finish this plate, will not like to be thanked here; but I cannot
let her send into Devonshire for magnolias, and draw them for me,
_without_ thanking her.
[66] That is, the house in the parish of the Apostoli, on the Grand
Canal, noticed in Vol. II.; and see also the Venetian Index, under
head "Apostoli."
[67] Close to the bridge over the main channel through Murano is a
massive foursquare Gothic palace, containing some curious traceries,
and many _unique_ transitional forms of window, among which these
windows of the fourth order occur, with a roll within their dentil
band.
[68] Thus, for the sake of convenience, we may generally call the
palace with the emblems of the Evangelists on its spandrils, Vol.
II.
[69] The house with chequers like a chess-board on its spandrils,
given in my folio work.
[70] The palace next the Casa Foscari, on the Grand Canal, sometimes
said to have belonged to the son of the Doge.
INDICES.
I. PERSONAL INDEX. | III. TOPICAL INDEX.
II. LOCAL INDEX. | IV. VENETIAN INDEX.
The first of the following Indices contains the names of persons; the
second those of places (not in Venice) alluded to in the body of the
work. The third Index consists of references to the subjects touched
upon. In the fourth, called the Venetian Index, I have named every
building of importance in the city of Venice itself, or near it;
supplying, for the convenience of the traveller, short notices of those
to which I had no occasion to allude in the text of the work; and making
the whole as complete a guide as I could, with such added directions as
I should have given to any private friend visiting the city. As,
however, in many cases, the opinions I have expressed differ widely from
those usually received; and, in other instances, subjects which may be
of much interest to the traveller have not come within the scope of my
inquiry; the reader had better take Lazari's small Guide in his hand
also, as he will find in it both the information I have been unable to
furnish, and the expression of most of the received opinions upon any
subject of art.
Various inconsistencies will be noticed in the manner of indicating the
buildings, some being named in Italian, some in English, and some half
in one, and half in the other. But these inconsistencies are permitted
in order to save trouble, and make the Index more practically useful.
For instance, I believe the traveller will generally look for "Mark,"
rather than for "Marco," when he wishes to find the reference to St.
Mark's Church; but I think he will look for Rocco, rather than for Roch,
when he is seeking for the account of the Scuola di San Rocco. So also I
have altered the character in which the titles of the plates are
printed, from the black letter in the first volume, to the plain Roman
in the second and third; finding experimentally that the former
character was not easily legible, and conceiving that the book would be
none the worse for this practical illustration of its own principles, in
a daring sacrifice of symmetry to convenience.
These alphabetical Indices will, however, be of little use, unless
another, and a very different kind of Index, be arranged in the mind of
the reader; an Index explanatory of the principal purposes and contents
of the various parts of this essay. It is difficult to analyze the
nature of the reluctance with which either a writer or painter takes it
upon him to explain the meaning of his own work, even in cases where,
without such explanation, it must in a measure remain always disputable:
but I am persuaded that this reluctance is, in most instances, carried
too far; and that, wherever there really is a serious purpose in a book
or a picture, the author does wrong who, either in modesty or vanity
(both feelings have their share in producing the dislike of personal
interpretation), trusts entirely to the patience and intelligence of the
readers or spectators to penetrate into their significance. At all
events, I will, as far as possible, spare such trouble with respect to
these volumes, by stating here, finally and clearly, both what they
intend and what they contain; and this the rather because I have lately
noticed, with some surprise, certain reviewers announcing as a
discovery, what I thought had lain palpably on the surface of the book,
namely, that "if Mr. Ruskin be right, all the architects, and all the
architectural teaching of the last three hundred years, must have been
wrong." That is indeed precisely the fact; and the very thing I meant to
say, which indeed I thought I had said over and over again. I believe
the architects of the last three centuries to have been wrong; wrong
without exception; wrong totally, and from the foundation. This is
exactly the point I have been endeavoring to prove, from the beginning
of this work to the end of it. But as it seems not yet to have been
stated clearly enough, I will here try to put my entire theorem into an
unmistakable form.
The various nations who attained eminence in the arts before the time of
Christ, each of them, produced forms of architecture which in their
various degrees of merit were almost exactly indicative of the degrees
of intellectual and moral energy of the nations which originated them;
and each reached its greatest perfection at the time when the true
energy and prosperity of the people who had invented it were at their
culminating point. Many of these various styles of architecture were
good, considered in relation to the times and races which gave birth to
them; but none were absolutely good or perfect, or fitted for the
practice of all future time.
The advent of Christianity for the first time rendered possible the full
development of the soul of man, and therefore the full development of
the arts of man.
Christianity gave birth to a new architecture, not only immeasurably
superior to all that had preceded it, but demonstrably the best
architecture that _can_ exist; perfect in construction and decoration,
and fit for the practice of all time.
This architecture, commonly called "Gothic," though in conception
perfect, like the theory of a Christian character, never reached an
actual perfection, having been retarded and corrupted by various adverse
influences; but it reached its highest perfection, hitherto manifested,
about the close of the thirteenth century, being then indicative of a
peculiar energy in the Christian mind of Europe.
In the course of the fifteenth century, owing to various causes which I
have endeavored to trace in the preceding pages, the Christianity of
Europe was undermined; and a Pagan architecture was introduced, in
imitation of that of the Greeks and Romans.
The architecture of the Greeks and Romans themselves was not good, but
it was natural; and, as I said before, good in some respects, and for a
particular time.
But the imitative architecture introduced first in the fifteenth
century, and practised ever since, was neither good nor natural. It was
good in no respect, and for no time. All the architects who have built
in that style have built what was worthless; and therefore the greater
part of the architecture which has been built for the last three hundred
years, and which we are now building, is worthless. We must give up this
style totally, despise it and forget it, and build henceforward only in
that perfect and Christian style hitherto called Gothic, which is
everlastingly the best.
This is the theorem of these volumes.
In support of this theorem, the first volume contains, in its first
chapter, a sketch of the actual history of Christian architecture, up to
the period of the Reformation; and, in the subsequent chapters, an
analysis of the entire system of the laws of architectural construction
and decoration, deducing from those laws positive conclusions as to the
best forms and manners of building for all time.
The second volume contains, in its first five chapters, an account of
one of the most important and least known forms of Christian
architecture, as exhibited in Venice, together with an analysis of its
nature in the fourth chapter; and, which is a peculiarly important part
of this section, an account of the power of color over the human mind.
The sixth chapter of the second volume contains an analysis of the
nature of Gothic architecture, properly so called, and shows that in its
external form it complies precisely with the abstract laws of structure
and beauty, investigated in the first volume. The seventh and eighth
chapters of the second volume illustrate the nature of Gothic
architecture by various Venetian examples. The third volume
investigates, in its first chapter, the causes and manner of the
corruption of Gothic architecture; in its second chapter, defines the
nature of the Pagan architecture which superseded it; in the third
chapter, shows the connexion of that Pagan architecture with the various
characters of mind which brought about the destruction of the Venetian
nation; and, in the fourth chapter, points out the dangerous tendencies
in the modern mind which the practice of such an architecture indicates.
Such is the intention of the preceding pages, which I hope will no more
be doubted or mistaken. As far as regards the manner of its fulfilment,
though I hope, in the course of other inquiries, to add much to the
elucidation of the points in dispute, I cannot feel it necessary to
apologize for the imperfect handling of a subject which the labor of a
long life, had I been able to bestow it, must still have left
imperfectly treated.
I.
PERSONAL INDEX.
A
Alberti, Duccio degli, his tomb, iii. 74, 80.
Alexander III., his defence by Venetians, i. 7.
Ambrose, St., his verbal subtleties, ii. 320.
Angelico, Frà, artistical power of, i. 400; his influence on
Protestants, ii. 105; his coloring, ii. 145.
Aristotle, his evil influence on the modern mind, ii. 319.
Averulinus, his book on architecture, iii. 63.
B
Barbaro, monuments of the family, iii. 125.
Barbarossa, Emperor, i. 7, 9.
Baseggio, Pietro, iii. 199.
Bellini, John, i. 11; his kindness to Albert Durer, i. 383; general
power of, see Venetian Index, under head "Giovanni Grisostomo;"
Gentile, his brother, iii. 21.
Berti, Bellincion, ii. 263.
Browning, Elizabeth B., her poetry, ii. 206.
Bunsen, Chevalier, his work on Romanesque Churches, ii. 381.
Bunyan, John, his portraiture of constancy, ii. 333; of patience, ii.
334; of vanity, ii. 346; of sin, iii. 147.
C
Calendario, Filippo, iii. 199.
Canaletto, i. 24; and see Venetian Index under head "Carità."
Canova, i. 217; and see Venetian Index under head "Frari."
Cappello, Vincenzo, his tomb, iii. 122.
Caracci, school of the, i. 24.
Cary, his translation of Dante, ii. 264.
Cavalli, Jacopo, his tomb, iii. 82.
Cicero, influence of his philosophy, ii. 317, 318.
Claude Lorraine, i. 24.
Comnenus, Manuel, ii. 263.
Cornaro, Marco, his tomb, iii. 79.
Correggio, ii. 192.
Crabbe, naturalism in his poetry, ii. 195.
D
Dandolo, Andrea, tomb of, ii. 70; Francesco, tomb of, iii. 74;
character of, iii. 76; Simon, tomb of, iii. 79.
Dante, his central position, ii. 340, iii. 158; his system of virtue,
ii. 323; his portraiture of sin, iii. 147.
Daru, his character as a historian, iii. 213.
Dolci, Carlo, ii. 105.
Dolfino, Giovanni, tomb of, iii. 78.
Durer, Albert, his rank as a landscape painter, i. 383; his power in
grotesque, iii. 145.
E
Edwin, King, his conversion, iii. 62.
F
Faliero, Bertuccio, his tomb, iii. 94; Marino, his house, ii. 254;
Vitale, miracle in his time, ii. 61.
Fergusson, James, his system of beauty, i. 388.
Foscari, Francesco, his reign, i. 4, iii. 165; his tomb, iii. 84; his
countenance, iii. 86.
G
Garbett, answer to Mr., i. 403.
Ghiberti, his sculpture, i. 217.
Giotto, his system of the virtues, ii. 323, 329, 341; his rank as a
painter, ii. 188, iii. 172.
Giulio Romano, i. 23.
Giustiniani, Marco, his tomb, i. 315; Sebastian, ambassador to
England, iii. 224.
Godfrey of Bouillon, his piety, iii. 62.
Gozzoli, Benozzo, ii. 195.
Gradenigo, Pietro, ii. 290.
Grande, Can, della Scala, his tomb, i. 268 (the cornice _g_ in Plate
XVI. is taken from it), iii. 71.
Guariento, his Paradise, ii. 296.
Guercino, ii. 105.
H
Hamilton, Colonel, his paper on the Serapeum, ii. 220.
Hobbima, iii. 184.
Hunt, William, his painting of peasant boys, ii. 192; of still life,
ii. 394.
Hunt, William Holman, relation of his works to modern and ancient
art, iii. 185.
K
Knight, Gally, his work on Architecture, i. 378.
L
Leonardo da Vinci, ii. 171.
Louis XI., iii. 194.
M
Martin, John, ii. 104.
Mastino, Can, della Scala, his tomb, ii. 224, iii. 72.
Maynard, Miss, her poems, ii. 397.
Michael Angelo, ii. 134, 188, iii. 56, 90, 99, 158.
Millais, John E., relation of his works to older art, iii. 185;
aerial perspective in his "Huguenot," iii. 47.
Milton, how inferior to Dante, iii. 147.
Mocenigo, Tomaso, his character, i. 4; his speech on rebuilding the
Ducal Palace, ii. 299; his tomb, i. 26, iii. 84.
Morosini, Carlo, Count, note on Daru's History by, iii. 213.
Morosini, Marino, his tomb, iii. 93.
Morosini, Michael, his character, iii. 213;
his tomb, iii. 80.
Murillo, his sensualism, ii. 192.
N
Napoleon, his genius in civil administration, i. 399.
Niccolo Pisano, i. 215.
O
Orcagna, his system of the virtues, ii. 329.
Orseolo, Pietro (Doge), iii. 120.
Otho the Great, his vow at Murano, ii. 32.
P
Palladio, i. 24, 146; and see Venetian Index, under head "Giorgio
Maggiore."
Participazio, Angelo, founds the Ducal Palace, ii. 287.
Pesaro, Giovanni, tomb of, iii. 92; Jacopo, tomb of, iii. 91.
Philippe de Commynes, i. 12.
Plato, influence of his philosophy, ii. 317, 338; his playfulness,
iii. 127.
Poussin, Nicolo and Gaspar, i. 23.
Procaccini, Camillo, ii. 188.
Prout, Samuel, his style, i. 250, iii. 19, 134.
Pugin, Welby, his rank as an architect, i. 385.
Q
Querini, Marco, his palace, ii. 255.
R
Raffaelle, ii. 188, iii. 56, 108, 136.
Reynolds, Sir J., his painting at New College, ii. 323; his general
manner, iii. 184.
Rogers, Samuel, his works, ii. 195, iii. 113.
Rubens, intellectual rank of, i. 400;
coarseness of, ii. 145.
S
Salvator Rosa, i. 24, ii. 105, 145, 188.
Scaligeri, tombs of, at Verona; see "Grande," "Mastino," "Signorio;"
palace of, ii. 257.
Scott, Sir W., his feelings of romance, iii. 191.
Shakspeare, his "Seven Ages," whence derived, ii. 361.
Sharpe, Edmund, his works, i. 342, 408.
Signorio, Can, della Scala, his tomb, character, i. 268, iii. 73.
Simplicius, St., ii. 356.
Spenser, value of his philosophy, ii. 327, 341; his personifications
of the months, ii. 272; his system of the virtues, ii. 326; scheme of
the first book of the Faërie Queen, iii. 205.
Steno, Michael, ii. 306; his tomb, ii. 296.
Stothard (the painter), his works, ii. 187, 195.
Symmachus, St., ii. 357.
T
Teniers, David, ii. 188.
Tiepolo, Jacopo and Lorenzo, their tombs, iii. 69; Bajamonte, ii.
255.
Tintoret, i. 12; his genius and function, ii. 149; his Paradise, ii.
304, 372; his rank among the men of Italy, iii. 158.
Titian, i. 12; his function and fall, ii. 149, 187.
Turner, his rank as a landscape painter, i. 382, ii. 187.
U
Uguccione, Benedetto, destroys Giotto's façade at Florence, i. 197.
V
Vendramin, Andrea (Doge), his tomb, i. 27, iii. 88.
Verocchio, Andrea, iii. 11, 13.
Veronese, Paul, artistical rank of, i. 400; his designs of
balustrades, ii. 247; and see in Venetian Index, "Ducal Palace,"
"Pisani," "Sebastian," "Redentore," "Accademia."
W
West, Benjamin, ii. 104.
Wordsworth, his observation of nature, i. 247 (note).
Z
Zeno, Carlo, i. 4, iii. 80.
Ziani, Sebastian (Doge), builds Ducal Palace, ii. 289.
II.
LOCAL INDEX.
A
Abbeville, door of church at, ii. 225; parapet at, ii. 245.
Alexandria, Church at, i. 381.
Alhambra, ornamentation of, i. 429.
Alps, how formed for distant effect, i. 247; how seen from Venice,
ii. 2, 28.
Amiens, pillars of Cathedral at, i. 102.
Arqua, hills of, how seen from Venice, ii. 2.
Assisi, Giotto's paintings at, ii. 323.
B
Beauvais, piers of Cathedral at, i. 93; grandeur of its buttress
structure, i. 170.
Bergamo, Duomo at, i. 275.
Bologna, Palazzo Pepoli at, i. 275.
Bourges, Cathedral at, i. 43, 102, 228, 271, 299; ii. 92, 186; house
of Jacques Coeur at, i. 346.
C
Chamouni, glacier forms at, i. 222.
Como, Broletto of, i. 141, 339.
D
Dijon, pillars in Church of Notre Dame at, i. 102; tombs of Dukes of
Burgundy, iii. 68.
E
Edinburgh, college at, i. 207.
F
Falaise (St. Gervaise at), piers of, i. 103.
Florence, Cathedral of, i. 197, iii. 13.
G
Gloucester, Cathedral of, i. 192.
L
Lombardy, geology of, ii. 5.
London, Church in Margaret Street, Portland Place, iii. 196; Temple
Church, i. 412; capitals in Belgrave and Grosvenor Squares, i. 330;
Bank of England, base of, i. 283; wall of, typical of accounts, i.
295; statue in King William Street, i. 210; shops in Oxford Street,
i. 202; Arthur Club-house, i. 295; Athenæum Club-house, i. 157, 283;
Duke of York's Pillar, i. 283; Treasury, i. 205; Whitehall, i. 205;
Westminster, fall of houses at, ii. 268; Monument, i. 82, 283; Nelson
Pillar, i. 216; Wellington Statue, i. 257.
Lucca, Cathedral of, ii. 275; San Michele at, i. 375.
Lyons, porch of cathedral at, i. 379.
M
Matterhorn (Mont Cervin), structure of, i. 58; lines of, applied to
architecture, i. 308, 310, 332.
Mestre, scene in street of, i. 355.
Milan, St. Ambrogio, piers of, i. 102; capital of, i. 324; St.
Eustachio, tomb of St. Peter Martyr, i. 218.
Moulins, brickwork at, i. 296.
Murano, general aspect of, ii. 29; Duomo of, ii. 32; balustrades of,
ii. 247; inscriptions at, ii. 384.
N
Nineveh, style of its decorations, i. 234, 239; iii. 159.
O
Orange (South France), arch at, i. 250.
Orleans, Cathedral of, i. 95.
P
Padua, Arena chapel at, ii. 324; St. Antonio at, i. 135; St. Sofia
at, i. 327; Eremitani, Church of, at, i. 135.
Paris, Hotel des Invalides, i. 214; Arc de l'Etoile, i. 291; Colonne
Vendome, i. 212.
Pavia, St. Michele at, piers of, i. 102, 337; ornaments of, i. 376.
Pisa, Baptistery of, ii. 275.
Pistoja, San Pietro at, i. 295.
R
Ravenna, situation of, ii. 6.
Rouen, Cathedral, piers of, i. 103, 153; pinnacles of, ii. 213; St.
Maclou at, sculptures of, ii. 197.
S
Salisbury Cathedral, piers of, i. 102; windows at, ii. 224.
Sens, Cathedral of, i. 135.
Switzerland, cottage architecture of, i. 156, 203, iii. 133.
V
Verona, San Fermo at, i. 136, ii. 259; Sta. Anastasia at, i. 142;
Duomo of, i. 373; St. Zeno at, i. 373; balconies at, ii. 247;
archivolt at, i. 335; tombs at, see in Personal Index, "Grande,"
"Mastino," "Signorio."
Vevay, architecture of, i. 136.
Vienne (South France), Cathedral of, i. 274.
W
Warwick, Guy's tower at, i. 168.
Wenlock (Shropshire), Abbey of, i. 270.
Winchester, Cathedral of, i. 192.
Y
York, Minster of, i. 205, 313.
III.
TOPICAL INDEX.
A
Abacus, defined, i. 107; law of its proportion, i. 111-115; its
connection with cornices, i. 116; its various profiles, i. 319-323;
iii. 243-248.
Acanthus, leaf of, its use in architecture, i. 233; how treated at
Torcello, ii. 15.
Alabaster, use of, in incrustation, ii. 86.
Anachronism, necessity of, in the best art, ii. 198.
Anatomy, a disadvantageous study for artists, iii. 47.
Angels, use of their images in Venetian heraldry, ii. 278; statues
of, on the Ducal Palace, ii. 311.
Anger, how symbolically represented, ii. 344.
Angles, decoration of, i. 260; ii. 305; of Gothic Palaces, ii. 238;
of Ducal Palace, ii. 307.
Animal character in northern and southern climates, ii. 156; in
grotesque art, iii. 149.
Apertures, analysis of their structure, i. 50; general forms of, i.
174.
Apse, forms of, in southern and northern churches compared, i. 170.
Arabesques of Raffaelle, their baseness, iii. 136.
Arabian architecture, i. 18, 234, 235, 429; ii. 135.
Arches, general structure of, i. 122; moral characters of, i. 126;
lancet, round, and depressed, i. 129; four-centred, i. 130; ogee, i.
131; non-concentric, i. 133, 341; masonry of, i. 133, ii. 218; load
of, i. 144; are not derived from vegetation, ii. 201.
Architects, modern, their unfortunate position, i. 404, 407.
Architecture, general view of its divisions, i. 47-51; how to judge
of it, ii. 173; adaptation of, to requirements of human mind, iii.
192; richness of early domestic, ii. 100, iii. 2; manner of its
debasement in general, iii. 3.
Archivolts, decoration of, i. 334; general families of, i. 335; of
Murano, ii. 49; of St. Mark's, ii. 95; in London, ii. 97; Byzantine,
ii. 138; profiles of, iii. 244.
Arts, relative dignity of, i. 395; how represented in Venetian
sculpture, ii. 355; what relation exists between them and their
materials, ii. 394; art divided into the art of facts, of design, and
of both, ii. 183; into purist, naturalist, and sensualist, ii. 187;
art opposed to inspiration, iii. 151; defined, iii. 170;
distinguished from science, iii. 35; how to enjoy that of the
ancients, iii. 188.
Aspiration, not the primal motive of Gothic work, i. 151.
Astrology, judicial, representation of its doctrines in Venetian
sculpture, ii. 352.
Austrian government in Italy, iii. 209.
Avarice, how represented figuratively, ii. 344.
B
Backgrounds, diapered, iii. 20.
Balconies, of Venice, ii. 243; general treatment of, iii. 254; of
iron, ii. 247.
Ballflower, its use in ornamentation, i. 279.
Balustrades. See "Balconies."
Bases, general account of, iii. 225; of walls, i. 55; of piers, i.
73; of shafts, i. 84; decoration of, i. 281; faults of Gothic
profiles of, i. 285; spurs of, i. 286; beauty of, in St. Mark's, i.
290; Lombardie, i. 292; ought not to be richly decorated, i. 292;
general effect of, ii. 387.
Battlements, i. 162; abuse of, in ornamentation, i. 219.
Beauty and ornament, relation of the terms, i. 404.
Bellstones of capitals defined, i. 108.
Birds, use of in ornamentation, i. 234, ii. 140.
Bishops, their ancient authority, ii. 25.
Body, its relation to the soul, i. 41, 395.
Brackets, division of, i. 161; ridiculous forms of, i. 161.
Breadth in Byzantine design, ii. 133.
Brickwork, ornamental, i. 296; in general, ii. 241, 260, 261.
Brides of Venice, legend of the, iii. 113, 116.
Buttresses, general structure of, i. 166; flying, i. 192; supposed
sanctity of, i. 173.
Bull, symbolical use of, in representing rivers, i. 418, 421, 424.
Byzantine style, analysis of, ii. 75; ecclesiastical fitness of, ii.
97; centralization in, ii. 236; palaces built in, ii. 118; sculptures
in, ii. 137, 140.
C