<p><span class="scs">XV</span>. Such is the evidence of Painting. To collect that of
Architecture will be our task through many a page to come;
but I must here give a general idea of its heads.</p>
<p>Philippe de Commynes, writing of his entry into Venice in
1495, says,—</p>
<p>“Chascun me feit seoir au meillieu de ces deux ambassadeurs
qui est l’honneur d’Italie que d’estre au meillieu; et me
menerent au long de la grant rue, qu’ilz appellent le Canal
Grant, et est bien large. Les gallees y passent travers et y ay
ven navire de quatre cens tonneaux ou plus pres des maisons:
et est la plus belle rue que je croy qui soit en tout le monde, et
la mieulx maisonnee, et va le long de la ville. Les maisons sont
fort grandes et haultes, et de bonne pierre, et les anciennes
toutes painctes; les aultres faictes depuis cent ans: toutes ont
le devant de marbre blanc, qui leur vient d’Istrie, cent mils
de l�, et encores maincte grant piece de porphire et de sarpentine
sur le devant.... C’est la plus triumphante cit�
que j’aye jamais vene et qui plus faict d’honneur ambassadeurs
et estrangiers, et qui plus saigement se gouverne, et o�
le service de Dieu est le plus sollempnellement faict: et encores
qu’il y peust bien avoir d’aultres faultes, si je croy que Dieu
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page013"></SPAN>13</span>
les a en ayde pour la reverence qu’ilz portent au service de
l’Eglise.”<SPAN name="FnAnchor_16" href="#Footnote_16"><span class="sp">16</span></SPAN></p>
<table class="nobctr" style="clear: both; " summary="Illustration">
<tr>
<td class="caption1">I.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="figcenter">
<SPAN name="plate_1"><ANTIMG src="images/img013.jpg" width-obs="340" height-obs="650" alt="Wall-Veil-Decoration." title="Wall-Veil-Decoration." /></SPAN></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="caption">Wall-Veil-Decoration.<br/>
<span class="f80">CA’TREVISAN CA’DARIO.</span></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><span class="scs">XVI</span>. This passage is of peculiar interest, for two reasons.
Observe, first, the impression of Commynes respecting the religion
of Venice: of which, as I have above said, the forms still
remained with some glimmering of life in them, and were the
evidence of what the real life had been in former times. But
observe, secondly, the impression instantly made on Commynes’
mind by the distinction between the elder palaces and those
built “within this last hundred years; which all have their
fronts of white marble brought from Istria, a hundred miles
away, and besides, many a large piece of porphyry and serpentine
upon their fronts.”</p>
<p>On the opposite page I have given two of the ornaments of
the palaces which so struck the French ambassador.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_17" href="#Footnote_17"><span class="sp">17</span></SPAN> He was
right in his notice of the distinction. There had indeed come
a change over Venetian architecture in the fifteenth century;
and a change of some importance to us moderns: we English
owe to it our St. Paul’s Cathedral, and Europe in general owes
to it the utter degradation or destruction of her schools of architecture,
never since revived. But that the reader may understand
this, it is necessary that he should have some general idea
of the connexion of the architecture of Venice with that of the
rest of Europe, from its origin forwards.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVII</span>. All European architecture, bad and good, old and
new, is derived from Greece through Rome, and colored and
perfected from the East. The history of architecture is nothing
but the tracing of the various modes and directions of this derivation.
Understand this, once for all: if you hold fast this
great connecting clue, you may string all the types of successive
architectural invention upon it like so many beads. The Doric
and the Corinthian orders are the roots, the one of all Romanesque,
massy-capitaled buildings—Norman, Lombard, Byzantine,
and what else you can name of the kind; and the Corinthian
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page014"></SPAN>14</span>
of all Gothic, Early English, French, German, and Tuscan.
Now observe: those old Greeks gave the shaft; Rome gave
the arch; the Arabs pointed and foliated the arch. The shaft
and arch, the frame-work and strength of architecture, are from
the race of Japheth: the spirituality and sanctity of it from
Ismael, Abraham, and Shem.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XVIII</span>. There is high probability that the Greek received
his shaft system from Egypt; but I do not care to keep this
earlier derivation in the mind of the reader. It is only necessary
that he should be able to refer to a fixed point of origin,
when the form of the shaft was first perfected. But it may be
incidentally observed, that if the Greeks did indeed receive
their Doric from Egypt, then the three families of the earth
have each contributed their part to its noblest architecture:
and Ham, the servant of the others, furnishes the sustaining or
bearing member, the shaft; Japheth the arch; Shem the
spiritualisation of both.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XIX</span>. I have said that the two orders, Doric and Corinthian,
are the roots of all European architecture. You have, perhaps,
heard of five orders; but there are only two real orders, and
there never can be any more until doomsday. On one of these
orders the ornament is convex: those are Doric, Norman, and
what else you recollect of the kind. On the other the ornament
is concave: those are Corinthian, Early English, Decorated,
and what else you recollect of that kind. The transitional
form, in which the ornamental line is straight, is the centre or
root of both. All other orders are varieties of those, or phantasms
and grotesques altogether indefinite in number and species.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_18" href="#Footnote_18"><span class="sp">18</span></SPAN></p>
<p><span class="scs">XX</span>. This Greek architecture, then, with its two orders,
was clumsily copied and varied by the Romans with no particular
result, until they begun to bring the arch into extensive
practical service; except only that the Doric capital was spoiled
in endeavors to mend it, and the Corinthian much varied and
enriched with fanciful, and often very beautiful imagery.
And in this state of things came Christianity: seized upon the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page015"></SPAN>15</span>
arch as her own; decorated it, and delighted in it; invented
a new Doric capital to replace the spoiled Roman one: and all
over the Roman empire set to work, with such materials as
were nearest at hand, to express and adorn herself as best she
could. This Roman Christian architecture is the exact expression
of the Christianity of the time, very fervid and beautiful—but
very imperfect; in many respects ignorant, and yet
radiant with a strong, childlike light of imagination, which
flames up under Constantine, illumines all the shores of the
Bosphorus and the �gean and the Adriatic Sea, and then
gradually, as the people give themselves up to idolatry, becomes
Corpse-light. The architecture sinks into a settled form—a
strange, gilded, and embalmed repose: it, with the religion it
expressed; and so would have remained for ever,—so <i>does</i>
remain, where its languor has been undisturbed.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_19" href="#Footnote_19"><span class="sp">19</span></SPAN> But rough
wakening was ordained for it.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXI</span>. This Christian art of the declining empire is divided
into two great branches, western and eastern; one centred at
Rome, the other at Byzantium, of which the one is the early
Christian Romanesque, properly so called, and the other, carried
to higher imaginative perfection by Greek workmen, is
distinguished from it as Byzantine. But I wish the reader, for
the present, to class these two branches of art together in his
mind, they being, in points of main importance, the same;
that is to say, both of them a true continuance and sequence
of the art of old Rome itself, flowing uninterruptedly down
from the fountain-head, and entrusted always to the best workmen
who could be found—Latins in Italy and Greeks in Greece;
and thus both branches may be ranged under the general term
of Christian Romanesque, an architecture which had lost the
refinement of Pagan art in the degradation of the empire, but
which was elevated by Christianity to higher aims, and by the
fancy of the Greek workmen endowed with brighter forms.
And this art the reader may conceive as extending in its various
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page016"></SPAN>16</span>
branches over all the central provinces of the empire, taking
aspects more or less refined, according to its proximity to the
seats of government; dependent for all its power on the vigor
and freshness of the religion which animated it; and as that
vigor and purity departed, losing its own vitality, and sinking
into nerveless rest, not deprived of its beauty, but benumbed
and incapable of advance or change.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXII</span>. Meantime there had been preparation for its renewal.
While in Rome and Constantinople, and in the districts under
their immediate influence, this Roman art of pure descent was
practised in all its refinement, an impure form of it—a patois
of Romanesque—was carried by inferior workmen into distant
provinces; and still ruder imitations of this patois were executed
by the barbarous nations on the skirts of the empire.
But these barbarous nations were in the strength of their youth;
and while, in the centre of Europe, a refined and purely descended
art was sinking into graceful formalism, on its confines
a barbarous and borrowed art was organising itself into strength
and consistency. The reader must therefore consider the history
of the work of the period as broadly divided into two
great heads: the one embracing the elaborately languid succession
of the Christian art of Rome; and the other, the imitations
of it executed by nations in every conceivable phase of
early organisation, on the edges of the empire, or included in
its now merely nominal extent.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXIII</span>. Some of the barbaric nations were, of course, not
susceptible of this influence; and when they burst over the
Alps, appear, like the Huns, as scourges only, or mix, as the
Ostrogoths, with the enervated Italians, and give physical
strength to the mass with which they mingle, without materially
affecting its intellectual character. But others, both south
and north of the empire, had felt its influence, back to the
beach of the Indian Ocean on the one hand, and to the ice
creeks of the North Sea on the other. On the north and west
the influence was of the Latins; on the south and east, of the
Greeks. Two nations, pre-eminent above all the rest, represent
to us the force of derived mind on either side. As the central
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page017"></SPAN>17</span>
power is eclipsed, the orbs of reflected light gather into their
fulness; and when sensuality and idolatry had done their
work, and the religion of the empire was laid asleep in a glittering
sepulchre, the living light rose upon both horizons, and
the fierce swords of the Lombard and Arab were shaken over its
golden paralysis.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXIV</span>. The work of the Lombard was to give hardihood
and system to the enervated body and enfeebled mind of Christendom;
that of the Arab was to punish idolatry, and to proclaim
the spirituality of worship. The Lombard covered every
church which he built with the sculptured representations
of bodily exercises—hunting and war.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_20" href="#Footnote_20"><span class="sp">20</span></SPAN> The Arab banished
all imagination of creature form from his temples, and proclaimed
from their minarets, “There is no god but God.” Opposite
in their character and mission, alike in their magnificence
of energy, they came from the North and from the South, the
glacier torrent and the lava stream: they met and contended
over the wreck of the Roman empire; and the very centre of
the struggle, the point of pause of both, the dead water of the
opposite eddies, charged with embayed fragments of the Roman
wreck, is <span class="sc">Venice</span>.</p>
<p>The Ducal palace of Venice contains the three elements in
exactly equal proportions—the Roman, Lombard, and Arab.
It is the central building of the world.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXV</span>. The reader will now begin to understand something
of the importance of the study of the edifices of a city which
includes, within the circuit of some seven or eight miles, the
field of contest between the three pre-eminent architectures of
the world:—each architecture expressing a condition of religion;
each an erroneous condition, yet necessary to the correction of
the others, and corrected by them.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXVI</span>. It will be part of my endeavor, in the following work,
to mark the various modes in which the northern and southern
architectures were developed from the Roman: here I must
pause only to name the distinguishing characteristics of the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page018"></SPAN>18</span>
great families. The Christian Roman and Byzantine work is
round-arched, with single and well-proportioned shafts; capitals
imitated from classical Roman; mouldings more or less so; and
large surfaces of walls entirely covered with imagery, mosaic,
and paintings, whether of scripture history or of sacred symbols.</p>
<p>The Arab school is at first the same in its principal features,
the Byzantine workmen being employed by the caliphs; but
the Arab rapidly introduces characters half Persepolitan, half
Egyptian, into the shafts and capitals: in his intense love of
excitement he points the arch and writhes it into extravagant
foliations; he banishes the animal imagery, and invents an ornamentation
of his own (called Arabesque) to replace it: this not
being adapted for covering large surfaces, he concentrates it on
features of interest, and bars his surfaces with horizontal lines
of color, the expression of the level of the Desert. He retains
the dome, and adds the minaret. All is done with exquisite
refinement.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXVII</span>. The changes effected by the Lombard are more
curious still, for they are in the anatomy of the building, more
than its decoration. The Lombard architecture represents, as
I said, the whole of that of the northern barbaric nations. And
this I believe was, at first, an imitation in wood of the Christian
Roman churches or basilicas. Without staying to examine the
whole structure of a basilica, the reader will easily understand
thus much of it: that it had a nave and two aisles, the nave
much higher than the aisles; that the nave was separated from
the aisles by rows of shafts, which supported, above, large spaces
of flat or dead wall, rising above the aisles, and forming the
upper part of the nave, now called the clerestory, which had a
gabled wooden roof.</p>
<p>These high dead walls were, in Roman work, built of stone;
but in the wooden work of the North, they must necessarily
have been made of horizontal boards or timbers attached to
uprights on the top of the nave pillars, which were themselves
also of wood.<SPAN name="FnAnchor_21" href="#Footnote_21"><span class="sp">21</span></SPAN> Now, these uprights were necessarily thicker
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page019"></SPAN>19</span>
than the rest of the timbers, and formed vertical square pilasters
above the nave piers. As Christianity extended and civilisation
increased, these wooden structures were changed into
stone; but they were literally petrified, retaining the form
which had been made necessary by their being of wood. The
upright pilaster above the nave pier remains in the stone edifice,
and is the first form of the great distinctive feature of Northern
architecture—the vaulting shaft. In that form the Lombards
brought it into Italy, in the seventh century, and it remains to
this day in St. Ambrogio of Milan, and St. Michele of Pavia.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXVIII</span>. When the vaulting shaft was introduced in the
clerestory walls, additional members were added for its support
to the nave piers. Perhaps two or three pine trunks, used for
a single pillar, gave the first idea of the grouped shaft. Be
that as it may, the arrangement of the nave pier in the form of
a cross accompanies the superimposition of the vaulting shaft;
together with corresponding grouping of minor shafts in doorways
and apertures of windows. Thus, the whole body of the
Northern architecture, represented by that of the Lombards,
may be described as rough but majestic work, round-arched,
with grouped shafts, added vaulting shafts, and endless imagery
of active life and fantastic superstitions.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXIX</span>. The glacier stream of the Lombards, and the following
one of the Normans, left their erratic blocks, wherever
they had flowed; but without influencing, I think, the Southern
nations beyond the sphere of their own presence. But the
lava stream of the Arab, even after it ceased to flow, warmed
the whole of the Northern air; and the history of Gothic architecture
is the history of the refinement and spiritualisation of
Northern work under its influence. The noblest buildings of
the world, the Pisan-Romanesque, Tuscan (Giottesque) Gothic,
and Veronese Gothic, are those of the Lombard schools themselves,
under its close and direct influence; the various Gothics
of the North are the original forms of the architecture which
the Lombards brought into Italy, changing under the less direct
influence of the Arab.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXX</span>. Understanding thus much of the formation of the
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page020"></SPAN>20</span>
great European styles, we shall have no difficulty in tracing the
succession of architectures in Venice herself. From what I
said of the central character of Venetian art, the reader is not,
of course, to conclude that the Roman, Northern, and Arabian
elements met together and contended for the mastery at the
same period. The earliest element was the pure Christian
Roman; but few, if any, remains of this art exist at Venice;
for the present city was in the earliest times only one of many
settlements formed on the chain of marshy islands which extend
from the mouths of the Isonzo to those of the Adige, and it
was not until the beginning of the ninth century that it became
the seat of government; while the cathedral of Torcello, though
Christian Roman in general form, was rebuilt in the eleventh
century, and shows evidence of Byzantine workmanship in
many of its details. This cathedral, however, with the church
of Santa Fosca at Torcello, San Giacomo di Rialto at Venice,
and the crypt of St. Mark’s, forms a distinct group of buildings,
in which the Byzantine influence is exceedingly slight; and
which is probably very sufficiently representative of the earliest
architecture on the islands.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXXI</span>. The Ducal residence was removed to Venice in 809,
and the body of St. Mark was brought from Alexandria twenty
years later. The first church of St. Mark’s was, doubtless,
built in imitation of that destroyed at Alexandria, and from
which the relics of the saint had been obtained. During the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, the architecture of Venice
seems to have been formed on the same model, and is almost
identical with that of Cairo under the caliphs,<SPAN name="FnAnchor_22" href="#Footnote_22"><span class="sp">22</span></SPAN> it being quite
immaterial whether the reader chooses to call both Byzantine
or both Arabic; the workmen being certainly Byzantine, but
forced to the invention of new forms by their Arabian masters,
and bringing these forms into use in whatever other parts of
the world they were employed.</p>
<p>To this first manner of Venetian architecture, together with
vestiges as remain of the Christian Roman, I shall devote
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page021"></SPAN>21</span>
the first division of the following inquiry. The examples remaining
of it consist of three noble churches (those of Torcello,
Murano, and the greater part of St. Mark’s), and about ten or
twelve fragments of palaces.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXXII</span>. To this style succeeds a transitional one, of a character
much more distinctly Arabian: the shafts become more
slender, and the arches consistently pointed, instead of round;
certain other changes, not to be enumerated in a sentence, taking
place in the capitals and mouldings. This style is almost
exclusively secular. It was natural for the Venetians to imitate
the beautiful details of the Arabian dwelling-house, while
they would with reluctance adopt those of the mosque for
Christian churches.</p>
<p>I have not succeeded in fixing limiting dates for this style.
It appears in part contemporary with the Byzantine manner,
but outlives it. Its position is, however, fixed by the central
date, 1180, that of the elevation of the granite shafts of the
Piazetta, whose capitals are the two most important pieces of
detail in this transitional style in Venice. Examples of its application
to domestic buildings exist in almost every street of
the city, and will form the subject of the second division of the
following essay.</p>
<p><span class="scs">XXXIII</span>. The Venetians were always ready to receive lessons
in art from their enemies (else had there been no Arab
work in Venice). But their especial dread and hatred of the
Lombards appears to have long prevented them from receiving
the influence of the art which that people had introduced on
the mainland of Italy. Nevertheless, during the practice of
the two styles above distinguished, a peculiar and very primitive
condition of pointed Gothic had arisen in ecclesiastical
architecture. It appears to be a feeble reflection of the Lombard-Arab
forms, which were attaining perfection upon the continent,
and would probably, if left to itself, have been soon
merged in the Venetian-Arab school, with which it had from
the first so close a fellowship, that it will be found difficult to
distinguish the Arabian ogives from those which seem to have
been built under this early Gothic influence. The churches of
<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="page022"></SPAN>22</span>
San Giacopo dell’Orio, San Giovanni in Bragora, the Carmine,
and one or two more, furnish the only important examples
of it. But, in the thirteenth century, the Franciscans and
Dominicans introduced from the continent their morality and
their architecture, already a distinct Gothic, curiously developed
from Lombardic and Northern (German?) forms; and the influence
of the principles exhibited in the vast churches of St.
Paul and the Frari began rapidly to affect the Venetian-Arab
school. Still the two systems never became united; the Venetian
policy repressed the power of the church, and the Venetian
artists resisted its example; and thenceforward the architecture
of the city becomes divided into ecclesiastical and civil: the one
an ungraceful yet powerful form of the Western Gothic, common
to the whole peninsula, and only showing Venetian sympathies
in the adoption of certain characteristic mouldings; the
other a rich, luxuriant, and entirely original Gothic, formed
from the Venetian-Arab by the influence of the Dominican and
Franciscan architecture, and especially by the engrafting upon
the Arab forms of the most novel feature of the Franciscan
work, its traceries. These various forms of Gothic, the <i>distinctive</i>
architecture of Venice, chiefly represented by the churches
of St. John and Paul, the Frari, and San Stefano, on the ecclesiastical
side, and by the Ducal palace, and the other principal
Gothic palaces, on the secular side, will be the subject of the
third division of the essay.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />