 |
Ruskin’s concern is with the development of Venetian Gothic. Part of what Ruskin saw as the nature of Gothic, its moral and architectural strength, was its ‘nationality’, which is contrasted at Notebook M2 p.117 with the universalism of Palladianism, a style which took no account of regional identity but imposed a uniform architectural vocabulary and syntax. In Ruskin’s narrative the distinctively Venetian form of Gothic starts from Pisa but was given its particular identity by its relationship with the East. The visual culture was influenced by Byzantine and Arabic forms, but moved beyond them, and gave them a new energy and strength.
The round stilted arches, for Ruskin a characteric feature of Byzantine architecture, of the 1st order become pointed, like Saracenic arches of the Arab School, of which there are examples in St. Mark’s in the Porta di San Giovanni and the Porta dei Fiori:
|
Notebook M pp.45-48 focus on the transition from Byzantine stilted arches of the 1st order, to the 2nd Order, 3rd Order, 4th Order, and 5th Order of Gothic arches.
At Notebook M p.152 Ruskin discusses the derivation of Byzantine from Corinthian forms, and the development of Byzantine forms into Lombardic and Gothic capitals, plinths and cornices.
Notebook M pp.159-160L set out a similar evolutionary pattern but with more stress on the changing use of the relationship between the decorative marble cladding and ornament, which Ruskin saw as distinctively Byzantine, and the brick which gave the buildings their underlying form. It was the return to the marble ornament and round, though not stilted, arches of buildings such as the Miracoli and the Ca’ Dario which led Ruskin in Verona Book to characterise them as belonging to the Byzantine Renaissance.
Works, 9.427 seeks to compare the national character of Byzantine, Lombard and Arabic peoples. At Works, 9.35-7, Ruskin writes of the ‘languor’, the ‘strange, gilded and embalmed repose’, and ‘graceful formalism’ of the declining art of the Roman Empire in the Eastern Empire influenced by the workmanship of the Greeks.
Gothic architects retained something of the religious and natural ornament of the Byzantine style but gave it a new energy derived perhaps from the carnivorous habits of the North, where polenta was not eaten (Notebook M2 p.172). At Notebook M2 p.116 the Byzantine is languid, the Romanesque is energetic. Similar points are made at Notebook M2 p.118 and Notebook M2 p.171L in relation to Lyon. At Notebook M2 pp.129f Ruskin contrasts the energetic animals on the West front of San Michele Pavia with peacocks, which in an inserted comment at Notebook M2 p.129 and at Works, 9.429 he suggests are purely Byzantine. Ruskin comments at Notebook M p.115 that Byzantine work is too bright, and at Notebook M p.149 that it is has ‘amazing refinement’.
At Notebook M p.150 in his discussion of the door to the atrium of St. Mark’s Ruskin comments that ‘Byzantine workmen executed all the most delicate and finished capitals, and these beautiful angels: They are not well cut - the folds of the dresses are mere incisions: and the features hard & bad, but the grace of position and conception perfect’.
 |  |
At Notebook M2 p.116 he was puzzled that this law might have been ‘somewhat broken’ by the busy scenes of the carvings of the archivolt and soffit of the central porch of St. Mark’s.
 |
At Works, 10.278 the variety and the disposition of the capitals of the Ducal Palace upper arcade provide evidence for Ruskin’s conclusions about Gothic style in relation to centralisation and subtle proportion of the Byzantine palaces.
Ruskin makes several different attempts to define the relationship between Byzantine, Lombard, Romanesque.
There is at Notebook M2 p.15 a passage which seems to define Romanesque as referring to anything connected with the Roman Empire. Byzantine and Aquileian forms are both corruptions of Roman forms, so both are defined as Romanesque. Similarly Lombard Romanesque defines the use of Roman forms by the ‘Lombards’. The use is analogous to the original use of the word ‘Romanesque’ in the study of languages to define any language arising from Latin:
Now at Venice, there is a meeting of a dying and barbarous Romanesque that of the fugitives from Aquileia and other last strongholds of the Roman empire: with the Byzantine itself a similar corruption of Romanesque forms. Perhaps also, with distinct [transcript reads ‘district’] and rude imitations of Greek Athenian work, when they became possessors of Athens.(Notebook M2 p.15)
Notebook M2 p.20 draws on Lindsay (1847) I pp.27 and 66 in examining the relationship between Roman and Byzantine forms, and relates that discussion to Torcello Duomo, which is included by Lindsay among the Latin, not the Byzantine, churches.
At Works, 9.38 Ruskin conflates Roman and Byzantine in defining the architectural forms of each. 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.
At Notebook M p.48L there is a clear distinction between Byzantine and Romanesque but with the Romanesque of Pisa and the Byzantine of Venice both ‘showing a transitional character to Gothic’. Works, 10.252-3 follows the distinction made at Notebook M p.48L and moves from this to a distinction between two different kinds of Gothic. Ruskin contrasts the Western Romanesque of the Lombards, with Pisa as its most perfect type, and the Eastern Romanesque of the Byzantine world, of which the most perfect type is St. Marks. From Eastern and Western Romanesque there developed Eastern and Western Gothic, otherwise defined as true Gothic, and Arabian Gothic. Arabian Gothic is called is called Gothic only because it retains many Gothic forms; ‘its spirit remains Byzantine’.
At Verona Book pp.29 and following there is a discussion of the relationship between the Byzantine forms at Torcello and the Lombard forms of San Michele Pavia and Sant’Ambrogio, Milan.
At Works, 9.41f Ruskin cites examples of the buildings that he sees as Byzantine and Christian Roman.
He suggests that Torcello Duomo (Basilica of St. Maria Assunta) is Byzantine in many of its details but Christian Roman in general form. The cathedral at Torcello, together with Santa Fosca at Torcello, San Giacomo di Rialto (on capitals of which see Bit Book p.25), and the crypt of St. Mark’s form, according to Ruskin in this passage, a distinct group of ecclesiastical buildings in which Byzantine influence is exceedingly slight. However, the Byzantine and early Christian are, he suggests, to be considered together; the examples used are Torcello (Santa Fosca and Torcello Duomo of Santa Maria Assunta), Murano (presumably the Duomo), ‘the greater part of St. Mark’s, and about ten or twelve fragments of palaces’.
Byzantine Palaces are listed in Appendix 11 at Works, 10.453ff, and called by him there:
Terraced House (presumably Palazzo Barzizza-Torres at San Polo 1172, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29);
Casa Businello (San Polo 1207, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29);
Braided House (Palazzo Dona at San Polo 1426, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 28) - see Works, 11.370, and see Figures 10, 11 and 12 of Plate 8 at Works, 10.159 for examples of basket capitals from ‘Braided House’.
Madonnetta House (the Palazzo Donà della Madonnetta at San Polo 1429, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29), sometimes called the Police House by Ruskin;
Rio-Foscari House (Dorsoduro 3421, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 39);
Casa Farsetti (San Marco 4136, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29);
Casa Loredan (San Marco 4137, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29);
The Fondaco dei Turchi (Santa Croce 1730, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 16) is treated separately in the published text.
At Notebook M p.160 there is also a note on a ‘Byzantine House on the Gran Canale’, presumably the Casa Favretto at Santa Croce 2232, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 17.
At Bit Book p.79L there is a description of a house on small piazzetta on market place at the Rialto which is cited by Ruskin as Byzantine in his index at Notebook M2 p.196.
From these buildings Ruskin derived his conclusions about what he sees as the characteristic features of Byzantine style.
Ruskin’s comparative method in coming to his conclusions about style is illustrated at Notebook M p.179 where he attempts to identify Byzantine features and their sequence by comparing ‘fragments at Riva del Carbon’, and elements of Fondaco dei Turchi, Police House, ‘that opposite the Post Office’ (i.e. opposite the Palazzo Grimani and perhaps the Casa Businello), and a ‘house close to the Miracoli’.
Ruskin’s views on the characteristics of Byzantine style are developed in the published text at:
Works, 9.429 peacocks are seen as characteristically Byzantine;
Works, 10.124 the essentially pictorial character of its decoration;
Works, 10.145 marble facing on brick is a characteristic of all of them;
Works, 10.146 on the arrangement of the arcade of the front of Byzantine buildings.
Works, 10.167 and Plate 11 at Works, 10.166 on Christian symbols in middle of buildings, above or between arches birds or beasts standing opposite each other or devouring each other.
Works, 11.190 absence of grotesque is a mark that it belongs to a declining nation.
At Works, 11.32 ‘though in many respects debased in style they are consummate in workmanship’.
Particular architectural features are treated as follows:
Arches:
Works, 9.149 figure 28 is an image of a round stilted arch at Santa Fosca Torcello;
Works, 9.160 on the construction of Byzantine arches; Works, 9.323 illustrations of Byzantine arches;
Number 1 of Plate 14, facing Works, 11.290, and compare Door Book.Front pastedown and House Book 1.Front pastedown;
Works, 10.146 on the arrangement of the arcade of the entire front of Byzantine houses;
and compare Works, 10.149ff, where Ruskin discusses a characteristic Byzantine mode of the arrangement of pillars
Notebook references include:
Bit Book p.1 Compare this with Works, 11.269. Plate VlII. Byzantine Archivolts, ‘Arch on canal at Ponte St. Toma’;
Bit Book p.81L cited by Ruskin in Index at Notebook M2 p.189 under ‘Arches, Byzantine’ - refers to Palazzo Dona della Madonnetta, Ruskin’s Police House, San Polo 1429b, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29;
House Book 1 p.12 House No. 10. Palazzo Molin Balba Valier at Dorsoduro 866, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 50;
House Book 1 p.36. House No. 31 Palazzo Dona della Madonnetta. San Polo 1429b, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29, also called Police House by Ruskin. Compare the reference at Notebook M p.82.
Door Book p.47 is cited in Ruskin’s Index to M2 at Notebook M2 p.189 as a reference to a Byzantine arch.
Door Book p.52. Compare the drawing and measurements at Notebook M2 p.75L
Gothic Book p.69L - diagram of arch of house at Murano (see Notebook M2 p.194L);
St M[arks] Book p.30 St. Marks: ‘first of the five porch inner arches: that next sea’;
St M[arks] Book p.47 This is cited in Ruskin’s Index to M2 at Notebook M2 p.189 as a reference to a Byzantine arch.
St M[arks] Book p.52 Inner porch at St. Mark’s: ‘real arch is brick & the stone is only a facing. It is most masterly in effect - stone with interstices filled with gold mosaic’;
Verona Book p.52; for projected chapter heading on Byzantine arches;
Notebook M p.45 on the round stilted arch as characteristically Byzantine, and compare Sheet No. 21 (referring to Notebook M p.44) on the north arcade of the nave of St. Mark’s
Notebook M p.82 on Police House arch;
Notebook M2 p.161 comparison with Valence Cathedral.
Bandwork
Bases
Works, 11.266 Byzantine bases are discussed and illustrated
Citations in Ruskin’s index at Notebook M2 p.190 under ‘Bases, Byzantine’ are as follows:
Door Book p.42 Note and diagram on the lower part of the page.
Gothic Book pp.51-64 These pages are cited by Ruskin and references to bases in them include base at Murano Duomo at Gothic Book p.51, base with flat cavetto and undecorated leaf considered at Gothic Book pp.56L and 56; base from ‘white house opposite Ca d’Oro’ at Gothic Book p.57; diagrams and plans of bases of South Porch of St.Mark’s at Gothic Book pp.64L and 64.
House Book 1 p.22L The reference is to a drawing apparently made in the court of Palazzo Bernardo.
House Book 2 p.3 The reference is to House 51 at Campo St Simeon Grande.
House Book 2 p.46 The reference is to the Rio-Foscari House (Dorsoduro 3421).
House Book 2 p.52 and House Book 2 p.53 Palazzo Farsetti, and compare Notebook M p.142 and illustration at Notebook M p.142L.
St M[arks] Book pp.1-2 and compare Notebook M p.202L on the bases of St Mark’s Southern Portico.
St M[arks] Book p.22 delicate small leaved bases.
St M[arks] Book pp.28L and 28. angle leaved bases, and precise arrangement of measurements.
St M[arks] Book p.49 - but perhaps Ruskin had in mind St M[arks] Book pp.50L and 50 on truncated bases with and without leaves.
St M[arks] Book p.58 diagrams of porphyry bases.
St M[arks] Book p.80L, diagram of St. Mark’s bases with sections.
St M[arks] Book p.100 Base of Western Shaft of Piazzetta.
Palace Book p.10 Base of Byzantine shaft at House 54. Compare House Book 2 p.6 on the Palazzo Vitturi at Castello 5246.
Notebook M p.198, Notebook M p.199, Notebook M2 p.80 on the relationship between the bases of Torcello, St. Mark’s and the Ducal Palace
Capitals
There are illustrations facing Works, 10.158; facing Works, 10.159; Plate XII facing Works, 11.378.
Works, 10.155ff and Works, 11.270f discuss Byzantine capitals;
Bit Book p.25 capital at St Giacomo di Rialto;
Bit Book p.61 capitals in northern portico of St. Marks;
House Book 2 p.50 on the Palazzo Loredan
Gothic Book p.59 section of capital and circles between stilted arches;
Palace Book p.2 on second window towards the canal of the Ducal Palace
Palace Book p.7 Palazzo Vitturi
St M[arks] Book p.21 capitals of southern portico of St. Mark’s.
Notebook M p.45 and Notebook M p.193 on basket capitals as characteristic of Byzantine style.
Notebook M p.78L on Lindsay (1847) I p.64, and the squared basketwork capitals of the Byzantine church of San Vitale in Ravenna.
Notebook M p.112 on the combination of Byzantine and later forms.
Notebook M p.136 bases and Byzantine capitals with a reference to Gothic Book p.30.
Notebook M p.194 on the capitals of the Fondaco dei Turchi.
Notebook M2 pp.5ff on the sequence of development of capitals, and the subdivisions of Byzantine capitals.
Notebook M2 p.46 on Byzantine and Corinthian
Notebook M2 p.111 Byzantine form of capitals of Ca’ d’Oro.
Notebook M2 p.128 on the Corinthian capitals of San Michele Pavia, more rudely cut but more accurate than the Byzantine
Cornices, capital, and frieze:
In the text of Stones of Venice see:
Works, 9.376 on the notion of the cornice as an unrolled capital Cornice Plate facing Works, 9.360; cornice Works, 9.368 (where the Byzantines are seen as ‘languid copyists); Works, 9.376.
In the notebooks see:
Notebook M p.125 and what seems a related note at Bit Book p.79L.
Notebook M2 p.46 and Notebook M2 pp.53ff on leaf friezes and cornices.
Notebook M p.152 leaf friezes as Byzantine in origin
Notebook M p.179 suggests that the Byzantine house near Foscari shows the original position of Byzantine leaf friezes;
Notebook M p.209 is an attempt to distinguish different kinds of cornice
Byzantine leaf mouldings:
The following references appear in Ruskin’s indexes:
Small notebooks:
House Book 1 p.36: the reference is perhaps to the drawing at the top of House Book 1 p.36L.
Door Book pp.51L and 51: diagram of leaf moulding, and on this note see also Notebook M2 p.75.
St M[arks] Book p.27 ‘rude leaf mouldings’ of the First Porch of St. Mark’s.
House Book 2 p.61L: note and drawing of a ‘splendid fragment’ in Campiello della Grana;
Notebook N p.50: diagram of leaf in Padua;
Notebook N p.65: drawing, and compare Works, 9.390 ‘Archivolt Decoration at Verona’.
There are notes on Byzantine leaf mouldings in M and M2 as follows:
Notebook M p.140 on the Casa Loredan and see the reference there to House Book 2 p.50.
Notebook M p.154 Tomb of Duccio degli Alberti - The leaf plinths round arch are exactly cut on the Byzantine Police House system - deep incisions.
Notebook M pp.191ff discussion of leaf mouldings at Torcello.
Notebook M2 p.46 on leaf friezes and cornices, and compare Notebook M2 p.75 on the leaf frieze.
Byzantine plain mouldings
The following are the references in Ruskin’s index at Notebook M2 p.195, though the criteria by which Ruskin judges them to be Byzantine are not always clear or explicit:
Bit Book p.2L diagram and reference to arch mouldings in small tabernacle chapel in St.Mark’s.
Bit Book p.16 moulding of the church of the Servi.
Bit Book p.35bL See figure and compare Works, 11.269. Plate Vl. Byzantine Jambs, 10 ‘St Toma’.
Bit Book p.41 Central Door of St. Mark’s.
Bit Book p.43 Porches of St. Mark’s
Door Book p.14L The reference is House 42 Palazzo Soranzo, at Cannaregio 4419.
Door Book p.28L The reference is to a rolled moulding at House 61.
Door Book p.48 The reference is to moulding in the Baptistery of St. Mark’s. Compare Notebook M p.198L.
House Book 1 p.12 This page concerns House No 10, Palazzo Molin Balba Valier, Dorsoduro 866, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 50
House Book 2 p.23L The reference is to House 68 ‘in Calle della Chiesa - close to the Campo St Filippo e Giacomo’. See note at House Book 2 p.23L
House Book 2 p.52 The reference is to Palazzo Farsetti, San Marco 4136, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 29. See the note at Notebook M p.142 on mouldings there.
Notebook N p.41 The reference is to the drawing at Duomo at Monza including egg and leaf mouldings at Notebook N p.41, though there is no reason given for defining it as Byzantine.
St M[arks] Book p.6 moulding of small circles on the Southern Stilted Porch of St.Mark’s
St M[arks] Book p.81: the reference seems to be to the mouldings described at St M[arks] Book p.81L
St M[arks] Book p.89: the reference seems to be to the passage headed Door in Campo St. Margherita.
St M[arks] Book p.101L the reference is to early rose and leaf moulding which Ruskin suggests, though early, is perhaps not Byzantine
In addition to those passages cited by Ruskin in his index at Notebook M2 p.195, Notebook M p.198L; Notebook M pp.198 and following show Ruskin’s attempt to organise his ideas about Byzantine mouldings, using St. Mark’s as his point of reference.
On doorways and jambs see Works, 11.267f.
Door Book p.14L and compare Works, 11.269. Plate VI. Byzantine Jambs, 13, ‘Calle di Rimedio’
Notebook M p.83 jambs of Police House
Notebook M p.193 jambs of Torcello Duomo
 |
 |
 |
[Version 0.05: May 2008]