I. THE QUARRY 29

But the enduring sentiment of years more than balanced the enthusiasm of a moment; and the bull of Clement V., which excommunicated the Venetians and their Doge, likening them to Dathan, Abiram, Absalom, and Lucifer,¹ is a stronger evidence of the great tendencies of the Venetian government than the umbrella of the Doge or the ring of the Adriatic. The humiliation of Francesco Dandolo blotted out the shame of Barbarossa, and the total exclusion of ecclesiastics from all share in the councils of Venice became an enduring mark of her knowledge of the spirit of the Church of Rome, and of her defiance of it.

To this exclusion of Papal influence from her councils, the Romanist will attribute their irreligion, and the Protestant their success.* The first may be silenced by a reference to the character of the policy of the Vatican itself; and the second by his own shame, when he reflects that the English legislature sacrificed their principles to expose themselves to the very danger which the Venetian senate sacrificed theirs to avoid.

§ 12. One more circumstance remains to be noted respecting the Venetian Government, the singular unity of the families composing it,-unity far from sincere or perfect, but

above them. See true account of this scene to be given in “St. Mark’s Rest.”² [1879.]

* At least, such success as they had. Vide Appendix 5: “The Papal Power in Venice”³ [p. 419].

¹ [Ruskin takes his description of this Bull from Daru, book vii. ch. vi. It was promulgated on March 27, 1309, in consequence of the attack of Venice upon Ferrara, which was claimed as a fief of the Church. In 1311 the interdict was removed, on the petition of Francesco Dandolo (afterwards Doge), who was sent as Ambassador to the Papal Court at Avignon, the Republic agreeing to pay indemnity. For a fuller account of “the humiliation of Francesco Dandolo,” see Stones of Venice, vol. iii. ch. ii. § 59.]

² [“Travellers’ Edition,” eds. 1 and 2, omit the words “to be given.” The account was, however, not given.]

³ [The “Travellers’ Edition” (eds. 1 and 2) contained the following addition to this note:-

“(This appendix, modified, is now printed in the third chapter of this book.)”

Ruskin did not, however, thus print it; and in the third and later issues the words were omitted. In addition to Appendix 5, see for Ruskin’s intense opposition to Catholic Emancipation, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Vol. VIII. p. 269 of this edition.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]