 |
 |
 |
For the church of Santa Maria dei Miracoli (Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 18) from the Lombardi workshop, its attribution, and its dating to 1481-9, see Howard (2002) p.130. For photographs in the context of Ruskin’s thinking about Renaissance architecture see Quill (2000) p.49. Images are also available here.
At Notebook M p.207 there is a comparison between the Miracoli and San Giobbe, which has work attributed to Pietro Lombardo from 1470. There it is seen as a ‘lovely example of the cinquecento’. At Notebook M p.167 the ‘repetition of the cinquecento commonplace nonsense...utterly wearies the eye and has nothing to offer to the mind’. Both passages raise questions about Ruskin’s use of the term ‘cinquecento’ both as indicating a date and as indicating a style.
There are references at Notebook M2 p.32 for the date, taken from Zanotto (1847) p.181, and Notebook M2 p.121 where the pilasters are compared with the ‘vile Palladian and Sansovino ones’.
At Verona Book p.23 it is distinguished from the mistaken classicism of Palladio and cited along with the Ca’ Dario, Dorsoduro 352, Nadali & Vianello (1999) Tav. 51, and ‘Trevisan’ (presumably Palazzo Cappello Trevisan in Canonica) as an example of the translation from the Byzantine to the Renaissance, with a strong feeling for colour.
It is also distinguished at Verona Book p.23 from those buildings which are the result of a translation from Gothic to Renaissance: doors at Verona (on which compare Notebook M2 p.5 and Notebook M2 p.121), the Scuola di San Rocco, Palazzo Vendramin Calergi, the door of SS. Giovanni e Paolo, as well as Como and Monza (presumably the cathedrals there).
Other references to the Miracoli in the notebooks seem to be merely indications of geographical location.
See Works, 11.20f, where it is compared with the Scuola di San Marco and the Rio Facade of the Ducal Palace, and the comments at Works, 11.393.
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]