IV. ST. MARK’S 111

sculpture was definite, its colour was of necessity definite also; and, in the hands of the Northern builders, it often became, in consequence, rather the means of explaining and animating the stories of their stone-work, than a matter of abstract decorative science. Flames¹ were painted red, trees green, and faces flesh-colour; the result of the whole being often far more entertaining than beautiful. And also, though in the lines of the mouldings and the decorations of shafts or vaults, a richer and more abstract method of colouring was adopted (aided by the rapid development of the best principles of colour in early glass-painting²), the vigorous depths of shadow in the Northern sculpture confused the architect’s eye, compelling him to use violent colours in the recesses, if these were to be seen as colour at all, and thus injured his perception of more delicate colour harmonies; so that in innumerable instances it becomes very disputable whether monuments even of the best times were improved by the colour bestowed upon them, or the contrary. But, in the South, the flatness and comparatively vague forms of the sculpture, while they appeared to call for colour in order to enhance their interest, presented exactly the conditions which would set it off to the greatest advantage; breadth of service displaying even the most delicate tints in the lights, and faintness of shadow joining with the most delicate and pearly greys of colour harmony; while the subject of the design being in nearly all cases reduced to mere intricacy of ornamental line, might be coloured in any way the architect chose without any loss of rationality. Where oak-leaves and roses were carved into fresh relief and perfect bloom, it was necessary to paint the one green and the other red; but in portions of ornamentation where there was nothing which could be definitely construed into either an oak-leaf or a rose, but a mere labyrinth of beautiful lines, becoming here something

¹ [This word, which is quite distinct in the MS. (having been altered from “Fire”), has been misprinted “Flowers” in all previous editions.]

² [For the attention given by Ruskin to this subject in a particular instance, see Vol. IV. p. xxiii. n.; see also Vol. IX., Appendix i., p. 455; Appendix 12 in this volume, p. 457; and generally in the Index.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]