336 THE STONES OF VENICE

We have seen above, that there were three principal styles of Venetian architecture; Byzantine, Gothic, and Renaissance.¹

The Ducal Palace, which was the great work of Venice, was built successively in the three styles. There was a Byzantine Ducal Palace, a Gothic Ducal Palace, and a Renaissance Ducal Palace. The second superseded the first totally: a few stones of it (if indeed so much) are all that is left. But the third superseded the second in part only, and the existing building is formed by the union of the two.

We shall review the history of each in succession.*

1st. The BYZANTINE PALACE.

In the year of the death of Charlemagne, 813, ^† the

* The reader will find it convenient to note the following editions of the printed books which have been principally consulted in the following inquiry. The numbers of the manuscripts referred to in the Marcian Library are given with the quotations.

Sansovino. Venetia Descritta. 4to, Venice, 1663.

Sansovino. Lettera intorno al Palazzo Ducale. 8vo, Venice, 1829.

Temanza. Antica Pianta di Venezia, with text. Venice, 1780

Cadorin. Pareri di XV. Architetti. 8vo, Venice, 1838.

Filiasi. Memorie storiche. 8vo, Padua, 1811.

Bettio. Lettera discorsiva del Palazzo Ducale. 8vo, Venice, 1837.

Selvatico. Architettura di Venezia. 8vo, Venice, 1847.

† The year commonly given is 810, as in the Savina Chronicle (Cod. Marcianus), p. 13. “Del 810 fece principiar el pallazzo Ducal nel luogo ditto Bruolo in confin di S. Moisè, et fece riedificar la isola di Eraclia.” The Sagornin Chronicle gives 804; and Filiasi, vol. vi. chap. 1, corrects this date to 813.

behind the arcades, and consisting of a very ornate construction, with round turrets, bold oriels, dormers, etc. On this showing the upper story as we now see it can have been no part of the Gothic Palace; and this is Parker’s view. “The upper part,” he says (p. 294), “is of the sixteenth century when it was rebuilt after the great fire, and this is extremely flat. The singularity of it is, that it is built of pink marble, cut in imitation of bricks.” It is contended in The National Miscellany that Ruskin was inconsistent in not denouncing the use of marble to represent brick, just as much as if the process had been reversed (see in the next volume, ch. i. § 38 n.). “We have seen two artists standing before the wall,” says the reviewer (p. 36), “looking at it carefully, and heard them disputing whether the material was really brick or marble.” For Ruskin’s remarks on the chequer-work of the “wall-veil” of the Palace, see Seven Lamps, Vol. VIII. p. 183, and in this volume ch. vii. § 3, and in the next volume, ch. i. §32. That much of the masonry was renewed after the fire, Ruskin thinks probable (see below, § 133), but his general argument is, as will be seen, that the design is still that of the Gothic Palace; compare ch. vii. § 9, above, p. 278.]

¹ [See above, pp. 180-181.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]