INTRODUCTION lxi

poisonous; always, in a manner, ridiculous.”¹ Another, though minor, matter on which he had found reason to revise the views expressed in The Stones of Venice were the depreciation, in some aspects, of Greek art and the influence of classical tradition upon the art of the Renaissance.² It should further be remembered here, that, as has been said above, Ruskin regarded his Venetian studies as a by-work, somewhat outside the main current of his interests. The duties of his Professorship, however, and the fresh studies to which he devoted himself in preparation for them, revived his interest in Venetian architecture and painting. “I am very glad to find,” he wrote to his mother from Venice in 1869 (August 7), “that after seventeen years, I can certify the truth of every word of The Stones of Venice as far as regards art.” The new work which he did, in this, his second Venetian period, is collected in another volume-containing, besides some scattered pieces, St. Mark’s Rest, and the Guide to the Principal Pictures in the Venetian Academy. This work led Ruskin also to re-publish the old book. At first he republished selections from it only. This was the “Travellers’ Edition” of The Stones of Venice, already described (Vol. IX. pp. lvi.-lviii.). In the two volumes of that Edition (1879 and 1881) he brought together the chapters most likely to be useful to travellers on the spot, and corrected by condemnatory or explanatory notes some of the passages which offended against his later views. Having placed this self-condemnation on record, he consented a few years later (1886) to the republication of the whole work in its original form. The notes from the “Travellers’ Edition” were included, so that the errors (as he had now come to regard them) might not pass unobserved; to the art-teaching of it he adhered. Of that teaching he desired to “re-affirm every syllable.”³ “I have authorised,” he said in 1886, “the republication of The Stones of Venice in its original text and form chiefly for the sake of its clear, and the reader will find, wholly incontrovertible statement of the deadly influence of Renaissance Theology on the arts in Italy, and on the religion of the world.”⁴

The manuscripts and other material to which the editors have had access in preparing this volume include (besides Ruskin’s Venetian diaries, letters, note-books and numerous pages of loose memoranda) (1) the final MS. of the volume, and (2) copies of the printed volume with notes by the author. The MS., which is in possession of Mr. George Allen, is

¹ Fors Clavigera, 1877, Letter 76.

² On these subjects see the notes in Vol. IX. p. 408, and in the next volume, on ch. ii. § 102.

³ Fors Clavigera, 1877, Letter 76.

⁴ Præterita, ii. ch. § 34 n.

[Version 0.04: March 2008]