INTRODUCTION lix

the artistic importance it should one day have, or much care for the elements of stability requisite for the prolonged existence it has enjoyed. In the renewal of the little pavilion at the south-west angle, which is only attached to the church at one side, but serves as a flying buttress, and bears the thrust of the outer walls of the two chapels on that side, the foundations were found on excavation to consist of piles about six feet long, on which was laid a mass of uncemented rubble, a yard or two thick, and on this the bases of the columns were laid. The wall on the south side of the southern aisle had split from top to bottom from the wretched quality of the material, both brick and mortar, and from the use of sticks of fire-wood, which had been used in the piers as binding material and perhaps to save masonry. The mortar had almost lost cohesion, and bricks could be rubbed to dust by the fingers, and the wood had not waited to be rubbed, for nothing but dust remained of it. The outer pier of the south-west pavilion was sinking from the insufficiency of the foundation, and the whole south wall of the two chapels had long been prevented only by extensive shoring up from falling into the piazza.”

This evidence is incontrovertible, and Ruskin, though he was unaware of the extent of the danger, did not deny its existence. He admitted the need from time to time of structural repairs (“Letter to Count Zorzi,” § 9); he distinguished between the condition of the encrusting marbles, which needed no restoration, and the stability of the fabric, which might need strengthening (Memorial Studies, § 8). He predicted, only too truly, that the prime danger was to the Campanile (ibid., § 9). What he protested against was not the work of restoration in itself, but the manner in which it was carried out. Here, as we shall see, he was happily in large measure successful.

We may now pass to the history of the restorations. In 1853 the restorations were entrusted to the “R. Direzione Generale delle Pubbliche Costruzioni nelle Provincie Venete,” and in 1857, this body delegated the work to G. B. Meduna, who was clerk of the works to the churchwardens. His first undertaking was the rebuilding of the north side of the church towards the Piazzetta dei Leoncini. He took down the whole of the marble facing, laid new foundations with relieving arches under the bases of the pilasters, and rebuilt the internal masses of the walls. So far, the work of restoration may well have been necessary, and no fault need be found. It is otherwise with Meduna’s subsequent proceedings. The columns were all scraped with pumice-stone, and “a facing of unpicturesque smooth-veined Tino marble was substituted for the precious ancient one,”¹ which was

¹ See p. 927 of The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice, illustrated from the points of view of Art and History by Venetian writers under the direction of Professor Camillo Boito. Translated by William Scott and F. H. Rosenberg: Venice, Ongania, 1888-1889. This is the volume of letterpress accompanying the same publisher’s

[Version 0.04: March 2008]