766 deborah howard
Writing with energy and passion, Ruskin instilled a renewed admiration
for the fine craftsmanship of the city’s long-neglected Gothic heritage. His
sensitive eye and attention to fine detail infuse every page of The Stones
of Venice, its prose propelling the reader along like the waters of a moun-
tain stream. Without the historical documentation needed to construct
a reliable chronology of Venetian Gothic, Ruskin used his own first-hand
observation of medieval architectural detail to construct an evolutionary
sequence. In order to give intellectual rigor to his studies, Ruskin devised
a series of “orders” of Gothic architecture, corresponding to the transi-
tion from Romanesque to late Gothic (Fig. 20.7), just as Thomas Rickman
had classified the phases of English Gothic architecture in 1817.81 Ruskin’s
approach needs to be situated in the context of the 19th century’s obses-
sion with evolutionary theory and classification. In defining his “orders”
of Venetian Gothic architecture, he hoped to provide the subject with a
theoretical basis comparable to that of the classical tradition. Although in
reality the middle “orders” of the sequence did not evolve in an orderly
fashion, the scheme still retains its usefulness for describing and dating
Gothic domestic buildings.
Ruskin’s Stones ushered in another highly significant innovation: the
use of the color lithograph. Ever since the first illustrated treatises of the
early 16th century, architectural literature had been printed in black and
white. It was Ruskin who renewed critical interest in the polychromy of
the townscape. The process of chromo-lithography, originally pioneered
for banknotes and playing cards, allowed his watercolor studies to be
translated into print—not as perfected, tidied-up versions but enlivened
by the intensity of the hues and the picturesque signs of erosion and dam-
age. Ruskin not only brought about a revolution in public taste; he also
challenged the theory and practice of building conservation. Appalled
by the Austrians’ radical restoration of St Mark’s, he pressed for a more
respectful approach to the historical fabric, aiming to halt further deterio-
ration rather than to replace damaged elements with new imitations.
Despite Ruskin’s efforts, modern studies of the architecture of early
Renaissance Venice still tend to dwell on the city’s perceived delay in grasp-
ing the principles of Vitruvian classicism.82 This Vasarian viewpoint fails
to take account of the cultural independence and commercial strength of
81 Thomas Rickman, An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of English Architecture
(London, 1817).
82 This is a perspective that underlies McAndrew, Venetian Architecture. See the per-
ceptive review by Debra Pincus in The Art Bulletin 65 (1983), 342–46.