The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice. Part 2. The thirteenth century. Vol. 1. Text [1] 0226142892, 9780226142890

Citation preview

Otto Den1us

THE MOSAICS OF SAN MARCO IN VENICE

2 The Thirteenth Century Volume One: Text With a Contribution by Kurt Weitzmann

. '

...

Published for Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D. C. THE UNIVERSITY OF C HICAGO PRESS CHICAGO AND LONDON

Unless otherwise credited, all photographs are by Ekkehard Ritter

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 1984 by Dumbarton Oaks All rights reserved. Published 1984 Printed and bound by Amilcare Pizzi, s. p .a., Milan, Italy 2 3 4 5 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 Publication of this work has been assisted by a grant from the Publications Program of the National Endowment for the Humanities, an independent federal agency Frontispiece: San Marco , atrium, first cupola to the right: the Creation.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING IN PUBLI CATION DATA

Demus , Otto. The mosaics of San Marco in Venice. Includes bibliographies and indexes. Contents: l The eleventh and twelfth centuries (2 v ) - 2. The thirteenth century v 1 Text. r Mosaics, Medieval-Italy-Venice. 2. MosaicsItaly-Venice. I. Basilica di San Marco (Venice, Italy) . I. Title. NA3788 .D45 729' 7'094531 82-2787 ISBN 0-226-14289-2

Contents

List of Figures Preface 1x 1 2

3

4

vu

Introduction 1 The Mosaics of the Interior 4 I. The Great Panels of the Side Walls 4 1 The Agony in the Garden 6 2. The Paradise 21 3 The Story of Susanna 22 4. The Communion of the Apostles and Christ at Emmaus '24: 5 The Legend of Saint Leonard 26 6. The Apparitio Sancti Marci 27 II. The Cupolas of the Tribunes 44 III. The Prophets m the Aisles 45 1 The Emmanuel Senes, North 47 2. The Virgin Series, South 50 IV The Secondary Cycle of Samts 56 V The Lunettes above the Doors (Sopraporte) 66 1 The Sopraporta of the Tesoro Door 66 2. The Sopraporta of the South Door 66 3 The Sopraporta of the Main Door 67 4. The Sopraporta of the Porta San Giovanni 70 VI. Restoration Activity m the Interior during the Thirteenth Century 70 The Mosaics of the Atrium. Architecture, Description, and Program 72 I. The Architecture 72 II. Description of the Mosaics 74 III. The Program 91 1 Critical Survey of the Atnum Program 91 2. The Old Testament Cycle 94 3 The Saints JOO 4. The Virgin with Samts John and Mark I03 The Genesis Mosaics of San Marco and the Cotton Genesis Mimatures Kurt Weitzmann rn5 I. The First Cupola and Lunettes I08 II. The South and North Vaults 119 III. The Second Cupola and Two Lunettes 125 IV The Third Cupola 130 V The Fourth Cupola with Pendentives and Lunettes 132 VI. The Fifth Cupola and the South Lunettte 136 VII. Conclusions 140

V

CONTENTS

5

6

7

8

9

The Mosaics of the Atrium. Composition, Iconography, and Style 143 IA. The Creation Cupola 144 IB. Cain and Abel 147 II. Noah and the Tower of Babel 149 III. The Life of Abraham 152 IV The Life of Joseph, 1 155 V The Life of Joseph, 2 157 VI. The Life of Joseph, 3 165 VII. The Life of Moses and the Deesis of the Virgin 168 1 Composition 169 2. Iconography 170 3 Style 177 4. The Mosaic above the Porta della Madonna 183 5. The Parenzo Ciborium 183 The Mosaics in the Vault of the Cappella Zen 185 I. Description 186 II. Style 188 The Mosaics of the Fai;:ade 192 I. The Christological Cycle 194 II. The Adventus Domini 198 III. The Translatio of Mark's Relics 199 The Development of Mosaic Art in Venice between 1200 and 1300 207 I. The Development 207 II. Byzantine Influences 215 III . Western Influences 218 IV The Venetian Synthesis 220 V The Artists 221 The Dissemmation of the Venetian Mosaic Style and the Influence of San Marco 223 Notes 229 Figures 281 List of Abbreviations Bibliography 313 Indexes 33 5

311

vi

List of Figures 22 Southwest pier of central dome: anonymous saint, head, removed from arch, reverse 23 West arm, south aisle: Isaiah, foot , cast 24 South transept: Michael, painting on marble 25 Southwest pier of central dome: anonymous saint 26 Atnum, west wing, view looking north 27 Atnum, north wing, view looking east 28 Atrium, second Joseph cupola, north apse: Joseph before Pharaoh 29 Atnum, third Joseph cupola, north mche with tombs 30 Atrium, Creation cupola, south lunette, left half, stripped 31 Atrium, Creation cupola, south lunette, right half, before restoration 32 Atnum, first Joseph cupola, north apse: Judgment of Solomon 33 Atrium, second Joseph cupola, east arch. Geminianus 34 Atnum, second Joseph cupola, east arch. Catherine 35 Atrium, Abraham cupola. detail before restoration 36 Atrium, first Joseph cupola, view from below, before restorat10n 37 Atrium, first Joseph cupola. detail before restoration 38 Atrium, first Joseph cupola. detail before restoration 39 Atrium, first Joseph cupola: Reuben Returning to the Pit, Reuben, bust, cast before restoration

1 Ground plan 2 Southwest pier of west dome: ornament 3 West arm, south wall 4 West arm, south wall. Agony in the Garden, standing Christ in center, before restoration 5 West arm, south wall. Agony in the Garden, John, head , cast 6 Rome, San Paolo Juori le mura, apse 7 Rome, San Paolo fuori le mura: Peter, fragment 8 Rome, San Paolo fuori le mura: apostle 9 Rome, San Paolo fuori le mura: apostle 10 Rome, Grotte di San Pietro: apostle I I North aisle, northeast corner 12 North transept: Communion of the Apostles, Chnst at Emmaus 13 South transept: Legend of Leonard , left half 14 South transept: Apparitio Sancti Marci 15 South transept, view looking southeast 16 Northeast pier of central dome: head m gold ground 17 Northeast pier of central dome: star pattern m gold ground 18 Northeast pier of central dome: circular patterns m gold ground 19 Northwest pier of central dome: Bassus, removed from arch, reverse 20 Northwest pier of central dome: Bassus, stucco ground, preparatory drawing 21 Northwest pier of central dome: Julian, bust, before restoration Vll

...

LIST OF FIGURES

40 Atnum, first Joseph cupola. 41 42

43 44

45 Atrium, Moses cupola,

Habakkuk, cast Atrium, second Joseph cupola. Pharaoh Dreaming Atrium, Moses cupola, east apse (Porta della Madonna) Madonna and Child flanked by John and Mark Atrium, thud Joseph cupola , northeast pendentlve: Mark Atnum, Moses cupola, southeast pendent1ve; south lunette: Solomon, Passage of the Red Sea

46 47 48 49 50 51

Vlll

northwest pendentive: Zechariah Atrium, Moses cupola. central medallion, preparatory drawing Parenzo, cathedral. ciborium, front Parenzo, cathedral. cibonum, Eleuthenus Parenzo, cathedral. cibonum, Acolytus Cappella Zen, apse Cappella Zen, vault mosaics. copies

Preface

The preface to this second part of The Mosaics ofSan Marco in Venice can be brief. I am very grateful to the director of Dumbarton Oaks, Professor Giles Constable, for havmg decided to publish the two volumes on the mosaics of the thirteenth century together with those on the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The material for part two was gathered m two campaigns immediately following the work on the earlier mosaics. The work was done by the same team as before, with the difference that Dr Irina Andreescu Treadgold served as field director only as far as the angolo d1 Sant' Alip10, the corner between the west and north wings of the atrium, including the cupola with the story of Abraham, for the north wing of the atrium, which was photographed during the last campaign in 1979, I alone must bear the responsibility The photographic work was done, as before, by Mr E . Ritter of Vienna. For financing the work for this second part, I have again to thank Professor Constable and the senior fellows of the Center for Byzantine Studies of Dumbarton Oaks, as well as the Nat10nal Endowment for the Humanities. As before, we were assisted by the ecclesiastical authorities, to whom I want to express once more my deep gratitude. I am also very grateful to the Centro Tedesco di Studi Veneziani for their generous hospitality and to all our Venetian friends for their kmdness. In Washmgton and Vienna, where the larger part of the writmg was done, I was greatly helped by the director and staff of Dumbarton Oaks and of the Institut fiir Kunstgeschichte of the University of Vienna. I want especially to thank Dr Fanny BonaJuto, Miss Julia Warner, Mrs. Charlotte Burke, Mrs. Irene Vaslef, Mrs. Mary Lou Masey, Mr William Diebold, and Mr Glenn Ruby of Dumbarton Oaks. My greatest obligation 1s to Dr Irmgard Hutter of Vienna for her mvaluable help m weeding out inconsistencies in the manuscript, for readmg the proofs, composmg the indexes, and generally for all kmds of scholarly and practical assistance. My wife has not only borne patiently the disadvantages of being marned to an agmg scholar and author absent from home for long periods, but has also given me every possible help and encouragement. It was my good fortune that the writmg of the chapters on the Old Testament mosaics coincided with the conclusion of the work of professors Kurt We1tzmann and Herbert Kessler on the illustrat10ns of the Cotton Genesis manuscript (British Library), and that Professor Weitzmann consented to contribute a self-contained chapter (4: "The Genesis Mosaics of San Marco and the Cotton Genesis Mmiatures") on the relationship between this Genesis recension and the mosaics of the atrium. There is no chapter in this part on the paleography of the inscriptions, for the sad reason of the sudden death of Professor Rudolf M. Kloos of Munich, the author of the chapter on paleography m part one. Smee, however, the dating of the mscript1ons of the thirteenth-century mosaics presents no great problems, this lack will not be as strongly felt as would have been the case with the mscriptions of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Despite all the 1mperfect1ons of this book, I hope 1t will suggest a new evaluation of Venetian pamting in the thirteenth century Studies on this critical

IX

PREFACE

period ofltalian art have hitherto concentrated almost exclusively on panel and fresco painting , two realms of art in which Venice has little to offer; accordingly, Tuscany and Rome have been regarded as the only creative centers of pictorial art in this period. New light on the mosaics of San Marco should go some way toward establishing thirteenth-century Venice as at least one of the sources of later coloristic development-even if it took the Venetian painters another two hundred years to develop to their highest pitch the coloristic possibilities foreshadowed in the mosaics of San Marco. Otto Demus

X

I

Introduction

At the turn of the twelfth century the decoration of San Marco must have seemed complete to the doge-the verus gubernator ecclesiae-and to the people of Vemce. All the vaulted parts of the interior that were visible from the nave and the transept, and the two main entrances, from the piazza and from the sea, were decorated with mosaics that represented the history of salvation and the story of the apostles, especially of Saint Mark, the patron of church and state, and his relics. There were, in addition, mosaics on the fas:ade, but we know neither the extent nor the program of this exterior decor 1 In any case, the mosaic decoration of San Marco, as 1t appeared about 1200, must have been one of the richest anywhere, with the exception of Sicily, where the cathedral of Monreale possessed a decor that was both larger and more comprehensive from the point of view of iconography It 1s certain that this fact was known m Vemce and 1t is most likely that 1t was one of the reasons that led to a very considerable extens10n of the mosaic program of San Marco in the thirteenth century However, jealousy and the spirit of emulation might not have been sufficiently strong incentives for undertaking a new campaign of decoration m San Marco so soon after the completion of the grand decorative scheme and its restoration at the very end of the twelfth century· a new and powerful stimulus was added by the victory over Byzantium in the Venetian-led Fourth Crusade. The impact of the impresa of Constantmople, which made the doge the "Dominator quartae et dimid1ae partis totius Romaniae," on the political

ideology ofVemce has been repeatedly described, its importance can hardly be overrated. The new power called for all the trappmgs of prestige. In the field of the arts it brought about a movement that can best be described as a kind of protoRena1ssance, 2 as the concomitant of imperialistic archaism, which, havmg no very old tradition of its own, was forced to create one-if need be by faking and forgery (Both the new ideology and its cultural byproducts have been characterized by Hugo Buchthal, who studied its development down to the middle of the fourteenth century 3) It found its most impressive crystallization at first not m the Doge's Palace-this came later-but m San Marco, which, while still the "private chapel of the doge, " became more and more the church of the state and the people. 4 It wa~ here that the newly acquired power, digmty, and wealth had to be shown to the "nation" and the world , in "cele bele Iglise meesme que les Veneciens firent et feront a tos jors mes. " 5 To aid this endeavor, the mterior was enriched with a number of new scemc representations and with a good many single figures, some documenting the contmued possess10n of the relics of Saint Mark, others asserting the recent acquisition of the relics of other samts. The atrium received an entirely new cycle of representations from the Old Testament, surpassing in its richness the Sicilian cycles; in the south vestibule the story of the patron saint was retold with new motifs that lmked him ever more firmly with Venice; and on the fas:ade, which was completely rebuilt with ostentat10us splendor, the legend of the acqmsit10n of his relics was repeated in great

CHAPTER ONE

detail. The middle of the fourteenth century saw a recrudescence of this act1v1ty, under the doge and historiographer Andrea Dandolo, a descendant of the conqueror of Constantinople, which led to the lavish decoration of the Baptistery and the Cappella d1 Sant'lsidoro. However, even the ideas and incentives created by the impresa of Constantinople and the new status of Venice were, in themselves, not sufficient to start and sustain the intense and extended act1v1ty that went on m San Marcom the thirteenth century For the making of mosaics more 1s needed than 1deolog1es. material, artists, and money are necessary Some, perhaps most of these were, however, also provided by the impresa. There 1s documentary evidence that among the booty that was taken to Venice from Constantinople there were not only completely shaped works of art-sculptures, icons, goldsmith's work, etc. 6-but also raw materials, like "taole de marmo et colonne de porfido et marmore" as well as "molto mosaICo per adornar la giex1a de San Marco. " 7 We do not know how the Venetians came by this mosaic matenalwhether they Just took what was lymg ready m the Constantmopolitan workshops or whether they went so far as to scrape the tesserae off walls or vaults. Nor is it easy to spot this imported material in the earliest mosaics of the thirteenth century m San Marco. We do not know whether the one new substance that appears in these mosaics, namely mother-of-pearl in various shapes and sizes, was part of the booty· on the face ofit this 1s not unlikely, although we do not find it in Monreale, the B yzantine mosaics nearest m time to the products of the new Venetian campaign. By and large, the material used in the Venetian mosaics of the early thirteenth century 1s richer in color and more prec10us than that employed m the mosaics of the late twelfth century The greatest enrichment of the palette is to be found m the greens (including turquoise) , light blues , and yellows. Other colors that were conspicuous in the Passion and Resurrection cycle of the west vault, especially becco di merlo and vermilion, have disappeared completely The question as to whether this was due to a change m the Venetian product10n itself or to acqu1s1t1on of material from Byzantmm must remain unresolved. It is a fact that the earliest mosaic of the thirteenth century in San Marco, that of the Agony in the Garden, certainly shows a new tech-

mque and and preciousness of material, but does not yet exhibit the full development of the new palette, whICh seems to have evolved only in the thud and fourth decade of the thirteenth century in the panels of the prophets and samts and m the mosaics of the atrium. Thus 1t 1s not very likely that this new precious material was part of the Constantmopolitan booty, which should have made its impact a good deal earlier, unless the more massive robbery was deferred for twenty or thirty years after the conquest. The problem is a little different with regard to precious marble, which appeared in various shapes. There 1s little doubt that this material did come from Constantinople. But here, too, the most precious parts-the large plaques on the side walls of the west arm-were not placed m position before the third decade of the thirteenth century; moreover, the entire work of the plaquage (except in the presbytery and side chapels) seems to have begun only at that time: the material must have been stored in the meantime. 8 The time-lag between acqms1t10n and use must have been even greater with regard to the plaques, columns, and capitals employed m parts of the fa