We should have put in a column or two, of the real
or perspective size, and subdued it into a vague background: the old
workman crushed the church together that he might get it all in, up to
the cupolas; and has, therefore, left us some useful notes of its
ancient form, though any one who is familiar with the method of drawing
employed at the period will not push the evidence too far. The two
pulpits are there, however, as they are at this day, and the fringe of
mosaic flowerwork which then encompassed the whole church, but which
modern restorers have destroyed, all but one fragment still left in the
south aisle. There is no attempt to represent the other mosaics on the
roof, the scale being too small to admit of their being represented
with any success; but some at least of those mosaics had been executed
at that period, and their absence in the representation of the entire
church is especially to be observed, in order to show that we must not
trust to any negative evidence in such works. M. Lazari has rashly
concluded that the central archivolt of St. Mark's _must_ be posterior
to the year 1205, because it does not appear in the representation of
the exterior of the church over the northern door;[153] but he justly
observes that this mosaic (which is the other piece of evidence we
possess respecting the ancient form of the building) cannot itself be
earlier than 1205, since it represents the bronze horses which were
brought from Constantinople in that year.
Pages:
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223