Aerial View of San Giorgio Maggiore. Photo by Sborisov, Shutterstock
Originally written as an analysis report of the refectory of San Giorgio Maggiore in the summer of 2019, this piece examines the history and restoration of the Palladian Church’s refectory. This report was presented in August 2019.
I had the chance to spend the summer of 2019 with the Pratt in Venice program. I took the Materials and Techniques class and the Art and Architecture History of Venice class with the wonderful Professors Diana Gisolfi and Joseph Kopta, respectively, and it was for their class that this report was written. It was a dream to write a paper on San Giorgio Maggiore while physically sitting in the cloisters of the monastery, now converted into one of the premier libraries in Venice. Furthermore, I will be forever grateful for the archivists’ willingness to show me the historical records and photographs of the refectory’s renovations
The Benedictine monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice has been a historical site since its founding in 982. The monks grew to be an affluent and populated order, and their commissioned architecture reflects the period and importance of the order. Against a backdrop of historical renovations done by famed architects, Andreas Palladio stood out with his design of the Monks’ Refectory. Celebrated at its creation, the Refectory has known a series of defeats and recoveries. The changes to the refectory, both during Palladio’s lifetime and after, can be examined literally by the walls of the refectory itself. By analyzing the materials used to construct the refectory, one can decode the major historical events that transpired during the refectory's existence and even the intents of the architect during its construction.
Establishment of the Monastery
The island that now houses the Monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore was formerly known as the Isle of the Cypresses, so named for the striking Cypress trees that even now grow in the monastery. A church dedicated to the Cult of Saint George was already established on the island. In 982, the Doge Memmo gave the church to the Benedictine monks under the leadership of Abbot Giovanni Morosini, and it was rebuilt by Morosini to include a library, vineyard, woods, and a mill.¹ However, due to two disasters that occurred in the thirteenth century, little of the original form of the church remains today.
Two major events of the thirteenth century—the fire of 1209 and the earthquake of 1229—forced the monasterial complex to be rebuilt. Although it was not fully known to what extent the reconstruction was required, the extensive damage outlined in Francesco Sansovino’s written account of the Island of San Giorgio Maggiore indicates that significant repairs were done.² The church would not undergo major repairs again until 1419, when the Abbot Giovanni Michael reconsecrated the church and began a series of refurbishments that would eventually lead to the arrival of Andreas Palladio.³
Benedictines in the Fifteenth century
The Benedictines in the fifteenth century was an extremely prominent order of Venetian ecclesiastical society. In addition to the characteristic function of monasteries at the time (i.e., serving as a hospice and welcoming pilgrims), the Order was often a destination for doges and other high figures of Venetian society when they wished to withdraw from court. The boundaries of the monastery also served as a shelter for foreign figures and exiles. Monks of San Giorgio Maggiore traveled both in Venice and abroad, going as far as the Far East to establish Benedictine chapter houses, and returning with the knowledge of the world.⁴
An incredibly affluent order, the Benedictines earned a handsome income from renting their storehouses (located around the island before the Ducal power forced the order to forfeit them) out to traveling merchants. They were prosperous to the point that even the Venetian Senate, in times of crisis, would call on the monks of San Giorgio to replenish their assets and finances, and in return, the monks were granted certain concessions and limited immunity from the Venetian State.⁵
As the power of the Benedictines grew, their physical church became worn out by the numerous travelers and overuse of the space. So much so that when the Abbot Giovanni Michiel (1403–30) took over, he made it one of his main focuses to redesign the monastery and its grounds. The decision to rebuild the church was as much a practical one—the necessity of more space to accommodate the growing number of monks—as it was a reflection of the wealth held by the Benedictines. This rebuilding is also part of the effort done by the monastery in order to comply with the ideological reform taking place within the Catholic world. Therefore, the renovations done during that time, including the construction of the Palladian refectory in the mid-sixteenth century,⁶ is a record of the historical situation—socioeconomic and ecclesiastical—and of the monastery in the height of their power marked forever with the physicality of the architecture.
The rebuilding of the Church of San Giorgio Maggiore in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is one of the largest renovations that the church undergoes in its history, starting with the restoration of the libraries and the cloisters of the monastery and eventually leading to the arrival of Andreas Palladio for the renovation of the church and the construction of the refectory. They took place over a period of two hundred years and refined the monastery into what we see today.
One of the first changes that were introduced to the cloisters was the addition of a library commissioned by Cosimo di Medici during his stay at San Giorgio Maggiore when he was exiled from Florence, showing his gratitude to the city for taking him in. The library was designed by the architect Michelozzo Michelozzi and reportedly featured ceilings that were completely gilded with gold and decorated with painted crests of the Medici family.⁸ Later on, dormitories, added by the architect Giovanni Buora and his son and co-designer Andreas Buora, were designed (called the Sansovinian Cloisters, although it was highly unlikely that Sansovino⁹ had any hand in designing them as he did not arrive in Venice until much later). It was upon the foundations of the cloisters that Andreas Palladio began to build his refectory for the monks, and the aesthetics of the cloisters are seen in the addition.
Arrival of Palladio and Construction of the Refectory
In the year 1560, the Benedictine monks decided that they would build a new refectory, and so they sought an architect for the job. The person chosen by the Abbot at the time was a budding architect who had made his name building family villas on the terraferma, Andreas Palladio. Palladio was yet relatively unknown within the city, as the Refectory of San Giorgio and the Convent of Santa Maria della Carità would be his breakout projects in Venice, but still, the magnificent project was entrusted to him.¹¹
Although the refectory is often credited as one of the first projects that Palladio had designed by himself in Venice, the construction, in reality, had already begun before Palladio arrived. In laying out the foundations of the cloisters, Andreas Buora had already predetermined a location for the refectory, which included brick walls that had been raised to the level of the tops of the rounded windows that can still be seen in the refectory today. Palladio, inspired by the majestic interiors of Ancient Roman baths, decided to raise the walls to include a cross-vaulted ceiling and classical molding.¹²
He further divided the space that was allotted to him for the refectory into an upper and lower portion, the upper being the space where the monks could prepare themselves and take their meals, and the lower portion a space for the kitchen and the monk’s cellar could be (figure 1). His decision to split the room by height was widely admired at the time, as it doubled the amount of function that the space could be used for.¹³
The upper level of the refectory will be the main area discussed as an example of the building reflecting the history and the contemporary situation of the monastery, as it is the part that is visible to the public, both today and by the guests that the Abbots would have invited to dine with the monks. In fact, it was sometimes even used to host the doge and his retinue, as seen in 1638 when the doge and the abbot hosted a banquet for a French Ambassador celebrating the birth of the Dauphine of France.¹⁴ Palladio certainly had the grandeur of the potential guests in mind when he constructed the refectory, as he responded with a design that was well received by both the abbot and the guests.
The top of the refectory is divided into three parts, with a grand staircase leading from the first room, past the second, and into the refectory proper. The plans of each of the three rooms are further distinguished by the purpose of their circulation. The first room, also known as the vestibule, is dominated by the grand staircase that leads to the atrium. A room that is taller than it is in plan, it is meant to use the added space that comes with height to bring a meditative aura to the space¹⁵ , therefore allowing the monks to clear their minds before proceeding, via the staircase, into the atrium.
The atrium is a wide but short room, the shape of which is designed to draw the attention of the two Verona Marble sinks that are placed on either side of the walnut doorway that leads into the refectory in order for the monks to clean their hands and faces before entering the dining hall.
The refectory proper is a long room measuring around 10 meters across and 30 meters in depth. Tables are meant to go along the walls on either side, where it would accommodate the monks who are taking their meals, therefore, the length is necessary to fit up to two hundred monks, as the monastery housed at the height of their power.¹⁶ The width is less important, perhaps explaining why it is thinner, as it is only meant to accommodate the table of the abbot and his important guests, the number of which would not be exuberant.
The materials used in the refectory can be analyzed by room, starting with the atrium and working our way to the refectory proper. Palladio was quite experienced in using relatively inexpensive materials in his buildings,¹⁷ a fact that the monks, despite their financial prosperity, must have enjoyed. As with most of his villas on the terraferma, Palladio designed the refectory to be mostly built out of brick and wood. He then employed a technique known as marmorino,¹⁸ covering the red brick walls with white plaster so that it would look like stone, and used actual white Istrian stone only for relatively small building details, such as the cornice of the classical framing of the door. Palladio also enjoyed using denotations of white and red to indicate the first order — the order that is primarily used to house the load-bearing skeleton — versus the second more decorative order of the building. This is a technique that he used on the Church of San Giorgio, and implied to be used in the refectory as well when layers of paint had been scanned using a cross section.
The atrium of the refectory is quite plainly decorated, with only the necessities present in the small space (fig. 2). Although sparse, the monks spared no expense in the decoration of the atrium, as it spoke to their considerable wealth. The sinks on both sides of the wall leading into the refectory are made of red Verona marble, and featured Corinthian capital columns used in their proper classical order with a triangular pediment resting on top of them.¹⁹ Between the two columns of each sink, the monks commissioned paintings to decorate and fill the space. Although in Palladio's time, the two paintings were of Christ with the two Samaritans, Jacob and Rachel, they were taken away in the 1670s and replaced by paintings depicting Samson drinking from his jaw and Moses bringing water from the cliff, both painted by the artist Giovan Battista Langetti (1625–1676).²⁰ Furthermore, the doors leading into the refectory are made of solid dark walnut, masterfully carved, and meant to recall the patterns that are present within the refectory itself. Indeed, Palladio further implies the connection between the upper atrium and the refectory proper by trimming the top of the walls of both rooms with a cornice of stone, decorated with carved patterns. The pattern of roses carved into the stone is wrapped around the top of the atrium, breaks off at the top of the door frame, and begins again on the other side of the wall to wrap around the refectory.²¹
Fig 3. The Wedding of Cana. Photo by Wikipedia
The refectory itself uses much of the materials that were employed in the atrium before it, and most of the materials are used for nearly the same purpose. The most eye-catching aspect of the refectory is, of course, The Wedding of Cana painted by Paolo Veronese (fig. 3) that greets the eye of the viewer the moment they step into the room. Veronese is a favorite of Palladio, as they had partnered on many of Palladio's projects in the Veneto—such as the Villa Barbaro in the Veneto²²—prior to their collaboration on the refectory. Made entirely as oil paint on canvas, it measures 70 m² and covers the entirety of the back wall of the refectory. The canvas shows the first miracle performed by Christ by turning water into wine at a wedding, and the subject is quite a popular motif for refectories at the time.
As a demonstration of the wealth of the monks, no expense was spared on the painting either. In a contract between the Benedictine monks and Veronese, the monks asked the painter to use the best pigments available, such as ultramarine, a precious pigment made from ground-up lapis lazuli. The Wedding of Cana was, like the design of the refectory, widely lauded at the time, with contemporary nobility and royalty asking for small copies of the painting.²³ The composition of the painting was also meant to reflect the composition of the refectory, with the abbot and his important guest sitting beneath the table that hosts Christ at the wedding. The arrangement of seats is a continuation of the four walnut tables on each side that would be present in the refectory (fig. 4).
The walls of the refectory proper, much like the walls of the atrium, are done in the marmorino technique. Attached to the right wall, in the middle of the four large windows, there was a tabernacle, made by the same Verona marble as the sinks in the atrium, where the chosen monk²⁵ of the day would read scripture aloud as the others ate. All the other monks were required to remain completely silent, a fact reinforced by the gouache angels hanging over the interior of the exit to the atrium, holding a painted banner reading “silentium,” painted by Veronese’s youngest son, Carlo Cannavaro Caliari.²⁶
The subject of the large thermal windows (fig. 5) present on the outside of the refectory has been a topic of debate among many Palladian scholars. Although it seems like the architect intended to include his signature thermal windows in the walls of the refectory to bring more dramatic light into the small room, the decision later seemed to have been overruled, and the thermal windows were closed. It is debated whether the closing of the windows was Palladio’s own decision or the work of others after him. However, the brick and mortar used between the outer wall of the thermal windows and the inner wall chosen to close the windows dates back to the 1560s, making it highly possible that Palladio himself chose to close the thermal windows.²⁷
The floor of the refectory has also been a topic of debate. The woodcut done by Coronelli, the only surviving record of how the refectory looked before the destruction following the military occupation of the monastery, showed the floor as a blank white space, without indication of the materials once used (fig. 4). It is theorized that the floor of the refectory was made using a checkered red and white pattern—Verona marble and Istrian stone, respectively—as Veronese painted the floor in The Wedding of Cana, since the painting is meant to be a continuation of the refectory in real life. This theory is further supported by the fact that the checkered red and white floor was a popular pattern for wealthy households and important public buildings in Venice, which the refectory of San Giorgio Maggiore certainly was.
Refectory under Occupation
Palladio, his worth proven to the monks by his work in the refectory, was then commissioned to design the renovations for the main church of San Giorgio Maggiore as well as the cloisters outside the refectory, known now as the Palladian cloisters, or the cloisters of the Cypresses. Over the next thirty years of his life, he would continue to work on San Giorgio Maggiore. The Benedictine monastery would become one of his grandest projects in Venice alongside the Church of the Redentore.²⁸ He passed in 1580, and has since then been lauded as one of the most influential figures in the history of architecture.
The Benedictine monks continued to enjoy more than two centuries of relative peace on their eponymous island, away from the political center of San Marco. However, the silence of the monks could not last for long, as with most of Venice, San Giorgio Maggiore could not withstand the occupation of Napoleon.²⁹ In 1797, when Napoleon invaded Venice, he set his eyes on the prosperity of the monasteries within the boundaries of the city. During his regime, more than 70 churches were razed to the ground, and 13,000 paintings looted and sold around Europe.³⁰ The monks of San Giorgio were in no way spared. One of the first things lost in the war was The Wedding of Cana, which Napoleon took back to the Louvre as a substitute for Tintoretto's Paradise. When the occupation of Venice in the following years finally died down, the French refused to give the painting back, and now it hangs in the Louvre and is one of the best-preserved and largest examples of oil-on-canvas painting.³ If you ever get a chance to visit the Louvre, turn around from where all the tourists are photographing the Mona Lisa, and you can see the Wedding of Cana dominating the opposite wall.
The paintings between the columns in the atrium were also lost during the war, and the wear and tear from the military’s usage of the Palladian Refectory has worn the gouache drawings by Calliari off the interiors of the refectory. Now, not even a single trace of the angels and the designs that surrounded them can be found. Even the carved double walnut doors that led into the refectory were looted, as well as the dark walnut seats and tables that were built to line the walls of the refectory.³² The oratory booth was removed as well and quite possibly sold off to make the vertical space more usable for the soldiers. Interestingly, the two Verona marble sinks in the atrium remained, even when the soldiers reconfigured the section of the refectory and removed the staircase leading to the second level.
The monks were also evicted from the monastery in large numbers, and most were sent to other monasteries around the Veneto. By the time the occupation was nearing its end, a singular friar still resided within the refectory, his continued residence justified by his role in maintaining the structure of the once-majestic San Giorgio Maggiore.³³
After the monks were evicted, soldiers moved into the monastery, and for the next one hundred and fifty years, the island was used as a storage facility, a soldiers’ barrack, and later, even a weapons manufacturing factory. The refectory, in particular, was rebuilt to house a soldier's theatre (accessible from the outside through the tall windows), with a factory beneath. The original two-storey plan made by Palladio was removed, and although the refectory that the conservators found at the end of the Second World War was still a two-storey plan, the original Palladian floor had been removed and another had been added above, right beneath the bottom of the windows.
The Refectory, much like the city of Venice, was passed from nation to nation during its occupation, making it difficult to pinpoint which damage was done by which army (other than the obvious ones by Napoleon).³⁴ During the 150 years that the refectory was occupied, it changed hands from the French to the Austrians, to the Nazis, until it was finally restored by the Giorgio Cini Foundation at the end of World War II.³⁵ However, even with the restorations completed, the damages done to the refectory during the time it was under military occupation will forever be reflected on the walls and materials of the refectory itself.
Restoration by the Cini Foundation
In 1951, millionaire and former officer of the Fascist party of Italy, Vittorio Cini, decided to restore the Monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore after the death of his son and heir, Giorgio Cini, who died in a plane accident near Cannes. Vittorio Cini then created the Giorgio Cini Foundation in memory of his son, a foundation that still maintains and restores the monastery today.
When the Cini Foundation first acquired the project, the Palladian refectory was in complete disrepair. The original Palladian floor had been removed, and a second floor added, revealing a network of piping (added in later centuries) on the ceiling of the first floor (fig. 6). An additional storage unit had been grotesquely added outside the refectory to provide more space for the factory that operated on the first level (fig. 7). The windows on the second floor of the original Palladian refectory had been converted into an impromptu entrance for the soldiers' theatre, accessible via a staircase that wound up from the outside of the additional storage unit (fig. 8). Additionally, the existing walls and floors were heavily damaged by the wear and tear caused by soldiers, due to their heavy use of machinery and other manufacturing equipment. By the late 1950s, the Palladian refectory resembled more of a run-down factory space, divided by crude barriers and exposed piping, rather than the previously elegant Palladian design.
Vittorio Cini set to work on restoring the refectory immediately. His primary concern during the restoration was to use the same methods that Palladio had originally employed when the refectory was first constructed.³⁷ Although the differences between the two centuries' constructions were still clearly visible—both to the naked eye and via more scientific scans (the obvious differences being the availability of synthetic materials and different painting methods and pigments during the Cini Foundation's restoration compared to Palladio’s time)—the technique used in the reconstruction was, to the best of Vittorio Cini's knowledge in the late 1950s, authentic to those Palladio would have used in the sixteenth century.
In keeping with Palladio’s original refectory, the Cini Foundation also built their version mostly out of bricks, using the marmorino technique of laying plaster over bricks to create the same effect Palladio had achieved (fig. 9). The floor construction, too, was done in the same manner that Palladio would have employed, with wooden slates supported by brick piers, and a more finely finished floor laid over the wooden beams (fig. 10).
However, the refectory had also suffered losses from which it could not fully recover. By the time the Cini Foundation took up the project of restoration, most of the artworks that had once adorned the refectory had either been looted or worn out. The gouache angels painted by Calliari, for example, had undergone such rough treatment that not even a trace of the artwork remained on the wall.³⁸ Furthermore, the walnut benches and tables where the monks used to sit had been carted off by the army, along with the carved double wooden doors that led into the refectory.
The masterful paintings that once decorated the refectory, including The Wedding at Cana by Paolo Veronese and the paintings of Moses and Samson by Langetti that hung between the columns of the atrium, were also looted. The French refused to return the Veronese, as it was considered a spoil of war, and the whereabouts of the two Langetti paintings remain unknown after 150 years of turmoil.
It was something of a miracle that the Verona marble sinks survived the occupation, as they are, arguably, the most prominent physical features within the refectory. Despite their somewhat jarring appearance, hanging in the middle of the wall, heralding the entrance into what became a war factory, they remained intact and, for the most part, undamaged. The Cini Foundation left them in place, simply restoring the red stone to its original polish.
The framing that bordered the top of the refectory, as well as the windows and doorways, also survived the occupation, though they were severely damaged. Stonecutters employed by the Cini Foundation refurbished much of the stonework, filling in pits and cracks, and sanding the stone smooth (fig. 11).
The interior of the refectory was also refurbished to match Palladio’s original intent. However, studies by later conservation efforts revealed considerable differences in the basic chemical composition between the original Palladian refectory and the Cini Foundation restorations.³⁹ These differences will be covered in the next section.
This similarity in appearance, yet difference in composition—with irreversible modern materials—characterized the restoration of the Palladian refectory, as was the case with many other projects of its time. Therefore, while the Cini Foundation’s restoration never fully recreated the Palladian refectory as Vittorio Cini had hoped, the restoration nonetheless added, quite literally, another layer of history to the San Giorgio Maggiore Refectory.
Studies in the 21st century
Both before and after the refectory’s reopening to the general public in 2008, different teams of researchers have done studies on the materiality of the Palladian refectory. Their efforts have examined both the original materials with which Palladio had built the refectory in the sixteenth century, and the materials used in the nineteenth-century restoration done by the Cini Foundation. In essence, they are using the composition of the walls of the refectory itself to decode the different restoration that has taken place within the architecture.
One such examination, led by the architect Vittorio Gregotti and supervised by the architect Roberto Cecchi, investigated the possible finishes from the sixteenth century that are still present in the refectory today. During the investigation, they examined both the refectory proper and the atrium of the refectory.⁴⁰
Unfortunately, the investigations revealed very little of the original Palladian finishings, as most of the plaster and paint had been worn away either during the war or during the restoration efforts of the fifties. Still, the architects used stratigraphy to produce layers of transverse thin sections in order to analyze the material composition of the wall.
The architects' studies revealed that the atrium's wall was originally covered with a bituminous treatment, probably designed to keep moisture from the humid Venetian air from penetrating the wall. On top of the treatment, the builders had spread a base mortar of hydraulic lime, cement, and sand, on top of which there was a layer of aerial lime and high-porosity sand. Then, as a finishing coat, the previous restoration efforts had applied numerous layers of lime and synthetic paint. The usage of all of these materials spoke obviously of modern restoration — as Palladio would not have had access to cement or synthetic paint.⁴¹
Thankfully, this study of the atrium wall was not representative of the state of all the other finishing within the refectory. In other parts of the refectory, such as around the terracotta windowsills, there was the presence of both modern materials and sixteenth-century ones. In fact, two conditions were found on the bricks that surrounded the terracotta windows. The first condition presented a layer of thick white lime on top of the brick base, then a layer of paint in grey, and finally a modern painting that used a polymeric binder. This condition is probably the result of restoration, as evidenced by the binder used, whereas paint binders in Palladio's time would usually have featured more natural binders (fig. 12).
The second condition, however, is more intriguing. The grey paint was used as the first step of this condition, on top of which a thick white layer was superimposed, after which an orange paint was applied, and it was finished with a varnish with particle deposits. The research team studying the refectory theorized that the second condition was present on the walls that were untouched by the restoration efforts (fig. 13).
Another study done on the refectory revealed the presence of a sub-floor beneath the visible floor. The second floor was probably designed to be an acoustic and thermal insulator, made from a mixture of cement and asbestos fibers superimposed on a layer of lime plaster, which speaks to its reconstruction during the 1950s restoration.
The third item reviewed in the examination efforts of the 21st century was the attempt to date the sealing of the large thermal windows on the exterior of the refectory. Although many scholars have debated over the years why and when the thermal windows were closed—Palladio’s later designs certainly heavily featured the use of thermal windows—this study definitively proved that the windows were bricked up during Palladio’s time.
During this study, the team of investigators used both stratigraphic and endoscopic methods to detect the differences between the outside wall of the refectory and the inside wall of the cenacle—which were separated from each other by a gap of around ten centimeters, probably for insulation. Using mineralogical and petrographic methods, they determined that the mortar used to close the masonry and the mortar used to build the wall were contemporary,⁴² therefore leading to the hypothesis that the thermal windows were closed by the will of Palladio himself.
Concluding Words
Since the founding of the Benedictine monastery in the 10th century, the monks commissioned architecture that became a reflection of historical events and the societal state of the order. One of these spaces is the Palladian refectory of San Giorgio Maggiore.
It is a space that, through the next few centuries of history, accumulated physical evidence on the walls of the refectory. This paper discusses the major events that have happened to the monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore and the mark they left on the walls of the Palladian refectory within the monastery, revealing that the impact of history on the monastery can be examined using the materials within the architecture.
Some of the quotes and sources in the report is translated from Italian by me. I have attempted to represent the meanings of the author to the best of my ability. Mild edits for clarity and grammar has been made to the original report.
Bibliography
Okey, Thomas. The Story of Venice. Nendeln, Liechenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1971 : 364
Cooper , Tracy E. Palladio’s Venice . New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005: 109
Cooper , Tracy E. Palladio’s Venice : 109-110
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell'Arte. Compiled by Ugo Stefanutti. 1987 ed. Atti Dei Convegni Dell'Associazione Civica Venezia Serenissima. Venezia: Venezia Serenissima, 1987: 9-10
Ceschin, Federico. Mille Anni Di Storia in Pericolo: Storia Del Cenobio Di San Giorgio Maggiore. Venezia: Filippi Editore, 1995.
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte. 8
Cooper , Tracy E. Palladio’s Venice : 111
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte. : 19
Ibib, 44
Howard, Deborah. Jacopo Sansovino: Architecture and Patronage in Renaissance Venice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.: 9
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte. : 45-46
Cooper , Tracy E. Palladio’s Venice : 111
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte. : 45-46
Hopkins, Andrew. “Ceremony, Singing and Seating in San Giorgio Maggiore,” n.d.
Conversation with Tracy Cooper
As measured in the refectory
Palladio museum in Vicenza
Beltramini, Guido, and Howard Burns. Palladio. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2008.
As seen in the refectory
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte. : 53
As seen in the refectory
“NOTE E AVVISI: La Collezione Di Carrozze.” VILLA DI MASER (Villa Barbaro) - Patrimonio dell'Umanita UNESCO, n.d. http://www.villadimaser.it/.
Gisolfi, Diana. Paolo Veronese and the Practices of Painting in the Late Renaissance Venice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte. : 49
Ibib, 54
Ibib, 55
Cherido, Mario M., and Michele Zaggia. Edited by Maria Piana and Ugo Soragni. Palladio: Materali Techniche Restauri, no. 10-1 (2011): 183
Ackermann, James S. Palladio (Architect and Society). Ringwood, Australia: Penguin Books, 1966.
Norwich, John Julius. The Paradise of Cities: Venice in the 19th Century. New York: Vintage Books, 2004.: 15-24
Zorzi, Alvise. Venezia Scomparsa. Milano: A. Mondadori, 2001.
“Work The Wedding Feast at Cana.” The Wedding Feast at Cana | Louvre Museum | Paris, n.d. https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/wedding-feast-cana.
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte. : 58-59
Ibib 85
Madden, Thomas F. Venice: A New History. New York, US: Penguin Books Australia, 2015. Chapter 18
Townsend, George H. The Manual of Dates: a Dictionary of Reference to All the Most Important Events in the History of Mankind to Be Found in Authentic Records. London: Frederick Warne, 1877
Vittorio Cini - Biografia, n.d. http://www.vittoriocini.it/vittoriocini/en/bio.html.
Frasson, Giuseppe. Il Cenobio Di S. Giorgio Maggiore Nella Storia E Nell’Arte.
Cherido, Mario M., and Michele Zaggia. Edited by Maria Piana and Ugo Soragni. Palladio: Materali Techniche Restauri, no. 10-1 (2011): 182-183.
Ibib: 175-183
Ibib
Ibib: 183.
Comments