begun in 1865 and finished in 1878. The latter façade was completely reconstructed upon 2200 piles driven to great depths, with the result that the general harmony of the monument—the effect of time and of atmospheric conditions—was completely lost. A lively agitation all over Europe, and particularly in England (conducted by Ruskin and William Morris), led the Italian government to discard the Austrian plan of restoration, at least as regards the interior of the Basilica, and to respect the ancient portions which had stood the test of time and had escaped "renewal" by man. In 1880 a Vigilance Committee was appointed to watch over the restoration of the interior. The committee secured much verde antico and porphyry for the restoration of the pavement, in place of the common marbles which it had been intended to use, and organized special workshops for the restoration and preservation of the ancient mosaics, which it had been intended to detach and replace. Pieces already detached were restored to their original positions, and those blackened by damp and dust were carefully cleaned. Breaks were filled up with cubes obtained from fragments of contemporary mosaics previously demolished. In this way the mosaics of the two arches of the atrium and those of the Zeno chapel were cleaned and preserved.
Contemporaneously with the restoration of the southern facade of St Mark's, the restoration of the colonnade of the ducal palace towards the Piazzetta and the Mole was undertaken at a cost of £23,000. The chief work was executed at the south-west angle, where the columns of the arcade had become so broken and distorted as to menace the safety of the whole building. The corner towards the Ponte della Puglia was also restored, and the hideous device of walling up the five last arches, adopted in the 16th century by the architect Da Ponte, was removed without prejudice to the stability of the structure. In order to lighten the palace the Venetian Institute of Science, Letters and Arts removed its headquarters and its natural history collection to Santo Stefano. For the same reason the Biblioteca Marciana with its 350,000 volumes was moved to the Old Mint, opposite the ducal palace. The space thus cleared has been used for the rearrangement of the Archaeological and Artistic Museum. Side by side with these changes has proceeded the reorganization of the Royal Gallery of Ancient Art, which, created by Napoleon I. for the students of the adjoining Academy of Fine Arts, gradually acquired such importance that in 1882 the government divided it from the academy and rendered it autonomous. The gallery now constitutes a unique collection of Venetian paintings from the most ancient artists down to Tiepolo, one hall only being reserved for other Italian schools and one for foreign schools. Altogether the gallery contains twenty rooms, one being assigned to the complete cycle of the "History of Saint Ursula," by Carpaccio; another to Giambellino and to the Celliniani; and a whole wall of a third being occupied by the famous Veronese, "Il Convito in casa di Levi." Titian's "Presentazione al Tempio," painted for the Scuola della Carita, which is now the seat of the gallery, has been placed in its original position. The hall of the Assumption has been left untouched. Nineteenth-century pictures have been eliminated as foreign to the character of the collection, and inferior works relegated to a side passage. The reorganization of the Archaeological and Artistic Museum and of the Royal Gallery of Ancient Art coincided with the inauguration in April 1895 of a series of biennial International Art Exhibitions, arranged in order to celebrate the silver wedding of the king and queen of Italy. A special brick structure was erected in the public gardens to receive the works of contemporary artists, both Italian and foreign. The selection of works was made by an international jury from which Venetian artists were excluded. The second exhibition, visited by 336,500 persons, was held in 1897, and a third in 1899. The success of this exhibition (visited by 407,930 persons) led to the organization of a fourth exhibition in 1901, largely devoted to the works of Ruskin. The institution of these exhibitions furnished Prince Giovanelli with an opportunity to found at Venice a Gallery of Modern Art, for which a home was found in the Palazzo Pesaro, bequeathed to the city by Princess Bevilacqua la Masa.
History.—It is usually affirmed that the state of Venice owes its origin to the barbarian invasions of north Italy; that it was founded by refugees from the mainland cities who sought asylum from the Huns in the impregnable shallows and mud banks of the lagoons; and that the year 452, the year when Attila sacked Aquileia, may be taken as the birth-year of Venice. That is true in a measure. Venice, like Rome and other famous cities, was an asylum city. But it is nearly certain that long before Attila and his Huns swept down upon the Venetian plain the little islands of the lagoon already had a population of poor but hardy fisherfolk living in quasi-independence, thanks to their poverty and their inaccessible site. This population was augmented from time to time by refugees from the mainland cities of Aquileia, Concordia, Opitergium Altinum and Patavium. But these did not mingle readily with the indigenous population; as each wave of barbarian invasion fell back, these refugees returned to their mainland homes, and it required the pressure of many successive incursions to induce them finally to abandon the mainland for the lagoon, a decision which was not reached till the Lombard invasion of 568. On each occasion, no doubt, some of the refugees remained behind in the islands, and gradually built and peopled the twelve lagoon townships, which formed the germ of the state of Venice and were subsequently concentrated at Rialto or in the city we now know as Venice. These twelve townships were Grado, Bibione, Caorle, Jesolo, Heraclea, Torcello, Murano, Rialto, Malamocco, Poveglia, Chioggia and Sottomarina. The effect of the final Lombard invasion is shown by the resolve to quit the mainland and the rapid building of churches which is recorded by the Cronaca altinate. The people who finally abandoned the mainland and took their priests with them are the people who made the Venetian republic. But they were not as yet a homogeneous population. The rivalries of the mainland cities were continued at closer quarters inside the narrow circuit of the lagoons, and there was, moreover, the initial schism between the indigenous fisher population and the town-bred refugees, and these facts constitute the first of the problems which now affronted the growing community: the internal problem of fusion and development. The second problem of prime importance was the external problem of independence. The early history of the republic is chiefly concerned with the solution of these two problems.
To take the problem of independence first. There is little doubt that the original lagoon population depended for its administration, as far as it had any, upon the larger cities of the mainland. There is a tradition that Venice was founded by "consuls from Padua"; and Padua claimed complete control of the course of the Brenta down to its mouth at Malamocco. The destruction of the mainland cities, and the flight of their leading inhabitants to the lagoons, encouraged the lagoon population to assert a growing independence, and led them to advance the doctrine that they were "born independent." Their development as a maritime people, engaged in small trading and intimately acquainted with their home waters, led Belisarius to seek their help in his task of recovering Italy from the Goths. He was successful; and the lagoons became, theoretically at least, a part of the Eastern empire. But the empire was vast and weak, and its capital lay far away; in practice, no doubt, the lagoon population enjoyed virtual independence, though later the Byzantine claim to suzerainty became one of the leading factors in the formation of the state. It was from Byzantium that the Venetian people received the first recognition of their existence as a separate community. Their maritime importance compelled Narses, the imperial commander, to seek their aid in transporting his army from Grado; and when the Paduans appealed to the Eunuch to restore their rights over the Brenta, the Venetians replied by declaring that islands of the lagoon and the river mouths that fell into the estuary were the property of those who had rendered them habitable and serviceable. Narses declined to intervene, Padua was powerless to enforce its claims and Venice established a virtual independence of the mainland. Nor was it long before Venice made a similar assertion to the imperial representative, Longinus. He was endeavouring to treat with Alboin and the Lombards, and desired to assure himself of Venetian support. He invited the Venetians to give him an escort to Constantinople, which they did, and also to acknowledge themselves subjects of the empire. But they replied that "God who is our help and protector has saved us that we might dwell upon these waters. This second Venice which we have raised in the lagoons is our mighty habitation; no power of emperor or of prince can touch us." That was an explicit statement of Venetian aims and contentions: the place and people had made each other and now belonged exclusively to each other. Longinus admitted that the Venetians were indeed "a great people with a strong habitation"; but by dint of promising large concessions and trading privileges, he
