Comparative Synagogue Architecture in the

Venetian Ghetto, 1500-1800

A Senior Honors Thesis for the Department of Art and Art History

Emily Cannon

Tufts University, 2014

Acknowledgements

Throughout this process there have been many stressful nights and mental blocks but in the end it was such a rewarding process, and there were two particular people who helped me through. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Abramson for his unwavering support in helping me through this process, not by telling me what to do but by sending me on the right path and letting me make my own choices and mistakes.

Secondly, I would especially like to thank my close friend and fellow architecture nerd, Jon Duval for his continued support throughout this process. A self-named harsh critic when editing, not only helped become a better writer in the future but also improve within the span of my writing period for my thesis. His support throughout the researching and writing of my thesis meant the world to me. When I was thinking of how much more was still to come, he would look at my situation as the glass half full and it always made me feel better.

Table of Contents

Preface 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 1: Historical Context and Background of the Ghetto 10 Chapter 2: The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto 18 Scuola Grande Tedesca 19 Scuola Canton 23 Scuola Levantina 28 Scuola Italiana 31 Scuola Spagnola 35 Conclusion 38 Chapter 3: A Comparison of the Venetian Ghetto Synagogues 39 The Five-Window Motif 40 Exterior 41 Approach to Hall of Worship 42 Hall of Worship 46 The Ark 47 The Bimah 50 The Cupola 53 Conclusion 53 Chapter 4: Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe 55 Italian Synagogues 56 Ancona 56 Livorno 59 Iberian Synagogues 62 Tomar 62 German Synagogues 65 Berlin 65 Ansbach 67 Conclusion 70 Chapter 5: Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture 71 General Church Design 73 Churches and Synagogues 79 Ark and Bimah vs Altar and Pulpit 82 Conclusion 87 Conclusion 89 Images Index iv Works Cited xliv

iii

Preface

While studying abroad last spring in Florence, I visited Venice with my architecture studio class and saw famous locales such as Piazza San Marco and Ponte di Rialto.

However, we also visited a section of the city rather unknown to tourists—the Venetian

Ghetto. While in the ghetto, my professor described to us the situation from which the ghetto and the well-hidden synagogues came about. While talking, he also described that, even though their exteriors were plain and undistinguishable the interiors of the synagogues were lush with ornamentation and color. I could not believe it but when I looked at pictures he gave us in the handout, I was immediately mesmerized and intrigued.

I wanted to learn as much as I could about the Venetian Ghetto and its synagogues and how they have been influenced and shaped over time. Therefore, my thesis will attempt to discover new relations between the synagogues within the Venetian Ghetto while also comparing them to other synagogues in Europe and churches within Venice.

1 Introduction

Introduction

2 Introduction

This thesis will not only consider each Venetian Ghetto synagogue individually, but also explore how they came to be and their relationships to each other, from their origin in the 16th century through their restoration in the 17th-18th century. From there I will compare the Venetian synagogues to synagogues in the regions from where the majority of the Jewish population of Venice originated: Spain, Germany, and other locations in Italy. I will then return to Venice and compare the synagogues to other nearby religious buildings.

It is important to examine the architecture of other religious monuments since Venice, from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, since Venice was dominated socially, economically, and politically by the Catholic Church.

This thesis will add a new facet to the understanding of the Venetian Ghetto through its presentation of the material using the comparative method. As research was conducted, it was noted that many scholars have studied the synagogues individually but there has not been any research that compared different aspects of synagogue design to each other.

Using the comparative method not prevalent in existing research, I will discover new patterns in synagogue designs and their similarities to not only other synagogues in Europe but to churches.

The beginning of my thesis will give the reader background knowledge on the tumultuous social and political climate of Venice that lead to the creation of the Venetian

Ghetto. After background of the ghetto, each individual synagogue will be discussed in turn, starting with the oldest one, Scuola Grande Tedesca and continuing chronologically to the Scuola Canton, Scuola Italiana, and Scuola Levantina, ending with the Scuola Spagnola.

Within each discussion of the individual synagogue, there will be a particular approach.

During the course of research of English and Italian texts, I discovered that English texts

3 Introduction were organized in a very rational and compartmentalized way. An example of this is a text by David Cassuto named “The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venetian Ghetto” which describes the building in an orderly manner covering the façade first then proceeding to the hall of worship and plan and then a separate section for both the Bimah and Ark.

By contrast, the Italian texts focused on the overall effect or impression that was shaped by different parts that were brought in here and there throughout; it was more holistic. An example of this type of text is “La Citta degli Ebrei: Il Ghetto di Venezia,

Architettura e Urbanistica” by Ennio Concina which takes the reader on a journey, describing the features of the synagogue as one travels through it, creating a flowing text without the restrictions of sections. This approach to discussing a building was an all- encompassing method to cover the topics in a sensible order and therefore the discussion of the synagogues within my thesis will follow that format.

To delve further into this process, first a brief overview of the synagogue will be provided so there is context. Next is a detailed investigation of the different aspects of the synagogue and how one would journey through the space and experience them. Using this tactic, there will be a creation of a hybrid method that discusses the synagogue as one moves through the space, but also takes time to create defined sections on significant areas within the synagogue. The discussion will start with the façade, then the entrance with the stairs, vestibule and then the first impression of the synagogue and how it feels. After discussing these first features in the context of the Italian method, the text will briefly deviate to the English method to discuss the plan followed by the two main interior elements in a synagogue, the Ark and Bimah separated into two sections due to their overall importance. This will be the outline for each synagogue.

4 Introduction

Following the descriptions and discoveries found in the individual synagogue, a comparison between the synagogues to find points of commonality and difference will occur. The same method used to describe each individual synagogue will be employed to compare them to each other: first the façade, then how the space moves and feels followed by the plan, Ark and Bimah.

Since the ghetto did not exist free from outside influence, there will be a discussion on its relationship to other synagogues. However, these synagogues were not chosen at random. The three main ethnic groups within the ghetto were the Italians, Iberians

(Spanish and Portuguese) and Germans. Within Italy, the Scuola Italiana in Ancona and the

Renaissance Synagogue in Livorno will be discussed. Also included in discussion are the synagogue at Tomar, Portugal, to the Scuola Spagnola and the synagogues of

Heidereutergasse in Berlin and the synagogue in Ansbach to the Scuola Grande Tedesca.

Each synagogue was chosen to discover if there is any connection between them.

Throughout the section, the same format will be used again, a hybrid of the organization of

English and Italian texts.

Following the comparison between the Venetian synagogues and those in other countries, the Venetian Ghetto synagogues will be compared to churches within Venice. It is important to not ignore the other religious buildings within Venice. There were many architects who did not focus on a singular type of building. There was one prominent architect who constructed both churches and synagogues. This was Baldassare Longhena who renovated and embellished the synagogues in the 1600s but also worked on churches like San Pietro di Castello and Santa Maria della Salute, both which will be discussed later on. However, going unnoted by all authors researched, it was not just a Christian architect

5 Introduction who created the influence of Christian architectural features in the synagogues. It is also important to note that the Venetian Ghetto was not self sufficient and therefore when they needed aid, someone from outside the ghetto, a Christian, came in to help. Therefore, an interaction between Christians and Jews occurred that could also add to the influence of churches on synagogues as well. This is will also be discussed later on in Chapter 6.

During the period of Venice under discussion, the churches were freestanding and had few if any restrictions, unlike the synagogues, which were closely incorporated into existing buildings and districts and whose designs were similarly constrained. The lack of restrictions for churches left the door open to a variety of designs that are not found in the synagogues. However, to define an environment under which the synagogues and churches can be compared leads me to focus on two specific aspects of churches, the altar and pulpit.

The altar and pulpit in a church are comparable to the Ark and Bimah, respectively, because both are the two main focal points in their respective religious buildings and hold religious significance. The comparison between synagogues and churches will not extend beyond Venice because it is the backdrop for the majority of my comparisons, the foundation of my thesis and it keeps a narrow scope.

There are many factors that place constraints on the bounds of the research and also influence the choice of writing style. One constrain is born from the urban environment where the synagogues were placed to be part of already existing buildings within the

Venetian Ghetto since there was not space for it otherwise. Since the synagogues were part of the urban fabric already present, they were not freestanding, another constraint.

Following the synagogues’ locations as part of the urban fabric within the ghetto, many other synagogues in Europe were also within these two constraints as well. This was taken

6 Introduction into consideration while choosing the synagogues in Europe to compare to those within

Venice. While being part of the urban fabric and not-free standing are important, the location of the synagogues within the Venetian ghetto or any ghetto is a third constraint.

These three constraints are needed to keep the fundamental designs similar across all synagogues and the constraints created a focus on pre-emancipation synagogues, while the

Jewish population was still forced to live in ghettos. Emancipation in relation to Jewish society, which started to occur in the 1800s, is defined as not having to live within a defined area and have their everyday lives dictated through restrictive laws. Therefore, pre- emancipation deals with the Jewish society during times of oppression, 1300-1800. Also to stay within the bounds of pre-emancipation synagogues, the end date of my period of study is 1800. After 1800, many ghettos were abolished and synagogues slowly became freestanding.

After the definition of the synagogues being studied as pre-emancipation, the time period also needs to be constrained because without it, there would be thousands of synagogues to choose from. The synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto were built in the

1500s, and renovated during the 1600s and 1700s creating my time period of 1500-1800.

Additionally, it will be important for me to distinguish between which aspects came during renovations and which were original since a handful of the renovations were done by non-

Jews, it adds another level of complexity.

Staying within these bounds includes all three sections of the Venetian Ghetto: the

Ghetto Vecchio, Nuovo and Novissimo. However, the Ghetto Novissimo was constructed roughly one hundred years after the Ghetto Vecchio and Ghetto Nuovo and does not contain a prominent synagogue. Therefore will not be included because it does not fit the

7 Introduction most important requirement, having a synagogue and will be ignored for the sake of the focus of my thesis.

There are a multitude of books and articles that deal with the Venetian Ghetto and its synagogues, such as Ennio Concina’s A History of Venetian Architecture, which overviews the different architectural periods in Venetian History and Richard Goy’s Venice: The City and It’s Architecture, which overviews the major buildings within Venice. The readings also include more synagogue specific sources such as Synagogues of Europe by Carol Krinsky,

Benjamin Ravid’s article on The Establishment of the Ghetto Vecchio of Venice, Riccardo

Calimani’s The Ghetto of Venice and David Cassuto’s The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venice

Ghetto. While these sources do give a comprehensive account of the synagogues, there is no in depth comparison between multiple synagogues besides for a brief mention of it sometimes pertaining to the Ark or the façade that is not given the attention it deserves.

While there are many sources, two books were especially helpful for framing the topic historically and conceptually. Carol Krinsky’s Synagogues of Europe: Architecture,

History and Meaning contained the foundation of knowledge for the synagogues, which was then enhanced with unique features found in a variety of other sources. This book was immensely important because without the fundamental knowledge, there would be no basis for the layout of the synagogues and how they are not only oriented on the exterior but also the plan as well. Richard Kieckhefer’s Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from

Byzantine to Berkeley was the book that was fundamental to the discussion of the relationship between churches and synagogues. This book is important to my thesis because its approach is similar to the Italian approach in its method of describing the church through a journey rather than segmented sections. It also covers the altar and

8 Introduction pulpit in-depth which aids in my comparison of those features of the church to the Ark and

Bimah. My work strives to compliment this research by adding a new chapter to understanding the Venetian Ghetto and its synagogues and how buildings can relate to other buildings outside of their genre and location.

9 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto

Chapter 1:

Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto

10 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto

Before a discussion of the synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto can begin, one must first understand the historical period and the events that informed their location and design. To understand the lives of the Jewish population within Venice we must first go back to 1385. This year marks the expiration of a charter by the city granting Jewish bankers and moneylenders the opportunity to live and work in Venice. The charter was then renewed for ten years. In 1394 the ten-year charter expired and the money lending privileges of the Jews were revoked because the Catholics in power felt that the Jews had too much of influence over Venice due to their monopoly of their money lending practices.

The life of the Jews steadily declined from there when in 1397, an edict was passed that limited Jews to being in Venice for only fifteen days at a time. To allow for the enforcement of this edict, Jews were distinguished from the rest of the population by being required to wear “a yellow circle the size of a loaf of bread”1. This edict limited their ability to have stability and security since they were constantly moving. After years of living under these rules, the Catholic powers decided to limit the Jews even more by stipulating that after the fifteen days were up they must leave for four months before they were allowed back.

Tensions seemed to ease in 1408 when the four-month rule was abolished and again in

1478 when Jews were given back their rights under the provision they all wear a badge.

In 1509, tensions within Venice between the Catholics and the Jewish peoples began to escalate due to continuing unrest between the Venetian Empire and France in the War of the League of Cambrai. When peace is present and citizens feel safe, strife is rare; however, when the Venetian Empire gave up Ravenna and Cervia, it did not sit well with the

1 Ravid, Benjamin. "The Establishment of the Ghetto Vecchio of Venice, 1541." Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Vol. 3. N.p.: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977. 153-67. Print. 155.

11 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto population. It was “nostre terre”2, our land. Tensions decreased momentarily when the

Empire recovered Brescia and Verona—a move that was “crucial for the reconstruction of the Venetian terraferma (strong land) state”3. As the war escalated, the toleration of the

Jews by the ruling Catholics started to disappear. As turmoil and hardship flourish so does religious persecution because those afraid want to have someone to blame. In 1516 with the war reaching its climax, there was an increased population of Jews within Venice because they fled persecution from the attacking forces. The increase of the Jewish population within Venice did not help to ease the tensions between the Catholics and Jews so the governing Catholic body did something about it. However, the Catholics were strategic; they knew that “it was not sufficient merely to propose segregating the Jews; the timing of the motion and public receptivity to it had to be right as well”4 which they now had. As the war was coming to a head and to help calm the worries of Venetian citizens, the

“Jews became scapegoats to appease the fear and guilt of the Christians”5. In April of 1516 a law passed that created a restricted and confined area in the Canareggio part of Venice

(Fig. 1). “In earlier times, the site occupied by the ghetto was the site of a foundry called geto in Venetian dialect, from the word gettare, meaning ‘to cast’”6, because at this site they casted copper ammunition. Later that April, the Jews were forced to move into the ghetto

2 Finlay, Robert. "The Foundation of the Ghetto: Venice, the Jews, and the War of the League of Cambrai." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 126.2 (1982): 140-54. JSTOR. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. 148 3 Finlay, The Foundation of the Ghetto: Venice, the Jews and the War of the League of Cambrai, 148 4 Finlay, The Foundation of the Ghetto: Venice, the Jews and the War of the League of Cambrai, 151 5 Finlay, The Foundation of the Ghetto: Venice, the Jews and the War of the League of Cambrai, 152 6 Calimani, Riccardo. The Ghetto of Venice. Trans. Katherine S. Wolfthal. New York: M. Evans, 1987. Print. 129.

12 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto as described by Riccardo Calimani in The Ghetto of Venice. This area was chosen for the ghetto because it was completely surrounded by water, giving the governing body greater control over their movements since there was very little chance for sneaking out after dark.

This area was also a popular choice because it meant that Christians within Venice did not have to give up their homes or move or adapt to a changed environment, a new development was simply created in an unused space. The Ghetto Nuovo was an irregular trapezoid with housing forming a continuous boarder around the exterior of the plot with two entrances via bridges.

When the ghetto was officially created everybody lived in a section called the Ghetto

Nuovo. The Ghetto Nuovo is “a central square ringed by a homogenous portico ”7 roughly

200 feet by 150 feet (Fig. 2). The buildings around it were as uniform as the materials most readily and cheaply available, like wood and plaster stone. Each ghetto had at least two entrances called a sottopòrtego that was controlled by Catholic guards. The buildings in the Ghetto Nuovo were mixed use, with various levels of housing above many shops and communal meeting areas that “always served both religious sensibilities and commercial needs”8. However, upon entering this campi one is immediately tempted to search for the façade of a church as one would be expected to in all other piazzas in Venice. The lack of a church façade makes the campi feel empty and incomplete. Tenant housing and shops take up the space instead. This section of the ghetto is home to three of the five main synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto: the Scuola Canton, Scuola Italiana, and Scuola Grande

Tedesca. The three different synagogues meant a variety of Jewish rites and an inevitability

7 Davis and Ravid, The Jews of Early Modern Venice, 31. 8 Curiel, Roberta, Bernard Dov Cooperman, and Graziano Arici. The Venetian Ghetto. New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Print. 9.

13 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto of overpopulation due to the ever-increasing immigration to Venice for haven from

France’s pressing army and the surrounding rivers limiting the availability of buildable land. This forced the Jews to build up, constructing buildings reaching up to nine stories, much higher than most other buildings in Venice at the time. The limited areas lead to the ghetto fabric being “much denser than it had been in the preceding century” 9.

Due to an increasing population in the Ghetto Nuovo, the Ghetto Vecchio was created on June 2, 1541. Confusingly, the Ghetto Vecchio was created after the Ghetto

Nuovo and the reasoning for this naming was not based on which part of the ghetto came first, but, rather, the “words ‘new’ and ‘old’ refer to the original foundries not the subsequent Jewish districts”10. Not only the need for additional space due to increased population lead to the creation of the Ghetto Vecchio but also to entice the merchants and traders to stay in Venice under the oppressive circumstances by giving them their ‘own’ space to inhabit. The Ghetto Vecchio was less established and residential than the Ghetto

Nuovo because the Levantine Jews made up the majority of the Ghetto Vecchio and were first and foremost merchants so they came and went within Venice. This section consisted mainly of shops where they could sell their merchandise. The Ghetto Vecchio was different from the Ghetto Nuovo because it “was not a self-enclosed space…but was rather organized along an avenue that functioned to carry one toward the outside world” 11. Coming from the Ghetto Nuovo, the Ghetto Vecchio started with a long avenue of roughly 250 feet, which opened onto a much smaller campo measuring approximately 50 feet by 50 feet. On the opposite corner of the avenue one came in on, another avenue runs for about 200 feet

9 Davis and Ravid, The Jews of Early Modern Venice, 31. 10 Wolak, Arthur. "The Birthplace of the Ghetto: Hemmed In, Jews Still Flourished in Venice." The Jewish Advocate [Boston] 23 July 2010, 201st ed., sec. 30: 14. Print. 14 11 Davis and Ravid, The Jews of Early Modern Venice, 33.

14 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto before reaching the bridge over the canal to exit the Ghetto (Fig. 2). The Ghetto Vecchio was more similar to the rest of Venice because of the use of narrow passages and small campi, which can be found all over the city. The Ghetto Vecchio was not as residential and permanent as the Ghetto Nuovo, “it was occupied by international merchants rather than small business folk”12 of the Ghetto Nuovo. The international merchants were coming and going, never putting down roots so the constant movement of the ghetto made it transitory.

This gave the Jews the ability to transform the interior and exterior spaces more easily.

Since one family or group of people did not control a part of the space or building the entire time, when people moved into the space, they could adapt it how they see fit because someone was not attached to it. The ease of redesign could have also come from the

“impressive process of industrialization of the Venetian economy, as Venice became one of the leading industrial cities in Europe”13 and the advances in technology and construction at the time. However, once those who traveled through the Ghetto Vecchio started to settle down, two of the largest synagogues in the ghetto were created: the Scuola Spagnola for the

Spanish rite and the Scuola Levantina for the Levantine rite. However, even with this new space, at the greatest population of “five thousand in an area of thirty-five thousand square meters, we can calculate the average space per capita as seven square meters”14.

Nevertheless, life had to go on for those in the ghetto and so they tried to make life as normal as possible. While in the ghetto, they had been “forbidden to purchase or

12 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 94. 13 Davis and Ravid, The Jews of Early Modern Venice, 84. 14 Calimani, The Ghetto of Venice, 135

15 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto otherwise acquire land or houses”15 so they paid rent but were responsible for the upkeep of their tenant housing.

While this was a burden, it also gave Jews the freedom to create their synagogues for worship without the owner acknowledging it was there. Although the design was slightly overt, the owners were largely indifferent to what they did up to a point. Making the five windows showed significance but having two or three of them in the same ghetto section made it seem less overt than it really was. This covert nature was accomplished through creating the synagogues on or near “the top floors, high above the city to conform with Jewish law and so that they would not be easily recognized from the outside in accordance with the Venetian law”1617 and were not evident when strolling through the campo since one would have to look up to see it. The location of the top floor also put them closer to God, in addition to having less blocking their ‘path’ to god and heaven.

Just as unconfined societies transform over time, so did the ghetto with the “influx of larger masses that brought the three most important grounds in ghetto history, the

German, Levantine and Western Nations into close proximity, despite their own wishes”18.

The confluence of these groups created chaos leading to the transformation of the landscape of the ghetto through the creation of many different synagogues within two distinct ghetto districts. (Fig. 2). There were differences between rites, the Ashkenazi including Germans and the Canton School, Italians favored the Italian rite, and the

Levantines and Spanish belonged to the Sephardic rite. However, the chaos never created

15 Pullan, Brian S. The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice, 1550-1670. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1983. Print. 158. 16 Wolak, The Birthplace of the Ghetto: Hemmed In, Jews Still Flourished in Venice, 14. 17 The reference to this law was referenced only in source listed in footnote 16; no specific law was given. 18 Calimani, The Ghetto of Venice, 132.

16 Historical Context and Expansion of the Ghetto turmoil within the different Jewish rites because, for the most part, each ethnic group stayed to themselves either for self-preservation or due to the language barrier. As time progressed “the ghetto came to house not only the Jews but also all the facilities required to meet their other needs, such as synagogues, stores for food specially prepared in accordance with Jewish Law and additional facilities, including an inn for foreign Jews”19.

They began to establish their own society with a governing body and rules to live by.

19 Davis, Robert C., and Benjamin C. I. Ravid. The Jews of Early Modern Venice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2001. Print. 22.

17 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

Chapter 2:

The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

18 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

The synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto may appear to be similar, but each has qualities that make them unique. The two sections of the ghetto that house synagogues are the Ghetto Vecchio and Ghetto Nuovo. The Ghetto Vecchio is home to the Scuola Levantina and the Scuola Spagnola built in 1538 and 1580, respectively. The Ghetto Nuovo houses the other three synagogues that will also be the focus of this chapter: the Scuola Grande

Tedesca built in 1529, the Scuola Canton built in 1531-32 and the Scuola Italiana built in

1575. For the sake of organization, the synagogues will be discussed chronologically and not by their location in the different ghetto quarters.

Scuola Grande Tedesca

The Scuola Grande Tedesca is the oldest and one of the largest synagogues in Venice.

It is situated on the southeast side of the square, or campo as it is called in Italian, within the Ghetto Nuovo (Fig. 2). The Scuola Grande Tedesca was built on the fourth and fifth floors of a tenement building, which lead to it having a trapezoidal plan by combining already present rooms into one large worship hall.

Facade

The exterior is plain and looks exactly like the exterior of many other apartment housings in the ghetto. The typical exterior of the apartment building in the ghetto is a flat façade with square and rectangle windows usually placed along the same horizontal line but with no particular rhythm (Fig. 3). The exception to this can be found on the fourth floor of the tenement building façade where there are five arched windows, signifying the space as that of a synagogue (Fig. 3). To have five windows instead of six or four has “a

19 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto very precise religious significance: the Torah, the book of divine law, is divided into five books,” as discussed by Roberta Curiel, Bernard Cooperman and Granziano Arici’s book entitled The Venetian Ghetto1. Where the windows abut each other they share an engaged column to demonstrate the continuity and unity that the Torah provides to the religion.

However, even when the windows are not engaged with each other, as they are in a few of the synagogues, their message is still clear. Without the five large windows, a visitor might not know that the synagogue existed. Only those who understand the Jewish religion readily realize its religious significance, which was crucial since Jews were technically forbidden from building their own places of worship within the ghetto, but it was not necessarily enforced to the fullest extent, giving them this opportunity. However, it is obvious there is something there, just the purpose may be unknown to the non-Jewish person.

Hall of Worship

To enter the building there is a small door to the right, which accesses not only the synagogue but also the rest of the apartment housing. Upon entering, the visitor is required to walk up three flights of stairs to reach the fourth floor and the synagogue—a space, which is entered from a corner on the same end as the Ark. Once in the space, there is a feeling of “airy proportionality”2 even though the space is a “transverse trapezoidal

1 Curiel, Roberta, Bernard Dov Cooperman, and Graziano Arici. The Venetian Ghetto. New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Print. 43.

2 Fortis, Umberto. Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide. Venezia: Storti, 1973. Print. 68.

20 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto plan”3 (Fig. 8). The stunning amount of gold, wood and red overpower the space and the sunlight flooding down through the clerestory adds a sense of divinity. Due to the location of the entrance, one is immediately faced with the Aron, or Ark (Fig. 13). As one turns into the synagogue there is the opportunity to continue travelling down the space towards the

Bimah which is used as a platform for speaking during service, or to take a seat on a bench that runs along the longer sides of the hall. However, it is important to realize that the markings on the floor of the synagogue, when it was built in the 1500s, suggest that the

Bimah originally was in the middle because there is now “an empty space in the middle of the Venetian paving floor”4. There is also a gold band of the Ten Commandments across the top part of the wall in the synagogue and the current placement of the Bimah “obscures part of the inscription and also obstructs two windows facing the campo”5, which also supports the hypothesis that those responsible for the restorations changed the layout of the interior when renovated it in the 1600s and added all the ornamentation and embellishments to the interior. Taking into account this change, the circulation and feel of the synagogue would have two different experiences: one with an extending longitudinal feel and also one where the space seems broken and disjointed when the Bimah used to be in the center under the clerestory, which will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

Though this change was made in the 1600s, the designer of the synagogue in the sixteenth century did a great job of hiding the fact that the space was an irregular trapezoid

3 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 68. 4 Curiel, Roberta, Bernard Dov Cooperman, and Graziano Arici. The Venetian Ghetto. New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Print. 44. 5 Cassuto, David. "The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venice Ghetto." Journal of Jewish Art 3 (1977): 40-57. Print. 52.

21 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto by creating a second story in the shape of an ellipse to manipulate the space into feeling more regular and natural. By placing the ellipse to frame the floor below, it places an emphasis on the elliptical shape and not on the irregular lengths of the walls (Fig. 24). It is known that the raised elliptical ceiling is of original design and not an improvement during renovations because of its appearance in plans that placed the Bimah in the middle of the floor, the original design. Another factor that helps create this effect is the placement of the

Ark and Bimah opposite each other.

Bimah

In a synagogue the Ark and Bimah are two of the most important features. The

Bimah, as mentioned earlier, is used as a platform to speak from during the service and the

Ark or Aron is where the Torah and important religious scrolls are housed. The Bimah in the Scuola Grande Tedesca is an octagonal shape that is light and airy with the ornamented slender columns that hold the top of it up6 (Fig. 18). However, we will never be able to fully appreciate the Bimah because when it was moved from its original location as mentioned earlier, two columns and three sides of the Bimah were sawn off so that it would connect with the wall behind it more easily.

Ark

The Ark (Fig. 13) was also embellished in the same style as Bimah because “these elements were always singled out for particularly rich decoration; since they were usually

6 Cassuto, The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venetian Ghetto.

22 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto located at opposite ends of the hall” and “expressed a duality of focus” 7. The Ark was always given special attention for the fact that it housed the Torah, the most important object of the Jewish religion. The Ark, different from the otherwise baroque interior is

“decorated in a severe and lofty style,”8 according to David Cassuto, which emphasized the height of the Ark and its connected chairs. The Ark is no different from other areas renovated within the synagogue and is also “covered in gold-leaf, bestowing a rich, perhaps too rich patina on the interior”9 (Fig. 13). The Ark and Bimah being opposite each other also play into a duality of focal points and suggest that though the person speaking is important, it is also important not to forget what is truly leading the Jewish people: the laws and teachings of the Torah.

Scuola Canton

The second synagogue in the Ghetto Nuovo is the Scuola Canton, begun in 1531 and completed in 1532. It was the only private synagogue in any quarter of the Venetian Ghetto meaning it did not belong to a specific ethnicity; rather it was built by the wealthy Canton family for private practice.

Façade

From the outside, the Scuola Canton has one of the most original and recognizable designs of any of the Venetian synagogues with “a small cubic structure, on the third floor, made of wood and topped by a curious octagonal lantern with an umbrella shaped

7 Goy, Richard J. Venice: The City and Its Architecture. London: Phaidon, 1997. Print. 232. 8 Cassuto, The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venetian Ghetto, 47. 9 Cassuto, The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venetian Ghetto, 48.

23 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto cupola”10 (Fig. 4). The Scuola Canton has virtually no exterior markers that would signify it houses a synagogue within. One marker that could be construed to mean that there is something of significance within is the cupola is with the windows that indicate a clerestory and the need for divine light in the synagogue. However, the distinctive material choice of wood for the exterior could also indicate the structure has a special purpose apart from the stone plastered base below. The Venetian Ghetto, by Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, along with all other scholars studied, recognize the difference in material. But there was no discussion to support why only this synagogue deviated in materials. I surmise that perhaps it was a readily available, cheap material that gave the Canton family the opportunity to use as much of their money as they could on the interior. It is helpful that the Scuola Canton is made out of a distinct material because it is tucked away in the southern corner of the Ghetto Nuovo in a building owned by the Canton family and thus ready to be transformed.

Entry Hall

Before heading up the stairs into the hall of worship, there is an entry hall that is

“spacious, well-lit [and] is divided by two white columns” 11 (Fig. 23). To travel towards the hall of worship, there is a staircase on the back right side, which brings one to where the entrance to the synagogue is. Straight across but between the stairs and the hall of worship there is narrow hall the runs the length of the wall equal to the distance that one must pass through. However, it is important to note that, though there was no five-window motif on the exterior facing the campo. Once standing in the entryway to the hall of

10 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 57. 11 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 59.

24 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto worship, there are two windows on either side that can be opened, along with the door to create a makeshift five-window motif. On the other side of the hall of worship are also five arched windows that represent the five books of the Torah. They open on the canal side, so they are not noticeable when approaching the space from the square.

Hall of Worship

The Scuola Canton is a simple rectangular plan though it is not perfect because the sides are “42 x 23 x 41 x 21 feet”12. This synagogue was originally “built with the Ark and

Bimah on opposite sides”13 and lies on the third floor the building. Entering the hall of worship in the middle creates a unique experience of the space. (Fig. 19). Once inside the hall, one’s focus jumps from the Ark to the Bimah because one is not sure which to focus on.

By entering in the middle it also makes the hall seem shorter than it actually is. However, this could also have been ingenious by the designer of the synagogue in the sixteenth century because it will also make the space appear uniform since one is not entering from an end and experiencing the entire space all at once (Fig. 9). This design also suggests that the hall of worship is more of a conversational gathering area than a formal worshipping space because one does not have to walk down a long hall with people sitting on either side staring and making one feel as one of many in a procession. The shorter walk creates less formality therefore making it feel more comfortable. It could also make for difficulties when trying to exit the space because there will be two different lines of people from either side trying to exit through the same door.

12 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 62. 13 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 57.

25 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

Rather than deciding whether to look at the Ark or Bimah or to walk to the left or the right, one is taken aback by “one of the most beautiful and treasured synagogues for the refinement of its decoration and the perfect harmony of the structure,”14 and “the splendor is due…to the gilding,”15 according to Umberto Fortis in Jews and Synagogues, or also the addition of gold to the already ornamented space. This space is so lavishly decorated that not only does it have ornamentation but also “a series of bronze lamps fill the space harmoniously” 16 (Fig. 19). Much of “l’interna estensione dell’edificio; e la fonte, d’altro canto, viene a confermare pienamente un’indicazione di Rabbi Leone da Modena, che riportava al 1639 un serie di lavori di rifacimento dell’edificio della Scuola Canton,”17 writes Ennio Concina in La Citta degli Ebrei. Translated, this means that in 1639, Rabbi

Leone da Modena reported a renovation of the interior of the synagogue in installments, though it may never know who did them or what those different installments were, the final result is evident.

Ark

As mentioned earlier, the Ark and Bimah are the two focal points of the space.

Though they are the two focal points their designs are not reflected in each other, rather there is the “rich baroque Aron containing the Torah [and] the Bimah is earlier (1672) made in the manner of Bernini with twisted columns”18 which is symbolic of the twisted

14 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 63. 15 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 65. 16 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 66. 17 Concina, Ennio, Ugo Camerino, and Donatella Calabi. La Città Degli Ebrei: Il Ghetto Di Venezia, Architettura E Urbanistica. Venezia: Albrizzi Editore, 1991. Print. 105. 18 Goy, Richard J. Venice: An Architectural Guide. New Haven [Conn.: Yale UP, 2010. Print. 126.

26 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto columns in Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. The Ark is raised off the floor on four stairs and has “lovely carved and gilded external doors” that are framed by “two beautifully gilded Corinthian columns on a plinth and two pilasters which support a heavily decorated architrave”19 (Fig. 14). Attached to the side of the doors are two incredibly ornamented chairs that match the backs of the benches that line the longer walls in the hall. This brings a sense of unity to the space.

Bimah

As beautiful as the Ark is, it is the Bimah that steals the show, not only because it is raised on five steps and therefore is the highest standing point in the synagogue but it is also a “little polygonal pulpit, finely decorated with geometrical reliefs…framed in a lovely semi-elliptical arch supported by a double pair of original pierced columns whose shafts are intertwined branches”20 (Fig. 19). Though women were not allowed in the hall the

“four small gilded columns, intertwined and pierced like climbing plants, two on each side.

These are perhaps the most outstanding items in this synagogue, conferring it with an almost feminine grace”21. The cupola with the umbrella top also helps to add stature and significance to the Bimah because it lies directly above it and shines ‘divine light’ down onto the space giving it a greater religious significance.

19 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 66. 20 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 66. 21 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 66.

27 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

Scuola Levantina

The Scuola Levantina, built in 1538, finds its home in the Ghetto Vecchio on the corner of the Campiello di Scuole first reached when you enter the Ghetto Vecchio from the

Ghetto Nuovo (Fig. 2). The Scuola Levantina is the only synagogue in the Venetian Ghetto that “was purpose-built as a synagogue”22; it was not adapted from a tenement building and apartments, therefore it is a perfect rectangle in plan with the Ark and Bimah opposite each other. The placement of this building was important because it does not obstruct the flow of the space but it still stands out. The synagogue is placed in the northeast corner of the campo, to the left of an observer travelling from the Ghetto Nuovo. Even though being a purpose built synagogue is an extreme accomplishment under these circumstances, there is no reference to a specific architect or designer.

Façade

The exterior of the synagogue is interesting being that it does not have the five arched windows across it (Fig. 5). Since it was purpose-built as a synagogue, it already appears different and simply housing a synagogue in its own building with a deliberately articulated exterior already demonstrates its religious significance and therefore the five window motif is not needed for symbolic reference. Rather, “the principal façade is a model of composite harmony; above a high ashlar plinth, it seems to be divided longitudinally in three by a series of square windows, four arched windows and by corresponding elliptical openings above”23. However, there is an interesting aspect to the

22 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 125. 23 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 51.

28 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto door that adds intrigue into the façade. The rectangular door has a lunette, as well as an entablature as long as the door is wide, which is the same design as the four arched windows above, placed in the center of the façade. Therefore, even though they are not represented in the typical way, there are in fact five arched openings on the façade.

The most fascinating part of the exterior of this buildings is not on the primary façade but around the corner from it, where a liago (Fig. 25) or “an elegant closed balcony, polygonal in shape, covered by a small eaved roof which has a sort of little up-turned pyramid on top”24 extrudes from the second floor. This adds intrigue to the exterior because it is no longer a flat surface with windows punched in or pulled out of it but adds some movement and texture to the surface.

Hall of Worship

Once one enters the building there is a rectangular entrance hall on the first floor and then the choice of taking stairs on the left or the right to reach the synagogue (Fig. 10).

The two sets of stairs are a shrewd choice by the designer in 1538 because by creating them it eases the flow into the space and thus controls traffic. Though Umberto Fortis has some focus on the stairs and approach to the synagogue, it is simply analytical and does not take into account how it would function in the real world to control the traffic and give direction to the space. Once up either of the stairs, one is met with a square vestibule that leads to one of the two entrances to the synagogue. Since there are two stairs heading up, it also is logical to have two doors. The Jewish people can enter on either end of the longer wall, with their first sight being the Ark or the Bimah (Fig. 10). From there the space is

24 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 128.

29 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto long and unobstructed with the benches along the long walls and an uninterrupted view from one end of the hall of worship to the other. However, having two entrances can also be a hindrance to the flow and environment of the synagogue. With two entrances, travelling from one end of the synagogue to the other while others are doing the same in the opposite direction can get crowded and create congestion which in turn can make the space feel uncomfortable and chaotic. Though basic and relatively unornamented in nature, the Scuola Levantina’s ceiling is generously ornamented with a relief frieze25. Even without the intense ornamentation and gilding typical of the restorations done by Longhena, his trademark detailing is evident in the rich baroque interior, including the Ark and Bimah.

Bimah

The most noticeable part of the hall is the Bimah. The Bimah is “a pulpit of extraordinary richness, reached by a pair of curved stairs”26 (Fig. 20). The Bimah is placed twelve steps above the rest of the synagogue and its height gives a sense of power and theatricality to the speaker, who is also lit from behind, which gives him presence of divinity and power. The rest of the Bimah is mainly the “heavy ornate canopy to the dais, supported by its twisted columns” which in the Jewish religion are “a traditional Hebrew representation of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem”27, the original Jewish site of ritual worship.

Ark

25 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 51. 26 Goy, Venice: The City and Its Architecture, 234. 27 Goy, Venice: The City and Its Architecture, 234.

30 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

Directly across from the Bimah at the other end of the hall is the Ark, which has the typical inscription of the Ten Commandments on the doors. The Ark can be described as “a wide arch enclos[ing] a niche made up of four Corinthian columns in streaked marble, on high plinths, preceded by four steps and crowned by a pediment”28 (Fig. 15), features commonly found in Longhena’s designs. The Ark itself does not have chairs attached to its sides, but it does have a balustrade around it that is roughly two feet high. Though the

Scuola Levantina lacks intense gilding it does have incredible ornamentation and attention to detail since it was the first purpose-built synagogue in the ghetto.

Scuola Italiana

The next synagogue created was the Scuola Italiana, which was built in 1575 and is located in the Ghetto Nuovo, about halfway between the Scuola Canton and the entrance to the Ghetto Vecchio. The Scuola Italiana is named for the Italian rite and its people who attend services in this synagogue. It could have been placed here because the portico on the exterior was symbolic of Italy or it was a location where the portico could be placed without inhibiting the movement and circulation of the campo. It is rectangular in plan with walls measuring 33 feet by 30 feet (Fig. 11).

Façade

The Scuola Italiana is the most distinguishable from the exterior because it has a portico attached to the building that gives the appearance of a foyer or gathering space before heading to the synagogue (Fig. 6). The portico is made up of three bays framed by

28 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 56.

31 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto four Doric columns, which supports an extruding piece of an apartment with a small deck as well. The Scuola Italiana also has five arched windows on the exterior to signify it is a synagogue because of the reference to the five books of the Torah. Though barely visible from the ground, there is “a fine baroque umbrella dome on a high polygonal drum” 29.

Hall of Worship

Once through the portico there is an entryway that leads to a narrow set of stairs that brings one up to the top floor of the apartment building where the hall of worship is located. After getting to the top floor, there are two vestibules to pass through, the first one square and the second one long and rectangular, before one finds the entrance midway down on the side of the wall. The second vestibule contains a “basin for washing hands, a symbolic act of purification before entry to the synagogue” 30.

After passing through both vestibules there is a third small vestibule, which does not suggest a gathering area but more of an area to pass through with a low screen wall, so one can see the hall of worship. When entering one is torn between looking at either the

Bimah or the Ark, both of which are elevated off the ground and command one’s attention.

After entering one has to move either left or right to find a place to sit, however there are some areas that would have particular congestion due to a flawed design. On either side of the Ark is a bench running the rest of the length of the wall that is perpendicular to the rows of benches parallel to the wall with the entrance. These areas, though tucked away in the corner, represent a problem because when people travel through the space to sit down, the layout will cause them to have to climb over each other’s legs. This could have been

29 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 58. 30 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 81.

32 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto avoided by just lengthening the parallel running benches that line the center aisle. It begs the question, why these benches were not just extended to avoid this nuisance, a question that has not been answered in any text. An explanation for this could be found through the lack of seats next to the Ark inside the balustrade, as it typical. Therefore the need for seats in line with the Ark was created.

However, even with this problem the hall of worship still fascinates people. Though it is only one level, it is much higher than an average ceiling height and has outside light access through the cupola on the raised drum, which is above the original placement of the

Bimah in the center of the hall. The hall of worship also has “wood paneling rising to the height of the windows”31. The most fascinating feature of the Scuola Italiana is the ceiling

(Fig. 24), which is intensely carved and ornamented “in lacunars with rectangular and circular geometrical motives”32 that can capture the attention of the person entering, since the light from the cupola also emphasizes its detail. The combination of the simplicity of the space with all the dark wood and the light coming from the five windows creates a

“flood of light” that "brings the little interior to life in a particularly vivid way” 33 and gives a sense of “sobriety and austerity”34 to the space as a whole.

Competing for attention with the ceiling are, of course, the Ark and Bimah. Being across from one another, their designs influence each other. The Ark and Bimah “are

Corinthian, decorated in dark gilded wood, in a later renaissance style.”35 They both

31 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 60. 32 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 61. 33 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 83. 34 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 83. 35 Goy, Venice: An Architectural Guide, 126.

33 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto originate in the renovation of 1739. However, the Ark is much more modest than the

Bimah.

Ark

The Ark is made of the dark wood and is not necessarily ornamented rather “instead of real inlaid wood, this Ark is decorated with imitation inlay, made from pieces of wooden molding glued to the surface”36 (Fig. 16). Other than that the Ark is a beautiful design that has a “balustrade with little columns and interlaced arches” 37 that make the sort of ‘gate’ around the Ark. The Ark itself is “contained within a wooden structure of composite elements”38 and is preceded by four steps and has “four Corinthian columns on a high plinth supported by an architrave with classical baroque motives”39.

Bimah

Opposite the Ark and demanding attention is the Bimah that is a “small pulpit rising on eight finely decorated steps but embellished by a balustrade supported by columns and by an apse which opens beneath the dome, projecting more than two meters from the rectangular hall”40 (Fig. 21). The Bimah does not project into the room more than necessary since the hall is already on the shorter side but instead is partially set back within the wall. It still projects into the room but only by means of a small polygonal area to speak from. The eight stairs that must be climbed to reach the Bimah give it a feeling of

36 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 87. 37 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 87. 38 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 61. 39 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 63. 40 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 63.

34 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto detachment from the rest of the worshippers. To add to the feeling of power, the light from the cupola floods the Bimah and gives it a sense of divinity and even more power, as well as lighting the area so the speaker is able to read from the Torah.

Scuola Spagnola

The final synagogue built in the Venetian Ghetto was the Scuola Spagnola built in

1580. It was the largest synagogue not only in the Ghetto Vecchio but also in the Venetian

Ghetto as a whole. The Scuola Spagnola is located on the Southwestern side of the small campi in the Ghetto Vecchio and is straight ahead when entering the Ghetto Vecchio from the Ghetto Nuovo. Within the building that houses the Scuola Spagnola are apartments as well. The Scuola Spagnola is on the main floor of the building, not the top, and is a large rectangular hall with sides measuring 13 by 21 meters.

Façade

The façade of the Scuola Spagnola has four instead of five large arched windows however the entrance door is highly decorated with a lunette above it to create the arched look as well and give the impression of the five windows (Fig. 7). Even though there are not five windows next to each other there are four with a fifth one implied below. The implied fifth window is important because it creates the representation of the five-window motif, which symbolizes the five books of the Torah. To enter the building and reach the synagogue there is a heavily ornamented dark door on the bottom right side of the building.

35 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

Hall of Worship

Once inside in the building, “an elegant bronze gate closes the archway that leads to the staircase”41 (Fig. 26). The stair way branches into two, one for each door to the synagogue, where one enters on either side of the Bimah (Fig. 12). The stairs are designed to “remain hidden from those inside until the actual moment of entry into the huge room; the effect is definitely theatrical”42. Upon entrance to the hall one is staring at the Ark and the Bimah is directly on one’s side. Being on a corner when one enters the space there are many windows with their red, Longhena designed, curtains pulled back to let the light flood in. Though eyes are drawn to the Ark upon entrance, the ceiling also captures one’s attention. There is an elliptical section of the ceiling that is raised another five feet.

Though this might seem an odd choice at first, without the ceiling raised the space would feel tight because its such a long space that would have felt cramped and closed off. The area around the raised ceiling is open with a balustrade keeping someone from falling over, and that area was most likely the space for women who wanted to be a part of the worship since they were not allowed in the actual synagogue.

The Scuola Spagnola is heavily gilded throughout the walls, Ark, and Bimah. The engaged Corinthian columns between each arched window are stone with a gilded capitals and bases that are “a fine example of early Venetian baroque”43. Even with the intense gilding and attention to detail, the Bimah and Ark still find a way to stand out.

Ark

41 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 105. 42 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 105. 43 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 47.

36 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto

The Ark is “decorated by a spacious classical-Baroque structure, surrounded by a semicircular arch supported by pilasters” (Fig. 17) and “four columns in black streaked marble, resting on supports, with Corinthian capitals and surmounted by a pediment enclose the Sacred Ark”44. The Ark is raised on two steps and has the Ten Commandments on its doors. The Ark itself is a fascinating image that captures one’s attention upon entering the synagogue and realizing the “explosion of opulence within”45 as opposed to the simple façade. The Ark towers up above with the top of the design being a double tympanum, the first one a triangle and the second being an all-encompassing arch that reaches higher than the windows. The space between the two different tympanums is filled with a “high blue arch, decorated with gold stars”46 which is a common feature for

Longhena who restored this synagogue. A balustrade that keeps anybody from getting too close to the sacred Torah also protects the Ark.

Bimah

Opposite the Ark and next to one’s side when entering the hall of worship is the

Bimah. The Bimah is “marked by two marble columns with Corinthian capitals, access being gained by means of two lateral stairways”47 (Fig. 22). The rectangular protruding aspect of the Bimah makes it resemble a stage and serves as place for commanding the attention of the men in the synagogue. Though over the years it has been renovated so that at one point in the Nineteenth Century the Bimah was almost completely destroyed when it was turned into a choir to host an organ. The organ was eventually taken out and an

44 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 47-48. 45 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 106. 46 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 111. 47 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 49.

37 The Synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto attempt was made to restore the Bimah but for that reason it is hard to know a lot about this particular Bimah.

Conclusion

All the synagogues in the Venetian ghetto have their similarities and their differences. Some are heavily gilded; some are simpler and less opulent such as the Scuola

Grande Tedesca’s gilding and the Scuola Italiana’s demure interior. Others are regular in shape and some had to make an irregular shape work such as the Scuola Levantina’s rectangular plan and the Scuola Grande Tedesca’s irregular trapezoidal one. The movement of the space varies between the stunted feel in the German School and the longitudinal and formal space of the other synagogues. The similarities and differences between all these synagogues will be discussed in the next chapter.

38 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues

Chapter 3:

A Comparison of the Venetian Ghetto Synagogues

39 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues

The synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto, though built at different times, have similarities ranging from the façade to the Ark and Bimah, but there are also differences that make them stand out. Starting from the most noticeable differences, the facades will be discussed first.

The façades of most of the synagogue buildings are generic and appear like every other building in the ghetto, with the exception of the five-widow motif. The façade of a synagogue within the ghetto is very basic. It contains the pre-existing windows of the apartments and a door, one per apartment building, along with the five-window motif.

The Five-Window Motif

The five-window motif is significant in synagogues because it represents the five books of the Torah; the writing the religion is based upon. The five window motif can be found in some form on all of the buildings however, only two, the Scuola Grande Tedesca and the Scuola Italiana, have the true five windows next to each other (Compare Figs. 3 and

6). However, even these two have their differences as well. The Scuola Grande Tedesca’s five windows share a side with each other so they are connected and unified, whereas the

Scuola Italiana’s windows all stand-alone. Even though they are not on the front façade, the

Scuola Canton does have the five-window motif at its rear, similar to the Scuola Italiana because they are not connected. However the windows on the Scuola Canton are on the canal side of the building and not visible from the square and does not aid in the indication of the building as a synagogue. The windows for the Scuola Canton, though there are five, are most likely there to supply more light into the synagogue when they are opened. The

Scuola Spagnola and the Scuola Levantina (Compare Figs. 5 and 7) both have four arched

40 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues windows in their façade, straying from the five books of the Torah motif. Though they do not have five windows in a row, both synagogues imply the five-window motif through the use of an arched entrance door. In both cases the entrance door is about the same height as the windows and has a lunette above it on an entablature to give the door an arched top.

The Scuola Levantina’s door placement is better for the implication of the five windows because it is in the middle of the four windows, just on the ground, whereas the door of the

Scuola Spagnola is on the bottom right side of the façade and makes it a stretch to see the

Torah symbolism. These differences can be accounted for because the synagogues were built within existing buildings and thus used already present entrances and some already present windows, though more may have been added to help with light and air circulation, which hampered the five-window motif on the exterior. The five-window motif was mentioned as part of the façade of the Scuola Spagnola in Umberto Fortis’ book entitled

Jews and Synagogues, but the comparative analyses reveals the five-window motif is present in all the buildings.

Exterior

Another intriguing feature of the façades is that they are relatable to the rest of the building. The façade of the Scuola Grande Tedesca (Fig. 3) has a few other windows but they are smaller and mainly square. Different from the Scuola Italiana (Fig. 6), the Scuola

Grande Tedesca has windows above the five arched ones. The Scuola Italiana, along with the Scuola Canton, have the most recognizable exteriors. The Scuola Italiana is the only synagogue with a portico that extends into the square. The portico also represents the

Italian roots of the synagogue because the columns holding up the roof are Tuscan

41 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues columns, equivalent to the more widely known Doric columns. The Italian basis of the synagogue is not only found in the portico but also in Corinthian columns found in the

Bimah and Ark. The Scuola Canton does not project into the square but rather stands out for its wooden material. The exterior of the part of the building housing the synagogue is covered with dark wood, which is unique to this synagogue and strays from the typical apartment façade, which appears to be plaster in some places and stone in others. A reason for the wood choice is that since this off the ground, the wood provides a lightness that does not come with an equally distinctive stone.

The only other exception to this is the Scuola Levantina, which was purpose-built as a synagogue giving it the opportunity to create its own façades how it desired, which is why it is the only one that has its windows above and below the synagogue level designed to be in harmony with the synagogue. The façade “seems to be divided longitudinally in three by a series of square windows, by four arched windows and by corresponding elliptical openings above”1 (Fig. 5). Similar to the Scuola Italiana, the Scuola Levantina also has an individualistic aspect, the liago, which projects into the square. These two synagogues are the only ones that do. However, the Scuola Levantina’s projection is for the sole use of the synagogue and not the surrounding space, which can be attributed to it being purpose-built and having the space, time and money to create something unique.

Another similarity between some of the synagogues is the use of a polygonal drum and dome with a clerestory for lighting and monumentalizing the interior. This feature can be found on the Scuola Canton, Scuola Italiana, and Scuola Grande Tedesca (Compare Figs.

3, 4, 27). The Scuola Canton’s small dome is the only one that can be seem from the square

1 Fortis, Umberto. Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn: A Practical Guide. Venezia: Storti, 1973. Print. 51.

42 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues due to its location on the building, but the location of the Scuola Italiana and Scuola Grande

Tedesca on a higher floor causes the viewer in the square to not be able to see it. Its function for the interior is more important than its expression on the exterior.

Approach to Hall of Worship

Stairways

The Scuola Spagnola starts one off on the same stair, but then it separates and each stair goes to a different side of the Bimah. The Scuola Levantina, different from the Scuola

Spagnola, has two staircases and the worshipper can choose to go up the one on the left or the right. The Scuola Levantina is the only synagogue with two distinct staircases.

Different from the Scuola Levantina, but similar to the Scuola Spagnola, the Scuola Canton,

Scuola Grande Tedesca and Scuola Italiana all have a singular staircase to take one up to the hall of worship creating a great sense of directionality since there is little to no space to deviate. Even these staircases differ. The rest of the staircases are Half Landing Staircases or designed like a switchback. The Scuola Italiana’s staircase is very tight and narrow with little to no room between the sets of stairs because it had to squeeze into the little space available, while the Scuola Canton and Scuola Grande Tedesca have a large rectangular landing that creates a great space in between the sets of stairs to give the stairs a more circular and open feeling to them.

Vestibules

Once up the stairs, before reaching every synagogue one must pass through at least one vestibule. The Scuola Canton, Scuola Grande Tedesca, and Scuola Spagnola all only

43 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues have one vestibule. The Scuola Levantina and Scuola Italiana both have two vestibules but since the Scuola Levantina has two staircases one only passes through one vestibule making the experience more similar to the Scuola Canton, Tedesca and Spagnola. The

Scuola Italiana has two vestibules, a smaller square one followed by a longer rectangular one. The vestibules in all of these cases are not designed and oriented to be gathering places but rather a space to pass through to symbolize the approach to the hall or worship and passing through each one is getting one step closer. This is evident through the size of the vestibules because since many are small squares it is hard to fit more than a few people at a time in it, and at the Scuola Canton and Italiana, where they are rectangular, they are narrow so no more than three people can fit across, not a very welcoming environment to congregate, thus supporting the suggestion of the vestibules as a space for movement and not of congregating.

Entrances to Hall of Worship

Though the plans seem similar because all are rectangular, the way one enters into the synagogue halls from the stairs and vestibules vary greatly. The Scuola Italiana, Scuola

Canton and Scuola Grande Tedesca have only one entrance with the Scuola Italiana’s and

Scuola Canton’s in the middle of a long wall and the Scuola Grande Tedesca’s on the end of a long wall facing the Ark. There has been no research found to interpret why or why not the entrances were in the middle except for the possibility of the designer’s preference while building or the limiting factors of the stairs. However it also could be due to the specific

Jewish rite’s preferences to whether the Ark or Bimah were more important and thus should been encountered first. If they are of equal importance supports the idea that both

44 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues are equal. The Scuola Spagnola and the Scuola Levantina are the only synagogues with two entrances into the hall of worship. The Scuola Spagnola entrances are on either side of the

Bimah, while the Scuola Levantina has one enter from either end of one of the long sides so the Bimah or Ark greets one as one enters.

Plan

The multitude of differences between the exteriors, surprisingly, has little relation to the plan of the synagogues, which follow a common form. In all of the synagogues the

Ark and Bimah are on opposite ends from each other making them the two focal points of the space (Compare Figs. 8-12). However, it is important to realize that in its original plan, the Bimah of the Scuola Grande Tedesca was in the center of the room, still creating two focal points but ones that are much closer. Additionally, in all the synagogues, including the

Scuola Grande Tedesca after its Bimah was moved, the Bimah is on the smaller of the two shorter sides, which directs the focus there, signifying its importance in the worship. While this feature has not been attributed to any author, it is significant because it directs one’s focus by not only saying the Bimah should be the main focus but also stating it is the most important by taking the focus away from the Ark. However, another reasoning for this is that the Arks’ contain seats on either side or a balustrade or both which could create a necessity for more space and therefore placed at the wider end. The one exception is the

Scuola Levantina, which is a perfect rectangle since it did not have to be transformed into a synagogue. Another significant aspect of the location of the Ark is that it is always on the easternmost side of the hall of worship because the Torah is always oriented in the direction of Holy Jerusalem. To make people feel closer to Jerusalem and the Holy Land,

45 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues

“when prayers are said everyone turns towards Jerusalem, which means turning towards the Ark”2.

Hall of Worship

Though the designs and paths to reach the synagogue halls may vary, the ambiance once inside tends to be very similar. Regardless of where one enters there is a central aisle that must be passed at least partially through to find one’s seat. The difference in the atmosphere of the hall comes from the location of the entryway. When it is on one end like it is in the Scuola Spagnola, Scuola Levantina, and Scuola Grande Tedesca (Compare Figs. 8,

10, 12), it creates a feeling that one is on display for all to see and makes those walking down the central aisle feel observed and formal. This set up also gives the space a sense of formality because one must walk along this path. The Scuola Italian and Scuola Canton alter this feeling by placing the door in the middle of the wall to create shorter walks to reach a seat, limiting the amount of time needed to progress through the space also limiting the sense of formality and performative quality of the space (Compare Figs. 9, 11).

Use of Light

In addition to the location of the entryway, the use of light in each synagogue differently impacts the space. Back when these synagogues were constructed, there was no electricity and therefore the only light camp from lamps or the sun. The Scuola Canton and

Scuola Italiana still use some of the five large arched windows to flood the space with light

2 Curiel, Roberta, Bernard Dov Cooperman, and Graziano Arici. The Venetian Ghetto. New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Print. 113.

46 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues and exemplify the gilding and ornamentation of the space. However, it is also important to realize that while light does have a symbolic use, at this period in history it is first and foremost used practically to light the space to be able to move about and see. Another symbolic use of the light is from the clerestory in the Scuola Grande Tedesca, which gives light to the central area of the space where the Bimah used to be. The light would have given the speaker and participant a sense divinity and power just as it does in the Scuola

Grande Tedesca and the Scuola Canton.

The Ark

Though the halls are gilded and creatively lit to showcase the ornamentation, the

Ark and Bimah are the two features that command the most attention, regardless of the synagogue. The Ark and Bimah’s gilding and detail capture the attention of anyone who enters the room. The Ark is always located on the most easterly wall so the Torah and other significant religious scrolls are as close to Holy Jerusalem as possible. The Ark is a cabinet-like structure that houses the Torah and other religious scrolls that are used during worship. Besides for the Ark in the Scuola Spagnola, which is reached by two stairs, the

Arks are reached by climbing four steps so as to raise the Ark to a higher level, which gives it a greater significance and a sense of power. However, to further detach the Ark from the common area where the worshippers go, the Scuola Levantina, Scuola Spagnola and Scuola

Italiana (Compare Figs. 15-17) also have a small balustrade that projects out from the Ark and creates a space inside of it before the stairs up to the Ark, marking the space as significant and perhaps more sacred. The Scuola Levantina further differs from the Scuola

Spagnola and Scuola Italiana because its balustrade is not wooden; rather its Ark is

47 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues

“preceded by a fine marble balustrade with polychrome ornaments and small columns”3 and does not include the floral motifs evident in every other Ark. Since the Scuola

Levantina was purpose built, it had to opportunity to enhance features that previously could not be because of money and space, which is represented in the balustrade, which took the opportunity to showcase it with marble instead of wood.

Moving from the approach to the Ark to the complete design with special attention to the doors and the structural components, the Arks become even more similar. It must be remembered that these designs were created during the renovations of the hall of worship, which ranged from the 1600s to 1700s and while they may be the original shape in some respects the ornamentation and gilding are not. While there was renovation to the Ark, since it was such a religiously significant feature, great care was taken to not disturb or harm the Torah in any way. The immediate structure of the Ark housing the Torah was also protecting it, which suggests that those features were not touched. The doors of the

Ark in all five synagogues are double doors that may represent the two Tablets of Law, from which the Jewish teachings are based. The Scuola Grande Tedesca and Scuola

Levantina take the representation further and no longer imply the symbolism but state it outright by having the “doors inscribed with the Ten Commandments”4.

The structures surrounding and emphasizing the Arks vary between marble and wood with the Scuola Spagnola having the only one that is both. Regardless of the material used, all five Arks incorporate Corinthian columns into its structure. The Scuola Grande

Tedesca and the Scuola Canton have two Corinthian columns that support a tympanum while the Scuola Spagnola, Scuola Italiana and Scuola Levantina have four Corinthian

3 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues, Venice, Florence, Rome and Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 56. 4 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues, Venice, Florence, Rome and Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 56.

48 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues columns that support a double tympanum, architrave and a pediment respectively.

Corinthian columns were chosen over Doric and Ionic because Corinthian are the most ornate and add to ornamentation. The Scuola Grande Tedesca and Scuola Canton

(Compare Figs. 13 and 14) share another similarity that includes having a seat on either side of the Ark for the parnassim or administrators, which were designed in both synagogues so “the chairs and Ark are a coherent design”5. A feature that bonds these elements together in both synagogues are the floral motifs that can be found on the chairs and the Ark, specifically motifs representing the Tree of Life, which is metaphor for the

Torah. Another similarity between these two synagogues is that the Arks are “entirely covered by a sheet of gold: the gilding was probably inspired by the cover for the sacred objects in the temple of Jerusalem, also gold”6. The Ark in the Scuola Grande Tedesca is also much larger than others, including the Scuola Canton, and is two and a half meters by one point two meters, which emphasizes “the height of the structure which might otherwise have been dwarfed by the height of the ceiling”7.

While the Scuola Grande Tedesca and the Scuola Canton have similarities, they both vary from the Scuola Spagnola, Scuola Levantina and Scuola Italiana. As already stated, these three synagogues’ Arks include four Corinthian columns (Compare Figs. 15-17).

While information is limited to include the Scuola Levantina in the comparison due renovations in the late 1600s, Umberto Fortis does state that the Ark is “contained in a structure very similar to that of the Spanish School”8, one can assume that along with the

5 Cassuto, David. "The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venice Ghetto." Journal of Jewish Art 3 (1977): 40-57. Print. 48. 6 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 48. 7 Cassuto, The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venice Ghetto, 48. 8 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues, Venice, Florence, Rome and Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 56

49 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues

Scuola Spagnola and Scuola Italiana’s four Corinthian columns, the Scuola Levantina’s were also designed with classically baroque motifs. The Scuola Spagnola and Scuola Italiana have similar features including a composite structure made up of many architectural elements including plinths, arches, balustrades and pilasters. Their main differences come from the architect of the Ark in Scuola Spagnola and Scuola Levantina, Baldassare

Longhena. Baldassare Longhena was not a Jewish architect, rather a Christian architect that featured many of his personal preferences that have little to do with the Jewish religion. Baldassare Longhena will be discussed later in Chapter Five. The Ark in the Scuola

Spagnola and Levantina, different from all other synagogues, features a double tympanum, topped by a traditional crown. The most striking difference might have to be the “high blue arch, decorated with gold stars”9, meant to reference the Ark of the Covenant because it incorporates more color than just the marble, wood, and gilding found in the other synagogues.

The Bimah

While the Arks might be the more eye-catching feature in the synagogues, the Bimah is designed to be a place of control and power but most importantly a place for the rabbi to lead the worship and read from the Torah. While there is a procession to get the Torah from the Ark and bring it to the Bimah, by having them on opposite sides, while the procession proceeds to the Bimah, all those attending have the opportunity to see the

Torah, a significantly important religious document. All five of the Bimahs are raised higher than their respective Arks to make sure they are not overpowered and still

9 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 111.

50 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues command attention. The Scuola Grande Tedesca and Scuola Canton are both raised on five steps while the Scuola Italiana is raised eight, the Scuola Levantina is raised twelve and the

Scuola Spagnola’s number is not known but from interior photographs it can be determined that it is higher than its Ark (Compare Figs. 18-22). A feature common throughout all synagogues is the Bimah being raised higher than everything else. While it could be symbolic to command attention it could also have its roots in practicality to make sure everyone in the service can see and hear the rabbi. While all the Bimahs are against a wall, the Bimah at the Scuola Grande Tedesca was originally octagonal and in the middle of the room to be under the dome and to have a direct source of light to read the Torah. When it was renovated, it was sawn in half, creating an isosceles trapezoid, with the longest side being placed against the wall. The main decorative motif of each of the Bimahs is geometrical designs instead of figural so it does not take away from the speaker. In the

Scuola Spagnola and Scuola Levantina, the geometric designs are found on the balustrade framing the stairs up to the pulpit while in the other three synagogues, the geometrical reliefs are on columns, arches and plinths that are not part of the stairs. While the geometric reliefs are not found on the stairs in these three synagogues, the Scuola Grande

Tedesca has a gilded balustrade framing the stairs containing slender stylized Corinthian columns.10

Different from the Arks, the Bimahs all have the same basic design. A polygonal raised structure that has at least two Corinthian columns to frame where the rabbi would be speaking. The differences start to arise the farther up the Bimah one travels. All five

Bimahs have one column with a Corinthian capital on either side of the speaker with the

10 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues, Venice, Florence, Rome and Leghorn: A Practical Guide.

51 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues only exceptions coming from the Scuola Italiana and Scuola Canton, which have two on either side. While all the columns have a Corinthian feature, that is where the similarities end. The columns on the Bimah in the Scuola Grande Tedesca have Corinthian capitals but then are slender and plain and attached to the floor with geometrical plinths. The Scuola

Canton’s Bimah has “original pierced columns whose shafts are intertwined with branches”11. The Scuola Italiana, simpler than most others just has four Corinthian columns, while the Scuola Spagnola has marble columns that are topped with Corinthian capitals. The Scuola Levantina is perhaps the most decorative being framed by “two heavily decorated twisted columns, which possibly wish to recall those of Solomon’s

Temple”12. Again, since the Scuola Levantina was purpose built, it opened the door for more decorative and opulent features, like the twisted columns and frequent use of marble in the Bimah.

The architectural feature that tops the columns of the Bimah is a simple entablature in the Scuola Levantina and from the evidence given that describes the Bimah in the Scuola

Spagnola as a stage that is also has an entablature across the top13. The Scuola Italiana and

Scuola Grande Tedesca are both topped by an architrave with geometrical and floral motifs.

However, the Scuola Italiana also relates to the Scuola Canton because the architrave opens into a central arch and the Scuola Canton’s Bimah is “framed by a lovely semi-elliptical arch” 14. The features of the Scuola Canton and Italiana are well designed to also feature an apse, which can be found in the Scuola Levantina as well.

11 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues, Venice, Florence, Rome and Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 66 12 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues, Venice, Florence, Rome and Leghorn: A Practical Guide, 56 13 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto. 14 Fortis, Jews and Synagogues, Venice, Florence, Rome and Leghorn: A Practical Guide 66.

52 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues

The Cupola

While apses can be used to showcase a cupola or dome, it is not always the case.

There are domes in the Scuola Spagnola, Scuola Canton, Scuola Italiana and Scuola Grande

Tedesca. The domes found in the Scuola Spagnola and Scuola Grande Tedesca work very poorly due to the Bimah moving in the Scuola Grande Tedesca and the Scuola Spagnola’s design only including a half-cupola that is badly lit. However, the Scuola Canton and Scuola

Italiana’s dome and the domes’ light improve the religious standing of the Bimah. The

Scuola Canton has a cupola “through which the daylight shines down on the prayer leader, adding weight and significance to his words”15. The Scuola Italiana’s dome draws the worshippers eyes upwards and towards the prayer leader because of its illuminating effect, which treats the prayer leader the same way as the Scuola Canton does.

Conclusion

As the discussion suggests, the synagogues have their similarities and differences with the majority of the similarities coming from the façade and the plan. The façades similarities stem from the use of the five-window motif to represent the Torah and the

Bimah and Ark on opposite ends of the hall of worship. While the majority of the differences come from the Ark, Bimah and environment of the space like the demure Scuola

Italiana and the heavily gilded Scuola Grande Tedesca, none are more distinct from all the others than the Scuola Levantina. The Scuola Levantina was a purpose built synagogue and therefore opened the door to designing free from the restraints that inhibited the plan, size and symbolism of the other synagogues. The differences found between the synagogues

15 Curiel, Cooperman and Arici, The Venetian Ghetto, 68.

53 A Comparison of Venetian Ghetto Synagogues using the hybrid comparative analysis discussed in the introduction lead to the discovery that the Scuola Levantina represents a formalization of the vernacular synagogues found in the ghetto. The Scuola Levantina’s formalization is found through the perfect rectangular plan, the use of marble, the desire for Corinthian columns that were forfeited in the other synagogues due to space restrictions because its capital is much larger than that of a

Tuscan or Doric. Another formalization is having the balustrade be a square instead of semicircular or having curved corners to adapt to the limited space.

While there are many differences between all the synagogues, throughout this discussion a generic synagogue design has arisen. The synagogue’s hall is raised to at least the second floor with the Ark and Bimah on opposite ends of the hall. The Ark is always raised on at least two steps with the Bimah always higher than that. The majority of light within the synagogue comes from opening the five windows, which represent the five- window motif and the important of the Torah. Overall, the comparison of these five synagogues demonstrates the ability for specific features renovated or designed in the same period to have varying results while reflecting the same fundamental beliefs and design.

54 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe

Chapter 4:

Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe

55 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe

Though the synagogues in Venice can be compared to each other, it is also important to discover the relationship to other synagogues in Europe and if there is influence in either direction. To discuss this further, the Scuola Grande Tedesca, Scuola Italiana and Scuola

Spagnola will be compared to other synagogues in their respective countries of origin to discover if there is influence in either direction. These three synagogues were chosen because they represent the three major Jewish communities that settled within the

Venetian Ghetto. The Scuola Italiana will be compared to synagogues in Ancona and

Livorno while the Scuola Grande Tedesca will be compared to synagogues in Berlin and

Ansbach. The Scuola Spagnola will be compared to synagogues found in Tomar. To keep the synagogues in Germany, Italy and Spain on equal footing with the synagogues in the

Venetian Ghetto, they must be under similar conditions, meaning they are housed within a ghetto, are not free standing and were built within the same time period, 1500-1800.

Italian Synagogues

Ancona

The synagogues in Ancona are “typical of many in Italy before emancipation”1, and is home to a Scuola Italiana as well. Ancona is found about a third of the way down the eastern coast of Italy that borders the Adriatic Sea. The Jewish population of Ancona was housed in a ghetto and under papal control; however, they were allowed to participate in day-to-day commerce of the town. Those in Ancona were one of the few towns that were

1 Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. New York City: Architectural History Foundation, 1985. Print. 341.

56 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe allowed to remain in their city after Pius V prohibited Jewish residency in Papal States2.

The Scuola Italiana in Ancona, built after 1532, when the area came under Papal control and Jewish life was restricted similar to Venice, was a perfect rectangular design measuring

12.2 meters by 6.4 meters that had no overtly symbolic or recognizable façade, similar to those in Venice but with even less symbolic significance evident. However, when one enters the space into the hall it has a sense of theatricality. Since the Bimah is raised, it provides the opportunity for the door to be underneath it and also to have a vestibule under the Bimah’s platform before emerging and entering the space (Fig. 28). Entering at this end creates an elongated hall in front of the worshipper creating a sense of formality since there is nothing to break up the space. The north and south walls are also lined with wooden benches as is typical in synagogues during this period and due to the Ark on the east end and the Bimah on the west end, there is no bad seat since both locations are of equal importance. The space is also flooded with light due to the two stories of windows within the vaulted hall that not only helps light the space for everyday use but also aids in the emphasis on the Bimah and the Ark by embellishing the designs. The Ark of the Scuola

Italiana in Ancona is decorated with “its twisted and straight columns, pediment, carved doors, and rococo entrance arch”3 (Fig. 29), while the Bimah is raised at least seven feet above the ground to allow for the entrance door. The raised level gave the Bimah the importance it needed and therefore was basic in its design.

Comparison

2 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 341. 3 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 341.

57 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe

The Scuola Italiana of Ancona and Venice are similar. Since the one in Ancona was built before the one in Venice, it is possible to see some features and similarities carried into Venice. The Scuola Italiana in Venice is also a perfect rectangle, which is rare since the synagogue was designed within an already standing building, the constraints made it hard.

The entrances into the spaces are different though that most likely had more to do with the

Scuola Italiana in Venice having very limited space to design and having the entrance close to the stairs was the best way to maximize the hall space. While the synagogue in Ancona had more freedom to design since the Jewish community was not as densely populated, it allowed for more square footage and therefore more choices left to the builder and not dictated by the space. After entering the space, both synagogues have long wooden benches running on the north and south walls with a center aisle free for passage from the

Ark to the Bimah. The synagogue in Ancona is two stories while the one in Venice is only one story because the Jewish population needed as much space for living as possible since they could not expand. However, the Scuola Italiana in Venice did have a higher than average ceiling height with large windows to let in light. Even though the one in Venice could not exactly copy the one in Ancona, it did echo its use of light by implementing large windows to light space as well as emphasize the Ark and Bimah.

The Ark in Ancona is made of dark wood with a column supporting an intricate arch.

Beneath the arch are two twisted columns supporting a pediment beneath which are the doors to the Ark. A similarity between the two is the use of two sets of columns to frame the Ark. First an outer set supporting a larger structure above the second set that frames the structure that houses the Ark (Compare Figs. 16 and 29). The design of the Ark along with the dark wood that has since been called Baroque through its use of intricate details,

58 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe dramatic lighting when the windows are opened and the sense of movement with the design. This is very different from the Ark in the Scuola Italiana in Venice because the one in Venice is lightly colored wood and smaller and simpler in ornamentation. This smaller size and simpler ornamentation could be due to the size restrictions on the Scuola Italiana within the Venetian Ghetto.

Livorno

Another Italian synagogue falling under the conditions to relate to the synagogues in

Venice is the Renaissance Synagogue in Livorno, built in 1604. Livorno is found on Italy’s

Mediterranean Coast directly west of Florence. The Jewish community was very successful in Livorno with foreign traders and markets a significant aspect of their economy, Jews were accepted, however they still had to live in a ghetto. The Scuola Italiana in Venice was built before the Renaissance synagogue and it can be inferred that those who left the

Venetian Ghetto to try their luck in a different Italian town could have taken some features of this synagogue from the Scuola Italiana. The Renaissance Synagogue, built on the first floor of a building in Livorno was roughly 25.8 meters by 28.2 meters. The Jews in Livorno were some of the most prosperous in the world but it did not keep them from having the

“unwelcomed scrutiny of inquisitors who were inclined to accuse them of heresy and lapses of faith”4. The façade of the building is symmetrical having four, square windows frame the entrance door (Fig, 32). On either ends of the façade are three rectangular windows stacked on top of each other and inside these sets of windows is an arched

4 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 352.

59 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe rectangular window topped by an octagonal one. Lastly, in the middle and above the entrance door is another rectangular arched window to complete the vertical symmetry.

The entrance to the space is from a door on the south side, off-center and closer to the Ark than the freestanding Bimah (Fig. 30). The population of Jews in Livorno was around three thousand and the hall of worship’s size reflected that. This large population led to the benches being designed to stand in what is thought of now as a modern design with the rows going straight across, facing the location of the speaker to maximize the space and ability of all worshippers to hear him as well. While this is different, there was still an open aisle down the middle that connected the Ark to the Bimah with an unobstructed path. The Ark was redesigned in 1740 in marble. The Ark was “composed of four columns supporting a heavy, scrolled and garlanded pediment” 5, which framed the doors that housed the Ark and other significant scrolls. The Bimah was redesigned in 1743 was “a polygonal platform of marble within a balustraded enclosure” (Fig. 31) and both the

Ark and Bimah “were heavy, curvilinear, and colorful”6 creating a sense of unity and similarity between the designs.

Comparison

This building was built after the Scuola Italiana, however since both synagogues are within Italy and within travelling distance from each other, some of the Jewish population could have left Livorno and travelled to Venice, therefore, one can find some transferred ideas and features from the synagogue in Livorno. While not to the detailed extent of the

Renaissance Synagogue, the exterior of the Scuola Italiana was also symmetrical because

5 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 353. 6 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 353.

60 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe the only windows were the five arched windows that represented the five books of the

Torah. The entrance into the hall of worship for both the Renaissance Synagogue and the

Scuola Italiana is on the longer wall, however the Renaissance Synagogue’s is closer to the

Ark (Compare Figs. 11 and 30). Both synagogues place the Ark on the most easterly wall and the Bimah on the most westerly wall to create to focal points and elongate the hall that is stunted by the restrictions of the buildings it is designed within. The four large windows behind the Bimah and one on either side of the Ark light the space of the Renaissance

Synagogue. The main source of light being behind the Bimah gives the speaker a sense of power and divinity while also supplying the light to read from the Torah.

This same effect is achieved in the Scuola Italiana through the light being supplied by the cupola that floods down upon the Bimah. The Scuola Italiana’s Bimah has balustraded stairs leading up to the platform that is framed by columns, the Renaissance

Synagogue adapted this by balustrading the platform itself instead (Compare Figs. 21 and

31). The Ark of the Renaissance Synagogue takes from the four-column motif that supports its choice of a pediment. The Scuola Italiana’s choice to top its four columns with an architrave could be due to the lack of vertical space due to the floors of the apartment building whereas the Renaissance Synagogue has the space to add that extra feature.

Regardless of the top architectural feature, the Renaissance Synagogue kept the leafy and natural ornamentation design within the designs of the Ark and Bimah.

Conclusion

The Italian Synagogues outside of Venice relate very well to the Scuola Italiana within Venice because the distance travelled is small and the Jews are not having to adapt

61 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe to a new culture, just a new place. The synagogue at Ancona is similar to Venice through its framing of the Ark and use of light to emphasize the Ark and Bimah. The Venetian

Italian synagogue also reflects Ancona which is two stories tall, through its higher than average ceiling. The synagogue at Livorno is much larger than the Scuola Italiana in Venice, however there are commonalities such as the incorporation of a wooden balustrade on the

Bimah, location of Ark and Bimah opposite each other and the articulation of leafy and natural design on them as well.

Iberian Synagogues

Tomar

The next synagogue design discussed is one found in Tomar, Portugal that relates to the

Scuola Spagnola in Venice. Tomar is located about halfway up the Portuguese coast, slightly inland and is most comparable to the Scuola Spagnola in Venice. It is the most prominent synagogue in Tomar but it also was part of the ghetto and not freestanding.

Though the Scuola it relates to in Venice is called the Scuola Spagnola, those who were expelled from the Iberian Peninsula would attend worship in Spanish schools that were also called Scuola Ponentina, for those who were either Portuguese or Spanish, which is another name for the Scuola Spagnola in Venice. The synagogue in Portugal was built in the late 1400s and no exact date is known. The synagogue in Tomar is square in plan with the Ark built into the wall and the Bimah projecting into the room (Fig. 33). Untradition- ally, the Bimah is on the North wall and the Ark is on the South wall. Reasoning behind this could come from surrounding building restrictions that made the East and West walls the longer walls therefore place the Ark and Bimah on the South and North walls, respectively,

62 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe would maximize the space. Four supporting columns frame the central point of the room and from these support columns come nine bays with groin vaulting. The groin vaulting is a design typical of the central and northern regions of the Iberian Peninsula, the region

Tomar is part of. The four columns are there for support, however, they could have also been used to frame the Bimah if it was once freestanding in the middle. However this is unlikely because the columns would have blocked the view of the speaker from many of those seated behind them. Different from anything else seen in synagogues, this synagogue is on the first floor, which is about .5 meters below street level and is reached by taking three steps down. The reasoning behind this is that “either the floor was lowered for symbolic purposes or the street level has risen in five centuries, or both have occurred”7.

Comparison

While the synagogue in Tomar is definitely unique, it was built before the Scuola

Spagnola in Venice and therefore creates the opportunity to find connection and influences

Tomar had on the Scuola Spagnola. Similar to synagogue at Tomar, the Scuola Spagnola also has little to no demarcation of the façade to identify it as a synagogue. The synagogue at Tomar has a tablet engraved into the exterior that identifies it as a synagogue while the

Scuola Spagnola identifies itself as a synagogue with the five windows motif meant to represent the five books of the Torah. While the Scuola Spagnola is the largest synagogue in Venice, it is not as grand as the one in Tomar. However, the Scuola Spagnola makes up for its lack of size by gilding everything in the hall of worship so it sparkles when the light hits it. Another way to emphasize the space without having the opportunity or space for

7 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 339.

63 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe vaulting, is expressed through the Scuola Spagnola raising an elliptical shaped section of the ceiling up five feet to have a sense of a vaulted ceiling without the space.

Barely anything is known about the design of the Ark and Bimah in Tomar besides that they are attached or set into the wall because the plan dictates that. Similarities between Tomar and Venice arise because Tomar’s plan shows that the Bimah is raised on four steps while the Ark is raised on one, if any, making the Bimah higher than the Ark. The

Bimah commands the attention from its higher spot, just as in the Scuola Spagnola.

However, the lack of detailed information on the Ark and Bimah is not necessarily a loss.

The Ark and Bimah designs would have been about two hundred years apart and the style would have changed significantly between these two creations that to try and draw a comparison between the Ark and Bimah at Tomar and Venice, would have lead to very few similarities that would be a stretch if they existed at all. The synagogue at Tomar creates the opportunity to focus on how the plan and basic design are reflected in the Scuola

Spagnola.

Conclusion

Even though knowledge on the synagogue at Tomar is limited, the plan does demonstrate many similarities. Similar to the Scuola Spagnola, the Ark and Bimah are located opposite each other and both are raised, the Bimah being slightly higher. The plan also notes the use of vaulting in Tomar and while the Scuola Spagnola does not have vaulting, it has a raised elliptical section in the middle of the ceiling to give the impression of height without the space to do so. However, these two synagogues are different because

64 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe

Tomar is much larger and had structural architectural features within the hall, which the

Scuola Spagnola does not have.

German Synagogues

The final major ethnic group that settled in the Venetian Ghetto was the Germans.

Those who settled in Venice from Berlin and Ansbach would have influenced the Scuola

Grande Tedesca.

Berlin

The Jews living in Berlin at the time were privileged but were not free from persecution. They realized that while they were given generous freedom, the Jews feuded with the rulers and tensions were always high8. While the synagogue at Berlin, called

Berlin-Heidereutergasse, is larger than most and uses almost all of one building, its Ark and

Bimah, constructed around the same period as the renovations in Venice, have greatest impact on the interior space, just as they do in Venice. Berlin-Heidereutergasse is on the first floor of the building with a central aisle that connects the Ark to the Bimah. Berlin-

Heidereutergasse was “hidden from the street by the house of a government official”9, to protect against those who did not want Jews and their synagogues in Berlin. Berlin-

Heidereutergasse’s exterior also contained the five-window motif of five tall arched windows to represent the five books of the Torah (Fig. 34).

8 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 261. 9 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 261.

65 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe

Once, inside there is a long hall with benches on either side with the large Bimah placed in the center. The Bimah was a large square that took up so much room that only four people could fit on either side of it before hitting the wall. The Bimah did contain chairs within the platform to seat the administrators or parnassim of the synagogue. The

Ark was “tall and lavishly carved with two tiers of columns and undulating cornices [and] dense foliage projecting at each side”10 (Fig. 35). Besides for the Ark, the synagogue was relatively simple, with its emphasis coming from the incredible amount of light allowed in by the windows to catch the Ark and illuminate the space.

Comparison

The synagogue at Berlin-Heidereutergasse was built in 1712, after the original design of the Scuola Grande Tedesca but before the renovations. The façade of Berlin-

Heidereutergasse has the five-window motif as did the Scuola Grande Tedesca, however the synagogue at Berlin-Heidereutergasse’s windows were much larger, by about 8 meters.

Similar to Berlin-Heidereutergasse, the floor design of the Scuola Grande Tedesca suggest that the original location of the Bimah was in the middle of the floor, typical of German synagogues. Different to Berlin-Heidereutergasse, the Bimah in Venice was octagonal before moved and the one in Berlin is square. Similar to each other, the Ark in Venice was designed to emphasize the height of the Ark, as does the double-tiered Ark in Berlin. Both

Ark’s stay true to the leafy, garlanded decoration, however the Ark at Berlin-

Heidereutergasse makes itself unique by having the undulating cornices that create

10 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 262.

66 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe movement and texture to an otherwise flat exterior which would have it categorized as

Baroque under today’s standards and definition.

Ansbach

Ansbach is just West of Nuremberg in the Southern Central section of Germany. The synagogue at Ansbach is a small synagogue built in the 1740s by Leopold Retti, a local architect, and was just 16 meters by 12.5 meters wide. Although the synagogue is technically its own building, it is forced to be contained within the space available by the buildings surrounding it, creating some of same building restrictions that can be found in the Venetian Ghetto. The hall of worship is on the first floor and the northern side faces the street, which contains five arched windows to once again represent the five books of the

Torah (Fig. 36). Even though the fifth window is shortened to create space for the door, the symbolism is still evident. The entrance is under that westernmost window on the exterior.

Once through the door there is a long vestibule running the length of the western wall that has two entrances into the hall of worship (Fig. 37). Once passed through the entrance one is faced with “the octagonal Bimah [that] stands on a step in the center of the room”11 with the Ark behind it, against the east wall and raised on four steps. The circulation is unique because to be able to see the Ark from the entrance one must pass around the Bimah, which could create circulation issues by having people passing by each other in two different directions. The Bimah is contained by a “railing made of solid pillars alternating with openwork grilles of wrought iron” and “on each pillar stands a twisted column, decorated

11 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 264.

67 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe to imitate marble, holding a gilt capital”12 and octagonal cornice. The Ark in Ansbach is

“raised on steps and is embellished by twisted columns which flank the Ark doors”13. The twisted column motif evident in Ansbach is meant to represent the twisting stairs in

Solomon’s Temple, a significant religious location for Jews. Further decoration of the Ark is from “tablets of the Law flanked by lions in the tympanum of the Ark. Overall, this synagogue gives a sense of “sobriety”14 to the space.

Comparison

The synagogue at Ansbach was renovated in 1744, a little while before the renovations of the Scuola Grande Tedesca presenting the opportunity to discover any similarities and connections between the two synagogues through those who left the ghetto of Ansbach to try a more accepting Venice. The synagogue at Ansbach and the

Scuola Grande Tedesca both use the five-window motif and also both enter on the most westerly side of the façade. Ansbach has a large rectangular vestibule prior to entering the hall of worship but due to spatial constraints, the Scuola Grande Tedesca has a small one next to the singular entrance door close to the Ark (Compare Figs. 8 and 37). Instead of being faced with the Bimah upon entering as in Ansbach, in Venice one is faced with the

Ark and then turns and sees the Bimah. Before the renovations in the mid to late 1700s, the Bimah in Venice, was octagonal and placed in the center of the room, as it was in

Ansbach and as is customary in German synagogues. The Bimah in both synagogues included ornamented columns, with those in Ansbach being twisted, which create

12 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 264. 13 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 264. 14 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 264.

68 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe ornamentation by itself, and the slender ones in the Scuola Grande Tedesca are ornamented with leafy motifs. Similar to each other, both Bimahs are also gilded and contain a cornice for a flat roof. Though the Bimah is beautifully decorated, the Ark is perhaps more intriguing. The Ark in both Ansbach and the Scuola Grande Tedesca are raised on four marble steps. In both cases, columns flank the doors to the Ark and the difference coming from the types: twisted at Ansbach and Corinthian in Venice. Both Arks also include the Ten Commandments, which reside on the doors in Venice and above the doors on the tympanum at Ansbach. Similarly, the complete structure that frames the Ark in both synagogues is two columns that support a tympanum.

Conclusion

The synagogues at Ansbach and Berlin are very similar to the Scuola Grande

Tedesca in Venice. In all three cases, there is evidence that supports the notion of a centrally placed Bimah and on the façade is the five-window motif. The synagogues at

Ansbach and Berlin have very high ceilings and even though the synagogue in Venice is restricted due to the building, the ceiling has a centrally raised ellipse meant to give the impression of height under its circumstances. Both synagogues at Berlin and Venice have their Ark structures decorated with leafy and natural details. However Berlin’s plan and

Ark are much larger than Venice’s. The synagogue at Ansbach is similar to the Scuola

Grande Tedesca because both enter on the most westerly side of the façade and have the

Ark contained in a similar structure with the Ten Commandments on the doors, supported by two columns.

69 Comparative Synagogue Architecture within Europe

Conclusion

As is evident through this discussion, there is influence in both directions, from the synagogues within Venice to parts of Europe and parts of Europe on the synagogues in

Venice. Though it is easier to see connections between the Scuola Italiana and other synagogues within Italy because they do not have to adapt to a new culture, Germany and the Iberian Peninsula also have influences though they might not be as evident. The Scuola

Spagnola is related to Tomar through its basic design and plan while the synagogues in

Germany relate to the Scuola Grande Tedesca through the Ark and Bimah. There is the most complete translation of features with the Italian synagogues due to its short travel before reaching the destination and the skills and habits of the builders could be similar as well. The lack of transformation of features to the synagogues in Venice suggests that the

Jews who immigrated into Venice were more focused on creating a better life than preserving the architecture of the synagogue and when they were called upon to help with features, they remembered little. At the same time, the greater exterior articulation in

Germany, the Iberian Peninsula, Livorno and Ancona suggest that before the Jews were expelled from their home, they had more freedom than those within Venice already because their representations of the five-window motif were more overt and much larger.

Since the synagogues outside of Venice were created in more accepting environments, those who immigrated could have viewed their experience as going into hiding since they no longer were able to express themselves. Given that they were forced to become less overt, it could have lead to a more overall opulent interior instead of the focus of interior design being solely on the Ark and Bimah as it was in Ansbach. In summation, there are influences in both directions between Venice and Italy, Germany and the Iberian Peninsula.

70 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture

Chapter 5:

Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture

71 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture

While it is obvious to compare the synagogues to each other along with synagogues in some of the Jewish populations’ home countries, it is also necessary to realize that this would not be the only influence. When the synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto were constructed and renovated, there was the inevitable influence from the predominantly

Catholic city since the ghetto was not self sufficient and thus sometimes needed help from

Catholics to keep it functioning. In addition, most, if not all, of the architects and designers supported Catholicism. They were the ones able to find work since the governing Catholic elite had great influence on where and who received commissions for buildings, which was inferred through research. These circumstances created a lack of Jewish architects so when the synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto were in need of renovation and restoration in the Eighteenth Century, it was Catholic architects who were hired. This led to the Catholic architects’ preferences being evident in the synagogues by having similarities between the churches and synagogues. While synagogues and churches may not appear to have anything in common, they are both central to the worship and study of their respective religions. Churches also have two main focal points, the altar and the pulpit similar to the

Ark and Bimah of synagogues, respectively.

For ease of understanding this chapter, first the general design of churches including the three specific patterns will be discussed following which will be a comparison, also in general terms to synagogues. Then there will be specific examples that can be compared back to the synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto. To aid in the discussion of church architecture in general terms and in the specifics of the altar and the pulpit,

Theology in Stone by Richard Kieckhefer will serve as the foundation since it is not only a

72 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture very detailed account of church architecture but also travels through the details in a partially Italian method.

General Church Design

Interior

The entrance into the church will be the first space discussed. The entrance into a church “is a metaphor for entering into a spiritual process”1 where one must be taken to the magical place that Catholicism claims to possess. Once inside, one follows an “axial path [that] leads progressively across increasingly sacred thresholds and spaces”2. This also suggests that the entrance to churches is typically in the back of the church interior opposite the altar since as one travels up the aisle and passes the pews and pulpit for the priest one ends up at the altar, the most religious location in a church. However the movement through this space from the entrance to the altar can vary, with the most common space being longitudinal in plan. The longitudinal church design is created not only to create movement but also to elongate the hall. The elongation of the hall can be emphasized by adding “arcades or colonnades along either side, or using a patterned design on the wall behind the visual focus [to] sustain and heighten the sense of perspective and direction”3. While visually elongating the hall can help it appear larger than it is, it can also use this to “preserv[e] the sacred unapproachability of the altar”4 by making it appear farther away and detached from the entire space. However this distance

1 Kieckhefer, Richard. Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Print. 21. 2 Kieckhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 21. 3 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 25. 4 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 25.

73 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture can also be meant to create a distinct procession to the altar causing everyone to approach it from a distance to realize its significance.

While the aesthetic impacts of elongating the church are important to the environment the space projects, the actual movement through the space is important as well. A longitudinal plan gives the aisle and space a sense of procession to reach the desired destination of the altar, apse or pulpit and as certain points are reached it can signal different processes for the priests and liturgy 5. The space and how one moves directly through it impacts how the space can be felt as a whole. “The ebb and flow of liturgical movement echoes the rhythms of spiritual life”6 since religion is always present by moving to God or coming from God. This dynamism is represented in the Classic

Sacramental church pattern where the “spatial dynamics reinforce the dynamism of worship”7.

Altar Focus

Once inside the space there are three main focuses that can be used to capture the worshippers’ attention. There is the altar focus, pulpit focus or a multiple foci that can also create a lack of focus. The altar is “a place of sacrifice, on which something is offered and made holy”8 and thus an important focal point in the church. The altar is also representative of Christ offering himself, which was exemplified by the drinking of wine and eating of bread meant to symbolize his body and blood. This sacredness of the altar and its significance not only in the religious architecture but in the religious service “should

5 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 25-26. 6 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 27. 7 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 61. 8 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 64.

74 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture be marked by its prominent position, its clear presence as the center and heart of the church…excellent in proportions and material, monumental and covered by a baldacchino or canopy” 9. With the design and implementation of the altar in the church it is a blatant reference to the bible and its biblical significance of listening to God above everything. The altar’s design which was transformed over time, makes it an “unexpected choice as visual focus for a church: of itself it is not particularly imposing”10 and therefore difficult to capture attention for something trying to be a focal point. The altar began as a wooden table and by the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, it was an “altar for retable and tabernacle”11. By this point it was mainly for display and the retable or altarpiece behind it became a chance for major artistic expression, which ended up dominating the space. This design idea let the altar be able to serve its original function while the retable gave it the opportunity to have the focus of those entering.

Pulpit Focus

The second form of centering focus is the pulpit. The pulpit is “an elevated platform, used in early churches primarily for the reading of the scriptures” 12. As time progressed, the simple elevated platform became much larger and “carved with themes such as the Law and the Gospel, or the evangelists and prophets, or scenes from the life of Christ” 13. In the late eighteenth century, the pulpit “was thus not only the most prominent furnishing in the church, centrally placed along a long wall, elevated, sometimes adorned with decorative

9 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 64. 10 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 75. 11 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 77. 12 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 84. 13 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 86.

75 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture carvings and in any case highlighted with a prominent sounding board”14. This prominence and elevation not only aided in the speakers importance but also drew the rest of the acts of worship and the worshippers toward it. Though the pulpit changed over time, it always was accompanied by its intricate ornamentation. While the pulpit’s location can vary it was usually not placed next to the altar to keep them competing for attention and having their design styles uncomplimentary to each other.

Multiple Foci

The third and final form of centering focus is multiple foci. While the altar and pulpit have special significance in the church, they are not the only two that are significant, there is also ambos, sedilia, and communion rails to name a few. Though there can be many locations that can create a negative conflict between the altar and pulpit playing off of each other, it is important to reach an equilibrium or harmony with them. The altar and pulpit either play off of each other with similar themes and design features or are completely different as to create two different reactions. However, some churches are designed with no focus, instead declaring, “that the people are really the focus of what happens in the liturgy”15. The worshippers determine the fleeting focus by means of having different features briefly focused on for certain parts. For example, “the pulpit should serve as focus during preaching, the table during Eucharist, the choir when it sings special music, the baptistery during baptism and the community as a whole for actions such as hymn

14 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 86. 15 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 95.

76 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture singing”16. This no focus approach also supports the belief that God is ever present everywhere and not just in a few locations that are deemed special enough.

Aesthetic and Symbolic Resonance

Moving on from the focal point of the space, the aesthetic impact of the hall can also create interest for its attention to detail since “entering a church is a metaphor for entering into the presence of the hold”17. A church is not only a space for celebrating God but also as a fanciful place for enticement towards God. While having focus and circulation is important, it is a church’s aesthetic appeal that is important and that those entering feel the space is “worthy of god” 18. This worthy feeling needs to translate to the idea of a fulfilling meeting and connection with Him through objects and features of the church including a

“sense of aspiration, of mystery and of timelessness. Among the means used to convey these qualities, the most important are height, light and acoustics”19. The use of light from a clerestory gives the impression of divinity shining down from above and entering the space. Height creates a sense of grandeur and being drawn to the heavens, as the acoustics make the speaker’s voice and in turn the speaker himself larger than life, almost godly.

These combined features create the idea of something that is there but can not be seen bringing forth the idea of divine transcendence and that God is not bound to move about in our human ways. As far as this discussion has gone, it has focused solely on the interior of the church, however the aesthetic impact of the church is not only on its interior but the

16 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 95. 17 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 97. 18 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 98. 19 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 103.

77 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture exterior façade it shows the surrounding environs and people. The choice in façade for a church was meant to be an “enlivening presence for the community”20.

In conjunction to the aesthetic impact creating a certain environment for the worshipper, the symbolic resonance of the space takes the worshipper on a narrative. The modes of displaying this narrative vary from inscriptions, to art depicting the life and sacrifice of Jesus to symbolic representation on the architecture such as vines, leaves and crosses. Deeper than these outright symbolisms is the idea of bringing the “past and future into connection with the present, [and] they call to witness members of a far broader community and they goad people into a reflection about narratives, about ‘things unseen’ and their relevance to what is seen and seen in a particular place”21. This creates a greater resonance with what is surrounding the worshipper by making him create multiple connections and situations to be ingrain into his head for a more complete understanding and recollection. A subconscious way to ingrain symbolism into the worshipper is through the repetition of symbols such as the cross and of numbers such as three to represent the

Holy Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Fundamental Church Design

These ideas represent the foundation behind the design of the churches and can be separated into three basic patterns of church design, the Classic Sacramental, Classic

Evangelical and Modern Communal, as defined by Kieckhefer. The Classic Sacramental design is a longitudinal space for procession, has a centering focus of the altar, creates a dramatic setting and has a high symbolic resonance and multiple functions none of which

20 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 100. 21 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 136.

78 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture control the others. The Classic Evangelical design is more like auditorium space for proclamation and its pulpit for preaching is the focal point. The immediate aesthetic impact is dignified for more formal functions like education and its overall symbolic resonance is low. All the features within a Classic Evangelical church have converging functions that are determined by the pulpit. The third and final basic pattern of church design is the Modern Communal, which is a transitional space for gathering and moving and has many multiple foci. Upon entering the Modern Communal, it appears as a space for celebrating and has a moderate symbolic resonance with its features and their significance largely under the influence of spatial dynamism.22 While these three types as defined by

Kieckhefer influence how the space is used and experienced, a fourth, lesser-mentioned design, the aisle-less chapel, has a basic plan. An aisle less chapel is one long hall with an apse at one end that could house the pulpit or altar as part of the design.

Churches and Synagogues

Moving from focusing solely on churches, the general comparison between churches and synagogues is next. Synagogues are designed with three functions in mind. It needs to be a space “to house Jewish congregational worship, study and community meetings”23.

The reasoning behind the five synagogues within the Venetian Ghetto as described by

Krinsky is such that “each local group of Jews looked to its synagogue to preserve the interrelated faith, laws, and traditions”24. This accounts for the different synagogues for

22 Keickhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, 15. 23 Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. New York City: Architectural History Foundation, 1985. Print. 5. 24 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 7.

79 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture the different countries that immigrated with the customs unique to them. Similar to that of synagogues, churches moved “as a possible solution toward…assuring the survival of the organization” 25 just as the synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto were created for the survival of the Jews’ religion and community after the expulsion from their home.

Façade

The facades of the synagogues in Venice are demure, and their locations within apartment buildings inhibit the Jews ability to create an elegant façade, however that is not the only reason. “Jewish worship has traditionally been an activity directed inside—inside the heart, and intellect of the worshipper, within his close-knit community”26. Therefore the synagogues represent the ideals of the religion by focusing on the inside instead of the outside. They show this through the use of only the five-window motif that represents the five books of the Torah to denote a synagogue, except for the purpose-built Scuola

Levantina, which creates an articulated façade as representation instead. Churches on the other hand, use their exteriors to represent their religion to the city and entice them to find out more about the religion, an example of which is Santa Maria della Salute (Fig. 37).

While the Venetian Ghetto synagogues are demure on the exterior and embellished on the interior they “tend to be small and modest” 27 contrary to churches which can range from small to large cathedrals. Synagogue halls within the Venetian Ghetto are also never on the first floor of the building that houses them and only one, the Scuola Spagnola is a true rectangle. While these features are true for synagogues, they are not necessarily true

25 Myers, George C. "Patterns of Church Distribution and Movement." Social Forces 4th ser. 40 (1962): 354-63. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2013. 355. 26 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 13. 27 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 14.

80 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture for churches. The Churches within Venice have elaborate and intriguing facades meant to entice the viewer to come and join their religion. It is this reasoning that prompts “the exquisite symbolic or narrative carvings and glass paintings [which] can increase a potential convert’s desire to attach himself to the source of such wonders”28. At the time, freestanding churches were usually found on the first floor of the design while those that were part of the urban fabric were sometimes on the second or third floor. However, the plans of synagogues and churches can be quite similar when comparing a synagogue to the plan of an aisle-less chapel, with one large rectangular space and an apse at one end that could either house the Ark or Bimah.

Synagogue Relationship to Fundamental Church Designs

The plan of the synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto appears to be a hybrid of the longitudinal space found in Classic Sacramental and the transitional space of the Modern

Communal. This is true due to the need for procession to leave the Bimah and travel to Ark to retrieve the Torah and return to the Bimah for its reading and then have it returned once again. This frequent movement creates a need for the transitional space of the Modern

Communal. In addition, when it comes to a focal point it is most similar to the Modern

Communal plan through its multiple focus. In synagogues the Ark and Bimah are the two focal points, sometimes one might seem more important, but overall they are both significant in the hall of worship. Upon entering the space, the aesthetic impact in the synagogue is most similar to the Classic Sacramental design because the space confronts you with gilding and intricate ornamentation, giving the viewer a dramatic setting. The

28 Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 13-14.

81 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture symbolic resonance of the hall of worship in a synagogue can vary depending on the type of design the Jewish rite is going for. For example, the Scuola Italiana is a demure space that would have low symbolic resonance while the Scuola Spagnola is gilded and covered in symbolism and would have a high symbolic resonance. The use of light is another striking similarity between churches and synagogues. The churches use light to their advantage, through a clerestory so it impresses a sense of divinity upon the congregation. Synagogues use light to represent divinity as well through the placement of the light on the rabbi who preaches from the Bimah, which is placed under or near the cupola so he is flooded with the divine light and has a sense of power and godliness.

Ark and Bimah vs. Altar and Pulpit

Even though there are many important features in a church, its two focal points, the altar and pulpit, can be related to the Ark and Bimah found in synagogues. The Bimah and pulpit are more closely related because both are used as a platform for speaking to those attending the worship, while the Ark and Altar have a more symbolic connection. The Altar is seen as a place of Christ where he sacrificed himself. Similar to that, the Ark houses the

Torah, the most important relic in the Jewish religion. So, while both represent different parts of their religions, both are the physical objects of the holiest part of their religion. As discussed earlier, the Ark is a large cabinet like structure used to house the Torah and other religiously significant scrolls. The Ark is always raised on at least two steps and sometimes is surrounded by a balustrade to further emphasize its religious significance by limiting those allowed to be near it. Columns with a tympanum, arch or similar structure frame all the Arks in the synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto. The Bimahs in the Venetian

82 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture

Ghetto are all raised on at least three steps and supported by columns as well. A wooden balustrade typically encloses the platform of the Bimah as well. The majority of Bimahs can also be found under the cupola or drum clerestory to give the speaker light to read and a sense of power and divinity. Bimahs are so closely associated with the pulpit that while describing the location of the Bimah in a synagogue within Northern Italy, Helen Rosenau reasoned its location because “this plan allowed for the possibility of placing the pulpit in the middle of the synagogue”29. The pulpit and Bimah are so similar that the words are interchangeable because people only think of their function, not of the design and treatment of the structure.

Altar of Santa Maria della Salute

The same architect, Baldassare Longhena, who also designed altars in different churches, renovated a few of the synagogues within the Venetian Ghetto in the seventeenth century. Baldassare Longhena was born in late 1596 or early 1597, the exact date isn’t known, in a Venetian parish and while growing up was “trained as a stonemason and practised as a proto and an architect”30. In his late twenties, Longhena won a contest for the design of Santa Maria della Salute on the eastern tip of the Dorsorduro section of

Venice, which is the opposite side to the ghetto that is on the northern part of the island.

This was Longhena’s first major commission and is an octagon plan with a circular dome on top. This plan is special because it creates six side chapels each with their own altar.

Though the high altar is stunning and captures the attention of the viewer, the altars of the

29 Rosenau, Helen. "The Synagogue and Protestant Church Architecture." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 4.1/2 (1940-1941): 80-84. JSTOR. Web. 25 Aug. 2013. 83. 30 Hopkins, Andrew, and Alessandra Chemollo. Baldassare Longhena: And Venetian Baroque Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2012. Print. 29.

83 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture side chapel, specifically the northeast chapel (Fig. 39), will be the focus because the small, limited space of design is most similar to the type of design found in the synagogues in the

Venetian Ghetto.

The northeast altar in Santa Maria della Salute, is most similar to the altar of the

Scuola Spagnola (Compare Fig. 39 and 17). Two steps precede both wooden balustrades whose doors are intricately carved in natural and geometric designs. However in the

Scuola Spagnola the balustrade is curved and in Santa Maria della Salute it is square. Once inside the balustrade the Ark and altar are moth raised another step. Since the altar is a simple rectangular box, a large high arched painting is placed behind it to act as a substitute instead of the doors of the Ark. Though this is a glaring difference, the structure framing the Ark and the altar with the painting are strikingly similar. Four Corinthian columns, two on either side, supported by a plinth, frame both central features. All four plinths, in both cases, are intricately designed with what appears to be people. However there is no discussion and no photographs that focus on this feature so by physically analyzing the photo, a depiction of a singular human on each plinth is what was extracted from the evidence. On top of the Corinthian capital rests an abacus, which in the case of the

Scuola Spagnola supports and entablature that is topped by a pediment and an arch, while in Santa Maria della Salute, the abacus supports a singular arch. However, the altar also has

“an additional pair of Doric columns which frame the picture and support the arch”31. Both the altar and the Ark are framed by a double arch, neither of which have both arches beginning on the four large Corinthian columns, nevertheless, in both cases one of the arches is supported by the four columns.

31 Hopkins, Baldassare Longhena: And Venetian Baroque Architecture, 71.

84 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture

Baldassare Longhena designed both the Ark in the Scuola Spagnola and the northeastern altar in Santa Maria della Salute. It is incredible the amount of similar features he was able to adapt to the synagogue from church architecture. While the features are the same, the material choice for the structures varies greatly. The Scuola

Spagnola uses a combination of dark marble and wood while the altar uses wood for the balustrade and white stone for everything else. The simple choice in differing material creates two completely different feelings of the space with the altar being brighter and pure by being white while the Ark portrays severity and seriousness because the place that houses the Torah is very important.

Before and during this design, Baldassare Longhena trained under the most famous architect in Venice, Vincenzo Scamozzi, however after completion he stopped apprenticing under him. After Santa Maria della Salute, Longhena went on to design the façades of many palazzi and some minor churches.

Altar of Vendramin Chapel in San Pietro di Castello

However, Longhena tended to be called upon “architecturally to interpret their stubborn desire for visible grandeur” 32 into workable architectural plans and designs to create a viable building. As time progressed and late sixteen hundreds, Baldassare

Longhena was given the opportunity to work with Andrea Palladio, perhaps the most famous Italian architect of the time, by creating the Vendramin Chapel altar inside

Palladio’s San Pietro di Castello (Fig. 40).

32 Concina, Ennio. A History of Venetian Architecture. Trans. Judith Landry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print. 252.

85 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture

The main altar in the Vendramin chapel is raised on three steps and is framed by four Corinthian columns, two on either side. Similar to the Scuola Spagnola’s Ark,

(Compare Figs. 17 and 40) the columns are of dark marble and support an pediment, though due to the large painting in place of the Ark doors, there is no entablature connecting the columns on either side to each other. On top of the pediment, are two smaller columns supporting a small semi-circular arch that sits on an entablature ornamented with organic designs. Within both lunettes are tablets that state the Ten

Commandments in the Scuola Spagnola and it is unknown what the tablet says in the

Vendramin Chapel. The entire structure is almost identical except where it is not dark marble in the altar it is white stone while in the synagogue the Ark is dark marble and wood. Above the structure in San Pietro di Castello is a barrel vault. Similarly to the church, there is a large arch above the structure in the Scuola Spagnola that would be identical if it extended into a barrel vault as well. Yet, there is one main difference between the two designs since the Vendramin Chapel structure is adorned with sculptural angels on both angled sides of the pediment and three on top of the arch above it and the Ark has none. Looking at both of these designs side by side, the Ark of the Scuola Spagnola, “is a virtual copy of the high altar in Longhena’s Vendramin chapel” 33.

La Chiesa Della Redentore

While Longhena’s church background has significant impact on his designs in the synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto, his was not the only influence. The Chiesa della

Redentore, also known as Il Redentore, was begun by Palladio in 1577 and built on the

33 Concina, A History of Venetian Architecture, 260.

86 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture

Guidecca section on the Southern coast of Venice. The plan of Il Redentore is a Latin cross however at the end with the transept there is a “space under the cupola [which] becomes the stage” 34 also called pulpit is used for preaching (Fig. 41). This is similar to the Bimah found in the synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto because it was used as more than just a place to speak but a stage for the performance of reading the scrolls. Another similarity between the Bimahs in the synagogues and the pulpit in Il Redentore is the location. In Il

Redentore, as previously stated, the Bimah is located beneath the cupola, which is a source of light for the space. Similarly, the Bimahs in the Scuola Grande Tedesca, Scuola Canton and Scuola Italiana are located beneath the cupola as well. This location not only supplies the reader with light to read the scrolls and passages but also illuminates the leader to give them a sense of power and importance. This light shining down through the domes reaching toward the scrolls also imply divinity that god is shining down on His teachings.

Conclusion

Even though churches and synagogues are religious buildings for two separate religions and seem as though they would have nothing in common, they have surprisingly similar features. Synagogues resemble the Modern Communal synagogue shape and multiple foci approach while its movement is similar to a hybrid of Classic Sacramental and

Classic Evangelical. However upon entering the synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto the immediate aesthetic impact is theatrical and intense making it similar to Classic

Sacramental. In addition, general design qualities of synagogues and churches are not the

34 Howard, Deborah. Venice Disputed: Marc'Antonio Barbaro and Venetian Architecture, 1550-1600. New Haven [Conn.: Yale UP, 2011. Print. 103.

87 Comparative Synagogue and Church Architecture only similarity. The Ark and Bimah in a synagogue are related to the altar and pulpit, respectively. The Ark is perhaps the most relatable feature to churches since there is emphasis on the altars. The Ark of the Scuola Spagnola is similar to that of San Pietro di

Castello and Santa Maria della Salute through its use of architectural features such as double columns, Corinthian capitals, wooden balustrades, arches and plinths. The Bimah is related to the pulpit through its power to command attention and the symbolic and practical location beneath the cupola as a source of light.

Though the similar features are evident, it is important that it was not just a singular architect who translated those ideas. Even though the Jews were restricted to the ghetto, did not mean it stopped Christians from sneaking in to buy goods or to receive treatment from the Jewish doctors who were some of the best. To go along with that, even though they were restricted to the ghetto, did not mean they were oblivious to what was going on around them in terms of politics, economy and particularly culture, where they could have gotten some of their design ideas. Another avenue where influence could have occurred was that the ghetto was not entirely self-sufficient so when help was needed, it was

Christians who came in. Perhaps the most important connection that could have lead to these similarities is that regardless if someone was a Christian builder or a Jewish builder, both of them new what was going on in the world around them both architecturally and artistically.

88 Conclusion

Conclusion

89 Conclusion

The synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto, each unique, have surprising connections to each other revealed in this thesis’ method of comparative analysis. My thesis had two main foci: the comparison of the synagogues to each other; and the outside influence that shaped the synagogues into what they are today.

Throughout the comparisons in Chapter 4, I discovered many similar features of the synagogues. The general synagogue is rectangular in shape with the Ark and Bimah located on opposite shorter sides of the hall of worship to aid its elongation. Since both were of religious significance in the practice of Judaism, it was necessary to have them connected and thus there is a central aisle where it was possible to proceed from one to the other, which creates the orientation of the benches towards the middle aisle instead of the Bimah.

These were the only features that created the circulation in the room and the rest of the general design features were part of the Ark and Bimah. It was customary to not only have the Ark and Bimah opposite to each other, but also to have the Ark on the easternmost side of the hall so it was always as close Jerusalem as possible. The Ark and Bimah were always elevated off the ground at least two steps to demarcate that they were separate and special.

However, the Bimah is always elevated higher than the Ark because it must command the attention of those attending the service but also to help the worshippers to see and hear the speaker better.

While this general synagogue design is the basic foundation for the plan of a synagogues there have been deviations. However, this is acceptable since when a general design of a building is defined, it is typical to have some architects or designers to follow only a few of the features. An example of this, as discussed earlier, is the Renaissance

Synagogue in Livorno, which doesn’t have the benches facing the aisle but rather facing the

90 Conclusion

Bimah. The sheer size of the synagogue could have made it hard to hear the speaker, which leads to all those attending the service having to face the rabbi so their focus and hearing is as alert on the service as it can be. Another example of the deviation is the Scuola Grande

Tedesca’s original placement of the Bimah in the middle, which can be explained because it was customary of German synagogues. The Scuola Grande Tedesca still followed the rest of the guidelines for a general synagogue design.

At each synagogue, somewhere, there is the five-window motif, which is religiously symbolic of the five books of the Torah. Though the five-window motif may not be recognized by looking at just one synagogue, through the comparison of all five, the viewer can discover the five-window motif that would have otherwise been missed. While the

Scuola Grande Tedesca, Scuola Italiana and Scuola Canton all contain the traditional five- window motif of five large arched windows in a row on the exterior, the Scuola Spagnola and Scuola Levantina do not. Rather the Scuola Spagnola and Scuola Levantina imply it with a strategically placed lunette over the entry door and four arched windows. Without the comparison of the synagogues undertaken in this thesis, the lunette over the door at the

Scuola Spagnola might seem just like that, a lunette, not a lunette that is representing the fifth and final arched window. The Scuola Levantina’s representation of the five-window motif is more evident because of the arched entry door in the center of the façade, which emulates the four arched windows above it. Similar to the Scuola Spagnola, without the comparison, this would have fallen through the cracks.

Although the comparison between the synagogues within the Venetian Ghetto is important, some features come from outside of the ghetto as discussed in Chapter 5.

Another section of this thesis that benefitted from the comparison was to discover the

91 Conclusion relationship between Jews within the ghetto and their country of origin. During this comparison many different features were reflected in both the synagogues in Germany,

Portugal and Italy and their respective synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto. For example, the Scuola Italiana in Venice takes from the one in Ancona through its capturing and use of light. In the Scuola Italiana in Ancona and Venice, the light isn’t just used for lighting the speaker so he is able to read but also to shine on the Ark and Bimah to enhance the ornamentation and detailing of the structures.

The synagogues in Germany related to the idea of the Bimah being placed in the middle of the central aisle instead of at the end opposite the Ark because both Berlin-

Heidereutergasse and Ansbach had these features. While David Cassuto supposed this in the Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venice Ghetto, the analysis in this thesis of these two synagogues further supported this connection to German antecedents as the reason for the central placement.

Another relationship between the synagogue at Tomar (Portugal), and Berlin, and

Ansbach (Germany), alongside their respective communities’ synagogues in the Venetian

Ghetto is the elevated ceiling. The synagogue at Tomar employs groin vaulting to maximize the height, which isn’t replicated in Venice, rather it uses the same ideas. Having the same result in mind, the Scuola Spagnola uses a raised elliptical portion of the ceiling to make the most of the height that was available. In Germany, both synagogues were at least two stories tall and this idea was transferred to Venice. Due to construction limitations within the apartment buildings, there could not be two full stories for the interior, instead the designer raised a central ellipse in the ceiling up approximately five feet to give the impression of height without the space available in Berlin and Ansbach.

92 Conclusion

The influences within Judaism are important; however, as discussed in Chapter 6, the Venetian Ghetto had more Christian influence than people realize due to the location of it within a Catholic run state. Since the ghetto was not self sufficient, if anything else was needed, a group of Christians would come in to fix the problem or bring supplies and therefore some of their influence was spread. However this was not taken into account by any of the authors of the multiple articles and books researched for this thesis.

The foundation of my knowledge on the design of a church came from Richard

Kieckhefer’s Theology in Stone, which detailed the layout, centering focus, aesthetic impact, symbolic resonance and spatial dynamics of churches. While some of these aspects might seem like obscure topics, my thesis’ discussion on the synagogues in the Venetian Ghetto discovered the relationship of the centering focus to the Ark and Bimah, aesthetic impact to the entrance into the hall, and spatial dynamics to journey from the façade to the hall of worship. In addition to these similarities, there are some specific representations of church altars in the Ark in the Scuola Spagnola, which relates to Baldassare Longhena’s work in

Santa Maria della Salute and San Pietro di Castello. This relationship isn’t as hard to discover because it is known that Longhena designed the Ark of the Scuola Spagnola so it is easy to understand the similarity; however it is amazing the amount of similarities. In Santa

Maria della Salute, there are six side chapels and the northeast one was designed by

Longhena and is similar in structural architectural elements however there is a deviation in the detail and ornamentation. On the other hand, the Vendramin Chapel inside San Pietro di Castello, contains an altar, which is identical to the Ark in the Scuola Spagnola minus the sculptural angels on top. This comparison details the influence Christian designers had over the space they were working on. Baldassare Longhena, someone with no Jewish

93 Conclusion background, worked on these sacred spaces and transformed it into a Christian-related design.

In addition to Longhena’s direct contribution and influence in the Venetian Ghetto, there were other concepts that transferred as well. Even though they were segregated, those within the ghetto knew the happenings in Venice and their preference for Christian design since it was always a significant occurrence when a new church was built. One such church was La Chiesa della Redentore, also called Il Redentore, built by the most famous

Italian architect of the time, Andrea Palladio. Il Redentore’s pulpit’s use is similar to that of a Bimah. It is more than a place to speak but rather a stage for a performance of reading the holy texts during service. Another similarity in layout of Il Redentore that would otherwise have gone unnoticed is the relationship between the pulpit and Bimah to the cupola. Similar to the Scuola Grande Tedesca, Canton, and Italiana, the Bimah is placed beneath cupola. This associates the Bimahs and pulpits as a presentation of the habitation of the divine by having the ‘light from God’ shining down on the speaker giving them power. This comparison demonstrates the similarity of functions and use of design, layout and light in two very different religions’ sacred spaces.

Overall, the comparisons of the synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto to each other, to other synagogues, and to churches bring new patterns to light. These findings also demonstrate the unique influences that immigration, a dominant ruling culture, and forced proximity have on designs. Immigration brought specific features of Jews’ home countries into their respective synagogues while a dominant ruling culture lead to connections in the articulation of space and structures. Forced proximity of different Jewish communities and rites within the Venetian Ghetto lead to similarities within the synagogues as well. This

94 Conclusion paper brings to light all these comparisons that have been overlooked by major contributors on this subject such as Carol Krinsky, Richard Goy, Ennio Concina and

Benjamin Ravid. The synagogues of the Venetian Ghetto are unique unto themselves but also demonstrate the wide range of influences that can affect the final outcome of a building.

95 Images

Fig. 1 Location of the Ghetto within Venice

Fig. 2 Plan of Venetian Ghetto with Synagogues

iv

Fig. 3- Scuola Grande Tedesca, Façade

v

Fig. 4- Scuola Canton, Façade

vi

Fig. 5- Scuola Levantina, Façade

vii

Fig. 6- Scuola Italiana, Façade

viii

Fig. 7- Scuola Spagnola, Façade

ix

Fig. 8- Scuola Grande Tedesca, Plan and Building Section

x

Fig. 9- Scuola Canton, Plan

xi

Fig. 10- Scuola Levantina, Plan and Section

xii

Fig. 11- Scuola Italiana, Plan

xiii

Fig. 12- Scuola Spagnola, Plan

xiv

Fig. 13- Scuola Grande Tedesca, Ark

xv

Fig. 14- Scuola Canton, Ark

xvi

Fig. 15- Scuola Levantina, Ark

xvii

Fig. 16- Scuola Italiana, Ark

xviii

Fig. 17- Scuola Spagnola, Ark

xix

Fig. 18- Scuola Grande Tedesca, Bimah

xx

Fig. 19- Scuola Canton, Bimah

xxi

Fig. 20- Scuola Levantina, Bimah

xxii

Fig. 21- Scuola Italiana, Bimah

xxiii

Fig. 22- Scuola Spagnola, Bimah

xxiv

Fig. 23- Scuola Canton, Entry Hall

xxv

Fig. 24- Scuola Grande Tedesca, Ceiling

xxvi

Fig. 25- Scuola Levantina, Liago

xxvii

Fig. 26- Scuola Spagnola, view of Iron Doors from stairs

xxviii

Figure 27- Scuola Italiana, Cupola in top right corner

xxix

Fig. 28- Ancona, Scuola Italiana, Plan/Bimah view (Italy)

xxx

Fig. 29- Ancona, Scuola Italiana, Ark (Italy)

xxxi

Fig. 30- Livorno, Renaissance Synagogue, Plan (Italy)

xxxii

Fig. 31- Livorno, Renaissance Synagogue, Interior, view of Bimah (Italy)

xxxiii

Figure 32- Livorno, Renaissance Synagogue, Façade

xxxiv

Fig. 33- Tomar Synagogue, Plan (Portugal)

xxxv

Figure 34- Heidereutergasse Synagogue, Façade (Germany)

xxxvi

Figure 35- Heidereutergasse Synagogue, Interior view with Ark (Germany)

xxxvii

Figure 36- Ansbach Synagogue, Façade (Germany)

xxxviii

Figure 37- Ansbach Synagogue, Plan and Section (Germany)

xxxix

Figure 38- Santa Maria della Salute, Embellished Façade Example

xl

Figure 39- Santa Maria della Salute, Altar of Northeast Chapel

xli

Figure 40- Altar in Vendramin Chapel in San Pietro di Castello

xlii

Figure 41- Il Redentore, Plan

xliii Works Cited

Calimani, Riccardo. The Ghetto of Venice. Trans. Katherine S. Wolfthal. New York: M. Evans, 1987. Print.

Cassuto, David. "The Scuola Grande Tedesca in the Venice Ghetto." Journal of Jewish Art 3 (1977): 40-57. Print.

Concina, Ennio. A History of Venetian Architecture. Trans. Judith Landry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Concina, Ennio, Ugo Camerino, and Donatella Calabi. La Città Degli Ebrei : Il Ghetto Di Venezia, Architettura E Urbanistica. Venezia: Albrizzi Editore, 1991. Print.

Cooper, Tracy Elizabeth. Palladio's Venice: Architecture and Society in a Renaissance Republic. New Haven: Yale UP, 2005. Print.

Curiel, Roberta, Bernard Dov Cooperman, and Graziano Arici. The Venetian Ghetto. New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Print.

Davis, Robert C., and Benjamin C. I. Ravid. The Jews of Early Modern Venice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2001. Print.

Debenedetti-Stow, Sandra. "The Etymology of "Ghetto": New Evidence from Rome." Jewish History 6.1/2 (1992): 79-85. Print.

Finlay, Robert. "The Foundation of the Ghetto: Venice, the Jews, and the War of the League of Cambrai." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 126.2 (1982): 140-54. JSTOR. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.

xliv

Fortis, Umberto. Jews and Synagogues: Venice, Florence, Rome, Leghorn : A Practical Guide. Venezia: Storti, 1973. Print.

Google Maps, Google. “Il Ghetto di Venezia”, March 11, 2014.

Georgopoulou, Maria. Venice's Mediterranean Colonies: Architecture and Urbanism. New York: Cambridge UP, 2001. Print.

Goy, Richard J. Venice: An Architectural Guide. New Haven [Conn.: Yale UP, 2010. Print.

Goy, Richard J. Venice: The City and Its Architecture. London: Phaidon, 1997. Print.

Hachlili, Rachel. "Aspects of Similarity and Diversity in the Architecture and Art of Ancient Synagogues and Churches in the Land of Isreal." Zeitschrift Des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 113 (1997): 92-122. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

Hopkins, Andrew, and Alessandra Chemollo. Baldassare Longhena: And Venetian Baroque Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2012. Print.

Hopkins, Andrew. Santa Maria Della Salute: Architecture and Ceremony in Baroque Venice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print

Howard, Deborah. Venice Disputed: Marc'Antonio Barbaro and Venetian Architecture, 1550- 1600. New Haven [Conn.: Yale UP, 2011. Print.

Kieckhefer, Richard. Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.

Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. New York City: Architectural History Foundation, 1985. Print.

xlv

McNamara, Denis R. How to Read Churches: A Crash Course in Ecclesiastical Architecture. New York: Rizzoli International ; Lewes, East Sussex, 2011. Print.

Meek, H. A. The Synagogue. London: Phaidon, 1995. Print.

Milano, Attilio. Storia Degli Ebrei in Italia. [Torino]: Giulio Einaudi, 1963. Print.

Myers, George C. "Patterns of Church Distribution and Movement." Social Forces 4th ser. 40 (1962): 354-63. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

Pietro- Vendramin. Digital image. Chorus Associazione per Le Chiese Del Patriarcato Di Venezia. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. .

Pullan, Brian S. The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice, 1550-1670. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1983. Print.

Ravid, Benjamin. "The Establishment of the Ghetto Vecchio of Venice, 1541." Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Vol. 3. N.p.: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977. 153-67. Print.

Rosenau, Helen. "The Synagogue and Protestant Church Architecture." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 4.1/2 (1940-1941): 80-84. JSTOR. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.

Stow, Kenneth R. Theater of Acculturation: The Roman Ghetto in the Sixteenth Century. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 2001. Print

Wischnitzer, Rachel. The Architecture of the European Synagogue. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1964. Print.

xlvi

Wolak, Arthur. "The Birthplace of the Ghetto: Hemmed In, Jews Still Flourished in Venice." The Jewish Advocate [Boston] 23 July 2010, 201st ed., sec. 30: 14. Print.

xlvii