FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227  
228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   >>   >|  
16, 17, 18. Nave. Torcello. 19, 20. Transepts. St. Mark's. 21. Nave. St. Mark's. 22. External pillars of northern portico. St. Mark's. 23, 24. Clustered pillars of northern portico. St. Mark's. 25, 26. Clustered pillars of southern portico. St. Mark's. Now, observe, first, the enormous difference in style between the bases 1 to 5, and the rest in the upper row, that is to say, between the bases of Murano and the twelfth and thirteenth century bases of Venice; and, secondly, the difference between the bases 16 to 20 and the rest in the lower row, that is to say, between the bases of Torcello (with those of St. Mark's which belong to the nave, and which may therefore be supposed to be part of the earlier church), and the later ones of the St. Mark's Facade. Secondly: Note the fellowship between 5 and 6, one of the evidences of the early date of the Casa Falier. Thirdly: Observe the slurring of the upper roll into the cavetto, in 13, 14, and 15, and the consequent relationship established between three most important buildings, the Rio-Foscari House, Terraced House, and Madonnetta House. Fourthly: Byzantine bases, if they have an incision between the upper roll and cavetto, are very apt to approach the form of fig. 23, in which the upper roll is cut out of the flat block, and the ledge beneath it is sloping. Compare Nos. 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. On the other hand, the later Gothic base, 11, has always its upper roll well developed, and, generally, the fillet between it and the cavetto vertical. The sloping fillet is indeed found down to late periods; and the vertical fillet, as in No. 12, in Byzantine ones; but still, when a base has such a sloping fillet and peculiarly graceful sweeping cavetto, as those of No. 10, looking as if they would run into one line with each other, it is strong presumptive evidence of its belonging to an early, rather than a late period. The base 12 is the boldest example I could find of the exceptional form in early times; but observe, in this, that the upper roll is larger than the lower. This is _never_ the case in late Gothic, where the proportion is always as in fig. 11. Observe that in Nos. 8 and 9 the upper rolls are at least as large as the lower, an important evidence of the dates of the Casa Farsetti and Fondaco de' Turchi. Lastly: Note the peculiarly steep profile of No. 22, with reference to what
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227  
228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

fillet

 

cavetto

 

pillars

 

sloping

 

portico

 

evidence

 
Observe
 
important
 

peculiarly

 

Gothic


vertical

 

Byzantine

 

Clustered

 

northern

 

observe

 

difference

 

Torcello

 

Farsetti

 

Fondaco

 
periods

reference

 

Turchi

 

profile

 

developed

 

Lastly

 

generally

 

larger

 

belonging

 
presumptive
 

period


exceptional

 

boldest

 

proportion

 

graceful

 

sweeping

 
strong
 

Madonnetta

 

supposed

 

belong

 

earlier


evidences

 
fellowship
 

Secondly

 

church

 

Facade

 

Venice

 
century
 

External

 

southern

 
Transepts