|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[M.212L] [M.212] St Marks. Niches 212
how curiously manly and simple as opposed to the filigree niches with rib
vaulting of even earlier times - Bayeau for instance in the north.
Fig 1 p 62 l is the masonry on above head at angle: going on
each side to edge of capital fig 1 p 62 profile in front.
fig 2 p 63 the dentil at the top showing joints and the
curious intaglio diamond, new to me at angle of dentil and the
The arch dentil is only about 1/2 to 2/3 the width of angle & cornice dentil neat touching of the apex of arch under centre of dentil block.
Correct this in fig 1 p 62 it is right at p 62 2. The management All should be much neater than I have drawn it. Fig 3 p
of angle dentil at p 64 l a profile b c sections the blocks joining 63 l shows relation of the leaden flower to size of spandril.
each other. finally at p 61 is the profile of cusp - wonderfully pure and
beautiful for this style, cut clear and at p 61 l continued on
p 61 is the section of arch mouldings {real size} note that the dentil is small
and flat as compared with angle dentil (which from its mode of turning
is necessarly bold): the cavetti singularly shallow:, the roll as singulaely
bold. The line b at p 61 is section at base and apex of
of arch. b2 at penetration of cusp, c the cusp itself ought
to be about 2 inches wide, i.e. d e in fig 1.
This niche would be perfectly beautiful but for its leaden flowers
a great fault common to all the rest. Its shafts have no
bases: capitals noted at p 60, somewhat roughy cut when seen
close but very perfect in effect; It has a very noble, slightly
colossal armed figure, Michael? Which has chain mail under
a jointed cuirass - or rather jointed body armour. This figure appears
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]