|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58 37
No s 13, and 14. CHURCH OF SAN GIOV. AND PAOLO F[D]rari
possibly be more ugly; partly owing to the purely
The more I examined the details of this door the more I ad- material shaft instead of tapered, looking like a long
mired them, even the roll would have been very noble in found tower; and partly to the flat and ugly capital.
mere Archit. Admitting a roll of such a size - All its The roll round the door mentioned in the paper
other details are of the noblest style though all misapplied is a beautiful instance of mistakenly applied ornament
It is far too imitative, missing its architectual pur-
pose; A less detailed ornament would have been far more
comprehensible to the eye in its place; more abstract
and simple: Its separate parts should have found portions
of sculpture to whch the eye should have been es[x]pecially
directed. Fine cinquecento work, like that of Monza,
while it is finished in its workmanship, us never wanting
in architectual effec[a]t.
Niches. No 14. Niches Fig 1. St John and Paul: a mode of placing
the niche on the cornice (cornice described in No 13):
b capital and 3 foil of niche; the latter too large in
the entire figure The figures are nicely set on the
angles, and the foliation is bold and grotesque; but the
finial and figure on it, are ridiculously large; and the
want of a pediment on each side ruinous.
Still more defective i[w]s fig 2 from the facade of the
Frari Its pinnacle is faced with ri[o]veted marble slabs;
a pencilled. A could not make out the St G & P whether
octagonal or not. The certical gables about it would
mark its date as corresponding with Coros d’Uro and
such arabic work. The bold proje ction of capital, and
total absence of trefoil, both very curious
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]