 |
 |
 |
At Notebook M p.48 Ruskin uses the word ‘Saracenic’ of the pointing of the 2nd order arch as it developed from the 1st order. Its place within that developmental sequence is outlined at Verona Book p.33 and Verona Book p.34. There is a further reference at Notebook M p.59, but it is uncertain which building he is referring to there, so any attempt to use it to define Ruskin’s understanding of the term would inevitably be circular.
Wren had famously wanted to redefine Gothic as saracenic - which appears to have been, or to have become, an abusive term - on the grounds that the pointed arch was in common use in the east (cf. Wren (1750) p.306 and Frankl (1960) p.360ff) long before it was current in the West.
Willis, from whom Ruskin said that he had learned the grammar of central Gothic (Works, 8.95), similarly wrote in 1835 (Willis (1835) p.154):
Of the saracenic styles little is known, but I am inclined to give to this people the invention of the pointed forms of the arch, the ogee; that they used these forms is certain, and the period of their introduction into Christian architecture corresponds nearly with that of the crusades and pilgrimages which directed attention to the east, while the features themselves are so interesting and so easily recollected, that it is not surprising that men should endeavour to imitate them on their return to their own countries. Perhaps the ogee arch was brought in by the Venetians, in whose district it appears very early, and has always been prevalent.
Banister Fletcher later defined a saracenic arch as one that is stilted and pointed. Stilted pointed arches were used in Islamic architecture from an early period (cf Khirbat al-Mafjar in the 8th century and the Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo in the 9th century).
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]