 |
 |
 |
Notebook M2 p.177 ‘note that in the piers described on No 188 which have the three ribs to carry - diagonals added; are larger than the alternate ones, and their lower shafts are set further apart. Therefore in the small pier the section is as fig 1 No 189, in the larger the basic members are as fig 2 and the rest of the arrangement the same. The figures in fig 1 show levels in No 190 where same letters are used. I have not before seen a case of systematic projection of the roll c over d. all round except at angles. Bases. It is better than the irregular projection at Lyons - the outer line at g2 is right, and e e2 should be parallel with it. In No 190 the straight cut hollow of the upper section is a certain fact in some of the bases; the elliptical line is conjectural one in other. This whole hollow is a mistake in architecture ['in architecture' is an insertion] as most of the rest of the base, but the hollow especially looking as if the shaft were loose in the socket. It is a curious instance of beautiful lines misapplied. The angle leave are varied fleur de lis, but now so worn that their real outline cannot be traced.’
Notebook M2 p.176 Nave Piers, Bourges ‘On No 188 is a general account of them’
Notebook M2 p.182 Bourges, Capitals.
Works, 9.xxiv Notes that Ruskin was in Bourges by April 10th 1850 on his return journey from Venice.
Works, 9.130 (facing) Plate 11. No 12 Bourges ‘Plans of Piers’
Works, 9.70, 126, 133, 208, 263, 274, 316, 323, 332, 336, 337, 340, 349, 352; Works, 10.110.
Works, 9.432 ‘at Bourges where the perfectly undecorated flying buttresses have exactly the look of shores set to support a ship’ This footnote in Works is taken from Notebook M2 p.170L.
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]