50 THE SEVEN LAMPS OF ARCHITECTURE

features very beautiful, full of expression, and as delicately wrought as any work of the period.

§ 13. It is to be remembered, however, that while the ornaments in every fine ancient building, without exception so far as I am aware, are most delicate at the base, they are often in greater effective quantity on the upper parts. In high towers this is perfectly natural and right, the solidity of the foundation being as necessary as the division and penetration of the super-structure; hence the lighter work and richly pierced crowns of late Gothic towers. The campanile of Giotto at Florence, already alluded to, is an exquisite instance of the union of the two principles, delicate bas-reliefs adorning its massy foundation, while the open tracery of the upper windows attracts the eye by its slender intricacy, and a rich cornice crowns the whole.¹ In such truly fine cases of this disposition the upper work is effective by its quantity and intricacy only, as the lower portions by delicacy; so also in the Tour de Beurre at Rouen,² where, however, the detail is massy throughout, sub-dividing into rich meshes as it ascends. In the bodies of buildings the principle is less safe, but its discussion is not connected with our present subject.

§ 14. Finally, work may be wasted by being too good for its material, or too fine to bear exposure; and this, generally a characteristic of late, especially of renaissance, work, is perhaps the worst fault of all. I do not know anything more painful or pitiful than the kind of ivory carving with which the Certosa of Pavia,³ and part of the Colleone sepulchral chapel at

¹ [For detailed descriptions and illustration of the Campanile, see Mornings in Florence and The Shepherd’s Tower.]

² [The S.W. tower is so called because built (1485-1507) with the money paid for dispensations to eat butter in Lent. For drawings of it by Ruskin, see Vol. II. pp. 400, 430.]

³ [For further criticisms of the Certosa, see Stones of Venice, vol. i. ch. i. § 35, ch. xx. § 14; review of Lord Lindsay, in On the Old Road, 1899, vol. i. § 41; Aratra Pentelici, § 160; and Præterita, iii. ch. i. § 8. With these passages may be compared Ruskin’s impressions as given in a letter to his father (Milan, July 16, 1845):-

“The Certosa which I saw yesterday afternoon is, in elaborateness and quantity of labour, far more marvellous than my recollection of it. In quality of art, far inferior. Its style is singularly bad; it has no monasterial feeling; it seems built for ornament; it reminded me of the architectural designs of things impossible in the Royal Academy. It has a nasty, English, Chelsea Hospital, Hampton Court twang about it; and the details, whose labour is

[Version 0.04: March 2008]