APPENDIX, 22, 23 469

of Palestrina (Barthelémy, in Bartoli, Peint. Antiques), which may be described as a kind of rude panorama of some district of Upper Egypt, a bird’s-eye view, half map, half picture, in which the details are neither adjusted to a scale, nor drawn according to perspective, but crowded together, as they would be in an ancient bas-relief.

22. P. 282.-ARABIAN ORNAMENTATION

I do not mean what I have here said of the inventive power of the Arab to be understood as in the least applying to the detestable ornamentation of the Alhambra.* The Alhambra is no more characteristic of Arab work, than Milan Cathedral is of Gothic:¹ it is a late building, a work of the Spanish dynasty in its last decline, and its ornamentation is fit for nothing but to be transferred to patterns of carpets or bindings of books, together with their marbling, and mottling, and other mechanical recommendations. The Alhambra ornament has of late been largely used in shop-fronts, to the no small detriment of Regent Street and Oxford Street.

23. P. 316.-VARIETIES OF CHAMFER

Let B A C, Fig. 72, be the original angle of the wall. Inscribe within it a circle p Q N p, of the size of the bead required, touching A B, A C, in p, p; join p, p, and draw B C parallel to it, touching the circle.

Then the lines B C, p p are the limits of the possible chamfers constructed with curves struck either from centre A, as the lines Q q, N d, r u, g c, etc., or from any other point chosen as a centre in the direction Q A produced: and also of all chamfers in straight lines, as a b e f. There are, of course,

* I have not seen the building itself, but Mr. Owen Jones’s work may, I suppose, be considered as sufficiently representing it for all purposes of criticism.2

¹ [Ruskin studied the architecture of Milan Cathedral closely in his autumn tour of 1849, and thus summed up his conclusions in the diary:-

“Throughout the cathedral there are mixtures of stealing from every style in the world; and every style spoiled. One or two of the traceries have capitals to their shafts, but capitals of the most vile proportion; the niches are as base as base can be, absolute curled wigs of petty crockets, heavy and mean at the same time; some of the windows have them running up their jambs, but they look stuck full of extinguishers; others have steep canopies and finials in their traceries, as in Merton large east window, but so mixed with the absurd flamboyant that they are of no use; finally, the statues are all over of the worst possible common stonemason’s yard species, and look pinned on for show; the only redeeming character about the whole being the frequent use of the sharp gable ... [reference to drawing in a sketch-book] which gives lightness, and the crowding of the spiry pinnacles into the sky.”]

² [Ruskin refers to this criticism and justifies it in the Two Paths, § 67. See also above, p. 243. Owen Jones’ work-Plans, Elevations, etc., of the Alhambra-was published 1842-1845.]

IX.. 2 H

[Version 0.04: March 2008]