[M.99L]                                                               [M.99]
                                                                      No 75	Ducal palace. Balcony to Front	99
                                                                      
                                                                      		I have yet seen of ridge tracery: its section marked at A
                                                                      		is exquisitely cut - as sharp as marble can be - and as even as
                                                                      		the whirl of a ball:  but the hollow of the cusp is
                                                                      		very rudely cut, and rough, as of no consequence.  Note the
                                                                      		head of the foliation is not part of a circle but deep
                                                                      		horseshoe - l elliptical downwards or rather a stilted
Fig 2 No 74. is inaccurate in the red section, which may serve to show		circle: the top of it touches - sometimes even sweeps a
how much  my eye deceives me in drawing mouldings - always too        		little into - the base of the ridge.  The scymitar shaped
large, unless adjusted. fitting the paper to the marble I found       		cusp is very beautiful.  Fig 1 section through small
fig 2 C: the true section between two 4foils inside and fig 2 D       		rose with the ridges at side of it; showing the mere
outside b2 in C is the joint towards the white marble (as at M2 in    		incisions which form it: This ball rose is only on the
the large fig of No 74. when from a2 up all again is too large, drawn 		outside of the balcony - inside, the [diagram] space is left flat
by the eye.) and the joint at dc or e f or hl or im in fig 3          		as at B.
of No 100 and it is the edge of the other 4foil at x in the same      		Fig 2 section of bar between two 4foils, but vid below
figure.                                                               		No in account of No 100.
D fig 2 No 74 is the correspondent outside section and in my calculations		Fig 3.  Profile of vertical rose, across:  real size
made fig 3 No 100.  I should have said, not twice the excess of b on a in		- a b accurately measured, width of cusp, falling on it
C, but that excess + excess b on a in D: : which however, is, (I doubt		a c - b d - of the ridge, as seen below - c2 d2 which
                                                                      		is a section of the tracery bar falling on it.  The two
                                                                      		strong lines M M are the joints where the red marble
                                                                      		of the foliation is set between the white of its cornices.
                                                                      No 75. Tracery of the 4 foil of No 74 traced actually on the
                                                                      		stone:  the line being the sharp top of the ridge.
                                                                      		LINE
                                                                      not) the same.  Vid also p 115 and No 101.

[Version 0.05: May 2008]