Class XXX.]

SUPPLEMENTARY RETORT OX DESIGN.

7 09

place of constructive truth. It was succeeded in thiscountry by the Tudor style, a modification of the Renais-sance. The Renaissance itself arose mainly from thestudy of Koman remains, and those often of the worstperiod of the Empire, when Greek science, skill, andpure taste had fallen before Roman magnificence andbarbarism, and before modern discoveries had opened upthe Atheniau treasures of Greek art. It was introduced,however, by men of enlarged minds, most of them greatconstructive architects, and by them it was constructivelyadapted; they embodied in it many of the just principlesof the ancient styles ; and if the stream of tradition hadbrought down much rubbish as well as treasure, still themaster minds of the fifteenth century gradually separatedthem, and applied with unrivalled skill and a fertilefancy what was beautiful and good. It was, however,essentially pagan in all its details, and its ornament con-veyed no symbolic truths to the hearts of men. In thehands of less skilful masters it soon became decorationwithout a pervading spirit, ornament merely used asornament, without propriety as without meaning; andthus, as the Tiulor style, it succeeded in this country tothe Gothic, that style dying out, partly from the causesabove stated, and partly from the change of feeling con-sequent on the reformed opinions which then prevailed.This debased form of the Renaissance , in its decoration,had already cast off all constructive truth and consis-tency : much that was bad in the late style was retainedand mixed with it; whatever was good was as certainlyforgotten. Columns were reversed, the heavy and broadpart being upwards, the small part below ; they swelledalternately into enormous hands, and were contractedinto severing rings, and sometimes they stood upon hallsto give a further sense of insecurity. Terminal figureswere introduced which had the weight of their entabla-tures borne on baskets of imitative fruits or flowers.The covering pediments were broken, contrary to allconstructive application, or were placed successively onewithin auother: entablatures were enlarged out of allproportion to the supporting columns; and the usefulwas superseded by the ornamental.

In France first, and afterwards in all the countries ofEurope, the Renaissance was degraded into the styleknown as that of Louis Quatorze. In all that this stylediffered from the true Renaissance , it differed merely asarising out of decoration. As a style it never had a com-mencement in construction, as the Gothic and Renais-sance had, both of which were founded on an architec-tural basis ; this sprang from the love of the GrandMonarque for magnificence and display. In it, all thatwas constructively true was disregarded utterly andsystematically ; thus supports became curved and brokenin line exactly where they require strength, bearing-railswere severed in the centre where the greatest hearing is,the union of horizontal and perpendicular forms was sup-pressed, styles and rails as far as possible hidden, veneersapplied with the grain across the framing, and everyeffort of invention strained, not to decorate the due con-structive truth of things, but utterly to hide and abolishconstruction altogether. The ruling principle of thestyle, as far as it can be said to have had one, was theavoidance of symmetry, and the search after variety byever}' possible means: for this reason, central forms haddissymmetrical sides, and the most unequal division ofparts was the rule of composition. Nevertheless for thepurpose which called it forth, for mere magnificence anddisplay, it was admirably adapted, being one of the mostsuitable styles for the display of gilding, and for bril-liancy and sparkle in metal and ormolu work, showy andglittering beyond anything attainable in the simplerforms of the Renaissance or of classic antiquity. Fromthese qualities it has long maintained its hold on thepublic taste; and its florid and gorgeous tinsel still pre-vails in three-fourths of the works of the Great Exhibi-tion , notwithstanding its gross contempt of constructiveprinciples.

The ornament of past ages is the tradition of the orna-mentist, and tradition ever hands down to us tilings goodand had, both equally consecrated to most minds by theauthority of time. But a moment’s reflection will show

how necessary it is to discriminate before receiving anv-thing on such authority. A church or temple built in*arude age remains undisturbed by some happy chance, avilla or a theatre in a remote pro\inciai town escapes thefatalities of accident or time, some tomb is opened, someoverwhelmed city exhumed from the debris of ruin thathad gathered over it. The ornamental details foundtherein are copied and illustrated by the notes of anti-quarians, or published in the proceedings of learnedsocieties, and are at once regarded as authorities for imita-tion, it being forgotten that they were perhaps the worksof obscure provincial artists, of a barbarous age perchance,or of a people with whom art , no longer studied for itsprinciples, had ceased to progress or had rapidly declined.

Such traditional ornament moreover had or had not alocal use, a consistent application to domestic, ecclesias-tical, or funeral purposes, in fact a local symbolism; buteven if it bad, this, mostly overlooked, is sure to be soondisregarded; and not only have v,e ornament of a de-graded period, of a declining age, or by inferior artists,but to this must he added, that its symbolic life is totallyextinct, and, perhaps, fortunately so, for when revived itis indiscriminately, for purposes totally at variance withits first application and original intent. Moreover, theornament suited for one material is misapplied to a mate-rial different from that for which it was designed. Thusornament originally cawed in stone is used lbr metal orfor wood, or, worse still, for carpets or for dresses. Thatwhich was intended to be carved in relief is imitated asthe inlay of a lloor or the hanging of a wall, and sense-less anomalies of all kinds speedily arise from unduereverence for and indiscriminate use of traditional orna-ment. That this is no forced view of things a glance atthe Exhibition will at once show, wherein are to be seenthe sacred vessels of the church imitated for secular pur-poses; the funeral urns of the Greek revived as drinking-vessels for the table; the columns of temples turned intocandlesticks, and sarcophagi into wine-coolers; while thedecorations of ceilings are applied to carpets, and thecarved frieze of an Ionic temple to a muslin curtaiu : allthese errors arising from the indiscriminating use of thosematerials with which antiquity has supplied us.

Ornamentists may fairly be divided into two classes;the traditional, who superstitiously reverence the remainsof past ages and are wedded in practice to existing styles;and those who despise the past and feel themselves atliberty to adopt from the abundant sources of nature amode and manner for themselves, without regard to theworks of their predecessors. The first class simply seekto follow where precedent leads them, and to be able toclaim the sanction of authority for their works. These,even when taste duly regulates their choice, are men oflimited ideas and small progress. Those of the secondclass, who pay no deference to authority, who think thatornament is governed by no laws, and who see no prin-ciples by which they are to be guided, are little likely toraise the art to the level of past times, and, still less, toadvance its aim and widen its scope. The true orna-mentist would seem to be one who seeks out the principleson which the by-gone artists worked, and the rules bywhich they arrived at excellence, and, discarding mereimitation and reproduction of details, endeavours, by theapplication of new ideas and new matter on principleswhich he believes to be sound, or which time and theassent of other minds has approved to be fundamental, toattain originality through fitness and truth. The anti-quarian ornameutist, however, will always have a certainreputation, and justly, if lie has the taste to select whatis best from the great masters of past times. In any casethe critic must he hold who speaks against the authorityof the fathers of the art; and praise is safe when greatnames are on the side of the critic. From this class ofornamentists we may at least demand purity of style, thatmarked eras should be kept distinct, and that the adoptedornament should be fitly applied to fabrics or manufac-tures of the like nature, and, as far as possible, for the likeuses, as those for which the ornament was first designed.

From the labours of the second class of ornamentists,united to that constant search after novelty at any sacri-fice of true taste for which manufacturers arc so con-