NATURE IN ORNAMENT.

BY LEWIS F. DAY.
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF EVERY-DAY ART.

Second Edition.

THE ANATOMY OF PATTERN.

Fourth Edition.

THE PLANNING OF ORNAMENT.

Third Edition.

THE APPLICATION OF ORNAMENT.

Fourth Edition.

WINDOWS; A BOOK ABOUT STAINED

AND PAINTED GLASS.

ALPHABETS, OLD AND NEW.

Third Impression.

ART IN NEEDLEWORK; A BOOK ABOUT

EMBROIDERY.
Second Edition.

LETTERING IN ORNAMENT.
 JAkermaii.Plioto-litli London..

"pleur-de-Luce
NATURE IN ORNAMENT
AN ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURAL ELEMENT
IN ORNAMENTAL DESIGN &- A SURVEY OF THE
ORNAMENTAL TREATMENT OF NATURAL FORMS.

BY

LEWIS f:~ day,

AUTHOR OF 'WINDOWS,' 'ART
IN NEEDLEWORK,' 'LETTERING
;IN ORNAMENT,' 'ALPHABETS,' &-c.

WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS OF DESIGN

AND TREATMENT IN ORNAMENT, OLD AND NEW.
THIRD EDITION
SIXTH THOUSAND.

LONDON:
B. T. BATSFORD, 94 HIGH HOLBORN
1902.
 1^6
190^ PREFACE
TO THE THIRD EDITION.
It was explained in the Preface to the First
Edition that the aim of this book was not
merely to show the adaptability of plant form
to the purposes of ornament. That is self-

obvious : were it not, others have already

called attention to the fact. The purpose is

rather to demonstrate the natural develop-

ment of ornament, to show its constant
relation to natural form, and to deduce
from the practice of past-masters of the
craft of design something like principles,
which may put the student in the way of
turning nature to account in ornament of
his own.

A Third Edition gives me the opportunity

not only of once more carefully revising the
text, but of adding a copious Index of Illus-

trations ; which, as these are invariably to be

found as near the reference to them as the
pages would allow, should make general
reference easy.

Lewis F. Day.

13 Mecklenburg Square^ Loudon^

January \2th^ 1896.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. Introductory i

II. Ornament in Nature 12

III. Nature in Ornament 32

IV. The Simplification of Natural Forms 52

V. The Elaboration of Natural Forms .. 69

VI. Consistency in the Modification of

Nature 84

VII. Parallel Renderings 103

VIII. More Parallels 129

IX. Tradition in Design 146

X. Treatment 165

XL Animals in Ornament 177

XII. The Element of the Grotesque .. .. 195

XIII. Still Life in Ornament 213

XIV. Symbolic Ornament 236

Index to Illustrations 249

 LIST OF PLATES.

1. FLEUR DE LUCE — treatment of the Iris, by Walter

Crane.

2. JAPANESE ROSES —from various Japanese printed books.

3. BUDDING BRANCHES — drawn from nature.

4. NATURAL LEAF-SHEATHS — from a Japanese botany

book.

5. VARIOUS BERRIES —drawn from nature.

6. SOME SEED-VESSELS — from a Japanese botany book.
7. PODS — drawn from nature.
8. FLOWER AND LEAF BUDS — drawn from nature.
9. OAK AND OAK GALLS — panel, L.F.D.
tile

10. NATURAL GROWTH — from a Japanese botany book.

11. GREEK SCROLLS.
12. ROMAN SCROLLS.

13 ACANTHUS SCULPTURE AND BRUSH-WORK — illustra-

tive diagram.

14. TWO VERSIONS OF THE SAME FRIEZE DESIGN — L.F.D.

15. DETAILS OF ROMAN MOSAIC— from Carthage, B.M.
16. TRANSITIONAL SCROLL— German, by D. Hopfer.
17. PAINTED WALL PANEL — from the Palazzo del T, by
Giulio Romano.
 —

X List of Plates.

i8. LUSTRE DISHES— of the sixteenth century —V.&A.M.

19. GERMAN GOTHIC SCROLL —from tapestry in the museum
at Nuremberg.
20. ARAB-ESQUE RENAISSANCE ORNAMENT —German.
21. ORNAMENTAL BOUQUET —of the Seventeenth century
design for goldsmith's work.
22. BOOK-COVER — designed by Owen Jones.
23. SUNFLOWERS AND ROSES —wall-paper by B. J.
Talbert.

24. DETAILS OF GREEK TERRA-COTTA — from VaseS at

Naples and at the B.M.
25. DETAILS OF ANCIENT COPTIC EMBROIDERIES — V.& A.M.
26. DETAIL FROM AN INDIAN KINKAUB —modern tradi-
tional design.

27. DETAILS FROM POMPEII—Wall painting and mosaic.

28. CARVED CABINET DOOR — from Cairo — V.&A.M.
29. ENGLISH GOTHIC DETAILS —from various sources.
30. INDIAN RENDERINGS OF THE IRIS —painting and
damascening.

31. INLAID FLOWER-PANELS — L.F.D.

32. LYONS SILK-WEAVING OF THE SEVENTEENTH OR
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY — Dresden Museum.
33. DETAILS OF EIGHTEENTH CENTURY FOLIAGE —from
old English silks.

34. SILK DAMASK OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY — Italian.

35. OLD LACE—ivory point, Munich Museum.

36. DETAILS OF HAMMERED WORK — German Gothic.
37. WALL-PAPER — conventional growth— L.F.D.
38. WALL-PAPER FOUNDED UPON NATURE— L.F.D.
 —

List of Plates, xi

39. TILE PANEL BASED ON THE LILY —L.F.D.

40. CHRYSANTHEMUM PATTERN— comparatively natural
L.F.D.
41. ARCHAIC GREEK FOLIAGE —from a bronze cup — B.M.
42. MODERN GOTHIC LILY PANEL— B. Talbert.
J.

43. —
LILY ORNAMENT Italian inlay, Siena.

44. EIGHTEENTH CENTURY FLOWER RENDERINGS —from

old English silks.

45. A RENAISSANCE MEDLEY — S. Crocc, Florence.

46. PEA-POD ORNAMENT — pilaster by Brunellesco,
47. DUTCH AND GERMAN CONVENTIONS— of the Seven-
teenth century.

48. SCROLL AND FOLIAGE — L.F.D.

49. ANCIENT COPTIC EMBROIDERY — V.&A.M.
50. VINE AND OLIVE PANEL — Lateran Museum, Rome.
51. ITALIAN GOTHIC VINE —from Giotto's Tower, Florence
52. VINE AND APPLE-TREE FRIEZE — L.F.D.
53-. CLASSIC RENDERINGS OF THE VINE — B.M.
54. ARAB VINE PANEL — showing one-half of the design.
55. VINE SCULPTURE — Lateran Museum.
56. STENCILLED VINE DECORATION — Heywood Sumner.
57. COPTIC VINE ORNAMENT — from ancient embroideries
V.&A.M.
58. ENGLISH GOTHIC VINE — stall-end, from Christchurch
Priory.

59. VINE IN STAINED GLASS — L.F.D.

60. VINE BY DiJRER —from a woodcut.
61. CONVENTIONAL VINE-LEAF PATTERN — L.F.D.
 —

xii List of Plates.

62. ARTIFICIAL RENDERINGS OF THE ROSE —from English

silks of the eighteenth century.

63. TUDOR ROSE —from the bronze doors to Henry VII.'s

chapel.

64. TUDOR ROSE —from a stall-arm, Henry VH.'s chapel.

65. ITALIAN VERSION OF A PERSIAN CARPET —rose and

tulip— V.&A.M.

66. MARBLE INLAY —from the Taj Mahal, India.

67. INDIAN LOTUS PANEL —stone-carving, from the Buddhist
Tope at Amarivati.
68. DETAILS OF BUDDHIST STONE-CARVING —lotus flowers,
&c., from Amarivati.

69. THE PINK —various renderings of the flower.

70. EIGHTEENTH CENTURY VERSIONS OF THE PINK
English.

71. POPPY BY GHIBERTI —from the bronze doors of the

Baptistery at Florence.

72. POPPY PATTERN —wall-paper, L.F.D.

73. POMEGRANATES — Chinese colour-printing and German

incising.

74. GOTHIC OAK ORNAMENT —after Pugin.

75. COMPARATIVELY NATURAL LILY PANEL — L.F.D.
76. ORCHID AND FUNGUS PATTERN — old Chinese em-
broidery.

77. CONVENTIONAL TREE WORK — Indian stone carving.

78. —
PERSIAN FOLIAGE sillc-weaving of the sixteenth cen-
tury, Lyons Museum.

79. DETAILS OF EGYPTIAN SCULPTURE — B.M.

80. DETAILS OF NINEVITE SCULPTURE — B.M.
 List of Plates, xiii

81. DETAILS OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING —B.M.

82. ROMAN SCULPTURE— lemon and apple trees — Lateran
Museum.
83. SIXTEENTH CENTURY GERMAN DESIGN — Peter Quentel.
84. LATE GOTHIC "PINE" ORNAMENTS — from various
textiles.

85. CONVENTIONAL TULIP FRIEZE — L.F.D.

86. —by W. Muckley.
PEONY FRIEZE J.

87. FRUIT PATTERN — wall-paper by Wm. Morris.

88. CHINESE LOTUS —porcelain painting.

89. COBCEA SCANDENS — linen damask— L.F.D,

9a CONVENTIONAL DANDELION — L.F.D.

91. GERMAN GOTHIC THISTLE-SCROLL — WOOd-carving,
V.&A.M.
92. JAPANESE CRANES —from a printed book.
93. JAPANESE TORTOISES — from a printed book.
94. PERUVIAN ECCENTRICITIES — from fragments of stuifs.

95. SICILIAN SILK PATTERNS— of about the thirteenth

century.

96. SIXTEENTH CENTURY WOOD-CARVING — S. Pietro,

Perugia.

97. — Chinese and Japanese.

CONVENTIONAL BUTTERFLIES
98. MODERN GERMAN RENAISSANCE—by Anton Seder.
99. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY SCROLL-WORK — from a book
of designs, published 1682, by S. Gribelin.

100. SIXTEENTH CENTURY ARABESQUE — Italian.

101. LATE GOTHIC FOLIAGE— tempera painting.

xiv List of Plates,

102. LUSTRE PLAQUES — L.F.D.

103. STUDIES IN ORNAMENTAL FIGURE-WORK —by Holbeitl.
104. GROTESQUE PANEL — by Sansovino.
105. GROTESQUE FIGURE —by Marco Dente da Ravenna.
106. GROTESQUE SCROLL — cretonne, L.F.D.
107. KELTIC INTERLACED ORNAMENT — from a MS. in the
B.M.
108. CONVENTIONAL WING FORMS — sixteenth century
Italian carving.

109. DIAPERS WITH A MEANING —Japanese.

1 10. EARLY GREEK WAVE AND LOTUS DIAPER —twelfth Or
thirteenth century B.C.

111. SEAWEED BORDERS — L.F.D.

112. SEAWEED PATTERN — L.F.D.
113. PEACOCK-FEATHER PATTERN — Japanese.
1 14. PEACOCK-FEATHER DIAPERS — from various sources.
115. PEACOCK-FEATHER PATTERN — Turkish embroidery.
116. ROCOCO SCROLL-WORK — by Philippo Passarini.
117. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY SCROLL-WORK — German,
by Nicolaus Drusse.
118. POMPEIAN WALL PAINTING.
119. INDIAN NAJA— stone -carving from the Amarivati Tope.
120. CONVENTIONAL TREES — from various sources,
121. LATE GOTHIC FLEUR-DE-LIS TRACERY — from WOod-
carvings at V.&A.M.
122. MARGUERITE PANELS — wood-carvlng,
123. SYMBOLIC ORNAMENT —book-cover— L.F.D.
 ,

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
IN THE TEXT.
PAGE
1. Various tendrils 14
2. Vine tendrils 15
3. Romanesque ornamentation of the stem Ely — .. 18
4. Part of a Pompeian candelabrum B.M. —.. .. 19
5. Renaissance use of pea-pods (Prato Cathedral) ., 20
6. Unequally divided oak-leaf 22
7. Chinese rendering of Wistaria — old embroidery .. 29
8. Acanthus leaves reduced to brush-vv^ork , . .
34
9. Simple acanthus leafage 35
10. Step between wave and acanthus scroll — Roman
mosaic, B.M. 36
11. Olive-like leafage 37
12. Oak -like leafage
37
13. Vine-like acanthus leafage, from the Jube at
Limoges 38
14. Crocket-like foliage, from Limoges 38
15. Modern modification of Classic leafage 39
16. Seventeenth century scroll — Boulle 41
17. Details of Romanesque ornament 42
18. Details of early Gothic ornament — stained glass .. ^-^
 ..

XVI List of Illustrations in the Text.

PAGE
19. Spiral Persian scroll 44
20. Iris-like details of Persian ornament —sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries 45
21. Details of Early Persian ornament — tenth to
twelfth century 46
22. Sixteenth century arabesque details — German .. 47
23. Rosette in Rouen faience 47
24. Chinese foliage, not easy to identify 48
25. Bouquet of conventional ornament — Persian porce-
lain, V.&A.M 48
26. Abstract ornament, not free from foliation . . .
49
27. Conventional Chinese flower forms 5°
28. Conventional Chinese foliage 5'

29. Rectangular acorn patterns — old German . . ,

53
30. Simplified thistle —by the late G. E. Street, R.A. 54
31. Gothic leaf border, wood-carving — Maidstone .. 55
32. Rosette or rose — German Gothic
?
55
33. Gothic leaf-and-flower border—wood-carving ,. 55
34. Seed-vessels from nature 56
35. Conventional buds, or seed-vessels
? —marble inlay,
Florence 57
36. Conventional Greek ivy leaves and berries .. .. 57
37. Japanese border, buds or fruits ? 58
38. Conventional tree— from a Sicilian silk 58
39. Simple Roman tree — mosaic, B.M 59
40. Hawthorn crocket 59
41. Vine crocket 59
42. Late Gothic pomegranate — stencil pattern .. .. 60
43-4. Indian renderings of the poppy —niello .. .. 61
 . ..

List of Illustrations iji the Text, xvii

PAGE
45. Greek border with lily buds 61
46. Early Gothic foliated ornament —pavement tiles . 62
47. Natural and ornamental foliage —Early French . 63
48. Bud-like ornamental forms — Gothic wood-carving.. 63
49. Peony simplified to form a stencil — by H. Sumner 64
50. Indian wood-carving 65
51. Gothic wood-carving 65
52. Greek that might be Gothic — stone-carving .. .. 65
53. Persian details which might be Gothic — porcelain of
the sixteenth or seventeenth century 66
54. Japanese treatment of the — embroidery
iris . . . 66

55. Wheat-ears, simplified or elaborated? — seventeenth

century Italian silk 68
56. Floral forms within floral forms — Italian velvet,
Persian design 73
57. Pomegranate berries arranged in bud-form — Per-
sian silk 74
58. Ornamental pomegranates — Italian velvet . . .
75
59. Ornamental pomegranate — eighteenth century silk 76
60. Ornamental pomegranate — old German embroi-
dery 77
61. Foliated forms geometrically diapered — Japanese .. 7^
62. Elaborated flower —from an embroidered Gothic
altar frontal 79
63. Elaborated flower —from a table-cover of German
embroidery, 1598 80
64. Bulbous hop-leaves — German Gothic wood-carving 81

65. Indian corn adapted to ornament — Italian wood-

carving 88
b
 — .

xviii List of Illustratio7is in the Text.

PAGE
66. Rigid lines of the growth of corn turned to orna-
—
mental account by the late C. Heaton . . . 89
67. Artificial grace of line — Italian 9^
(i?>' Quasi-natural rendering of the lily —by Sammicheli 91
69. Quattro-cento lily — S.Bernardino, Perugia .. .. 92
70. Narcissus compelled into the way of ornament-
L.F.D 93
71. Incongruous treatment of the oak — Roman .. .. 94
72. Characterless design — Albertolli 95
73. Inconsistency between flower and leaf —Japanese 96
74- Graceful artificiality — Lyons silk,about 1700 .. 97
75. De-naturalised floral details —by Gribelin, 1682 .. 98
76. Confusion of effect without confusion of growth
Persian tiles, V.& A.M loi
"]*]. The vine in Assyrian sculpture — B.M 106
78. Vine from a Greek vase — B.M 108
79. Pompeian vine border — silver on bronze — Naples 109
80. Italian wood- carving—hop or vine — V.&A.M. ? ., no
81. Conventional Gothic vine and grapes — York .. in
82. Gothic vine with mulberry-like grape-bunches
York 112
83. Conventional vine, from Toledo — more or less
Moorish 113
84. Moorish vine, from Toledo 114
85. — Ravenna
Naive Byzantine vine 115
86. Early French Gothic vine — Notre Dame, Paris ., 116
87. Square-shaped vine-leaves — scratched earthen-
ware, B.M 117
88 Diamond-shaped vine-leaves —Gothic 118
 List of Illustrations in the Text, xix

PAGB
89. Vesica-shaped vine-leaves —York 119
90. Diagram of Italian Gothic treatment — Padua .. 120
91. Transitional vine scroll — German linen damask .. 121

92. Italian quattro-cento vine scroll — Venice .. .. 123

93. German Renaissance foliage —by Aldegrever .. 124
94. Vine in Gothic glass-painting — Malvern .. .. 126

95. Quasi-Persian rose — Italian velvet, sixteenth

century 130
96. Oriental rose border — embroidered in silk and
gold on linen 131
97. Rhodian rose — from a faience dish 132
98. Roman forms — a candelabrum
lily 133
99. Indian lotus — Buddhist stone-carving, B.M. .. 134
100. Seventeenth century —applique embroidery,
iris

Italian, V.&A.M 135

loi. Renaissance pinks — needlework 136
102. Modern Gothic pomegranate —by the late B. J.
Talbert 139
103. Pomegranate — Spanish brocatelle 140
104. Oak —from the Cathedral of Toledo 141

105. Assyrian tree of life 142

106. Oak —from a Sicilian silk 142
107. Romanesque tree of life — from a painted roof at
Ilildesheim 143
108. Renaissance silk —showing Persian influence .. 149
109. Egyptian symbolic papyrus 150
1 10. Assyrian symbolic ornament — glazed earthenware,
B.M 151
111. Abstract Greek ornament — from a vase .. .. 152
 — .

XX List of Illustrations m cht Text.

PAGE
112. Later Greek ornament — from a vase 153
113. A.ssyrian rosette of lotus flowers and buds .. ., 155
114. Gothic ornament — from Notre Dame, Paris .. 156
115. Fifteenth century fir-cone ornaments 157
116. Chinese flower forms 157
117. Etruscan and Greek anthemion shajDCS .. .. 158
118. Japanese diaper 159
119. Japanese diaper 159
1 20. Lily-like Greek details —from various sources . 1 60
121. Romanesque detail approaching to the fleur-de-lis 160
122. Gothic pattern — Early fleur-de-lis 160
123. Concentric forms— seaweed 162
124 Gothic — anthemion shape —from the nimbus of
a figure in one of the stained-glass windows at
Fairford 162
125. —radiating —from a painted screen
Gothic diaper 162

Renaissance ornament — Italian wood -carving

'
I .. 163
-^
127./ '^

128. Renaissance anthemion —by Mino da Fiesole,

Florence 164
129. Abstract foliage — Persian inlay, V.& A. M 169
130. Would-be ornamental celandine — Albertolli .. 170
131. Chinese rendering of "kiss-me-quick" — em-
broidery 171
132. Comparatively natural treatment of poppy
L.F.D 172
133. Comparatively natural treatment of — L.F.D.
fig .. 173
134. Ornamental treatment of strawberry — L.F.D. .. 174
135. Dolphins used as ornament— by George Fox .. 180
 List of Illustrations iii the Text, xxi

PAGE
136. Circular bird (and flower) crest 181

137. Circular bird crest 181

138. Ornamental indication of birds in flight .. .. 181

139. Diaper of storks and chrysanthemum flowers

combined 182

140. Dragon-fly diaper —Japanese 183

141. Diaper of conventional bats 184

142. Bird diaper by the late Wm. Burgess, A.R.A. .. 185

143. Repeating figure pattern 186

144. Conventional peacock border — Indian embroidery 187

145. Egyptian wing treatment — vultures 188

146. Egyptian wing treatment —hawk in cloisonne

enamel 189

147. Bat diaper —old Japanese 191

148. Embroidered bat — Chinese 194

149. Pilaster by Signorelli—Orvieto 202
150. Grotesque iron grille — German 204
151. Wings reduced to ornament — Italian wood-carving 209
152. Ornamental dragon —Japanese # 210
153. Arctic American grotesquerie —embroidered cloth 211

154. Spring blossoms on the stream —Japanese .. ,. 213

155. Diaper of spiders' webs 214
156. Diaper of flames 215
157. Cloud and bat pattern 216
158. Cloud pattern 216
159. Wave pattern 216
160. Water and water-lilies 2i7
161. Wave pattern and waterfowl 218
 —

xxii List of Illustrations in the Text.

PAGE
162. Wave pattern — Japanese porcelain 218
163. —
Wave pattern Japanese.lacquer 219
164. Wave ornament 219
165. Wave ornament 219
166. Wave and spray pattern 220
167. Decorative rendering of incoming wave —^Japanese 221
168. Shell ornament 222
169. Seavi^eed ornament 222
170. Heraldic mantling —part of a painted frieze
L.F.D 223
171. Heraldic mantling — German Gothic wood-
carving 224
1 72. Inlaid peacock-feather ornament — by B. J. Talbert 226
173. Coptic feather border — V.&A.M 227
174. Coptic feather diaper — V.&A.M 227
175. Persian peacock feather pattern —painted tiles,

V.&A.M 228
176. Trophy panel — Renaissance 229
177. Fran9ois P"^ skull ornament — wood-carving, Fon-
tainebleau 230
178. Early Phoenician wreath 231
179. Swag of fruit-bunches 233
180. Egyptian sacred beetle 237
181. Diaper of waves, clouds, and sacred birds .. .. 238
182. Cross of fleurs-de-lis — thirteenth century .. .. 238
183. Assyrian sacred tree 239
184. Assyrian sacred tree — B.C. 885-860 239
185. Iris or fleur-de-lis? — Seventeenth century Vene-
tian velvet .. 240
 List of Illustrations in the Text, xxiii

PAGE
i86. Egyptian symbols 240
187. Gothic fleurs-de-lis — from old glass, Lincoln .. 241
188. Heraldic badges — Sixteenth century, Mantua .. 242
189. Symbolic eye — Egyptian 243
190. Segment of Greek border of eyes —painted terra-
cotta .. ,. 243
191. Symbolic border of seed-vessels — L.F.D 245
192. Heraldic oak — Italian Renaissance 246

ABBREVIATIONS.
B.M.— British Museum.
V.& A.M.— Victoiia & Albert Museum.
L.F.D. —Lewis F. Day.
NATURE IN ORNAMENT.
I.

INTRODUCTORY.

The bias of the natural man is not un-

naturally in the direction of nature. Almost
alone in the history of art, the Greeks and
the Moors appear to have been content with
ornament which was ornament pure and
simple. It is not too much to say, even in
these days of supposed interest in things deco-
rative, that the Englishman generally speaking
neither knows nor cares anything about the
subject. He is in most cases absolutely out of
sympathy with it. Possibly he has even a sort
of contempt for the "ornamental," as some-
thing opposed to that utility which he so
highly esteems —never so much as appre-
hending the fact that ornamental art is art
applied to some useful purpose.
The forms most admires
of ornament he
are those most nearly resembling something
B
2 Nature in Ornament,

in nature,and it is because of that resemblance

he admires them abstract ornament is quite
:

outside his sympathies and beyond his under-

standing. He begins, for example, to take a
feeble interest Greek pattern-work only
in
when he sees in it a likeness to the honey-
suckle. Show him some purely ornamental
form, and it is neither its beauty, nor its
character, nor its fitness that strikes him he ;

is perplexed only to know what it is meant

to represent. To him every form of orna-

ment must have its definite relation to some
natural object, and therein lies all its interest.
Relation to nature there must be indeed, and
every one will acknowledge the interest with
which we trace such relationship but no one ;

who really cares for ornament at all will allow

that it depends upon that for its charm.
When ornament has gone astray, it has
been more often in the direction of what one
may call rusticity than of that artificiality
which is at the other end of the scale.
Art passes through periods of affectation,
when it becomes before all things urgent that
opinion should be led back again to the for-
gotten, grass-grown paths of nature. That
is not our urgency just now. If there was at
one time within our memory some fear of
artificiality in art, the danger now lies in the
 Introductory. 3

opposite direction of literalism ; a literalism

which assumes a copy of nature to be not
only art, but the highest form of art which ;

ignores, if it does not in so many words deny,

the necessity of anything like imagination or
invention on the part of the artist, and accepts
the imitative faculty for all in all.

To venture upon the sweeping assertion

that all art whatsoever is, and must be, con-
ventional,would be very likely to lay oneself
open to the rebuke of judging all art by the
decorative standard ; but with regard to orna-
ment, no more than the bare truth to say
it is

that more or less conventional it must be, or

it would not be ornamental.

Not, of course, that the ornamentist denies

in the least the supreme beauty of natural form
and colour, or thinks for a moment to improve
upon it, as some seem to imagine, who insinu-
ate that he proposes to surpass nature, pre-
sumes to " paint the lily," and so on. On the
contrary, he is modest enough to recognise the
impossibility of even approximately copying
anything without the sacrifice of something
which is more immediately to his purpose
—
than any fact of nature consistency namely,
fitness, breadth, repose and is content, there-
;

fore, to take only so much of natural beauty

as he can turn to use. He regulates his
B 2
4 Nature in Ornament,

appetite, that is to say, according to his

digestion.
Such self-denial on his part is not by any
means a shirking of the difficulties of the situa-
tion. In art nothing is easy, except to such
as have a natural faculty that way. It is not
every one who finds it easy to make a striking
study from nature ; but that comparatively
elementary does demand
accomplishment
ability of a lesser kind than the production of
a picture in which there is design, unity, style,
and whatever else may distinguish a master-
work of the Renaissance from a study of
to-day.
In like manner, the mere painting or carving
of a sprig of foliage is within the reach of every
amateur ; but to adapt such foliage to a given
position and purpose, to design it into its place,
to treat it after the manner of wood, stone,
glass, metal, textile fabric, earthenware, or
what not, demands not only intelligence and
inborn aptitude, but training and experience
too.
It is the easiest thing in the world to ridicule
such decorative treatment but it would puzzle ;

the scoffer if he were asked to pause a moment

in merriment and point out a single
his
instance of even moderately satisfactory de-
coration in which a more or less non-natural
 Introductory, 5

treatment has not been adopted. The fact is,

the artist has not yet arrived at a point where

he is able to dispense altogether with art.

It is his misfortune (more so nowadays

than ever it was) that it is extremely difficult

for him to make up his mind precisely as to

the relation of art to nature. That it is

dependent upon nature, more or less, is

obvious. Only by way of paradox is it

possible to contend, like Mr. Whistler, that

" nature is very seldom right." Nature is

our one and constant model. The question

is as to how freely or how painfully, how
broadly or how literally, how individually or
how slavishly, we shall render the model
before us, how much of it, and what of it, we
shall depict. And this is a question which,
if not quite beyond solution, must be solved
by each man according to his idiosyncrasy,
and that only after much anxiety and doubt
and difficult self-questioning.
It is the good fortune of the decorator,
the ornamentist, the worker in any of the
more dependent arts, to be comparatively free
from such incubus of doubt. In his art there
is much less room for For him
hesitation.
to adopt the realistic creed would be to deny
his calling, and to cut himself off from the
art of his adoption : for the very idea of
6 Nature in Ornament,

ornament implies something to be ornamented,

and accordingly to be taken into account.
A man is bound, by the very adoption of
any one of the applied arts, to draw the line
at realism so soon as ever it is opposed to the
application of his art. In other words, the
purpose to which his art is put indicates to
him the limits of possible realism. And so,

while the dispute about realism is still at its

height so far as literature, the drama, and even
painting are concerned, the question as to the
adaptation of natural forms to ornamental
design has resolved itself, for all who know
anything of the subject, into inquiry as to the
degree and kind of modification calculated
to render natural forms applicable to orna-
ment and the various purposes to which it

is put.
This modification of natural form to orna-
mental purpose we are accustomed to call
" conventional." In accepting this term, how-
ever, we must be careful to distinguish con-
vention from convention, and especially from
that academic acceptation of the term which
would give us to understand that the modi-
fication of nature has been done for us, and

that we have only to accept the Classic

Mediaeval, Renaissance, or other more or less
obsolete rendering at hand. As though the
 Introductory, 7

tombs of buried peoples were heaven-sent

habitations for live men !

The one thing to be insisted upon in refer-

ence to convention is that it has not been
done for us once and for all, that we have to
do our own conventionalising and not only ;

that, but that we have to do it again and

again, each time afresh, according to the work
in hand. It is only by this means that art in

ornament subsists and grows when it ceases :

to grow, decay sets in of course.

To accept a convention ready-made is to
compromise your own invention ; to go on
copying the accepted types, be they never so
beautiful, is just to stifle it. But one must
be familiar with them one must be aware of
:

what has been already done in the way of art,

as well as conversant with nature. Simply
to study nature is not enough. We have to
know how artists of all times have interpreted
nature how the same artist, or artists of the
;

same period, treated natural form differently,

according to the material employed, conform-
ably with the position of the work, in view of
the use it was to serve. Knowing all this,
and being perfectly at home in the world of
nature, one may set to work to conventionalise
on one's own account and with the best—
possible chance of success.
8 Nature in Ornament,

Those who most keenly feel the need in

ornament of a quality which the modern
nature-worshipper delights to disparage, will
be inclined to pray that they may be pre-
served from some of their There is,
allies.

or was not long ago, a class of ornament in

vogue, which appears to have originated in
the idea that you have only to flatten out
any kind of natural detail, and arrange it
symmetrically upon arbitrary lines, and the
end of ornament is achieved.
Decorative design is not so easy as all that.

To emasculate a natural form is not to fit it

for ornamental use, and to distribute detail

according to diagram is not to design. The
result may be conventional, but it is not the
kind of convention here advocated one touch ;

of nature is worth all the mechanical and life-

less stuff of that kind that ever was done.
One hopes, and tries to think, that this
sort of thing is dying out, if not quite dead
already ; but then one flatters oneself so
readily that what has been proved absurd
must be extinct, or moribund at least until, ;

perhaps, an enforced stay among the Philis-

tines brings us face to face with the evidence
how very much it is alive. We
have only
weeded it out of our little garden plot about ;

us is a wide world where it is rampant. There

 Introductory. 9

is no hiding it from ourselves, there is life in

the old dogma yet ; and, alas, in many another.
It is still as necessary as ever to deny the
claim of merely geometric reconstruction to
represent the due adaptation of natural forms
to decorative needs. no more fair to
It is

take this ridiculously childish work to repre-

sent conventional design than it would be to
instance the immature studies of some raw
student as examples of naturalistic treatment.
Compare the best with the best. Compare
the ceramic painting of Sevres with that of
ancient Greece, China, or Japan ; compare
the work of Palissy with that of the potters
of Persia and Moresque Spain ; compare the
finestAubusson carpet with a Persian rug of
the best period compare the earlier Arras
;

(such as we have at Hampton Court) with the

most illusive of modern Gobelins tapestry ;

compare the traditional Swiss wood-carving

on the chalet Meyringen and there-
fronts at
abouts with the most ingenious model pro-
duced in the same district for the English
and American tourist compare the peasant ;

jewellery of almost any country except our

own (we never seem to have had any) with
the modern gewgaws which have taken its
place and who would hesitate to choose the
;

more conventional art ?

lo Nature in Ornament,

Conventional treatment, it will be seen, is

no mere stopping short of perfect rendering,

no bald excuse for incompetence. It is pur-
posed presently to show that, if it does not on
the one hand consist in the substitution of the
diagram of a thing instead of its life and
growth, neither does it mean the mere distor-
tion of natural details, nor yet that mechanical
repetition of ancient conventions which is a
weariness to every one concerned in it. Our
rendering of natural form must be our own,
natural to us ; but without some sort of con-
ventionality (if we must use the word) deco-
ration is impossible. There is no art without
convention ; and your most determined realist
is in his way as conventional as the best, or
worst, of us.
It is not the word conventional for which
contention made, but that fit treatment of
is

ornament which folk seem agreed to call by

the title, more when they want to
especially
abuse it. By whatever name it is called, we
cannot afford to let go our hold of that some-
thing which distinguishes the decorative art
of every country, period, and master, from the
crude attempts of such as have not so much
as grasped the idea that there some- is in art

thing more than a dishing up of the raw facts

of nature.
 1

Introductory. 1

Work as nearly natural as man can make

it, though not in itself decorative, may be at
times available in decoration. But forms de-
naturalised by men alike ignorant of the
principles and unskilled in the practice of
ornament, and more than half contemptuous
of design to boot, are of no interest to any
one but their authors, if even to them. Nature
and art are not on such bad terms that to be
unnatural is to be ornamental.
 2

1 Nature in Ornament,

11.

ORNAMENT IN NATURE.

Nature being admittedly the primal source

of all our inspiration, it is rather curious to
observe the limited range within which we
have been content to seek ideas, how we have
gone on reflecting reflections of reflections, as
though we dared not face the naked light of
nature.
With all the wealth of suggestion in the
world about and the never-ending variety
us,
of natural detail, the types which have sufficed
for the ancient and mediaeval world, and for
that matter for ourselves too, are, compara-
tively speaking, very few indeed. How largely
the ornament of Egypt and Assyria is based
upon the lotus, the papyrus, and the palm !

The vine, the ivy, and the olive, the fir-tree

and the oak, together with the merest remin-
iscence of the acanthus, went far to satisfy
not only the Greeks but their Roman and
Renaissance imitators as well.

Gothic art went further afield, and gathered

 T^late 2

Japanese Koses
 3

Ornament in Nature. 1

into posy the lily and the rose, the pome-

its

granate and the passion flower, the maple and

the trefoil, but still only a comparatively small
selection of the plants a-growing and a-blowing
within sight of the village church. Oriental
art is more conservative still ; in it a very
few types recur continually, with a monotony
which becomes at last tedious. One wonders
what Chinese art would have been without the
aster and the peony, or Japanese without the
almond blossom and bamboo, what Arab
ornament would be but for the un-leaf-like
leaf peculiar to it.

One is struck sometimes by the degree of

variety in the treatment which a single type
may undergo in different hands ; more often
it is the sameness of the renderings which
impresses us.

Probably no single plant have

in the case of
the possibilities in the way of ornamental adap-
tation been exhausted, and in many instances
the very plainest hints in the way of design
have not been taken.
The rose, for example, has been very
variously treated but comparatively little use
;

has been made of the fruit, or of the thorns,

or of the broad stipules at the base of the
leaves. We
have to be grateful when the
buds, with their boldly pronounced sepals, are
14 Nature in Ornament.

I. Various tendrils, from nature.

once in a way, turned to ornamental account

(Plate 65and pp. 131, 132).
The Japanese roses on Plate 2 are some-
what directly inspired by nature, but then
they are not very ornamentally treated. They
might almost have been drawn directly from
nature. mainly the simplicity and direct-
It is

ness with which they are rendered which gives

them some decorative quality.
Take the conventional vine again, with its

stereotyped leaves and prim grapes. And its

tendrils, how seldom they have suggested more

than a rather meaningless wriggle, useful, no
doubt, to fill an awkward gap in the composi-
tion, but without either character or beauty.
Probably no feature of flower growth has
been more badly treated than the tendril.
Artists have thought themselves free to add a
tendril to any plant whatsoever, and whereso-
 Ornament in Nature, 15

2. Vine tendrils, from nature.

ever it pleased them. The clinging character

of the bindweed, the hop, and plants of that
kind, has suggested to artists who look with-
out their eyes the necessity of support of some
kind, and they have accordingly provided the
tendrils nature has denied, neglecting all the
while the peculiarly decorative character of
the twining stem. Designers have seldom
taken much account of the essentially orna-
mental way in which plants like the nasturtium
and the clematis attach themselves to what-
ever they can lay hold on by their leaf-stalks ;

nor have they rendered in design the suckers

by which the ivy and the Virginia creeper
adhere to the wall. It is so much simpler to
provide convenient tendrils than to study
nature.
And what tendrils they have provided !

All of one pattern ; whereas in nature they

 6

1 Nature in Ornament.

are delightfully diverse. How vigorously the

mature and woody tendril contrasts with the
silky growth of the young shoots groping for
something to support them How different !

the branched tendril of the pea from the

simple bryony tendril, and both from that of
the vine ! Certain poets of a past genera-
tion thought fit to compare the tresses of
their lady-loves to this last and there was,
;

perhaps, a certain suggestion of the corkscrew

inboth to warrant the comparison but what ;

a lively corkscrew the tendril is, how friskily

it twists and twirls about, and how gaily it

starts off, as it were, on a fresh lease of life !

It is too exclusively in the leaf, the flower,

and the fruit, that the ornamentist seems to
have sought his model. The leaf-bud, for ex-
ample, whether as giving character to the bare
twigs (Plates 3 and 8) or conveniently softening
the angle between the leaf-stalk and the stem,
has been comparatively neglected : one type
of bud at all events has usually done duty for
all. The thickening of the leaf-stalk, again, at

the joint with the stem, has rarely been made

use of ; nor yet the quite young shoot, which
not only fills the empty space about the stalk,

but gives an opportunity, most invaluable in

design, of contrasting smaller detail with the
larger forms of the general design.
 ^late 3

"Photo-T.ht: l,v..'.a..s iJt«m.i>, London WC

BtiddiD^^ bi^aiocbes.froTi') Nature

 7 ;

Ornament in Nature, 1

The stipules of the leaves, which also enrich

the meagre joint, have been equally left out
of ornament, characteristically ornamental as
they are in the pea, for example, the sow
thistle,and the passion flower. But even in
the less marked form in which they appear
in the hop, the medlar, the common nettle,

and numberless wayside plants, they are worth

an attention which they have not often
received.
Nature seems to neglect no opportunity
the very scars left on the stems of certain
trees, such as the horse-chestnut, form a kind
of decoration. Even in the scarred stalk of
an old cabbage you may see pattern. In the
case of the palm, the remains of the leaves of
years past resolve themselves still more plainly
into ornament and for once the Roman
;

sculptors, who saw palm-trees growing about

them, adopted the idea in the decoration of
their columns. The Indian rendering of the
same notion, on Plate "JJ, is yet more conven-
tional ; but there is no doubt as to the origin
of that zigzag. Was it so, perhaps, that the
idea of decorating columns in zigzag, common
enough in Norman architecture, originated ?

In Greek ornament and its derivatives

(Plates II, 12, &c.), use is made of the sheath
to clothe the branching of the spiral stems, but
C
i8 Nature in Ornament,

''/, :

V
'ilT

^ y
.^-/

V ,

3. Romanesque ornamentation of the stem.

there is still much to be learnt from the way

in which nature wraps round a stalk with
leaves, sheaths it, hides it, discreetly discloses
it (Plate 4). The leaf seems sometimes to
close round the stem so that that has almost
the appearance of growing through ; so much
so that the " thorough-wax " (same plate),
owes its name to that appearance. Still more
plainly does the stem grow throughseem to
where the leaves are opposite and grow
together round it, as in the teasel and the
honeysuckle.
The arbitrary ornamentation of the stem
in the Romanesque details above, indicates
a feeling on the part of the artist that some-
thing needed to relieve the baldness of a
is

stem. That something Nature is very ready

to suggest, as the Pompeian bronze-worker
 ?la,te 4

J>iermaii,Piicito-lith London

Natural leaf sheaths

 Ornament in Nature. 19

realised when he went to the river-

side for a reed as "motif" for the
ornamentation of his candelabrum.
Certain fruits have, as I said,

been made use of in design, either

as affording convenient masses in
the composition or, like the grape
and the pomegranate, for reasons
of symbolism. The smaller fruits
have seldom had justice done to
them. Bunches of berries are com-
mon enough in ornament, but they
are just berries, without as a rule
the character of any particular
plant. Yet how various they are
in and how differently
nature,
they grow This is indicated,
!

however inadequately, on Plate 5.

Space fails in which to illustrate
this part of our subject at all

fully; but only compare the bryony

with the spindle-berry, the snow-
berry with the privet, the solanum
with the laurel, the aucuba-berry
with the barberry, and you will
see that neither are berries all of ^ ...,A

one shape, nor do they grow 4. Part of a

—
always in one way in nature, that
Pompeiau
candelabriim.

is to say.

C 2
20 Nature in Or^iament.

In the seed-vessel there is yet greater

variety of natural design, in many cases most
ornamental. The pea-pod has been slightly
used in Renaissance ornament, in the anthe-
mion for example below, and on Plates 45
and 46, where it is most effectively and
characteristically treated.
On Plate 6 are a variety of cressworts in
seed, indicating how
in a single and un-
pretending family of
plants there may yet
be considerable va-
riety and character
in the seed-vessels.
Again, on Plate
7 are some studies
of the open pods of
the common broom
curling up as they dry
5. Renaissance use of pea-pods in
in the sun, strictly
ornament.
copied from nature,
but almost ready-made, as it seems, to the
hand of the ornamentist.
The dried husks out of which flowers and
seeds alike have fallen are often delightfully
ornamental, as for example in the salvias,
where they form at intervals a sort of crown
round the stalk just above the starting point
 q^1ate5.

"r Hovc Vint" by James Akerman, London .W,C.

Various berries fron; Nature.

 Ornament in Nature, 2 1

of the leaves. In certain thistles and kindred

plants, the balls of seed-down are scarcely
more beautiful than the silver-lined calices,

from which the feathery seed has flown ;

they shine in the sun like stars.

Very considerable ornamental use has been
made of the bursting of the full pomegranate
fruit (Plates 73 and 87 and pp. 74, 75, 76, y/,
139, 140). It is strange that the effective
treatment of this symbol has not suggested
the availability of other opening seed-vessels,
the horse-chestnut for example and other
nuts, the pod of the iris, and so on.
In the representation of fruits it is usually
the ripe fruit that is given ;
but there is often
quite as much if not more character in the
unripe ; and some variety of form and size is

very desirable.
The leaf in ornament is usually attached
in a rather arbitrary way to the stalk, without
sufficient heed to the twist and turn of the
natural leaf, or to the angle at which it leaves
the stem, to the length and thickness of its
stalk, and to the way alternate leaves, say
those of the lime, pull the stem out of the
straight and give a zigzag line in all of —
which there is character, and possibly a hint
in design.
Look at the poppies in the corn. Scarce
 22 Nature in Ornament.

one of them ever gets over the crick in the

neck, which comes of hanging down its heavy
head so long when it is a bud (see p. 172).
There is always a tell-tale nick in the stalk of
the full-blown flower, hidden it may be by
drooping petals, but plain enough when they
have dropped off and the seed-urn is left
naked. It does not stand up straight and
stiff like a barrel on a
"5? *T^ J ?*5 *?^'
itt-^'J^ pole, but is poised with
a subtlety characteristic
always of the natural
'n
line as distinguished
from the mechanical.
Notice how the
apple-tree blossoms
(Plate 8). each In
bunch a single topmost
flower always opens
first, so that it is
6. Unequally divided oak-leaf,
from nature. quite a common thing
to see a white flower
nestling among its five pink buds. Then in
the case of the oak, the empty cup (see Plates
9 and 74) is a characteristic variation on the

acorn shape, and there is usually at the end

of the fruit-stalk a withered button or two,
never to arrive at due development, which may
be turned to account in design (Plate 9).
 I^late 6,

JAkerman Photo litt London

Some seed Vessels from Nature.

 Ornament in Nature. 23

The gall-fly, again (same plates), comes to

the help of the and furnishes him with
artist,

a further variety of forms more or less fruit-

like in appearance, growing often in places
where fruits would never be, on the unequal
leaf for example. 1 have counted rosy clusters
of a dozen and more on a single leaf Besides
the soft oak-apple, associated in our boyish
minds with King Charles, and the hard ink-
gall which decorates the bare boughs in winter,
there is a canker which attacks the leaf-bud
and results in something rather like a small
fir-cone.
Every one is familiar with the beautiful
feathery burr of the rose : there are other
rose-galls, peculiar to the leaves, looking like
little beads of coral on their surface.
In the poplar too, the prominent gall-knob
at the base of the leaf-stalk is distinctly
characteristic. Almost every plant, in short,
is attacked by its hereditary enemy, that
seldom fails to leave his mark behind him,
suggestive, it may very likely be, of orna-
ment. And so with great part of the vicissi-
tudes to which vegetation of all kinds is

subject —the ceasing of the sap to flow, the

drying of the leaves, the spread of some
parasitic growth, and so on.
Historian and poet find in the misfortunes
24 Nature in Ornament.

and death of their characters a pathetic

interest : the ornamentist may discover in
the very decay of vegetation, apart from
any sentimental interest, at least incident,
character, and colour.
The vicissitudes of plant life, it may be
and what has accident to
said, are accidental,
do with design ? The very word implies, no
doubt, the total absence of design. For all
that, it is in some measure owing to the
elimination of whatever is accidental in nature,
that conventional ornament is apt to be so
tame, and that the orthodox seems doomed
to be dreary.
There is nothing, strictly speaking, acci-
dental in design ; but the designer is bound,
nevertheless, to take every possible advantage
of accident, not of course in order to incorpo-
rate into his work, after the manner of the
realist, as he calls himself, the awkward or ugly
traits of nature which others have for obvious
reasons left out of account, but that he may
seize upon every freak of nature suggestive of
characteristic and beautiful design.
Strict attention to botanic accuracy has
resulted too frequently in ornament much
more mechanically exact than anything in
nature. If natural leaves grow at ordered
intervals, they do grow, vigorously and vari-
 V\al£l

C-F KtLU, PrtOlO-LiTHO.e.FUXNlV/^U S'' HOLBORN E O

Pods from Nature.

 Ornament in Nature, 25

ously, as if they had something like a will of

their own.
The ideal of the horticulturist is a flower-
head as even as if it had been " struck " geo-
metrically, a spike of blossoms as trim as a
clipped yew-tree or a French poodle. That
is not Nature's way. Regularly as a natural
flower-spike may be planned, the actual blos-
soms have a way of shooting out in the most
casual manner. You see this very plainly in
the salvias, for all the gardener's pains with
them and everywhere, in the woods and in
;

the meadows, by the wayside and the river

bank. Nature never wearies of playing varia-
tions upon the symmetric plan of plant
growth. Certain plants, says the gardener,
have a bad habit of " sporting." Truly there
is nothing at all sportive in his reduction of

all nature to one dead level of sameness.

Ornament might fairly be compared to

the growth of a garden, not of a wilderness.
But if, on the one hand, nature cannot be
allowed to run wild over this garden, neither,
on the other, should it be clipped and trimmed
and formalised until there is no character of
its own left in it.
The method of the florist affords a perfect
example of what not todo in the way of modi-
fying natural form. His plan is to elirninate
26 Nature in Ornament,

whatever is wayward, occasional, uncommon,

characteristic. Look at his hyacinth, as
regular as the curls of a wig, and compare it

with the wild bluebells. Look at his double

dahlia : the flower was prim enough in the
simple single form, with its obviously even-
numbered petals insisting upon your count-
ing them but what a bunch of ribbons it has
;

become in his hands To reduce a flower to !

the likeness of a rosette is not to make it the

more ornamental and every accident indica-
;

tive of a return to nature is a welcome relief

from such unmeaning evenness of form.
Those who would limit us to a hard and
fast rule of growth, betray perhaps their own
ignorance of the latitude Nature allows her-
self We have to acquaint ourselves with the
anatomy of plants, and especially with their
growth and where it comes to anything like
;

natural treatment, we have further to take

into account the habits of a plant, its manners

and customs, so to speak — for which there is,

of course, if we enquire into the matter,
good structural reason always. It is, how-
ever, with the outward form of things that
the art of the ornamentist has to do, and for
the most part it will be sufficient for him to
confine his studies to the visible side of
nature. Very slight observation will show
 ^lat.e 8.

'Photo-Timt, iyj.mes Akerman London.W.C

flower & leaf buds.

 Ornament in Nahire. 27

him Nature is not so careful always

that
to emphasise botanical points as are some of
us, and that she appears often to break her own
laws or perhaps it would be more accurate
:

to say, she breaks the laws we have been bold

to make for her.
At all events plants very often seem to
grow differently from what science has taught
us to expect. Against a wall, for example,
where leaves cannot grow in the normal
spiral fashion, they will arrange themselves
quite contentedly on two sides of the stem
or on one side of it. If that may be so in
nature, why not also in art ? There is only
one caution necessary against it : that the
designer must not let it seem as though he
were ignorant of the way in which a thing
naturally grows.
To do full justice to a plant it is not
enough for the designer to make a drawing
of it. One has to watch it through the year,
perhaps through several years, in order to
seize the moment when it reveals all the possi-
bilities that are in it. Certain seasons are
peculiarly favourable to the development of
certain plants in the direction of ornament,
In a wet summer, for example, when things
grow quickly, the apparently confused way
some plants have of growing is made clear.
 ;

28 Nature in Ornament.

The much longer than usual, and

stalks are so
the leaves so much further apart, that they
disclose for once the way the plant grows ;

and this opening-out of natural growth goes

some way towards fitting it for the purposes
of ornament.
Again, depends in some cases very much
it

upon the season whether the sepals of the

withered flower remain intact on the ripened
fruit, and whether the stipules at the base of

the leaf-stalk and the bracts at the axes of

the flower-stalks adhere or not. In excep-
tional seasons, also, fruit-trees begin to bloom
again whilst the ripe fruit is on the tree.
And what a vast difference all that makes
to the designer who would found himself
always upon nature !

Many a happy inspiration of design is no

more than the turning to account some fortu-
nate accident in nature. You you
notice, as
walk through a clearing in the woods, where an
oak-tree has been cut down close to the root
and it has sent out a ring of young shoots all
round it, so as to form a perfect garland of
oak-leaves on the ground. A few days later
and you would seek in vain a living, growing
model for your oak wreath.
The conventions of artists are not so far
removed from nature as we are apt to think.
 C?1atp 9

"Photo -Tint: Dv-Jam»s Akermsn Loaion W f.

Tile panel, Oak Galls.

 Ornament in Nature, 29

Trees do grow in Umbria as Perugino, and Raf-

faelle after him, painted them. The artist did
not altogether imagine those graceful sprays
any
of leafage,
more than Ve-
ronese evolved
his lovely green-
blue skies from
his imagina-
tion. You see
just such skies
in Italy ; as
you see also in
Titian's country
the purple hills

and quasi-con-
ventional land-
scapes he put in-
to his pictures.
Apropos of
colour, we are
too much dis-
posed to take it
for granted that
red, blue, purple,
and yellow are .7 Chinese rendering of wistaria-
old embroidery.
colours nature
has reserved for and that leaves,
flowers,
stalks, and so on are only green. But as a
30 Nature in Ornament.

matter of fact, the flower-stalk is often more

in harmony with the flowers than with the
leaves, as in the begonia, salvia, sea holly,
and other plants. The leaf-stalk, also, is
sometimes bright crimson, as in the little
wild cranesbill and in the sycamore or ;

vivid yellow, as in the case of some poplar-

leaves.
Leaves themselves, again, are sometimes
anything but green. I do not mean that
they are merely greyish, as they often are,
or olive, which they seldom are, or that they
merely change colour in the autumn, but
that the foliage is of a delicate brown, as in
the young growth of the wistaria (which the
Chinese embroiderer (see p. 29) has meta-
morphosed into something more like tendrils),
or madder-coloured, as in the late shoots of
the oak, briar, hornbeam, and other trees.
And then what variety of tint there is in the
backs of leaves : purple as in the wild lettuce,
rich red-brown as in some magnolias and
rhododendrons, silver grey as in the alder, the
poplar, the willow,and some garden plants.
The Japanese have made admirable use
of the contrast in colour between the back
and front of leaves. They will make the
leaf solid black with white veins, and sketch
its reverse in outline only with black veins,
 ^late 10

Asp2v,Ta\QtL"b

-jiormaii.Ehotolith London

M'dtural Growth
 1

Ornament in Nature, 3

counter-changing the colour as frankly as a

mediaeval herald did in his treatment of the
mantling about a shield.
Whether, then, it is form that we seek or
colour, everywhere in nature there is material
for the ornamentist, often, as it seems, almost
ready made to his hand (Plate 10) but, ;

promising as it may be, it is not yet orna-

—
ment it lacks always adaptation to our
especial purpose. It is by our treatment of
nature that we justify our use of its forms.
32 Nature in Ornament.

III.

NATURE IN ORNAMENT.

It is not at first sight obvious how much all

ornament owes to nature. There is even a still

surviving superstition that it is designed by

the aid of the kaleidoscope.
"
True it is that the " itch to make patterns
was one of the very earliest symptoms of
that artistic fever to which the human race
has from the first been liable. Man may or
may not have begun by scratching animals
on bones of other animals, he very soon began
to scratch ornamental devices. The English
race scarcely suffers from the malady nowa-
days. When it does break out in us it may
be traced probably to some Welsh or other
Celtic ancestor. But to certain of us, however
few, it is every bit as natural to trace patterns
as to —
draw animals or to kill them.
For all that, even the born pattern-designer
is necessarily, as man, and more especially as
artist, so intimately acquainted with nature
that his work is inevitably imbued with it.
 q^latis

C F KELL. f MOTO-LITHO.e.FURNIVAL S"' HOt ^0 RN,E..C -

Greek ScidII
 Nature in Ornament, 33

In almost every detail of design there is,

whether he be conscious of it or no, a re-

miniscence of nature. In the most abstract
design he accustomed to obey instinctively
is

the natural laws of construction and growth,

so much so that we resent his departure from
them, and take exception, for example, to the
even the most arbitrary, which violates
scroll,

the rule and presumes to grow, so to speak,

both ways at once.
have explained at length elsewhere * how
I

the Greek honeysuckle ornament, as it is

called, originated in no attempt to imitate
natural bud forms, but grew, as one may say,
out of the use of the brush. The fact remains,
notwithstanding, that the brush-strokes came
to range themselves very much on the lines of
natural growth — all the more readily, of course,
because of the memories or impressions of
plant form stored men's brains. The
away in
fact is those memories, vague as they may
be, prompt the ornamentist at every turn in
design.
What we call the acanthus scroll seems to
have grown simply out of the desire to clothe
with some sort of leafage the mere spiral
lines with which archaic ornament, whether
in Greece, or Northern Europe, or the Fiji
* * Some principles of Every-day Art,' p. 104 et seq.

D
34 Nature in Ornament.

Islands, instinctively set out which spiral line ;

not only occurs in many shells and in the horns

of animals, but results inevitably from a cer-
tain natural action of the draughtsman's wrist.
The Greek scrolls on Plate 1 1 consist
practically of little more than branching
spirals, with just a husk of something like
foliage to mask the dividing of the stem the :

lilies and the like are minor features obviously

put in to fill up they form no integral part

;

of the main purpose.

The Roman scroll (Plate 12) is plainly
more full of sap ; it seems to be bursting
out into leafage ; but it remains only a de-
velopment of the Greek idea : it is simply a
spiral clothed in conventional leafage, devised
primarily to disguise and especiallyits lines,

the branching of the lines. That is the root

and origin of the acanthus scroll not any —
attempt to reduce the acanthus to ornament,
but a desire to clothe
the lines of the scroll.
Archaic Greek orna-
ment is made up mainly
of spiral lines and groups
of brush-strokes. On
Plate 13 I have re-

illi duced two typical acan-

thus leaves to brush-
8. Acanthus leaves reduced
to brushwork. work, in order to show
fplate 12
 9latel3.

C F KELL , PHOT0-LITH0.6.FURNIVAL S"' HOLBORN.E C -

Acanthus Sculpture & brusbwork.

 ate 14.

Photo-Timt'; tv Jomts Akerman LoadonW.C

2 Versions of the same fneje d 0516^10,

 Nature in Ornament.

how, starting with

the idea of deco-
rating bald lines
with brushwork, a
painter, haunted as
we all must be by
the ghosts of natu-
ral growth, might
have arrived at
something uncom-
monly like the con-
ventional Classic
leafage. And
again, on Plate 14,
I have translated a
scroll more or less
of my own into the
same language of
the brush. It is not,
of course, meant to
imply that that is,
as a matter of fact,
how the acanthus
scroll came about,
but that it might
have been deve-
loped in that way.
That fable about
Callimachus and
the Corinthian 9. Simple acanthus leafage.

D 2
36 Nature in Ornament,

lo. Step between wave and acanthus scroll — Roman mosaic.

capital is the invention of a poet, not of a
practical ornamentist.
Again, on the Roman pedestal on p. 35,
where there is no scroll and no branching
and no great variety of foliation, one may see
very plainly indeed how the familiar type of
foliation may have grown out of the very
simplest idea of clothing a straight line. It
is one step, just one step, beyond the Greek
bay-leaf pattern (Plate 81) : instead of simple
bay-leaves in pairs we have opposite groups
 ?1ate 1^

'Photo -Timt" iy James Akennsn.Loncloii.W. C

1?etai1s of /Mosaic froTT) Carthage.

 Nattire in Ornament. 7

of five, not separate leaves, but massed together

sculpturesquely, forming at the junction of
the groups the " pipes " so conspicuous in the
full-grown Classic scroll.

In the Roman mosaic border on p. 36 is

an indication of the growth of a very similar
idea a simple wave stem is supplied with
;

a spiral offshoot, and both are clothed with

leaflets of the very simplest description.
Serrate or subdivide such and we
leaflets,

should not be far from

the familiar arabesque.
Something of the
kind does in fact occur
in the mosaic detail
from Carthage on
IT. Olive-like leafage.
Plate 15, which looks
almost like the next
step forward in the
development of the
scroll.

Such a system of foli-

ation once invented,
was easy and natu-
it

enough to makeral

the detail more or less

12. Oak-like leafage.
like some natural leaf
It has been made to resemble the acanthus and

the olive and it is clear, by the acorns accom-

;
38 JVattire in Ornament.

panying it,

that it was
used also to
represent the
oak. The
quasi -Classic
scroll of the
Renaissance
assumes at
times also a
distinct re-

semblance to
the vine. This
13. Vine-like acanthus leafage, from the Jube at is very plainly
Limoges.
seen in the
leafage from the famous Jube at Limoges
(above). Judging by this particular instance,
one might pretend that the stock pattern of
conventional foliage
was suggested by the
vine. The vine-leaf is

here as unmistakable
as the relation of the
ornament to the An-
tique. The detail in

question belongs of
course to a transition
period. It halts be-
.
„ • • 1 4- Crocket-like foliage, from
tween two
j_
opmions. ^ Limoges.
 ^late 16.

FKJl^o!vlith.«.Srv™>...-l £1 Zol

Transitional Scroll , "D. Hopfer.

 Nature in Ornament, 39

15. Modern modification of Classic leafage.

You more plainly

see the hesitation, perhaps,
still in the bracket from the same source
(No. 14). That was plainly inspired by Classic
art ; but the sculptor was more accustomed
to carve Gothic crockets than Roman scrolls.

The ornament which, but for associa-

result is

tion of ideas, would never suggest the notion

of the acanthus. A very characteristic and
individual modern rendering of the old theme
is given above, the design, apparently, of the
late Godfrey Sykes.
Had the Classic scroll really been only a
conventional treatment of the acanthus, it

would have been difficult to understand how

the sculptors stopped short at that one type^
and did not attempt to manipulate other forms
of leafage in the same way. That merely
abstract leafage should, on the other hand,
eventually remind us of olive, oak, or acanthus
leaves, is readily understood.
The Gothic scrollery of Hopfer (Plate 16)
is very remote indeed from the acanthus.
The spirit of the Renaissance was already in
40 Nature in Ornament.

the air in the time of Hopfer, and probably

influenced his work. If it did so to any extent,
it shows how differently men could interpret
the same notion. If shows how
it did not, it

from different directions they arrived at some-

thing of the same kind. There is nothing of
the acanthus here —the foliation is more sug-
gestive of the thistle —but yet there is in the
design a family likeness to Classic and Re-
naissance types. The more naturalistic flowers
introduced to up remind one distantly of
fill

the lily-like additions to the Greek scroll

(Plate ii), and even the birds, too natural
for the foliage they inhabit, have their counter-
parts in Roman and Renaissance arabesque.
In the typical Renaissance arabesque the
idea is still to clothe lines in themselves merely
ornamental ; and in the best work these lines
remain always apparent through the clothing
(Plates 96 and 105). But that the Italians of
the Cinque Cento did not allow themselves to
be hampered by any consideration of natural
possibility, still less of probability, is shown
by their indulgence in the absurdities which
deface many of their most graceful compo-
sitions — such example as da Udine's in the
for
Loggie of the Vatican, and those of Giulio
Romano at the Palazzo del T at Mantua, one
of which is given on Plate 17.
 ^l3te 17.

Pmoto-Tiht,

Painted VJall Panel, by Gii:ilio Konoa-oo.

 —

Natttre iri Ornament, 41

The Italian of the sixteenth century was

seldom very particular how he arrived at his
effect, so he arrived at it the end justified —
the means with him but, little as he cared
;

for natural growth, he

could not do without
it, and his most un-
natural ornament
bristles with natural
details.
The ornament
round the faience
dishes on Plate 18
(a class of ornament
commonly distin-
guished as Raffael-
lesque) begins plainly
with the idea of purely
ornamental lines. It
is another develop-
ment of the foliated
line. Both lines and
masses are here ob-
16. Seventeenth century scroll
viously quite arbi-
BouUe.
trary, suggested by
ornamental considerations ; but, almost in spite
of the artist, they take the form of winged head,
dolphin, leaf, That fault already re-
flower.
ferred to of growing two ways at once, which
42 JVahire in Ornament,

17. Details'of Romanesque ornament.

may be here observed, is a very common de-

fect —
of Italian arabesque as of Arab art also,
although in it the detail is so very far re-
moved from life that the defect is less apparent.
Even in its degradation, however, the Renais-
sance arabesque never quite let go the thread
of nature and in the hands of BouUe (p. 41)
;

it blossomed out during the seventeenth cen-

tury into something more distinctly floral than

the purer scroll of the Cinque Cento.
In Romanesque ornament, which is in the
first instance only a rude rendering of Roman
detail, there is, towards the twelfth century,
some return to nature. The details above,
for example, are not to be traced to any
natural type, but they are alive with remi-
niscences of nature. It is plain, nevertheless,

always, from the freedom of the rendering,

that the primitive idea was not to reproduce
 91ate 18.

"Photo -Tint: b;, -James Akf™.ii,l.ondon .WC-

Lustre Dishes 16 Ceott^ry

 :

Nature in Ornament. 43

i8. Details of Early Gothic ornament.

nature, still less to represent it naturally, but

only to find a starting-point for design.
The same may be said with regard to Early
Gothic ornament, originally more than a little

carrying on of the Romanesque idea, and

reminding us at times, even in the thirteenth
century, unmistakably of Classic detail.
In some of the details at the head of the
page may be seen how, eventually, the artist
went more directly to nature but though ;

you might trace these home, they are as

yet very arbitrary renderings. And for my
part I think the earlier and more arbitrary
Gothic forms by far the more ornamental
the stone budding into crockets or other sculp-
turesque foliation, is to me
more beautiful far
than the would-be natural leaves and flowers
spread over the architecture of the fourteenth
century. In other words, the more strict
44 Nature in Ornament.

9^>^y^m^^^^''^>^m>y>r^»y^^^^^^^i^y^^^^

ig. Spiral Persian scroll.

adherence to the natural type has resulted in

the less satisfactory ornament.
The artists of the latest Gothic period seem
to have realised that themselves. In the
German tapestry on Plate 19 there is, properly
speaking, neither leaf nor flower, but only
ornamental detail corresponding to both.
The lines are in a way ornamental ; but the
growth is of more account with the designer
than the line of his ornament. In this re-
spect it is interesting to compare it with more
deliberately ornamental arabesque. In its
vigorous Gothic way it too is a model of the
use that may be made of nature in ornament.
 opiate 19

S-' houbohn EC

Gothic Scrol
 Nature hi Omanient. 45

20. Iris-like details of Persian ornament.

In the Persian pattern on p. 44, the spiral

line is decorated in a quite different manner
from the Classical : it is not so much clothed
in leafage as relieved by leaf-like touches and
broken by daisy-like rosettes. It is quite
certain that no natural type ever suggested
the design it was in ;seeking ornamental
forms that the painter happened upon some-
thing which suggests, but only suggests,
nature. On the other hand, there are forms
above, which, though scarcely recognisable
at first, are distinctly formed upon the flower
of the iris.

more remote from actuality are the

Still

details of Arab and older Persian ornament.

And yet the most frequent feature in it is
46 Nahire in Ornament.

21. Details of early Persian ornament.

not altogether unlike a folded leaf in profile ;

and in other shapes (above) a likeness has

been traced to the unfolding fronds of the
young fern. If these forms are indeed founded
upon nature, it only goes to show how far one
may, perhaps unconsciously, stray from one's
starting-point. If they are not, it indicates
how impossible it is to invent forms which
shall not in some degree recall the life and
growth about us.
Mohammedan design, we know, purposed
deliberately to avoid the natural ; but, for all
that, the forms it borrowed from nature are
perpetually betraying themselves, reminding
us, if not of leaf or stalk, then of flower and

bud. It looks as though, try as they might to

 q'^late 20.

;6^^M^j^jgsg^^@2@@^:c;^^^

(^rab esque Renaissance ornament

 Nattire in Ornmnent. M

-c^tSK^.
22. Sixteenth century arabesque details.

evolve ornament out of their inner conscious-

ness, theArabs could not altogether silence
their memories, even though conscience for-
bade them to represent anything " on the earth
beneath." Doubtless they sinned often un-
consciously but they were foredoomed to sin.
;

And so with their Renaissance imitators,

German or Italian. Whenever they strayed
from the source of
Eastern inspira-
tion, it was in-
variably in the
direction of na-
ture. There is

sometimes growth
enough in the abs-
tract Orientalism
of Flotner and
23. Rosette in Rouen faiei.ce. Holbcin tO makc
48 Mature in Ornament.

24. Chinese foliage, not easy to identify.

US wish it were more thoroughly consistent.

One feels the lack of some controlling con-
science in the growth.
It is curious to note how, on Plate 20,
the deliberately ornamental lines of strapwork
break out into something like foliation —as

25. Bouquet of conventional ornament.

 T^lale 2

3,
O.^
>^~

VUM<

S- KD'.VOi N E

Or-namental bouquet 17^-^'

Centurv
 Nature in Ornament, 49

for the undergrowth

of filigree it does
grow. Even Nicho-
laus Drusse (Plate
1 17) does not man-
age to get clear of
natural influence,
though it must be
admitted that he
treated nature with
very scant respect.
26. Abstract ornament, not free from
So in the arbitrary foliation.

inlay pattern above,

the abstract ornament must needs
lines of
break out incontinently into something like
foliation.

And again, in the faience pattern on p. 47,

the painter, working on radiating lines in-
dicated by the shape of his dish, seems to
have arrived as a matter of course at a
rosette suggesting a flower, and calling for
something like a leaf in connection with it.

It is not by any means in the scroll alone

that we trace the influence of nature in orna-
ment. It is quite a common thing in Oriental
art to find bouquets of quite conventional
flower forms. Therean ingenious example
is

of this in the Persian plaque on p. 48, in

which the ornament consists almost entirely
E
50 Nature in Ornament.

27. Conventional Chinese flower forms.

of flower forms, evenly diapered over the dish,

and yet conforming to the idea of growth.
The Oriental influence is seen again in
Plate 21, where the ornament, far removed
as it is from nature, conveys quite clearly
the idea of a nosegay. Forms only remotely
resembling flowers are arranged, with due
regard to balance, I will not say in imitation,
but in recollection, of a bunch of flowers, and
lines are found to connect and support them,
and give them a sort of artistic coherence.
The artificiality of the design is obvious, but
it is the artifice of an artist, and a very
accomplished one too. It represents a type
of ornament suggested by a wealth of flowers,
where the stalks and especially the leaves go
for very little.

There is a considerable amount of tradi-

tional ornament which was founded, no doubt,
 T^late 22.

J Akerman Photo-hth London.

"Rook Cover by Ower) Jor^es.

 Nahcre in Ornament, 51

28. Conventional Chinese foliage.

originally upon natural types lost in the mists

of long ago ; artists have repeated the form
so often, and at last so perfunctorily, that in
the end it is as difficult to decipher as a man's
signature. One has almost to take it on faith
that the flowers on p. 50 are asters, peonies,
and so on. So with the border above, the
flower is, I suppose, an aster, but what goes
for leafage belongs to no flower that ever
grew.
Even Owen Jones, who laid it down as an
axiom that the recurrence to a natural type
was by so much a degradation of design,
could not do without foliation and growth,
more or less according to nature. This is

very plainly shown in the typicalexample

of his work on Plate 22. He had the
strictest views as to the lines on which orna-
ment should grow, but he insisted that it
should grow and his theory led him in
;

practice to something always more or less

suggestive of nature —because the logical way
in which he went to work was indeed the way
of nature.
E 2
52 Nature in Ornament,

IV.

THE SIMPLIFICATION OF NATURAL FORMS.

To conventionalise is in some cases scarcely

more than to simplify. So plainly is this so
that the frequent occurrence of certain floral
forms in decorative design is in part at least
accounted for by the fact that they could be
very considerably simplified without losing
their clear identity. The sunflower, for ex-
ample (Plate 23) came into fashion not
entirely because of the whimsical folly of a
few so-called aesthetes, but because its hand-
some and massive head was such an unmis-
takably ornamental feature. Foliage and
flower alike lent themselves to, and indeed
almost compelled, a broad and simple treat-
ment ; whilst the character of the plant was
so well defined, that it was difficult by any
kind of rendering or any degree of conven-
tionality of expression to eliminate it. It was
never in danger of being reduced to the
mere abstraction of a might have
flower, that
been suggested equally by any one of a dozen
different natural types.
 ^late 23,

F KEU, fHOTO-llTHO.e.FURNrVAl S' HOIIOHNC C

Sunflowers ^ looses bv 1^. J. TalbcT-t".

 Simplification of Natural Forms. 53

29. Rectangular acorn patterns.

So also the acorn asserts its identity even

in the rudimentary form in which it occurs in
the old German stitching above.
You may see again in the late George
Edmund Street's cleverly contrived panel
overleaf how a really characteristic and ener-
getic shape will hold its own. Shorn as it is

altogether of its leaves, its prickles, the very

featheriness of its flower-heads, there rests not
the least doubt that it is a thistle.

Less emphatic forms lose, when simpli-

fied, all individual character ; and indeed you
have only to carry such simplification far
enough, to reduce the greater part of natural
—
forms to one level I might say perhaps one
—
dead level of convention.
It is remarkable how slight a modification

will remove a flower from recognition. An

alteration of scale sometimes enough to
is

puzzle us. To magnify a flower is in most

cases to disguise its identity. Draw the
pimpernel the size of a flax blossom, or the
flax blossom the size of a mallow, and who
54 Nature in Oriiament.

is to recognise it, especially when the subtler

characteristics of texture and the individual
turn of the petals are conventionalised away ?
One can never be quite certain that any con-
ventional five-petalled flower, such as the
German Gothic rosette on p. 55 for example,
is not meant
for a rose.
Even in the
case of more
characteristic
blossoms, like
the speedwell,
with its pe-
tals three and
one, we are
put off the
scent at first

by unaccus-
tomed pro-
portions in
30. Simplified thistle, G. E. Street, R.A.
the flower.
And so with leaves. Failing anything like
strict accuracy as to their growth —very rarely
indeed observed in ornament — it more
is

than difficult to between one

distinguish
lanceolate leaf and another the same shape :

may stand just as well for willow as for bay

or olive. The heart-shaped leaves in the
 ^late 24^.

Details of Greel< J(zrr2^ Cotta pair)lir)6

 Simplification of Natural Forms, 55

31. Gothic leaf border— wood carving.

border above may indicate the poplar or the
Hlac : possibly the carver had in his mind no
leaf in particular.
It cannot be said that the danger of mis-
take in the identity of
natural forms has de-
terred the designer
from simplifying them.
We find in every period
of art floral or foliated
forms which may be
meant for this or that,
but which it is quite
32. Rosette or rose ?
impossible to identify
with any degree of certainty. The Gothic
border below may stand for a rose, for all we
know the Greek border A on Plate 24 may
;

stand for a convolvulus and B, I feel pretty ;

certain, consists of birch-leaves and catkins.

The strange leaf in border C on the same
plate used to puzzle me until I discovered

33. Gothic leaf and flower border — wood carving.

56 Nature in Ornament.

its source in
nature. It

proves, as
you will see
at a glance
on this page,
to be no leaf,

but a seed-
vessel : soften
the angularity
of the stem,
pulled out of
the straight
by the pods,
and you have
the starting-
point of the
Greek design.
There is

sometimes in
this Greek
pattern an
indication of
the way the
seed - vessels
split asunder
and shed the
34. Seed-vessels from nature. secds. The
identification of this peculiar two-lobed feature
 late E5.

Photo-Tiht! by Jxmcj Alto

Details of ^r>cm)i Goptc GiDbroidenes,

 Simplification of Nattiral Forms. /

^^^^^-^^<>^
35. Conventional buds, or seed-vessels? — marble inlay.
was all more difficult, because you see
the
in other Greek vases something like the same
shape doing obvious duty for a leaf.
The conventional tree, on the same plate,
is quite impossible to name ;
the ivy in the
border above it, on the other hand, is for once
very clearly indicated ;
the berries, in par-
ticular, are very characteristically given.
Compare them with the more usual Greek
ivy- berries below.
Again, in the Coptic embroideries on
Plate 2 5, we have
heart - shaped
leaves and tre-
foils and fruit
and flower, all
alike symbolic
no doubt, but
without any
meaning in par-
ticular to us.
In the Floren-
36. Conventional Greek ivy-
leaves and berries. tine border above,
 — ;

58 Nature m Ornmnent.

as in the Japanese bor-

der here given, we can
please ourselves as to
whether they are buds or
seed-vessels that are repre-
sented.
Again, the Sicilian tree,
^:^ i

below, may stand for any-

thing with a serrated leaf.

Simplicity could not much ''lili

further go than in the
Roman version of a tree 37. Japanese border
buds or fruits ?
on p. 59. In the Indian
kinkaub pattern, on Plate 26, the character
of the flowers and leaves, no less than
the growth of the plant, are part and parcel
of the process of
weaving employed
there is a dis-

tinct reminiscence
of some plant with
large foot-leaves
and small stalk-
leaves, but itwould
be rash to say more
than that.
The Pompeian
details on Plate
38. Conventional tree, from a ^
betray more or
i -

Sicilian silk. 27
(Plate 26.

Ct5

ct)

E
o

CD

p
 ;

SiiJipliflcation of Natural Forms. 59

less a natural source of

inspiration, but with the
exception of a tendril
and something like a
passion flower, there is

not much in the mosaic

that one can identify
whilst in the painted
panel the various details
are remote from lily
so
or campanula, or what-
ever may have been their
starting points, that one
accepts even the arbi-
trary way in which they
are put together. Com- 39. Simple Roman tree.

pare this Pompeian panel

with the Roman candelabrum on
P- 133.
Again, in the carved door from
Cairo, Plate 28, the details of the
flowers are reduced to something
40. Hawthorn
crocket. very nearly approaching to chip-
carving ; the details consist not
so much of leaves and flowers as
of cuts of the chisel, an effect all

the more satisfactory inasmuch as

the types, as far as one can make
41. Vine
crocket. them out. are rather mixed. Even
6o Nature in Ornament.

SO, by the way, they are

exceptionally natural
for Arab work.
In Gothic art, as
elsewhere, we identify
a plant in many in-
stances only because
we expect to find it

there. Whatever can

by any stretch of ima-
gination pass for a
vine-leaf (Plate 29) we
accept as such —any
bunch of berries we
take for grapes.
In very many cases 42. Late Gothic pomegranate.
it is only by the flower
or fruit that the definite relation of the leaf
to nature is recognised. The crockets on the
plate referred to are more like crockets than
leaves ; it is only by the berries and the winged
seeds that one knows them
do duty for to
hawthorn and maple. One guesses that one of
the crockets on p. 59 may also be a hawthorn
leaf It is only the tendril which gives us to

suppose that the other is a vine. And so with

the foliage from Henry the VII.'s Chapel on
Plate 29. But for the acorn cups, no one
would ever have suspected the carver of having
 I'late 27.

JDet^ils^^^^ of

Dizta^ils froTT) Pompeii.

 Simplification of Natttral Forms, 6i

43, 44. Indian renderings of the poppy.

had any thought of oak-leaves ;

and with
regard to the sprig of painted decoration
on p. 60, we make up our minds that it stands
for the pomegranate only be-
cause it comes nearer to that
than to any other symbolic
fruit.

It is all the more difficult,

sometimes, to identify the

plant which is meant, because
one can never be sure of the
knowledge, or of the con-
scientiousness, of the artist.

The two damascened patterns

above presumably represent
the poppy, but, in the one
case at least, the artist has
supplied the flower with five
petals and a calyx— details
which, if one had perfect
faith in the artist, would com-
pletely put one off the scent.
One is puzzled also by the
45. Greek border,
wiry shoots between the lily- with lily-buds.
62 Nature in Ornament.

46. Early Gothic foliated ornament.

like flowers in the admirably severe Greek

border on and wonders as to the source
p. 61,
of its inspiration —
the Solomon's seal per-
haps ?

Any trefoil or cinquefoil may have in-

fluenced, in its turn, the shape of early Gothic

foliage, such as that above, which is founded,
as we know, directly upon no natural type at
all, but is a recollection of a recollection of
a recollection going centuries back. grew It

out of Byzantine or Romanesque forms, them-

selves derived from Classic foliage and it ;

was only when the sculptor had arrived,

through symbolism, at something reminding
him of clover, or wood sorrel, or hepatica, that
he began to think of making it more nearly
like nature.
It is clear that the carver of the detail
on p. 63, had in his mind some natural leaf;
what that leaf is, is not so certain. One of
 (plate 28

snl.cniion.WC.

CarVed Cabmel Door from Cairo, S K./A

 Simplification of Natural Forms. 63

47. Natural and ornamental foliage — Early French.

the charms of Early Gothic is that, conven-

tional as it is, main of one type,
and in the
there is always a chance of our coming upon
some touch of nature which brings the work-
man nearer to us. You can see sometimes*
in Early French Gothic, how the detail was

48. Bud-like ornamental forms.

 64 Nature m Orjiament,

inspired, as
VioUet le

Due points
out,by the
fronds of
the bracken
and other
plants ; but
the sculptor
'49. Peony simplified to form a stencil— H. Sumner. 1p.Q-i7-cwc rrnf-

so much, that it is not always easy, even with

the assistance of VioUet Due, to detect the
le

natural type. Whether of set purpose or by

instinct, too, the sculptor chose persistently
the simplest floral forms, which lent themselves
to breadth and dignity of treatment. It is

not surprising that, magnified in stone, they

should appear to us abstractions.
In many instances, it is tolerably clear that
no leaf was intended, but only foliation, no
particular plant, but growth. And it is

marvellous how the early Mediaeval sculptor

contrived to convey that idea of vitality in
the stone. In the crockets so peculiarly
characteristic French Gothic, for
of early
example, he imitated no particular bud, but
the stone itself seems budding into life. A
later Gothic instance of that bud-like ornament
in wood IS given on p. 63.
 •?]a,te 2^

Vine, ^r^acs A/orma fych/.

. iVrochesfer j^ T^ose

Ccurytrd
Wood X^'Jsyy^^^^^^

iHaiufhorn p^^^
Maple
B^vertey

Chn'sTchuirb
Vtne
~~,J3e^dr7?d,fon

J Akermdn, rLoto-lith LondoL

Gio^lish Gothic Details

 Simplification of Natural Forms. 65

How far the

primitive Gothic
sculptor could, if

he had been so
/ , / "
A • ^

minded, have
rendered nature
in the coarse < .£ka£ -t.^ ^^^

stone in which he
50. Indian wood-carving.
worked, is doubt-
ful ; happily he
seized that in
nature which he
could express,
and expressed it

like an artist. It
is of the very
quality of an
ornamentist, that
51. Gothic wood-carving.
he should be
willing to omit much that
he could have put into his
work had it been to the
purpose. In the peony pat-
tern on p. 64 Mr. Sumner
has had the courage to
leave out whatever could
not conveniently be ren-
dered in stencilling.
52. Greek that might be Gothic. It is curious how dif-

F
66 Nature in Ornament.

ferent artists, working at different

times in different countries, have
arrived sometimes at results not so
very different. There seems to me
a curious correspondence between
the detail of the Indian scroll
and the late Gothic rosette on
p. 65, the result, presumably, in each
S3. Persian
that might case, of a sympathetic use of the
be Gothic.
tools the carver had.
So, again, the fragment of archaic-Greek
sculpture on the same page is so like certain
rude stone carving of the Gothic period that
one would have taken it almost for Mediaeval
work. That bulging midrib is characteristic
of a certain form of Perpendicular carving,
derived no doubt from beaten metalwork.
Did Greek and
Gothic work-
man alike refer
for inspiration
to goldsmiths'
work, and so
arrive at some-
thing like the
same form ?
Once more
in the Persian
details above, 54- Japanese treatment of the iris.
 >T^ late 30.

Indian renderings of the Iris.

 Simplification of Natural Forms. 67

there is a most marked resemblance to certain

Decorated Gotliic crocket forms especially —
as they are rendered in stained glass the play —
of the brush accounting no doubt partly for
the likeness.
At other times one is struck by the variety
in the sundry simplified versions of the same
plant. There is a wide difference between
the painted iris and that in niello, on Plate 30 ;

and between these Indian renderings, again,

and the characteristic adaptation of the plant
in theJapanese embroidery on p. 66, in which
nature is reduced to extreme simplicity with-
out any loss of character.
Again, in the panels on Plate 31, modifi-
cation consists mainly in simplifying the
natural forms. The leaves, indeed, are elon-
gated and refined, and, like the flowers,
arranged to suit the ornamental scheme. But
the liberties taken with the growth of crown-
and Lent lily, are
imperial, fritillary, bluebell,
such as would not greatly shock the botanist.
The lines on which they grow are (organi-
cally) not altogether impossible.
At times the simplification resolves itself

into something very different indeed from

the actual thing, as in the Italian silk over-
which the ears of corn take the form
leaf, in

of a distinct pattern from which we may

;

F 2
68 Nature in Ornament,

apprehend how easily, from the simplification

of natural form, the ornamentist glided imper-
ceptibly into its elaboration. But that will
form the subject of a separate chapter.

55. Wheat-ears, simplified or elaborated ?

 ^late 31

r KELl., PMOTO-l-ITHO.e.FURNIVAL S'HOLBORN.E

Dlaid flower Panels.

 69

V.

THE ELABORATION OF NATURAL FORMS.

It has been shown In a preceding chapter^

how the necessity of simpHfying natural forms
led as a matter of course to conventional
treatment. It will be seen presently, that
there is sometimes sufficient technical reason
for the elaboration of the type before us.

The omission of the superfluous in orna-

ment is indisputably right. How far it may
be desirable or permissible to elaborate the
simple forms of nature, is more open to
question. It rather suggests to us painting
the lily or gilding gold. There is a strong
flavour of artificiality about it.

As a matter of fact, the practice flourished,

though indeed it existed long before, in arti-
ficial times, that is to say during the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries. It would be
scarcely fair, however, to take everything of
the kind as an indication of decadence. We
are bound in justice, no less than in reason,
to inquire if such elaboration may not have
70 Nature in Ornament,

led to some satisfactory results, and what

those results were.
It may possibly prove that what was best
in the later French styles, for example, was
more or less of the artificially elaborate type.
The rockwork and the broken scrolls, the gar-
lands and the trellises, the bows and ribbons,
and all such frivolities of the later French
monarchy, have much less to recommend
them than the patterns of the silks of the
period. Restraint was out of the question.
Licence was the order of the day, and kings'
mistresses reigned over art. Granting, how-
ever, the absence of restraint in design, more
objectionable to us than in French eyes, there
is in the Lyons silks of the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries not only considerable

beauty of colour, but quite exceptional inge-
nuity of design, especially in its relation to
the technique of weaving and it will be time
;

well spent to seek out the method, artificial

though it may be, by which results so beauti-
ful are arrived at.

The effect may from nature as to

be so far
be quite characteristically artificial, and yet it
may turn out that almost every detail in the
design is directly borrowed from reality. One
might say, for instance, that in Plate 32
natural forms are removed from nature mainly
 opiate 32

Lvons Silk of the 17'^ or 18^^ Cep^.^

The Elaboration of Natural Forms, 71

by diapering them over with other details

borrowed from the same source. And this
was quite the current way of design. Men
adopted forms more or less natural, probably
because such forms occurred most readily to
them. But the natural veining of leaves and
petals did not present sufficient variety and
interest of surface for their purpose and so ;

they supplied its place by a subsidiary growth

of smaller foliage. By the judicious alterna-
on dark and dark on light, they
tion of light
even went so far as to produce an effect
equivalent to — not at all resembling, but
equivalent to — that of shading. Something
of the same kind is seen again on Plate 33,
where a sort of shading resolves itself into
fresh forms of ornament. Those leaves are
characteristically of the eighteenth century.
This is a device at all events much more
appropriate to silk weaving than the futile
attempts at natural shading which have also
had their vogue. Besides, in the rendering of
the details themselves —observe the orna-
mental serration of the large leaf on Plate 32,
the cresting of the fruit, its calyx, the diaper-
ing of the forms generally, and the rendering
of the smaller foliage —there is such consistent
artificiality throughout as to give a distinctly
ornamental character to the design.
72 Nature in Ornament,

If the artists of the artificial periods were

not always tasteful or intelligent, all the more

opportunity for us to show how, by the

exercise of intelligence and taste, it may
be possible to turn their expedients to new
and better account.
It was not they, however, who first hit
upon the expedient. A simpler, bolder, and
altogether nobler example of the same kind
of thing is shown on Plate 34, an Italian
damask of distinctly earlier date. Such a
design loses very much by reduction to the
scale of the illustration, and it depends also
very much for its effect on its fitness to the
simpler kind of weaving but on the scale of
;

the original, in single-colour damask, it is

simply perfect for breadth and richness-^a
model of appropriate treatment. That is at
all events one way of proceeding, namely,

to design big, bold masses of foliage, and

to break these again with smaller foliated
detail.
That this should be done consistently
would hardly need to be pointed out, were it
not that in old work consistency has so fre-
quently been lost sight of There is no de-
fending flowers and fruits which agree neither
with one another nor with the leaves in asso-
ciation with them ; but if the pattern be but
 'Tlate 33

Photo-Timt, d\ J.t»s Ai

Details of 18 CeDtury foliage

The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 73
homogeneous, would be absurd to say that
it

it should not be constructed on the principle

exemplified in Plate 34.
That back
principle, indeed, dates farther
than the Renaissance. The Italians borrowed
it from the Persians, as the French borrowed

it from them. The bro-

cade here illustrated
(56) is of old Italian
manufacture, but the
design is pretty literally
taken from a Persian
source. The way in
which the broad surface
of the main design,
itself floral, is broken

up with smaller floral

detail, is distinctively
Eastern. Precisely the
same principle is in-

volved in the design

of the Persian silk on
56. Floral forms within floral
forms. Plate 78. You see
it, too,on the pottery of Damascus, and in

all manner of Oriental ornament.

A characteristic Persian treatment of the
pomegranate is shown overleaf, where the
bursting of the fruit takes a peculiarly
ornamental bud shape. Other elaborately
74 Nature in Orna7nent.

57. Pomegranate-berries arranged in bud-form.

ornamental variations are shown on pp. 75,

7^5 77^ I39j HOj s-'^d on Plates 73 and ^J.
The Italian version (58) is ornamental
enough, but the artist has not realised that
the crown of the pomegranate represents the
sepals of the flower, and has added a sort of
calyx beneath the fruit. In the eighteenth cen-
tury version, the seeds are more fantastically
rendered than ever —they are represented not
merely by diaper as on p. JJ, but by diapers
as on p. "j^. Observe also the ornamental
scalloping of the rents in the fruit. Natural
 fPlate 34.

Silk Damask of the 16* Century

The Elaboration of Natural Forms, 75

form is used, indeed, only

as a means of getting
variety of texture in the
silk.

One great advantage in

the method of thus break-
ing up broad surfaces is,

that the introduction of the

smaller detail does away
with any possible appear-
ance of baldness in the
design ; whilst yet, at a
sufficient distance from the
eye, the broad masses
alone assert themselves.
You get, in short, breadth
at a distance, and detail

on close inspection, each

without interfering with
the other. Leaves and
fruits are very naively
diapered in the Japanese
pattern on page jZ, de-
signed presumably for
58. Ornamental pome-
granates.
weaving.
With the larger floral

forms in French silks are usually associated

(see once more Plate 32) subordinate floral
details, more on the scale of the detail within
 —

76 Nature in Ornament,

the larger detail,

introduced mainly
for the purpose of
breaking the back-
ground. It is ob-
vious that such
undergrowth must
be ornamentalised
>:'^l;v::-::V'- accordingly.
59. Ornamental pomegranate By this means you
i8th century silk.
get a further advan-
tage in the opportunity it affords of mingling
in the same design on dark and
effects of light
dark on light. If, for example, the ground

is dark and the larger details light, and the

smaller details breaking these dark again, any

smaller details in light on the dark ground
will contrast with the dark details on the
same scale, and create a certain mystery in
the design, which is of very distinct artistic
value.
The substitution of geometric diaper in
place of subordinate foliation, which occurs,
for example, in the Japanese pattern on
p. "]%, is less absolutely satisfactory — least
of all so when, as is often the case in silk
(Plate 32), it form of imitation
takes the
lace. In actual lace there is perhaps more
excuse than anywhere for elaborately orna-
 Pmoto-Timt,

Old Lace, IVory Fomt

The Elaboration of Natural Forms, "jj

mental treatment,
and there geometry
seems not to come
so much amiss. A
certain artificiality in
the materialseems
to justify something
very much like fri-
volity in the design.
This refers more es-
60. Ornamental pomegranate — old
German embroidery.
pecially to the fanci-
ful patterns of the lighter and flimsier lace of
eighteenth-century and flounces.
frills

A' more dignified example of lacework, also

elaborately artificial in its way, is given on
Plate 35. It is open to the objection of
combining in one growth flowers of various
families, but in the general richness this
effect of discrepancy is to some extent lost.

The lily, the heartsease, and the picotee do

not assert their individuality.
In lace and in certain kinds of embroidery
ultra elaboration of detail accounted for by
is

the process of work. In stitching there seems

some reason in making much of the stitches ;

and this is what lace-workers and embroiderers

have continually done.
An equally characteristic, but very different
kind of elaboration grew out of the conditions
78 Nature in Ornament.

of smiths' work. Given the idea of foHated

ironwork, and the facilities of cutting, hammer-
ing,and twisting, it was only natural it should
take something like the late Gothic forms on
Plate 36. Some such excuse for elaboration
makes a confessedly dangerous practice more
tolerable if no
safer.

Another good
excuse for ela-
boration is when,
in what may be
called fictitious

detail, the fiction

is founded upon
fact, when it is

the development
of some natural
form or effect,

when the hint

has been given
by nature, and 61. Foliated forms geometrically
diapered.
the ornamental
character is only an exaggeration of natural
characteristics.
The seeds of the pomegranate already
referred to are a case in point. In the em-
broidered fruit on Plate 73 they are repre-
sented by a diaper of chequers. In the
 ^lale %

'Photo -Tiht': bj- Jimes Alc.rm.o Lmim W C

Details of HaTDTo ered Vofk

The Elaboration of Natural Forms, 79

German embroidery on JJ they are indicated

p.

by a lattice of silk cord, with here and there

a spangle.
The most impossible development of the
Gothic ornaments below and overleaf is par-
tially accounted

for as a remini-
scence of some
flower in which
the pistil was
very strongly
pronounced.
No excuse of
the kind can be
urged for the
treatment of the
leaves in the
design for wall
paper on Plate
37. The more
or less natu-
62. Elaborated flower. rally drawn
leaves are just
enriched with pattern, which takes the place
of natural veining, and gives variety of sur-
face. That personally I think such a proceed-
ing not altogether unjustifiable, is shown by
my adopting it.

Another form of elaboration very common

 —

8o JSTature in Orniment.

in and sixteenth century ornament,

fifteenth
consists in the turning over and curHng up of
the ends and edges of foUation of all kinds.
Something of the kind occurs indeed in Greek
and Roman scrollwork but it is not until
;

late Gothic
times that
it becomes
a marked
and charac-
teristic fea-
t u r e in
design ,

partly, per-
haps, owing
to the influ-
ence of the
worker in
iron, just as
a certain
bossy cha-
racter in Per-
pendicular
carving is
63. Elaborated flower.
derived from
goldsmiths' work. You see that bossy cha-
racter in the rendering of the hop on p. 81,
and in the leaves on pp. iii, 112, 118, 119.
The limits within which the character of
Wall paper, conveDtiooal ^growth
 1

The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 8

one material may fairly be given to another

are soon reached. It is clearly a mistake in
taste to give, as Gothic carvers did, to leaves
in wood or stone the bulbous look of beaten
metal, or to give to an embroidered scroll the
character of forging. But one would be loth
to give up that very valuable and practical
device in design,
the " turn-over,"

whatever its origin.

What indeed
would Perpendi-
cular and Flam-
boyant ornament
be without it ? The
Gothic scroll would
be robbed of half
its energy, the
Tudor rose would
Bulbous hop leaves-Oerman
be resolved into a 64.
Gothic.
flat rosette, the
leafage of Aldegrever (p. 124) would lose al
its crispness. I have resorted freely to the
use of overlapping in Plate 38, a wall pattern
founded upon the artichoke. If you take a
plant only as a motif oi ornament, and attach
no further significance to it, you are com-
paratively free to be-decorate nature.
There would seem to be in nature some
G
82 Nature in Ornament,

sort of precedent even for the be-frilling

of floral growth. Certain ferns grow with
every appearance of artificiality. There is a
particular kind of cabbage, much in favour
with Mediaeval illuminators, which grows very
much though the milliner had taken it in
as
hand and there is a wild flower, not un-
;

common in marshy places, which looks for all

the world as if it must have been designed
somewhere about A.D. 1 500.
The excellent rendering of the gooseberry-
leaf on Plate 98 is a further application of
the manner of the sixteenth century to new
forms. reminds one of the vine-leaves of
It

Aldegrever, and of certain leaves of the cle-

matis and other plants [treated in the same
way some Renaissance carving at Brescia.
in
Professor Anton Seder has worked out the
problem of treating vegetable form a la
Renaissance very thoroughly in that sumptu-
ous work Die Pflanze." It might be sug-
"

gested that the growth of the gooseberry

in the example given is rather too rustic for
the extremely ornamental turn of the leaves.
The danger of such discrepancy is inherent in
such treatment, and is seldom completely
overcome. As it is, this is a most competent

and indeed accomplished piece of work.

Once more, to presume to elaborate natural
 ^IcLte 38

Photo Timt. -_. ^ .me« AK.nsi.i! ^.saon 'AC

\Val] paper founded uipo-D Nat-ure

The Elaboi^ation of Natural Forms. 83

form is to trenchupon very difficult ground

;

but we cannot afford to shut ourselves off

from any opportunity in design. It is easy
enough to dismiss whole schools of thought
and treatment with a word of contempt. We
have most of us done so in our time. As we
grow older we become, let us hope, more just,
and confess to ourselves that there are more
things in art and ornament than were dreamt
of in our philosophy of a while ago.

G 2
84 Natui^e in Ornament.

VI.

CONSISTENCY IN THE MODIFICATION

OF NATURE.

According to the use we make of natural

form, it helps or hinders us in design. The
flow of line, the grace, the growth, the tender-
ness of colour, the subtlety of suggestion,
which so delight us in ornament, would never
have been evolved from man's imagination
apart from natural influences but nature ;

does not provide for us ornament ready

made were that so, our occupation would
;

be gone. Nature is the starting-point, by

no means the end, of ornament.
When Owen Jones went so far as to say
that in proportion as ornament approached
natural form it had less claim on us as orna-
ment, he overstated his case quite as much as
they who contend, on the contrary, that only
in so far as it approaches nature has it any
claim on our sympathy at all. The two
opposite contentions may be taken to balance
one another. The truth lies midway between.
 (Ply.te 3^.

m OBLONO ^^^^^^^^^^^igi^JSiJ^^j^^I^^L^.
W0t

J^*^;
" w aWfllilllMIIWlMlillMllyllMBII
^'

*c^sM^ ^ -^/i

"Photo Tint ij <

Tile Panel
Consistency in Modification of Nature, 85

To reconcile the rival claims of nature and

art it needs only the artist.

But how, it may be asked, can nature be,

in any case, a hindrance to design ?
Whatever diverts for a moment the atten-
tion of the artist from his artistic purpose, is
distinctly a hindrance. The purpose of the
ornamentist is ornament. Nature has a way
of claiming too much attention to herself;
and the artist, in his frailty, is only too likely
to yield to the seductions of a mistress,
worthier, it may be, than all others, but not
the one he has, so to speak, sworn to love
and cherish, if not to obey.
The designer can hardly make too many
studies from nature, but he can easily make
bad use of those he has made, and easily
encumber himself with them. A man can
design quite freely only when the burden of
natural fact is so familiar that to him it
ceases to be a burden. Refreshing as it may
be to refer to his studies, or to Nature herself,
he cannot design with either in front of him.
The actual thing is not malleable enough
for his purpose, whereas an impression or a
memory ofaccommodates itself in the
it

most surprising manner to the conditions of

the case, and the necessary modification
occuj's as though it were a matter of course.
S6 Nature in Ornament.

In our happiest moments that is so. At

other times the question as to the necessary-
modification has to be deliberately decided.
It is not possible to lay down any limit
as to the degree of naturalism permissible in
ornament, or to say that the most natural
rendering may not sometimes be the best.
The conditions of the case may determine
the elimination of the natural element in
design altogether, or permit it to rule para-
mount they determine
: the degree of modifi-
cation necessary, or the degree of naturalness
allowable.
And even where they leave the artist free,
as soon as ever he begins to design he sets
himself his own limits. He pledges himself
by what he has done, and is bound in con-
sistency to carry his idea logically through.
A formal arrangement of lines involves an
equally formal kind of foliation, and free
growth pledges him to equally natural foliage.
So also natural detail prescribes free lines
of growth, and conventional detail implies
lines proportionately conventional.
If, that is to say, it is proposed to clothe a
geometric skeleton with foliage, it is quite
easy to make the turn of the leaves too
natural ; the danger in the case of a more
natural skeleton would be in making them
 ^late 4^0.

"Photo -Tmri by t •mes Altermm i,ondon M C

Cbr^sa-ntbernuro Patlerr).
Consistency ill Modification of Nature. ^']

too hard and formal. On Plate 39 the sym-

metric lines on which the design is set out
logicallydetermined a certain restraint in the
rendering of the lily, and it is reduced accord-
ingly to what might be called mere ornament.
On the other hand, the free growth of the
chrysanthemum, on Plate 40, not only per-
mitted, but demanded detail more in accord-

ance with nature. was possible, therefore,

It

to proceed altogether on the lines of nature,

only modifying natural form in the direction

of symmetry and ornament.

One of the most irritating things in design
is to see flowers like catherine-wheels, or
other such prim rosettes, on stems suggesting
growth, or to find naturalistic flowers spring-
ing from quite arbitrary and mechanical lines.

In the otherwise masterly design on Plate

23, by the late B. J. Talbert (an artist who
deserved better than to be so soon forgotten),
there is just that flaw, that the eyes of the
sunflowers, in comparison with the freer
growth of the leaves and petals, are so
formal as to stare out of the pattern at you.
This effect is to a great extent obviated in
the wall-paper by judiciously soft colouring,
but the fault in design is still there.

This point of consistency needs the more

to be insisted upon, because it has at no
88 Nature in Ornament.

65. Indian corn, adapted to ornament.

time been enough observed. Every-

strictly
where, in Greek no less than in Gothic art,
we find the artist (weak creatures that we
are) lapsing into inconsistency. The border,
in particular, is a pitfall in his path. In it

arbitrary arrangement is, one may say, a

necessity and it is only with difficulty, often,
;

that he brings himself to reduce leaves and

flowers to consistency with the waves or
spirals or other symmetrical lines on which
they grow.
In the border at the top of the page the
adaptation of the Indian corn to its place is

perfect : that is ornament. On Plate 81 there

are sundry instances of much less successful
treatment, where the ivy-leaf is natural enough
in shape to make us want it to grow more
naturally which is the case also in the
;

borders on Plate 83. On Plate 41 the leaves

and their arrangement are equally remote
from nature, and the result is correspondingly
satisfactory. The happy mean of conven-
tionality is found also in the borders on
pp. 55, 57, 58, 61, &c.
The arrangement of wave or other scroll
 (plate 41

j,i^5,^^^,^.j4^^^^.i^.q^s^-i^;-!^j^^

;^^^;iir«r'^n«5*^^^^?^^^^^

:.F.KeB,Qiofoinli..»,OJ\'«iW*l :jt,'SBlVB«tt.E ;

Archaic polia^oe
Consistency in Modification of Nature, 89

with leaves alternately on either side of it

(or leaves and

flowers, or leaves
and berries) is

objectionable
(Plates 24, 25,
41, 68, 81) just
in proportion
to the natural-
istic rendering
of leaf, flower,
berry, or what-
ever it may be.
There are two
separate start-
ing-points in

ornamental de-
sign. Natural
form, once mo-
dified, may re-

solve itself into

ornament pure
and simple; and,
on the other
hand, ornament
has always a
tendency to as-
sume familiar
66. Rigid lines of growth turntd to
natural shapes. ornamental account.
90 Nahtre in Ornament.

But, though somewhat similar results may be

arrived at from such different directions, nature
modified by considerations of ornamental pro-
priety is one thing, ornament modified by
memories of nature is quite another.
If you start with nature, the difficulty is

in making natural forms subserve decoration

without eliminating
too entirely the
natural element.
When the lines of
growth peculiar to a
plant are not in the
direction of orna-
ment, what is to be
done ?

The better plan

is not, ifyou can
help it, to go against
nature, but to per-
simde, if possible, the 67. Artificial grace of line.

natural and charac-

growth into lines more in accordance
teristic

with the purpose of ornament. Even the

Greeks, as I have said, when they resorted
to arbitrary lines in connection with natural
forms, did not succeed.
It must not too readily be taken for

granted that a certain rigidity of growth may

 ^laie 42

HOTO LITHO e.FURNIVAL S "*

HOlBORN E

f^oderv Gothic Lily panel

Consistency in Modification of N attire, 91

not possibly be turned to account in orna-

ment. There is evidence of the availabiUty

I
—^4//7 /// /<:/'^. //
'/ frey?<t .-u

68. Quasi-natural rendering of lily.

9' Nature in Ornament.

of rigid lines of
growth in the in-
genious composi-
tion of the late
Clement Heaton
on p. 89, com-
pared with which
the admittedly
more graceful
Italian version of
the bearded wheat
on p. 90 is not
without a sug-
gestion of sick-
liness. What is

fanciful in this
last design makes
forornament, no
doubt but there
;

is something al-
most discordant
in the association
of lines so sweet
with the growth
of corn.
Sanmicheli's
quasi-natural lily

(p. 91), with its

five impossible 69. Quattro-cento lily.

 (Plate 43.

:-?Era,Ti.^ipi4ij.5F^>^.x^^*l "r.-a,Vt,Bi.X c

Inlaid Lily OrDament.

Consistency in Modification of NattLre. 93

petals, has not half the character of Talbert's

manlier on Plate
lily 42. The earlier Quattro-
cento example on p. 92 is equally guilty
of five petals ; although in the very rigidity
and dignified simplicity of the composition
there is some-
thing that re-
calls the natu-
ral flower.

One may ad-

mit, however, a
certain charac-
ter and beauty
in the stiff

growth of the
lily, and even
allow that it

may be made
use of in de-
sign, without
denying for a
moment that it

is stiff. The
ornamentist 70. Narcissus compelled into the way of
ornament.
may quite fairly
seek lines more graceful. Still, unless he
looks upon merely as a motif of
the lily

ornament (as shown on Plate 39) he is

hardly at liberty to make it branch like a
94 Nature in Ornariuent.

71 Incorgruous trea'ment of the oak.

bush or twine like a creeper nor need he ;

wish it. It is quite possible, to one suf-

ficiently at home in nature and in design, to
indue any such refractory plant with a grace
of line and a general suavity of form which,
though by no means characteristic of the
natural growth, do not, at all events, bluntly
contradict it.

The graceful character of the growth on

Plate 43 is not precisely that of the lily ; but
one is hardly disposed to quarrel with a com-
position in itself so satisfactory. The detail
is not so natural that you miss the natural
growth. As a rendering of the lily, the
design may not be all that one could wish ;

as ornament there is not much fault to find

with it : the deviation from nature is all in
the direction of design. It is evident, too,
 I^late 44.

'Pmoto-Timt' Ijy J.Aktra.n.6.1}ue.n S^uu-tHf.C.

Jtb
18 Century flower reDdenio^.
Co7isistency in Modification of Nature. 95

that the artist looked at the lily for himself,

and conventionalised it according to his
needs. It almost seems as though the plant
might have been trained to grow so.
This is. the natural evolution of ornament,
and not the mere distortion of nature which
is sometimes mistaken for ornamental treat-

ment. In the panel on p. 93 it has been at-

tempted to subject the narcissus to somewhat
similar ornamental treatment.
In the eighteenth century version of the
wild flag on Plate 44 there is a certain ap-
pearance of naturalness, or, more properly
speaking, of picturesqueness ; but it grows
with a grace and elegance absolutely arti-
ficial. That same affectation belonged indeed
to the period (see Plates 32, 33, 62, 70) ; but
it is at least a graceful

I
affectation, and con-
. \
sistent with itself
j That can hardly be
^ :
said for the rendering
of the oak on p. 94,
which has the unfor-
tunate appearance ot
being either too natu-
ral or not natural
enough. And even
72. Characterless design.
^^Q.XQ, the HneS mOre
96 Nature in Ornament,

73. Inconsistency between flower and leaf.

satisfactory than they one would still

are,

feel that there was something incongruous

in the combination of lines so suave and

slender with the oak. And so again in the
case of the still more timid treatment of
the leaves by Albertolli on p. 95. This par-
ticular tree is,more than all others, associated
always in our minds with the idea of sturdy
angularity.
The rendering of a plant may be by no
means very and yet by far too much
natural,
so. In the ornament above, the flower is too
distinctly an orchid to go with foliage dis-
tinctly belonging to another family. This is

a fault rather exceptional in Japanese design,

where the rendering of nature is usually either
frankly natural or deliberately and uncompro-
misingly conventional.
In the art of the Renaissance the fault of
inconsistency is of the commonest occur-
O^lcate 4S.

o
p
(/)
{/)

P
 '

Consistency in Modification of N attire. 97

rence : the nuts, the pods, and the five-petalled

flowers on Plate
45, are not espe-
cially life-like ; but
that forms so im-
mediately recog-
nisable as nuts
and pea
pods -

should grow from

the same stalk as
a flower of five

petals, to say no-

thing of their con-
junction with ab-
solutely artificial

lines, and with

foliage of the usual
Renaissance type,
is enough very con-
siderably to dis-
count the charm
of an exceptionally
graceful and well-
balanced composi-
tion. A rather
more coherent, and
in some ways ad-
.74. Graceful artificiality
mirable, version of
the pea-pod is given on Plate 46.
H
98 Nature in Ornament.

In the example on p. 97 the offence of

ncoherence is somewhat mitigated, inasmuch
as the detail is not very real. All sorts of
different flowers grow from a single stem
indeed, but the stem is not very obvious.
There is a kind of natural confusion in the
foliage,and the types are not strongly pro-
nounced. Everything is uniformly graceful

75. De-naturalised floral details.

and artificial, and the unreality of the detail

prepares one for the violation of natural
growth. Even then it is hard to forgive it.
Much the same criticism might be passed
on the less graceful panel in the centre of
Plate 47. The manner in which flowers of
various kinds grow from a common stem is
 (?Me 4G.

?ea-pod OrnaTDent, Ker^aissaDce.

 ;;

Consistency in Modification of Nature, 99

of the eighteenth century, not of nature. In

the panel at the top of the plate there is less
shock to us,inasmuch as the details are more
distinctly ornamental the danger in design
:

of this kind is in proportion as the details

assert their natural identity. Better de-
naturalise them altogether, as in the orna-
ment on p. 98, than jumble up all manner of
detail into a quite heterogeneous whole.
It is easily understood why eighteenth
century designers mixed their types so reck-
lessly. They aimed at effect, at any price
and consistency was, in their eyes, a very
small price to pay for it. By making lilies
and roses and daisies and pomegranates all
branch from one stem, it was easy to get
variety and contrast. The more consistent
way would have been, of course, to intertwine
one stem with another, and so account
logically for the variety in detail.
It would be comparatively easy for us to

get the qualities of eighteenth century orna-

ment, if we were willing to pay the same
price for it. Art and puritanism have not
much in common, but even the artist may
well be puritan enough to sacrifice some-
thing of effect for the sake, I will not say of
honesty, but of consistency. He is quite
free to efface, if he like, the natural type
H 2
lOO Nature in Ornament,

but, once it asserts itself, it binds him to a

certain adherence to natural growth and de-
tail. He is not justified in pocketing his
conscience. His details may bear, if it so
please him, but the vaguest resemblance to
leaves and flowers and fruits ; but if they are
recognisable as such, must grow
they as
such : a stem, for example, has no business to
grow two ways at once.
Moreover, the artist will instinctively select
his types : he will not associate compound
leaves with lily flowers, or simple leaves with
pea blossoms. If the growth of his ornament
suggest a forest tree he will not fill-up with
tendrils. If the fruit suggest an acorn he will
not decorate the stalk with thorns. Where
the flowers occur singly he will not make
berries in clusters ; or if the flowers form a
spike he will not make the fruits droop. He
will not make apple blossoms develop into
acacia pods or daisies into gooseberries.
According to his acquaintance with nature,
and to his artistic sense of fitness, he will
abstain instinctively from incongruity, and
conform at least so far to the law of order,
that there shall be in his design no suggestion
of conglomeration it shall be one growth,
;

reminding you of nature or not, but in any

case consistent with itself
If several flowers are used in combination
 'iaie 47

Ll fHOTO-llTMO 8.FUXN1VAL S'' HOLIOKH.E C

Dutch X: GeriDaD CoT)ven1ior)S ^if the 17^ Ccnturv

Consistency in Modification of Nature, loi

76. Confusion of effect without confusion of growth.

each should have its identity. The orna-

mentist chooses naturally, where he can, the
types in nature most amenable to ornament.
But, apart from the fact that many of the
most accommodating have been long since,
as one may say, appropriated, there are cases
in which he is bound to use such or such a
plant, which may possibly be very awkward
to deal with in the way of ornament and ;

one very obvious and convenient way out of

the difficulty is, to associate with it some
other plant or plants complementary to it, by

help of which the qualities lacking in the

original plant are supplied.
Yet there no necessity that the various
is

flowers, fruits, and what not, should all grow

from one stem. In the side borders on Plate
47, mere disjointed sprays of flowers are
fitted together, without producing any very
unpleasant effect of disjointedness, which of
two evils would certainly be the lesser.
In the detail of Damascus tilework above,
 ;

I02 Nature in Ornament,

the separate have separate stalks.

flowers
Itmay not be easy always to get rid of so
many stalks in the composition, but in the
intertwining of them there arise fresh pos-
sibilities in design— if you are man enough
to seize the opportunity.
Another way out of the difficulty of com-
bining various floral forms is to introduce the
one only as the undergrowth to the other, as
shown on Plate 48. By this means it is pos-
sible to contrast bold with delicate detail,
broad masses with broken surface, without
doing violence to natural laws.
How one is bound to adhere strictly to
far
the lines on which a plant grows, and to the
character of its detail, depends to some
extent always upon the purpose of the artist
only in strict fidelity to that purpose lie the
possibilities of perfect art.
What ifeven great artists have been guilty
of all manner of inconsequence in design ?
They are so much the less to be trusted as
safe guides in the matter of taste. One may
find authority for any kind of ill-doing. The
accepted precedents are not all of them sound
by any means. Every precedent should be
stripped of its and scrutinised as
prestige,
carefully as the newest of recruits, and the
ricketty ones dismissed from the service of
art, relentlessly.
 n^late 48.

"Photo -TiMTity -James A;tenn»a. London .WC

Scroll (3e foliage

 I03

VII.

PARALLEL RENDERINGS.

The study of ornament should proceed pari

passu with the study of vegetable forms not —
botany necessarily.
The scientific study of botany is quite a
thing apart. The ornamentist has no more
occasion for exact scientific knowledge than
the painter has need to know surgically about
anatomy, no more occasion and no less. We
want, in either case, just science enough to
enable us to see the surface of things, and no
more. The classification of a plant according
to its hidden organs is as nothing to us com-
pared with its character, its beauty, the hint
in it of ornament. Its order and its family
concern us only as they affect its outward
development and growth. We need not
greatly concern ourselves in pulling flowers to
pieces. An artist can do with comparatively
little science, if only he make full use of his
eyes.
Suppose the student in ornamental design
I04 Nature in Ornament.

to have begun by being thoroughly well

grounded in practical geometry soon he ;

might proceed to put together, somewhat on

the kinder-garten system, geometric patterns,
simpler or more complex according to the
degree of his ingenuity. Then, as he grew
beyond this elementary stage, he might exer-
cise himself in drawing freer and more flow-
—
ing forms say, until he acquired facility in
sketching off (with the brush) ornament of
the kind the Greek pot-painters drew with
such freedom (p. 152).
Simultaneously with this he should be
making intelligent studies of leaves, flowers,
fruits, andmanner of details of plant-form
all

and plant-growth. With equal diligence he

should be studying the masterpieces of applied
design, especially noting the way the masters
treated those same natural forms, and always
choosing his model, whether of plant form or
of ornament, for the definite reason that it

meant something to him.

His studies should be carried just so far as
their purpose warranted there should be no
:

attempt to make pictures of them, or show-

drawings, or to make them even presentable.
What the student has to do is to make notes
serviceable to himself, sufficient in every case
to impress upon his memory what the original
 ^late 49.

'Photo-Timt; o-/.J.ae. Alr.rm.7i Lon<ion Wf

/\DciGT>t Coptic 6iDbroidery

 Parallel Renderings. 105

conveyed to him, records of what he wanted

to record, that is all.

The urgent need of choosing each example

needs the more to be insisted upon, because
the designer cannot too early begin to culti-
vate the selective faculty. Judgment is one-
half the battle in decoration.
The between a man's
closer the relation
studies from nature and his studies from old
work the better. Take, for instance, any flower
you like and study it from nature carefully
— its form, its structure, its growth, its colour,
its character ; then see how it is rendered
in Classic art, in Gothic, in Renaissance, in
Japanese, in Persian, and so on. Observe
again its treatment in sculpture, in inlay, in
metalwork, in textile fabrics, and what not.
A series of such exercises conscientiously and
thoroughly done, would be an education in
itself, and would in some degree fit one to

conventionalise on his own account — all

" without the aid of a master."

The already mentioned partiality of each
particular period and country for a certain
few, usually symbolic, types (p. 12), makes it

impossible to trace any one single natural

form through all history but you can trace ;

most forms through a great variety of his-

torical developments.
io6 Nature in Ornament.

77. The vine in Assyrian sculpture — B.C. 705-626.

The type of most universal occurrence in

ornament is probably the vine, symbol of
philosophies as wide apart as the poles. We
find it in the bas-reliefs of Nineveh, and the
painted decoration of Egypt on Etruscan
;

vases, and Greek and Roman altars on ;

Byzantine sarcophagi, in Coptic embroideries,

and in early Sicilian silks it recurs in every ;

form of Gothic art, and throughout all phases

of the Renaissance.
In the Assyrian treatment of the vine above
one finds, of course, the archaic formality
of the age of Sennacherib, but at the same
time a certain adherence to the natural type
which has not varied from that day to this.
If the leaves are all spread flat against the
wall, they are quite unmistakable in shape.
If the branches are symmetrically displayed
n^late 50.

O
 Parallel Renderings. 107

there is a suggestion in that of the way fruit-

trees are still trained in modern orchard houses.

Again, there is a sort of natural spring in
the lines themselves ; and in the arrangement
of the five branches (which is not according
to nature) one seems to see a reference to the
veining of the vine-leaf At all events, this
arbitrary grouping is so characteristic of the
Ninevite sculptures that can scarcely be it

accidental, and must almost certainly have

some symbolic meaning. The irregular shape
of the Assyrian grape bunches is a curious
concession to nature, seeing that some of them
stand up on end, and that the grapes are
just square. It will be noticed that leaves
and do not occur in the order in which
fruits
a botanist would place them, and that the
tendrils are made use of only as a convenient
means of ending off the branches.
On Plate 49 is a Coptic rendering from
a tomb in Upper Egypt, which is equally
archaic, but infinitely more ornamental. Ob-
serve the reticent use of grapes, their syste-
matic arrangement, and the fact that they
also stand on end. The vine-leaf on the same
plate, veined, as it were, with a growth of
vine, is also extremely curious. The way in
which the tendrils ornament the stem is worth
noticing.
io8 Nature in Ornament.

The Greek treatment above

is, if not more natural, at least
more florid. The stem indeed
diminishes in thickness towards
its extremity, and is clothed
at the same time with smaller
leaves ; but the stem itself is a
mere wave-line, and the leaves, though founded
on a more graceful natural variety than
the Assyrian, are less unmistakably vine-
leaves.
It is a rather curious thing in the decorative
treatment of the vine in early art, that although
there no plant growing which varies more as
is

to the shape of its leaves —

heart-shaped, round,
angular in outline, divided into three or five,

the divisions deeply cut or scarcely noticeable,

sometimes not seen at all — it is yet the rarest
thing in the world to find in any ornamental
version of the plant more than a single type of
leaf. That is one point at least in which there
is opportunity for a new departure in design,
and to considerably ornamental purpose.
9kte 51

s
 ;

Parallel Renderings, 1
09

79. Pompeian vine border.

The tendrils in the Greek vase painting

are, for the most part, more obviously twirls of
the brush than transcripts from nature ; even
when they are branched they take the lines of
our old friend the spiral and are graceful
scroll,

where in nature they would be vigorous

there is never anything like clutch in them.
The artistseems sometimes just to have
realised that leaf and tendril grew from some-
where about the same point on the stem, but
no more. If he had any definite idea at all
of the relation between leaf and tendril, it
would appear to have been the erroneous
notion that the leaf grew from a point of
junction between the tendril and the stalk.
Perhaps the most natural thing in the
design is the way in which it is composed,
very much in the way of the trellis —another
method of training that has survived without
change from the beginning of vine culture.
The bunches, besides, do hang down, obedient
to the law of gravity.
A more formal Greek rendering occurs in
the disc on Plate 24, but in both cases the
no Nature in Ornament.

80. Italian wood-carving —^hop or vine ?

grape bunches are much the same in out-

line.

In later Classic sculpture, especially in

Roman work, the vine-leaf is often repre-
sented naturally, only again without the
variety of nature, one shape doing duty
throughout. And here also we find the ten-
drils always deliberately made softer than in
the living plant. They have no inclination
to twine themselves round anything ; they
are not much more than graceful scroll lines.
What growth there may be in them is certainly
not studied from the particular plant. Leaves,
tendrils, fruits, occur wherever the artist has
occasion for them. There is a touch of nature
in the thickening of the leaf-stalk at its base,
but this feature also is softened down to
gracefulness ; it is rather suggested than ex-
pressed. The very grapes are frequently
reduced to bunches of five or seven.
They are rather fuller on Plate 50. The
 opiate ^2

f KELL, PHOTO-LITHO e.FURNIVAL S^HOlbORNE

 , 1

Parallel Re7tderings 1 1

/ D/A/^Or^D

8i. Conventional Gothic vine and grapes.

disregard of natural scale in this design is as

frank as in the Assyrian treatment. It is

strange to find, in connection with such an

arbitrary rendering, anything so realistic as
the knobby bowls of the olive trunks, which
are as cavernous as you see them in nature.
Again, in the vine from Giotto's Tower, at
Florence (Plate 51), the artist, contrary to the
usual Gothic practice, has thought fit to sup-
port the vine, perhaps because the leafage,
distinctly ornamental as it is, is intended to
represent a vineyard. It forms a sort of
canopy over the subject of Noah's drunken-
ness.
In the more natural frieze of my own, on
Plate 52, the vine is supported by apple-
boughs the upright trunks of the trees, cor-
:

responding in position to the beams in the

ceiling, form a marked feature in the design.
Among the Graeco-Roman details on Plate
53, the grapes are rather more natural than
the leaves, which are in one case just the
reverse of natural. The leaf cut in cameo
 *

112 Nature in Ornament,

17 82. Gothic vine, with mulberry-like grape-bunches.

is, however, at once natural and ornamental.

In the embossed silverwork a distinctly orna-
mental character results from the employment
of the stems, tendrils, and fruits only the :

same thing occurs in later Classic sculpture.

In the border from a Pompeian bronze in
the museum at Naples, on p. 109, the thick-
ening of the leaf-stalk is indicated ; but the
growth is again absolutely arbitrary. The leaf,
though enough to nature, could not be
like
identified with any degree of certainty, were
it not for the accompanying grapes and ten-

drils but for that evidence it might just as

:

well pass for maple, or cranesbill, or hibiscus

leaf.

Such corroborative evidence of identity is

often needed. In the process of adaptation to

ornamental conditions the unmistakable cha-
racter of a plant is not uncommonly eliminated.
One is perplexed, for example, by the Italian
wood-carving on p. no. According to its

tendrils it should be a vine, but its fruits are

more like hops. In Gothic ornament one has,
once more, frequently to take the vine-leaf on
 n^late 53.

'Pmoto Timt, try V am e* Akarmai London W C

Clasical rGndenn^ of the vine.

 Parallel Renderiiios, "3
faith, failing grapes, and more particularly
and Plate 29).
tendrils (p. 59
The grapes are sometimes as remote from
nature as the leaves, and the scale to which
the bunches are reduced often removes them

83. Conventional vine, from Toledo.

still further from recognition. It is possible

that the mulberry is sometimes mistaken for

the vine. Many a conventional vine leaf (as

for example on p. much more like the
in) is

leaf of the white mulbeiTy of Lombardy

114 Nature m Ornament,

than it is like a vine-leaf ; whilst the compact

little bunches of diminutive berries look
occasionally much more like mulberries
than any grapes one has seen. In the
border on p. 112 they might almost be
blackberries. It is possible also in Gothic
work to
con found
them with
the berry-
spike of the
wild arum.
It is only
our famili-
arity with
similar con-
ven t on i s

which en-
ables us to
understand
that the
G o t h ic o-
M oresque
foliage on p.
84. Moorish vine.
1 1 3 stands
for the vine. For growth the Moorish sculptor
has simply branched a spiral line. His vine-
leaves would answer at least as well for bry-
ony leaves, and his berries would do as well
for bryony berries. His reason for bunches of
Arab Vine pd^vo}
 Parallel Renderings. 115

three was doubt-

less symbolic.
He has not bo-
thered himself
about tendrils at
all. Probably he
was happiest over
his diaper behind
the foliage, which
[though the illus-

tration does not

show it] is Moor-
ish ornament pure
and simple.
An equally
arbitrary Moorish
rendering is given
on p. 114. It is

clear the sculptor

was more at home
in Saracenic or-
nament than in
nature.
The more reso-
lutely ornamental
vine, of pure
Arab carving, on
Plate 54, is, curi-
ously enough, far
more suggestive of 85. Naive Byzantine vine.

I 2
Ii6 Nahire in Ornament.

nature, whilst professedly avoiding it. The

treatment of
'^''''^'^<'<-^
the tendrils is

a peculiarly
happy feature
in a most satis-

factory design.
As a repre-
sentation ot
the vine it may
not be alto-
gether ade-
quate — it pre-
tends to no-
thing of the
kind —but as a
piece of sur-
face ornament
suggested by
a natural type,
it is in its way
about perfect.
The Byzan-
tine vine from
Ravenna, on
86. Early French Gothic. p. 115, is not
without a cer-
tain grace, rudely as it Is carved. Its growth
Is distinctly ornamental ; and the way in
 ^late 55.

"Photo-Timt" dv James Akernun. London .W C

Vme Sculpture,
 .

Parallei Renderino-s 117

which the tendrils are used to fill the side

spaces is a most ingenious adaptation of
familiar Classic lines to a quite new purpose ;

the objection to it is that it suggests the

growth of the tendrils in two contrary direc-
tions. The charm of work
like this lies to a great
extent in its naivety.
The triangular grouping
of the grapes, at once
symbolic and ornamental,
foreshadows a treatment
very common indeed in
Gothic work.
Compared to this the
Romanesque vine, on
Plate 55, is natural.
Conventional as
the leaves may
be in form, they
grow from the
stem, which has
some of the cha-
87. Square-shaped vine-leaves. racter of the vine-
stock. You see
even just a hint of that twist in its growth
of which Mr. Heywood Sumner has made
such admirable use in his stencilled decoration
on Plate 56. The way in which the lines
 8

1 1 Nature in Ornament.

88. Diamond-shaped vine-leaves — Gothic.

of the twisted stems form the necessary ties in
his stencil-plate is most artful.

The berries may

be taken as evidence that
the thirteenth Gothic scroll from
century
Notre Dame at Paris, on p. ii6, is meant for
the vine and there is some likeness in the
;

leaves, when one looks for it.

We may take it also, probably, that the
still more conventional scrollwork of the
early Gothic period did symbolic duty for
the vine. In the pre-Gothic circular design
on Plate 57, one sees the five-pointed vine-leaf
dwindling away to quite a conventional trefoil.
It is only in the comparatively uninteresting

middle period of Gothic art that we have

leaves as much as possible in imitation of
nature.
In later Gothic we get design again. The
Mediaeval sculptors deliberately designed their
leaves, as it were, into set spaces —taking a
square, a diamond, a circle, a vesica, and
so on, as its general outline. The Assy-
rians did so before them (p. 106), and the
Italians after them, as may be seen in the
 ^1ate %

J Aierman.Photolith London

Stencilled vine Pecoration, HS-uiP-ner.

 —

Parallel Renderings. 119

. Vesica-shaped vine-leaves, York.

vine border on p. 117, with the odd shell-Uke

tendrils.
This would come about in a very simple
way. They would begin by blocking out the
leaf mass, then they would hollow out the
main divisions, and finally they would notch
the edges. In roughing out the design it

would occasionally happen that some other

—
mass square, diamond-shaped, or what not
came more happily they would accordingly
;

adopt it, and the leaf needs must follow suit.

Hence such treatment of the leaf as we find
on pp. Ill, 112, 118, and above, where it is

designed to conform to an outline of diamond

or vesica shape, or made, together with the
berries, to fit the spaces formed by the waved
stem and the margins of the border. In Plate 58
also it is plain how the leaves are designed, so
to speak, into the corners of the panel. It is

curious to see just such a system of composi-

tion in the Coptic borders of centuries before
(Plate 57).
The Gothic sculptor sometimes went so far
as to rough out the foliations of his scroll in
I20 Nature in Ornament,

go. Diagram of Italian Gothic treatment.

the form of trefoils (A, above), leaving it ap-

parently to the inspiration of the moment to
determine afterwards which of these should
be finished as leaves (B), and which as grape-
bunches (C). In a certain case at Padua he
went much farther than that, and even turned
over here and there a part of the leaf (D and
E), without in any way altering its general
outline. It came more naturally to him to

do obvious violence to possibility than to

modify his predetermined outline. This is
not mentioned as a thing worthy of imitation,
but as an instance of simple-mindedness not
without its charm in old work.
In Plate 59, part of the design for a Gothic
window, I have endeavoured to follow, more
strictly than I have ever seen it followed in
old Gothic work, the actual growth of the
vine, whilst at the same time very scrupu-
lously fulfilling the conditions of stained glass.
Much as there is to be learnt from the
breadth and simplicity of the Gothic treat-
ment of the vine (as of other foliage), it by no
means solves for us the problem of treatment.
 ^late 57.

PHOTO-TlMTilsyJ.iaei Akermtn ,\<in<fon VC

Coptic Vine Onoa-mcnt.

 Parallel Renderhips, 121

It is seldom that it shows much appreciation

of the essentially characteristic vine forms.
One wearies of the regularity of the " ecclesi-

astical " grape-clusters, and resents their stand-

ing up like bunches of privet-berries. Why
should we be content with the continual recur-

91. Transitional vine scroll.

rence of one stereotyped pattern, when nature

isso varied and that variety is so ornamental ?
In later Gothic ornament, and especially
as began to be influenced by the spirit ot
it

the Renaissance, it is no uncommon thing to

see a scroll that halts between two opinions.
122 Nature in Ornament,

clearly showing that the artist did not quite

see how to reconcile the one with the other.
In the instance of this given on p. 121, the
rather loosely drawn leaves contrast curiously
with the purely conventional foliation pro-
ceeding from the same stem ; and yet, for all
the hesitation of the artist, the general effect
is that of direct and accomplished workman-
ship. Here the main lines of the stem remind
one more of fifteenth century Gothic window
tracery than of growth. .The ornamental
arrangement of the tendrils is ingenious,
and so is the way the grapes form a sort of
diaper on the background. This is a device
notuncommon in late Gothic work, especially
German work — that, for example, of Albrecht
Durer.
Diirer, to tell the had but a poor
truth,
—
invention in ornament his facile pen is con-
tinually running away with him his flourishes
;

remind one too much of the writing-master of

a more recent generation. The vine scroll on
Plate 60 is an exceptionally good specimen
of the great draughtsman's ornament, but it

misses at once the grace of nature -and the

dignity of ornament. Only in respect to
the variety in the size of the grapes, and the
looseness of the bunches, does it approach
more nearly to nature than the earlier
 ^late 58

Cn^lish Gothic Vine.

 Parallel Renderings, 1 23

92. Italian Quattro-cento vine scroll.

work. It is, indeed, picttiresqiie rather than

decorative ; and the picturesqueness seems
almost Hke a foreshadowing of the then still

distant Rococo.
The artists of the Renaissance followed
pretty closely in the footsteps of ancient
precedent, and when they departed from the
scroll and branched out into something more
like natural growth, adopted by preference a
form of leaf plainly recalling the vine. It was
less a rendering of nature than an ornamental
leaf more or less in its likeness.
Italian, French, or German rendering was
modified always in some degree by national
character. In the Frangois premier foliage
(p. 38), always a certain severity,
there is

showing that the carver had not quite thrown

off the Gothic yoke, under which Italian
ornament (above) never passed. The German
version was still more determinedly national
— indeed it was always more clearly Teutonic
—
than Renaissance witness the ornament of
124 Nature in Ornament.

Aldegrever on this
page. Before our days
of archaeological pre-
was in all
tence, there
ornament an under-
tone of national feel-

ing, telling of the

country to which it

belonged. There was

no need then of a
Trade-marks Act to
identify it as carved
in France or Ger-
many.
At the risk of
trenching upon a
subject discussed at
length in a previ-
ous text-book ('The
Application of Orna-
ment') it is necessary
to allude briefly to
the influence exer-
cised by material and
manner of workman-
ship on the modifica-
tion of natural form.
This is really half the

93. German Renaissance. secret of convention-

 n^lale 59.

"Pmoto-Tiht! ty J»mes Akeno an, London .Wf

Vine, Stamed Glass.

 Parallel Renderings. 125

alism, the other half being in the fitness of

the form to its place and purpose.
The sculptor has been a powerful
thus
factor in the development of the ornamental
vine.
You can see quite clearly in the Assyrian
example (p. 106) how he blocked out his five-

pointed shapes, scooped out the main divisions,

and notched the serrations round the edges,
much as the Gothic carvers did, and how he
just chiselled two series of lines across his
bunches to suggest the grapes.
In the Greek vine (p. 108) the leaves are
this time serrated by brush touches in :

designing his tendrils the painter just played

with the brush ; whilst in the case of the grapes,
he first washed mass of his cluster in
in the
two shades of colour, and then, with little
blots of white, indicated the grapes upon it.
The GriEco-Roman border (p. 109) is inlaid
in silver on bronze, and the serrations of the
leaves are produced by so many digs of the
graver. The stiffness of the zigzag stem, it

should be mentioned, is modified, in the actual

bronze, by the fact that it is on the curved
member of a moulding.
The severe simplicity of the Byzantine
design (p. 115) fits it for its intended purpose
of a pilaster.
 ;

126 Nature in Ornament.

The breadth of the leaves in the example

from Toledo (p. 113) is calculated to contrast
well with the broken background. On a
smooth ground it would have been desirable

94. Vine in Gothic glass-painting.

to mark the subdivisions of the leaves more

emphatically.
In the Arab leaf (Plate 54) the need of
something like veins was felt by the sculptor
 ^late 60.

: F.KJi,T:iiot.i,tb.-,.'3rvcr.— I jt H^ibe»,E.(:

Vine by ^Ibrecbt Diirer.

 Parallel Renderings, 127

and the ingeniously ornamental tracery by

which he supplied their place is a lesson in
design.
In Plate 61 have taken a hint from some
I

sixteenth century damascening, and diapered

the leaves with arabesque in the place of
veining. The idea was to break the surface of
the leaf whilst preserving an effect of flatness.
Diirer's leaves (p. 60) are pen-work, and
had they been drawn with any other imple-
ment they would never have been just so.
The resolute avoidance of modelling in the
German damask napkin (p. 121) is in order to
show off the quality of the linen.
In the various Gothic renderings of the leaf
the tool is plainly to be traced. There is

considerable difference between the convention

of the wood-carver and that of the carver
in stone. In the wood-carving on p. 1 10, the
veining is indicated and a certain effect of
modelling obtained by leaving the gouge
—
marks but then the gouging was done to
that end, and with intelligence.
The greater delicacy of the Quattro-cento
leaves (p. 123) shows how the finer marble led
more delicate workmanship. The
to altogether
coarser stone employed in English Gothic
buildings made it absolutely necessary to
mass the tendrils together if only for the sake
128' Nature in Ornament.

of strength. The tendrils in the fragment of

old glass on p. 126 owe their scratchy ap-
pearance to the circumstance that they were
actually scratched out of the solid pigment
with the stick end of the brush ; the serra-
tions of the leaves are as the brush made them
— and so on. In short, conventional form
proves to be the net result of comparing the
supply of natural shapes with the demands
of ornament, and choosing the line of least
resistance between them.
 f MOTO-inHO.a.FURMVAt S ' rtO'.BORN L C

Conventional Vine leaf pattern.

 129

VIII.

MORE PARALLELS.

It may be as argument seem

well, lest the
to rest upon a specially selected type, to com-
pare, as briefly as possible, the various render-
ings of certain other plants which occur by
way of illustration throughout this volume,
and which have been chosen partly with a
view to such comparison.
The Japanese treatment of the rose, on
Plate 2, is only in so far decorative as the
detail and the point of view are carefully
chosen, and as the execution is simple and
direct. Compare the energy of its growth
with the sweeter lines on Plate 62. This last
expression of the decadent Renaissance is not
nearly so accurate as it somehow pretends to
be. The stipules of the leaves, for example,
are very inadequately acknowledged ; and
what at first sight looks like picturesque
shading of the leaves, turns out to be quite
arbitrary. Indeed, it is only as ornament that
K
I30 Nature in Ornament,

^h^^M
^^lilttjt

95- Quasi-Persian rose —Italian velvet.

this quasi-natural treatment has claim at all

to our respect : as nature it has none.

As a model of conventional treatment, the
Tudor rose must always hold a very high
place. What could be better in its way than
the dignified simplicity of the Gothic rose and
crown on Plate 63 ? How good the lines are,
and how well the panel is occupied A !

certain breadth is gained by the reduction of

the compound leaf to the simple form, and a
certain character is given by the exaggeration
of the stipules, unlike as they are in form to
the natural type.
In the other Tudor rose from the stalls of
Henry VH.'s chapel (Plate 64), the treat-
ment is at once traditional and distinctly
individual. It was something of an inspira-
tion to twist the leaves and stalks encircling
 ^late 62

8S5ia5ig8iffinaiaigMi?gSWrnari ,^.

PnoTO-Tiht, ty J- Ak6nn.n,G,0B««n S,fU«r..W.C.

Artificial revd<dTMn^ of ibe ROS0.

 M^bte G^,

"*
'Photo -TiKt! Vy>.«me» Alce-man LonJon

Tudor. Kose Bron^v

 "Photo-Tint" fcyJ.Ak.rman, 6, Queen SquT^.W.C

Tudor Kose,AVood CarViT)6

 r KELl. f««TO-llTM0.e.FOIIHlVAl. S' H01.BOHN E
C

Italian version of a Persian Carpel

 .

91ate 6G.

KELL, FHOTO-tlTHO.e.FURNIVAL ST HOLBOflN^E.C.

/V\arble inlay from the Taj /Aahal

 .

q^late fc7

"Photo -Tiht" ty James Aksmnm.Lonclon ."W. C

Indiat) Lotus Panel.

 ^kte 68.

"Photo-Timt" 'by-JmrnteAiuTn^T, L<in,lon WC

1?etails of Stone Cd.v\)]v6, (Buddhist.)

 More Parallels. 131

the rose into a further suggestion of the five-

petalled flower.
Themonster roses at King's College,
Cambridge, are other splendid examples of
Gothic treatment. B. J. Talbert's modern
rose on Plate 23 owes something, but by no
means everything, to Gothic influence.
The rose-buds on p. 1 30 are from a velvet of
Italian manufacture, but so distinctly Persian
in design that it may be presumed to have
been copied almost literally
from an Oriental original.
The eye or jewel of light
colour in the centre of the
leaf, in place of veining, is

essentially Persian. In Plate

65, from the same source,
the rose-buds are at once
more elegant and more typi-
cal. The exaggerated sepals
in particular are ornamentally
of extreme value.
In the ruder Oriental
embroidery on this page,
the buds and sepals
are again very charac-
teristically emphasised.
The angularity of the
stalks comes of follow- 6. oriental rose border.

K 2
132 Nature in Ornament,

ing the square web of the linen on which it is

worked.
The Rhodian example below would
hardly be taken for a rose, but for the un-
mistakable bud once more : the open flower
is more like a marigold. The broken stem is

a convenient, and in Rho-

dian pottery not an un-
common, means of bend-
ing the lines in the way
it is desirable they should
go. Once in a way that
may pass, but it is not
a device upon which it

would be well to rely in

design.
Comparison has already
been drawn (p. 93) be-
tween the Quattro-cento
lily on p. 92, the Cinque-

97. Rhodian rose. cento lilies on p. 91 and

Plate 43, my own lily

ornament on Plate 39, Talbert's Gothic lily

panel on Plate 42 (something like, and yet
unlike, the panel from the Taj Mahal at
Agra, on Plate 66), and the more natural
growth on Plate 75. These may further
be compared with the more or less lily-
shaped flowers occurring in Greek scroll-work
 More Parallels. 133

(Plate II and
p. 160), with the
Greek pattern on
p. 61, and with
the Roman cande-
labrum opposite,
a characteristically
clumsy way not so
much of designing
as of compiling
ornament.
In the Greek
lilies already re-
ferred to, and still

more in those on
p. 158, the relation
to the anthemion
is obvious, and to
the lotus, that other
form of lily so
conspicuous in
Egyptian and As-
syrian art (Plates
79 and 80 and pp.
150, 151, 155, 240).
The Hindoo ren-
dering of the water-
lily on Plate 6j is /ij
i'!!|l
•'i::!r'"?ifiii\
very much like the 98. Roman lily forms.
134 Nature in Ornament,

99. Indian lotus —Buddhist.

Egyptian, but it is sometimes looser, as on

Plate 68. A very characteristic treatment is

shown above.
The Chinese rendering on Plate 88 is yet
freer, but still essentially ornamental.
Referring once more to the Greek shapes
on p. 158, one may see in some of them a
resemblance to the young growth of the lily
as it bursts from the ground in spring. That
is seen still more plainly in the Assyrian
ornament on the lower part of Plate 80.
 More Parallels, 135

There something most natural

is in that very
stiff conventional upright growth — reminding
one rather of the young iris shoots.
The iris flower is, it has been already said,
the origin of the fleur-de-lis. Compare the
flamboyant on Plate 121 with the
fleurs-de-lis
earlier Gothic renderings on pp. 238 and 241,
with the renderings on p. 160, and with the
Romanesque ornament on p. 18. The flowers
in the central ornament

(p. 18) are remarkably

like the iris. In the Re-
naissance ornament on
p. 240, the characteristics
of the iris are reconciled
somewhat to the shape
of the fleur-de-lis.
In the Indian damas-
100. Seventeenth century iris.
cened pattern on Plate
30, there is distinct re-

semblance to the fleur-de-lis. The painted

version above it, whilst pretending to be
more pictorial, is altogether less characteristic
of nature.
In the Persian examples on p. 45, the flower
is reduced to ornament, as it is also in the
ingenious border of the frontispiece which
Mr. Crane has designed for me. The figure
of Iris in the centre is designed in a vein
136 Nahire in Ornament,

or^.

peculiarly the artist's own.

His "Flora's Feast" is a
very feast of ingenious
and fanciful and alto-
gether delightful design
of the same kind.
Ornamentally as the
flowers are treated in the
Damascus tiles on p. loi,
they are still most cha-
racteristic — as are the
equally abstract forms in
J''4 h'
the Japanese embroidery
on p. 66. These are quite
unmistakably flags.
f .•<-
The sixteenth century
Italian embroidery, on p.
135, is scarcely far enough
removed from nature to be
effectively ornamental.
In the eighteenth cen-
tury silk weaving (Plate
£oi. Renaissance pinks,
44), there is a certain
suavity of line which goes towards ornament
 (plate 69.

-^ emhrotoery
I rr rioics
Cciririrya
of the

/<?rj/ft rT^i'<?)rt((t
^cc^tx. n e.se
. F KEl-L. FH0T0-L1THO.8 FURNfVAL S'^ HOLBORN-E C
- .

The Pink
 ?1ale 70.

f <r/fis-/ynpe/ for

//SO

"Photo-Timt! cy J»-T!«s Aiteroun I.olwion 'rf C

18^^ Cenlurv, Versions of the fink

 More Parallels, 137

but such affectedly graceful growth is not

quite in keeping with the quasi-natural ren-
dering of the flowers.
Further parallels between the and the iris

fleur-de-lis are drawn in the chapter on Tradi-

tion, pp. 161, &c., and in that on Symbolism,

p. 241.
The pink or picotee occurs frequently in
Oriental whence probably the
ornament,
Italians of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries borrowed it. In the Italo-Persian
brocade on p. 149 the indebtedness of the
weaver is obvious.
Among the comparatively late Renaissance
flowers on p. 136, interesting as showing a
variety of modifications all more or less ac-
cording to the scheme of the embroiderer,
only one instance occurs in which the curled
horns of the pistil are made use of. In some
examples on Plate 69 the horns, more or less
modified, are a prominent feature. The modi-
fication of nature in the various renderings
there given is according to the material and
mode of work, embroidery, incised work,
inlay, carving, and so on.
As in the case of other plants alluded to,
the late Renaissance renderings on Plate 70
are ultra-elegant and graceful.
In the very excellent panel from the Taj
13^ Nature in Ornament,

Mahal (Plate 66) the poppy is trained de-

liberately in the way it should go — a delicate
and graceful way, for all its formality and, ;

for all its symmetry, varied.

The damascened patterns on p. 6i are
more distinctly Indian. In one of these, the
occurrence of sepals, which the bud naturally
sheds as it bursts, has already been pointed
out ; in the other the severe lines within
which the growth is compactly grouped, result
in distinct dignity of design.

Ghiberti's poppy on Plate 71 is one of the

most satisfactory of the flower-groups border-
ing the celebrated doors at Florence. The
leaves are just conventional enough, and the
seed-vessel or poppy-head tells for what it
is, at once a characteristic and an admirably

ornamental feature.
In my own
poppy-pattern on Plate 72, the
brush touches are such as could most conve-
niently be reproduced in block printing. It
is meant for pattern first and poppy after-
wards.
In the border on p. 172, the growth is

comparatively natural. The flowers are

arranged in the order indicated by the
necessities of composition, and the growth
is made to accommodate itself, with as little

violation of nature as possible, to them.

 ^]d±e 71

Poppies by Gbiber1i, V)ror)^2.

 ^laie 72.

pMOTO TiMT, oy _ ames Ajc«Tinaii,Lcm<ion .W C

Yoppy patter-n.
 More Parallels, 139

Wheat ears are a favourite symbol in

Gothic work, but the rather intractable growth
of corn seems to be against any great variety
in its treatment. The stiffness of the design

I02. Modern Gothic pomegranate. B. J. Talbert.

on p. 89, which belongs to the period of the

Gothic revival, is likely to be more noticed
than its ingenuity, which is all the artist's own.
In the Italian silk on p. ()Z^ the wheat ear
140 Nature in Ornament.

is reduced to a pattern ; in the carving on

p. 90, it is the leaf-blades that are manipu-
lated. To adapt the rather rank growth of
the Indian corn to the purpose of a simple
and satisfactory border, as on p. 88, is some-
thing like a triumph of ornamental modifica-
tion.
mainly in Gothic art that the thistle
It is

has been taken as a motif but there is a wide

;

difference between Hopfer's scroll on Plate 16,

and that on Plates 83 and 91, and between
any of these and the late G. E. Street's bold
experiment in modern Gothic on p. 54. My
own pattern on Plate 38 is thistle-like (it
was in fact suggested by the artichoke, the
king of thistles), but the natural characteristics
of the plant are deliberately sacrificed to the
purposes of pattern.
In the representation of the pomegranate,
the bursting of the fruit (as
already mentioned on p. 74),
has been very variously
rendered. The late B. J.
Talbert, too (p. 139), turned
the seeds to ornamental
account. Mr. Morris's fruits
on Plate ^J burst natu-
rally. In the Chinese pattern
103. Pomegranate. on Plate 73 the bursting
 ^late 73.

16'^ C<?nrury. German

o(i3 Cmbroid .O^ir>ese'To\veQrd<mXe %<iUT n

HELL, f H070-UTH0. e.FURNIVAL S"' HOLtOnK, L .0 .

poiDegranates
 More Parallels, 141

of the fruit is indicated only by a change of

colour no seeds are revealed. The sixteenth
:

century German treatment (same plate) is

equally arbitrary.

?.
'

>n' /
^ <>-'
^" -k-^-^'

•z/-:^

I
;

^:^ -"l^V^

104. Oak from the cathedral of iu-_i„-

Persian influence is seen again in the Italian

rendering on p. 149. One assumes that the
pear-shaped fruit on 140 is meant for a
p.
pomegranate. The Gothic ornament on p. 60
142 N attire in Ornament,

stands also,no doubt, for

the pomegranate but it is ;

quite a traditional rendering,

by a man who probably
never saw the fruit. Com-
pare this also with the pine
patterns on Plate 84 and on
p. 157.
The various renderings of
the oak, Classic on p. 94,
Gothic on Plates 29 and 74,
Italian on p. 247, Sicilian
below, and other examples
105. Assyrian Tree of
Life.
on p. 53 and on Plates 9
and 83, have none of them
any resemblance to
the characteristic
Hispano - Moresque
oak scroll on p. 141,
which is akin rather
to the vines on pp.
1 13 and 114.

Reference is made
elsewhere (p. 246)
to the daisies on
Plates 122 and 123,
and (p. 88) to the
examples of the ivy
occurring on Plates io6. Oak — from a Sicilian silk.
 <Plate 74,

if- T<?"^7Ci

-^ITi 1 //^

aes Ajc«pni»n i-cndoTi AC

Gothic Oak Or^nan^eiot

 More Parallels. 143

24 and 81 and on
p. 57. The ver-
sions of the oh've
on Plates 50 and
81 need only just
be alluded to.
There is some-
thing to be learnt
from a comparison
of the various con-
ventional trees, As-
syrian on pp. 142
and 239 and Plate
80, Greek on
Plates 24 and 81,
Roman on p. 59,
Indian on Plate yy,
Coptic on Plates
49 and 57, Sicilian
and Italian on
Plate 120 and
p. 58, Romanesque
opposite.
It is wonderful
with what unani-
mity ornamentists
have everywhere,
107. Romanesque Tree of Life.
and from the be-
ginning of time, resolved the growth of the
144 Nahire in Ornament.

tree into its elements and made it into orna-

ment, reducing its outline in many cases to
the shape of a single leaf, and its branches
to something like smaller leaves. Those to
whom such rendering of natural form does
not come easily, by instinct as it were, were
not born for ornamentists ; let them turn
their attention to work for which nature has
fitted them.
Comparison may further be made between
the works of modern men (Plates i, 22, 23,
42, 56, 86, 87, and 98, and pp. 39, 54, 64, 89,
139, 180, 185, and 226) and, lastly, reference
;

to my own design (Plates 9, 14, 31, 38, 39, 40,

48, 52, 59, 61, 72, 75, 85, 89, 90, 102, 106, III,
112, and 123, and pp. 93, 172, 173, 174, 223,
and 245) will help to explain more clearly
than words, not what I think necessarily good,
but the degree of naturalism on the one hand,
and of convention on the other, which seem
to me personally permissible in ornament.
To any one in the least susceptible to
natural beauty, it is not difficult to under-
stand the resentment which some persons
feel towards any interference with nature.
To disturb it is to deform it, no doubt but ;

in the interest of cultivation ithas to be done.

Brier, and bracken, and yellow gorse must
give place to rose gardens, apple orchards,
 (plate 75-

C r KELl. mOTO-llTHO.e.FUHNlV*L S» HOLBOHN.t.C.

Comparatively natural Lily Panel

 "

More Parallels. 145

and fields of corn. They too are beautiful ;

not the less so that they owe something to

the hand of man. It is, after all, a false and
rather a cowardly sentiment which makes us
afraid of disturbing what is beautiful, when
the end is a beauty better worth having.
Those who profess to follow nature seem
sometimes rather to be dragging her in the
dust. There is a wider view of nature, which
includes human nature and that selective and
idealising instinct which is natural to man.
It is a long way from being yet proved that
the naturalistic designer is more "true to
nature " than another. It is one thing to study
nature, and another to pretend that studies
are works of art. In no branch of design
has it ever been held by the masters (least of
all could it be held by the masters of orna-

ment) that nature was enough. It is only the

very callow student who opens his mouth to
swallow all nature whole ; the older bird
knows better. " Lor, how natural " bursts
!

out the admiring rustic : the artist in like case

thinks to himself " What perfect art
!
146 Nature in Ornament.

IX.

TRADITION IN DESIGN.

There have been times, perhaps, when art

ran too much in the ruts of tradition : there
isno danger of that just now more likeli- —
hood of our wandering so far from any beaten
track as to lose our bearings altogether.
Whatever the danger of merely traditional
treatment in design. (a danger less imminent
than once it was), it is time we bethought
ourselves that traditions are not inherently
pernicious. They represent, when all is said,
the sum of past experience. Past masters of
their crafts must be presumed to have known
something. The course of art ran, at all

events, more evenly along the broad smooth

ruts aforesaid.
Whatever the traditions of his art, and
whether he mean to follow them or not, the
student must acquaint himself with them. It
is not until he is acquainted with the traditional

ways of doing a thing that he is in a position

to form an opinion as to the relative merits
 ^latp %

Photo-Tint ov t-anjes Aj£erm»Ti.Lon<ion.W C

Orchid 8n Fundus pa^lteno - Chinese

 Tradition in Design. 147

of the divers ways of doing it : to presume to

rely upon hisunaided insight is sheer self-
satisfied —
conceit worse than the pedantry of
the typical purist (mock-mediaevalist, or what-
ever he may be) who
always so terribly
is

afraid of doing anything for which there is no

precedent in old work, that he is invariably
and inevitably dull.
Whether for his guidance or his warning,
then, the student needs to know the various
ways which natural forms have so far been
in

manipulated by the ornamentist. There is

the graceful Greek manner and the energetic
Japanese, the rigid Gothic way and the much
more strict Egyptian, the fanciful Chinese and
the suave Persian, and again the manners of
the Renaissance from the fifteenth century to
the eighteenth.
The most naturalistic type is afforded by
the Japanese. They from
start quite frankly
nature, and indeed seem to Gopy natural forms
as nearly as their tools and the conditions
under which they are working allow but they ;

seldom lose sight of the fact that they are

decorating something and so careful are they
;

of the conditions of design (as they understand

it) that one is frequently at a loss to determine
which is uppermost in their minds —nature
or ornament.
L 2
14^ J^ahLrein Ornament.

It is not meant to suggest for a moment

that Japanese ornament is in every way per-
fect : it lacks qualities indispensable to any
and noble style of design
really dignified ;

but in the mere treatment of natural form

as naturally as and yet ornament-
possible
ally, there is probably more to be learnt from

Japan than from any other source.

Although the traditions of the Japanese
are inherited directly from the Chinese, the
work of the younger race is characterised by
a vigour and spontaneity of design, with which
we are not accustomed to credit the elder.
But the floral element of design is character-
istic of Mongolian art from the first, so much
so that its prevalence in Persian and Indian
art betrays, one may say, the Mongolian
conqueror.
If at its best Chinese ornament is less
characteristically natural than Japanese, it is

more characteristically ornamental. Whatever

modification there may be of natural form is

all in the direction of design. Orchis, fungus,

and butterfly (Plate j6), each is designed into
its place, and is, moreover, made to conform

to the necessity of ornament. Musicians

have no very high opinion of what they call
"tuney " music. Perhaps Chinese ornament
may be " tuney," but at least it is in tune.
 ?i3te77

^k-^^i^

Conveolional Tree work

 Tradition in Design. 149

That is even more true of the kindred art

of India (Plate 77). There also everything
is doubtless inspired by nature, but every-

thing is compelled into ornament. The very

luxuriance of the design is suggestive of
tropical vegetation, but the ornament never
runs wild. The date-palm is there with its

108. Renaissance silk showing Persian influence.

scarred trunk, but the scars are made into a

pattern. So with the branched stem contrast-
ing with it, it branches into distinctly orna-
mental lines, and breaks out into equally
ornamental foliation.
The man who carved the lattice of which
a portion is given on Plate 'jj loved nature, no
doubt, but he was an ornamentist to the tips
I50 Nature in Ornament,

of his fingers and the superiority of Oriental

;

art in respect to rhythm, harmony, sweetness,

is the immediate result of working on the

Hnes of tradition, of devoting trained faculties

to the perfection of an accepted method, of
refining upon refinement until the acme of
easy grace is reached.
The Persian rendering of natural forms is

more free : there is more of the variety of

nature in it ; but its starting point is always
nature, whatever liberties the artist may take
with it : it must be confessed he does not
stand upon ceremony. One favourite freak
of his (Plate 78) was to break the surface of
a leaf by diapering it over with other foliated
or floral detail. He was enabled thus to
introduce amidst the smaller forms bolder
shapes, contrasting most usefully with them,
and yet not forming unbroken patches in the
design.
The artists of the
Renaissance bor-
rowed this idea and
made considerable
use of it. The way
in which the big
pomegranate shape
on the piece of six-
teenth century silk, icg. Egyptian symbolic papyrus.
 (Plate 78

rzrz^iu ,^;i.,:Knj.^^-"Ho-.i.»tX-;

Persian foliage
 Tradition in Design. ^51

no. Assyrian symbolic ornament.

shown on p. 149, is enlivened by the introduc-

tion of smaller floral details, betrays distinctly
the influence of stuffs imported from Persia
(compare it with the velvet on p. 73) the ;

design is Renaissance, but with a difference.

A similar influence is apparent in the
damask design on Plate 34 ;
indeed, there
was a period when European silk designers

worked habitually on those lines.

Tracing tradition back to its beginnings, we
find that the art of ancient Egypt was con-
fined within very narrow lines ; but within
those lines it fulfilled admirably what it pur-
posed to do. It is worth study, if only to see
how the symbolism which was at the root of
it was made to subserve to ornament, how
orderly arrangement and restraint in treat-
ment went far towards decoration, and how
the most severe simplicity resulted in in-
variable dignity (p. 1 50 and Plate 79).
Much the same may be said of Assyrian
design. It does not afford, it need scarcely be

said, any more than Egyptian, a fit model for

152 N attire in Ornament.

nineteenth century ornament; and the re-

straint which we observe in either (p. 151 and

Plate 80) was, perhaps, if we inquire into it,

not so much a matter of restraint as of neces-

sity ; but none the less it shows us what may
be done by self-control ; and, working as we
do under conditions which make it almost
necessary for us to assert ourselves, it is as
well that
we should
be remind-
ed f ro m
time to
time that,
if the world
went on
the whole
no better
then, at
Abstract Greek ornament.
least it ^^^'

permitted a naive and simple-hearted kind of

art, from which the most advanced of us have
much to learn.
Greek ornament is in the first instance
quite abstract in character (above), consisting
of curling lines and touches of the brush ;
but,

such abstract forms assuming by chance (or,

as I should say, of necessity) some resem-
blance to floral forms, it occurred to the artist
 n^late 79

"Khoto-TimT, tivwanies AKerniar,. London .W C.

Details of G6yptian Sculpture

 Tradition in Design, 153

112. Later Greek ornament.

to develop the naturalistic idea — much, as it

proved, at the expense of beauty and design.

This is ornament of
plainly to be seen in the
the later period (above), in which the spirals
in perspective and the scrolls which look like
wood-shavings, mark a very distinct step
downwards in design.
When it came to the rendering of the
natural shapes of leaves, berries, and so on,
the Greek continued to arrange such details
arbitrarily, with a view to composition and
without regard to natural growth. There is

no objection to that so long as the leaves are

not so natural as to call forsomething like
natural connection ; but in Greek ornament
the growth was not always consistent with
the detail.
In the lower border of ivy on Plate 81,
leaves, berries, and growth are alike conven-
154 Nature in Ornament.

tional ; upper border the three-pointed

in the
leaves are more natural than the berries, and
the stalks are too natural for the arbitrary-
order in which these are arranged.
Again, in the borders of olive, there is a
sort of naturalism about the fruits inconsis-
tent with their arrangement two and two
along the stem. Moreover, the flower intro-
duced into the lower example is a quite incon-
gruous feature.
The altogether abstract rendering of the
bay bottom of the plate— so abstract
at the
that one cannot be quite certain it is meant

for the bay —

is more absolutely satisfactory.

The earlier Greek traditions were the best.

Eventually, in Classic sculpture, bay, olive,
ivy, and other plants were rendered almost
naturally.
In the fragment of Roman carving on
Plate 82 we have quite a different kind of
thing : natural growth, that is to say, is

twisted ornamental lines, the tree is

into
made to grow as the ornamentist would have
it. There is a certain decorative treatment in
that (as there was almost invariably in ancient
art), but it is not ornament, and it is orna-
mental only to the extent that all sculpture
was, until in recent times it broke loose alto-
gether from tradition.
 ^WiXe SO

S^ HOLBORh E

Details of" NineVile Sculpture.

 —

Traditio7i in Design. 155

That idea of making natural things grow

unnaturally is continually cropping up in
ornament. It is illustrated again in Plate 83.
There is no mistaking Master Peter Quentel's
types. The nightshade, the columbine, the
pea, the oak, the thistle, are natural enough
too natural almost for the impossible lines on
which they grow the oak branches, for
:

example, are shown to

have each two separate
starting-points.
However much we
may prefer the vigour
of the Gothic work-
man to the somewhat
effeminate grace of the

113. Assyrian rosette.

Oriental, in that one
respect Eastern art is

more consistent by far detail and its dis- :

tribution go together, and are one growth,

however artificial it may be. The difficulty
in adapting comparatively natural forms to
artificial growth is very great ; only a master
ever quite gets over it.

I have already explained (p. 33) the de-

velopment of the Classic scroll. The tradi-
tion was taken up again by the Italians of
the Renaissance. The arabesques of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are Classic
156 Nahire in Ornament.

with a difference ; and down to the period of

the French Revolution, if not indeed of the
Exhibition of 1 851, through all the changes
which it underwent, we can trace in the scroll
the development, or it may be the degrada-
tion, of Classic tradition.
Examples in point occur in Plates 96,
99, 105; and
whether the
deviation
from the ori-
ginal idea
be in the
d ire c ti on
of nature
(Plates 17,
\
45, and 46),
or of abs-
tract orna-
ment (Pis.

18, 116, and

117), the
descent of the design always easily to be
is

traced. For better or for worse, one style

grew, that is to say, out of the other. As
certainly as the Assyrian rosette on p. 155
was influenced by Egyptian tradition, so
certainly did the tradition of such work
influence the Greeks.
 T^late 81

.'
.^kerman, Photo mil London

De-tails of Greek Vase painting

 Tradition in Design. 157

And so it was with Gothic art. We can

trace it through its various phases back to the
Romanesque, and so find a connection with
the Classic. Indeed, in some details of early

115. Fifteenth century fir-cone or pine-apple ornaments.

Gothic ornament one can trace a distinct

resemblance to Greek art, from which in

important particulars it is most remote.

In the detail from Notre Dame at Paris,
on p. 1 56, there is a distinct relationship to
the painted ornament on Greek vases, and the
typical " Early English " detail assumes at
times in the hands of the glass painter some-
thing of the same character.
Not only may one historic
style of ornament be traced
from another, but the very
details of ornament are in
many instances traditional,
and survive long after they
have lost any significance
they may originally have had ;

so much so, that what is

, . n6. Chinese flovvet
strange and unaccountable forms.
158 Nature in Ornament.

^fe) ''S^li^ 5^ «/
(plate 8!

p
-+—
3-
p
o
CO

P^
 Tradition in Design, 159

n8. Japanese diaper.

doubt as to the lingering influence of tradition

upon design through all that time.
It is especially curious, also, to notice how
on very similar lines very different and yet
clearly related forms are developed.
Whatever may have been the origin of the
characteristic form popularly known as the
honeysuckle ornament of the Greeks,* there
is no mistaking

the Egyptian lotus K\\i \il^S\iMiK^ lUfM

and papyrus or- !ffM\'{^ iir^r\\\ [fr^^

the Assyrian palm !/jmv\|f//^\\H/j^f^\l

ornament, p. 151. y^ f /^K\l in^^\\ ifK
\

flower forms, also gTi 1 Uf^Kxi i[F^\\ I IfFM

(p. 1 57), one seems i^^^\ fy^^.,\ f/^^\ j

to see very much '"^£. ^-=^,=F^i-v^ --rjj- '

the same lines ;

"9- Japanese diaper.

* (
Some Principles of Every-day Art,' pp. 104-107.
i6o Nahtre in Ornament,

I20. Lily-like Greek details.

and in the Indian naya, or many-headed snake,

the resemblance is so striking as to suggest
that serpent-worship may possibly have been
after all the starting-point of the idea.
The Etruscan anthemion on p. 158 is very
like the Indian naya (Plate 119) the Greek ;

details on the same page might have been

suggested by the young leaves of the iris,
which seem to me clearly to have suggested
the Assyrian pattern on Plate 80.

121. Romanesque detail. 122. Gothic pattern.

 (Plate 8:3.

C f KtLL. PHOTO-tlTMO.e.FUHNIVAL S"' HOLBOBN E

16^^' Cenlury German desian

 Tradition in Design. i6i

The resemblance of the Japanese diapers

on 159 to Greek brushwork is explained
p.
somewhat by the fact that they also are
brushwork.
Other Greek details, especially some of
those on p. 160, take, as before said, dis-
tinctly the form of lilies.
In the Romanesque development of the an-
themion (p. 160) we have, indeed, leaves of the
most conventional, but there is no mistake
about its source and, strangely enough, the
;

leaves spring from a semicircular feature

resembling that from which the separate
serpents' heads issue in Plate 119.
Here, too, as in the Early Gothic tile pat-
tern on p. 160, is foreshadowed the fleur-de-lis,
which assumes a more distinctive shape in
the Gothic cross on p. 238. Fully developed
instances of the fleur-de-lis occur on p. 241.
The fleur-de-lis, says Voltaire, was obvi-
ously derived from the top of a halberd ;

but whence, then, the form of the halberd ?

There is not much room for doubt that the
actual form of the fleur-de-lis was suggested
by the iris but for all that the ornamental
;

shape is only a development of the old idea

in a somewhat new direction.
seems as though, whether because of the
It

perpetual recurrence in nature of radiating and

M
 ;

l62 Nature in Ornament.

concentric forms, or
whether because of
the inherently orna-
mental disposition
of the old lines, the
ornamentist could
never get quite
123. Concentric forms, seaweed.
from them away
for long at a time their influence appears
;

even in the comparatively

natural design on Plate 85.
Certainly the glass painter
in designing a cruciform
nimbus, the detail of which
is given (124), had no idea
that he was following Clas-
sic precedent at all ; nor
124. Gothic.
he who stencilled the diaper
of rays on the screen of a Norfolk church
(below). The rays of light
arrange themselves more or
less in the familiar order
as do the lines of a cockle-
shell (p. 222), —so much so
that it has been contended
that the Renaissance shell
ornament only a varia-
is

tion of the anthemion.

125. Gothic diaper. In the Rcnajssance or-
 .

^1ate 84.

W^i^^

15'^ Ci^'Jl'v*''

C^nt\j- .^

i AkeraanHiotoliti Loadoi

Late Gothic Pine OrnaTDeDts

 Tradition in Design, 163

naments below, distinctly

founded upon the ancient
lines, the introduction of the
oak-leaf and of the pods is

not altogether happy ; the

designs are too plainly made
up ; on the other hand, the
serrating of the leaves (p. 164),
and the substitution of pods
(p. 20) in their stead, are new
126. Renaissance
departures, quite justified by ornament.

success.
It is only by such departure that success
is possible. What has been done is done
with, so far as design is concerned. Its teach-

ing is —
what is valuable, if only we would learn
from it the way it was done. We waste our
time in copying the
forms of ancient art in-
stead of trying to pene-
trate its secret.
It is by virtue of its

eclecticism, not of its

archaeological accuracy,
that the work of such a
man as the late William
Burges has any hold
upon us. He founded
127. Renaissance ornament. himself, indeed, upon
M 2
164 Nature in Ornament.

Early French Gothic, and he was inclined to

like anything answering to that title, but he
did not scruple to borrow from Oriental or
Classic what suited his purpose. And
art
although his manner was archaic, his ideas
were his own. He found room in his deco-
ration even for a
joke now and then,
the very surest
sign that he was
quite at his ease
in the habit of
mediaevalism he
chose to assume.
Such
assump-
tion may not be
altogether affecta-
some men.
tion in
Yet our art must
be ours, whatever
128. Renaissance anthemion.
else may
it be.
A man may confine himself to the lines of
tradition and follow them, if he will, or if
he must ; but why follow traditional forms ?
there is no good tradition for that.
(Plate 85

to

[1-

7>
P
O
O

i ^
 1^5

X.

TREATMENT.

The obvious fitness of certain natural forms

to certain purposes of ornament, and to
certain processes of work, needs no pointing
out.
Some simple leaves suggest of themselves
how easily they could be rendered in painting.
One stroke of the brush is enough to indicate
a blade of grass or a willow-leaf ; a series of
touches will express at once the compound
leaves of the acacia, tare, or other pod-bearing
plants. On Plate ii8 such leaves are used
indefinitely to suggest indeterminate foliage.
Again, the petals of many flowers may be
painted with so many dabs of the brush.
With the one can indicate a bunch
finger-tip
of berries, a berry at each touch. And not only
in painting is this so each particular craftsman
;

sees in nature the chance for his particular

craft, and, if he is worth his salt, seizes it.

It is clearly the business of the ornamentist

to select the natural types which lend them-
 1 66 Nature in Ornament.

selves to his purpose ; not to take things as

they come, but to choose for painting, forms
which are paintable ; for carving, what is

carvable ; for metal, malleable shapes ; and

so on.
It would be absurd to adopt for any process
of conventionalism a model of which the
character is inevitably lost in such a process.
You would not choose for rendering in coarse
material a type characteristically delicate,
for a colourless substance one depending
altogether on its tint, for a dull material
forms characteristically crisp, or for one diffi-

cult to manipulate forms full of intricate and

subtle detail. That would be at best only
bravado. Ordinarily it comes of sheer ignor-
ance. In design, as elsewhere, brains count
for something.
We have, then, to seek in nature, not only
beautiful types, but types amenable to our
artistic purpose and the means by which we

intend to carry it out. The very mention

of a material is often enough to suggest avail-
able types in nature.
Indeed, would be time well spent by the
it

student if he were to ask himself from time to

time a question or two of this kind To what : —
decorative purpose are such and such plants
fit ? or, what plants are adapted to such and
 —

Treatment. 167

such materials, to such and such treatment ?

and so on.
And it should be noted that, just as it is

not in the most romantic, or what is called

picturesque, scenery that the landscape painter
finds subject-matter for his pictures, so it is

not in the most obviously elegant and grace-

ful forms of growth that the designer seeks
his inspiration. The convolvulus, the passion-
flower, and the birch tree, do not lend them-
selves especially to ornament.
The experienced designer gets to know how
useful some forms are, and how hopeless
others. He
knows, too, that nature, kind as
she is to those who approach her in the spirit
of conciliation, never does his work for him.
Natural form is resolved into ornament, that
is by treatment.
to say, only
This is a point on which dogmatism is
peculiarly dangerous, and advice of practi-
cally no value. An artist must settle for
himself what he shall render, and how he shall
render it. No
one but himself can determine
for the individual what he can do. He may
take by assault the position we pronounced
impregnable. The conditions of success are
that he should form a just estimate of his own
powers, and regulate his ambition accordingly.
His treatment of a natural type is his
1 68 Nature in Ornament,

justification for choosing it. Having selected

a type, he should have no great difficulty in
treating it. Technical difficulties suggest to
him fresh expedients in design. And if he
really belongs to the "natural order" of
designers, he works with perfect ease under
all manner of limitations as to space, line,
colour, and so on. The weight of conditions
only steadies him.
Between the treatment which consists in
merely composing natural forms with such
regard to decorative needs as may constitute
what by a stretch of terms is called orna-
mental arrangement, and the reduction of
such forms to ornament pure and simple,
there is the widest possible range, the whole
range of design in fact. The merely pictorial
treatment, on the one hand, seems as remote
from ornament as the absolutely abstract
invention, on the other, is removed from
nature. And yet it is impossible to deny
that a painter, for example, may combine with
a very natural rendering such regard to the
conditions of design as will constitute a
decidedly decorative, if not precisely orna-
mental treatment.
Such a treatment is exemplified in Plate
86, part of a frieze by Mr. Muckley. This
is flower-painting, if you like, and not orna-
 "Pmoto-Tiht: ev .Jam.s Akerm.i>.Lon<ion ,W C

"pruit pattern^ A^Ml1ar^ Morns,

 Treatment. 169

ment ; but it is something more than mere

flower-painting : there is design in it. As a
printed fabric in which the same flowers must
perforce recur at regular and very short inter-
vals, the artist himself and the producer of
the wall paper would probably be the first

to admit that it was open to reproach ; but

129. Abstract foliage — Persian inlay.

as a painted frieze, such a rendering has its

raison detre. There is no need to say that

my own sympathies lean towards something
more severe in design.
The delightfully restrained foliage above,
so absolutely ornamental that it might have
170 Nature in Ornament,

been derived from any

one of a hundred dif-
ferent plants, designed
by a man who probably
could not have painted a
natural flower to save his
life, fulfils almost per-
j<<^'

fectly the conditions of

ornament. '^M
Albertolli's
feeble celandine opposite
|

fails, on the other hand,

130. Woild-be ornamental
precisely for lack of treat- celandine.

ment.
One great charm in more conventional
treatment is that it reveals the individuality of
the artist. Mr. William Morris is very plainly
recognised in the design of the wall-paper on
Plate 87. It is not often that one sees in
design the claims at once of nature and of
ornament so evenly balanced as they are here.
The straight lines of the stems, for instance,
are characteristically natural ; but by the direc-
tion they are made to take in the design they
give diagonal bands, which fulfil a distinct
decorative purpose, preventing the eye from
wandering away in the direction of other lines
which would be less pleasing. The rendering
of the fruits again, whilst it is unmistakably
like nature, is emphatically ornamental.
 ^kte 88

'Pboto-Tiht" iy James Akerman Lonion.W.C

CbiDGse Lotus "PorcglaiD PaiT)tir)6 .

 Treatment, 171

The balance between natural form and

ornamental design is sometimes very evenly-
adjusted in Chinese art. In Plate 88, for ex-
ample, forms of leaf and flower are given with
considerable fidelity to nature. The art has
consisted mainly in their systematic distri-

bution. Light-coloured water-lilies occur at

regular intervals, backed each by a leaf in
middle tint, with leaves in reverse of still
darker tint connecting them, the light ground
being diapered over with wave lines (appro-
priate enough to the water-lily), so as to give
value to the whiteness of the flowers. The
scheme is here very simple, but it results

_ in extremely beautiful
colour, and nature is not
outraged.
There is a wonderful
look of nature, too, in the
quite ornamental render-
ing of the " kiss-me-
quick " below. Compare
it with the more artificial

flower on Plate 44.

Other instances of
Chinese treatment occur
on Plate ']6, and on
131. Chinese rendering of p. 29.
" kiss-me-quick."
The ornamentist arrives
172 Nature in Ornament.

132. Comparatively natural treatment of poppy.

very soon at the conviction that it is of no

use entering into any kind of competition
with nature. He is not impressed by the
antiquity of the old, old theory that what is
fittest in nature is without more ado most fit
for ornament.
In the design on Plate 89, the form goes
about as far in the direction of nature as it

was advisable there to go. The growth is

strictly according to nature. A cobcea scandens

might grow so. All that has been done is to
make it take lines which conform to the very
arbitrary demands of the Jacquard loom, and
to choose details which were not merely
graceful and characteristic, but capable of
being rendered in two flat tints — or, more
strictly speaking, textures — upon the ground.
The border of field poppies above, con-
forms an equal degree to nature. The
in
flowers are not only chosen and composed,
they are made to grow as they were wanted.
 (Plate 89

^OTO-LlTnO.O.FURNIVAL S' HOLSORt- t C

Coboea Scandens - Linen Uamask.

 Treatment

133. Comparatively natural treatment of fig.

And again, in the fig border, above, the growth

is as natural as it could well be, considering
the purpose for which was designed. it

The next plate illustrates, on the other

hand, how far one may safely go in departing
from nature when it is desired to retain
something of the character of the plant. The
dandelion on Plate 90 is systematically re-
duced to ornament. The lines it takes are
if not actually systematical, very carefully
balanced. The jagged edge of the leaf
assumes almost the form of a Greek wave-
line. The bracts develop into radiating lines
of ornament. But though the growth is thus
made formal, the serration of the leaves thus
simplified, the bracts thus exaggerated —the
idea is yet to suggest the dandelion, and no
other thing in nature.
174 Nature in Ornament.

134. Ornamental treatment of strawberry.

Ornamental treatment consists largely in

the deliberate disregard of pictorial considera-
tion. There is nature still in the strawberry
border above, although nature is not very
strictly followed. The leaves in particular
have been subjected to a process of orna-
mental treatment, similar to that employed on
Plates 13 and 14, and suggested by the forms
of Greek brushwork.
The treatment of the thistle in the German
wood-carving shown on Plate 91, is so essen-
tially ornamental that one scarcely knows
whether to describe it as a rendering of the
thistle or a development of the scroll. It shows
in either case the strong influence of tradition.
Ghiberti's poppy on Plate 71, although the
influence of the Classic scroll is very apparent
in it, is not so much a departure from the
acanthus scroll as a treatment of the poppy
somewhat in the manner of the scroll.
T^late 90.

P
O
1>
Oo
 ;

Treatment. 175

That is really the spirit in which to accept

tradition. It is not something to be religiously
preserved, but handed on.
We are too much in the habit of adopting
traditional forms,though all necessary
as
modification had been done for us. That is
not how the good old work was done. It was
the result of constant reference, if not to
nature, at least to the conditions of the case ;

and our modern essays in what is called

" style " prove us often more Gothic than the

Goth, more Classic than ever Greek was.

The result of adopting any ready-made
selection of types and details, the very signifi-
cance of which is nowadays a thing of the
past, is inevitable common-place and dreari-
ness. Our treatment should be not only
modern but individual.
The adoption of the old lines is pardonable
only on theassumption that the perfect
rendering has been found and cannot be
bettered. That may be so occasionally.
And one readily admits there are render-
ings so perfect in their way that they must
always influence us but even though the
;

old rendering were perfect, what was perfect

then is rarely quite what is wanted now
and so it cannot fairly be contended that
tradition, powerful as it is, has any right
1 76 Nature in Ornament.

to say "thus far" to our invention. If we

halt it is of our own innate weakness.
Whoever is not quite without initiative

will believe always in the possibility, if not of

some new and better tunes than the old, at
least of some happy variation upon them.
Only in that belief, in the consciousness of
the vitality of art, can he put himself into his
work. Designer, he must believe that there
is yet possible such a thing as design ; artist,

he must recognise that art is not such an

artless thing as, on the one hand the devotees
of nature, and on the other the slaves of the
past, would have him suppose.
 k.te- 91

fMv4
Photo TlHT cy -ames AJtenr. Lonaon WC

Gcrmar) Gothic Thistle Scroll. Wood CarVm^

 177

XI.

ANIMALS IN ORNAMENT.

No doubt the most amenable model for orna-

ment is to be found in vegetable growth.
—
This is not because it is without order the
anatomy of plants needs, indeed, as careful
study as that of bones and muscles — but
because in vegetation the proportions of the
parts are naturally subject to such infinite
one obeys the general
variety, that, so long as
law of growth, there is no great fear of over-
stepping the bounds of verisimilitude and ;

verisimilitude, not " truth to nature," is the

law to which ornament owes obedience.
The forms of birds and beasts lend them-
selves less kindly, but still more kindly than
the human form, to ornamental manipulation.
The less, that one is likely to resent
is to say,
a liberty with the normal proportions of a
thing, the more readily it can be turned to
account.
It is not surprising, then, that the orna-
mentist has sought his inspiration mainly in
N
jyS Nahire in Ornament.

vegetable growth ; but it would have been

amazing if he had found it nowhere else since
;

the summer noon-day landscape is buzzing

with insect and the flowers themselves are
life,

ornamented more or less with living creatures

which the artist would be blind to ignore in
his design.
Bird, and moth are indeed so
butterfly,
obviously useful in any scheme of composition
that they have very frequently been made
use of merely to stop gaps in the designer's
—
ornament or in his invention.
One danger in the use of living creatures in
ornament is lest they should start out of the
picture, a danger not altogether avoided in
Plate 1 6, where the birds, though not pre-
cisely natural, are too picturesquely treated
to harmonise with the scroll.
Indeed, in Graeco-Roman, or what we com-
monly call Pompeian, decoration the beasts
are for the most part mere blots on otherwise
very likely graceful ornament. And it was just
so in the Renaissance ornament immediately
founded upon it— in much of Da Udine's
design, for example, and in that of Giulio
Romano. To have taken the trouble to set
out his design in delicate and graceful lines,
as on Plate 17, and then to perch upon
them ostriches, donkeys, and the like, seems
 ^late 92

Japanese Cranes
 Afiimals in Ornament. 179

something like sheer perversity on the part of

the artist.

Whatever may be the temptation to intro-

duce into a design anything which will occupy
an empty space and complete the composi-
tion, without regard to natural fitness at all,
it is really as absurd, when you think of it,

to put together night moths and daisies,

or butterflies and evening primroses, as it

would be to paint peacocks strutting about

on arctic shores, or polar bears prowling in
the jungle.
It is not meant to say, of course, that in
ornament only the particular creature which
preys upon a plant should ever be associated
with it. But it is an additional source of
interest when such creatures have some ex-
cuse over and above that of filling a vacant
space. Here, as everywhere, nature herself
will often furnish the designer with a valuable
hint. Notice the bronze-green beetles forag-
ing in the full-blown rose. See the bees on
the sunflower : they may be found diapering
its most interesting manner
plain disc in the
but the incident has never been made much
use of in ornament, not even when the sun-
flower reigned, for a brief moment of fashion,
over all English ornament.
You may have noticed also how the common
N 2
 —

i8o Nature in Ornament,

135. Dolphins used as ornament. George Fox.

broom, of which the foliage is so insignificant

as to go for little, is sometimes dotted over
after a shower of rain with the daintiest little
snails, whose delicately-marked shells form

quite a feature in the pattern of the shrub.

It is a very common fault in modern orna-
ment to introduce intoanimals or human
it

figures for the sake of bringing them in

as though merely by their introduction the
design gained an additional artistic value. It
is only when such figure or animal serves
some distinctly ornamental purpose that it
does so, only then that it ceases to detract
from the value of the design. Figures or
animals in ornament should themselves be part
—
of the ornament as they are in the designs of
Signorelli and Holbein (p. 202 and Plate 103),
and as they are in the frieze above. The
dolphins there are not mere porpoises but
 I^late 93.

Japanese Tortoises
 —

A 711772 a Is 771 07'7iament. i8i

ornament, as much so
as the scrolls themselves.
The dolphin is, of course,
a familiar feature in
Classic and Renaissance
design, but it is not
often, even in Greek art,

that it is so gracefully 136. Circular bird and

flower crest.
treated as in Mr. George
Fox's desisfn. He has studied
the antique to some purpose.
The Japanese have a most
ingenious way of disposing
creatures over a given sur-
face in a manner which, un-
137. Circular bird crest.
symmetric though it be, is

distinctly decorative ;
and
though the action
of the creatures
birds, as on Plate
92, tortoises, as
on Plate 93, or
whatever they be
is characteristic to
a very remarkable
degree, the sim-
plicity and direct-
ness with which the
f, 1 138. Ornamental indication of birds in
natural form and flight.
l82 Nature in Ornament.

139. Diaper of storks and chrysanthemum flowers combined.

natural action are rendered, is such as to make

us feel that the graphic power of the artist
was well under the control of his decorative
sense or instinct.
Their remarkable appreciation of what is
characteristic in natural form enabled the
Japanese the more effectively to reduce such
natural form to absolute ornament.
To adapt a bird shape to the circular shape,
as on p. 181, or to express the action of flight
in a few strokes of the brush, as on the same
page, appears to be as easy to a Japanese as
it would be difficult to us. His ornamental
faculty is still moreshown in a diaper
plainly
such as that above. Are they storks or
chrysanthemums of which it is made up ? He
has so successfully combined the character-
istics alike of bird and flower that you are left

in wonder as to which it was he adapted to

 1^1 ate 94

"Photo -Timt! tv •'icti^s A\.»rm»n,Loiiaon .WC

pernViaD C^cer^tncities
 Animals in Ornament. 183

Y^^
140. Uragon-riy diaper —Japanese.

the likeness of the other. It is so essentially

and so simply a diaper, that if seems not so
much to have been designed, as to have
grown out of a natural likeness between the
flower in profile and the bird in flight which —
likeness would, however, never have occurred
to us but for the designer. The explanation
of this combination of bird and flower, as also
of that on p. 181, is to be found in its heraldic
significance.The diaper of insects, above, is so
obvious, when we see it done, that we scarcely
appreciate the ingenuity with which the dragon-
flies range themselves in hexagonal order.
Absolutely archaic or non-natural creatures
lend themselves very readily to diaper work.
This is illustrated in the diaper of bats over-
leaf, and in the primitive patterns from Peru
on Plate 94. The Peruvian attempts at human
or semi-human form strike us only by their
comicality ; but the nondescript creatures in
1
84 Nature in Ornament.

141. Diaper of conventional bats.

the border at the top of the plate, and par-

ticularly the fledgelings and the cocks, are
not only comical but essentially ornamental
in treatment. The exaggeration of the cock's
comb is delightfully imagined.
The late William Burges, in the pattern
on p. 185, has cleverly adapted his birds to the
severe strap-work associated with them. One
is a little disappointed to find that the inter-
lacings do not actually form (as they seem at
first sight to do) the tails of the birds ; but
the design is ingenious and effective ; it is

built obviously upon Byzantine lines.

The Sicilian silk designers and their

 P:ate 95

Siciliap Silk palterns.

 Animals in Ornament. 185

142. Bird diaper by Wm. Burges.

imitators of Lucca and elsewhere in Italy,

made considerable use of animal form in
their weaving — carrying it, indeed, to the
extremest limit in actual pattern-work.
There was usually, one may presume, some
heraldic significance in the creatures they
represented (Plate 95) but there is a lesson
;

in the way they are introduced, and in their

treatment, especially in the way their broad
masses contrast with the smaller foliage and
other such detail associated with them. Fan-
tastic they often are, but still they are quite
natural enough. The continual recurrence of
creatures more would be intolerable.
like life
The fault in the otherwise amusing pattern
overleaf is that one cannot put up with the
same little twins ad infinitum.
i86 Nahire in Ornament,

Birds are very frequently to be found

amidst the arabesques of the Renaissance,
with which they are not, it must be confessed,
always in keeping. The introduction of a bird
is rather a cheap solution of the difficulty
there may be in occupying any awkward
interval in the scroll itself without in any way
interfering with the grace of its lines or the
ease of its curves. It was quite a common
practice to terminate a pilaster or other tall
panel with an eagle taken bodily from the
Imperial Roman standard, its feet planted
firmly on the rim of a vase, its wings amply
and very conveniently filling those topmost
ang-les of the
panel so diffi-

cult in many
instances satis-
factorily to oc-
cupy. This is

well enough,
once in a way,
if only the
eagle be not
too much of
an eagle for
its place. Or-
dinarily the
birds pecking 143. Repeating figure pattern.
 Tiate 96

16^^'
Cet^turv Wood Carving
 Animals m Ornament. 187

144. Conventional peacock border — Indian.

at berries or what not

Renaissance ara-
in
besque, as on Plate 96 (and in the Roman
work from which they are borrowed), are
comparatively too real. They would be more
in place had they been modified in conformity
with the ornament about them.
The Oriental ornamentists were invariably
more careful in this respect. The peacocks,
for example, head of the page, whilst
at the
like enough to nature to be recognised at a
glance, are quite conventional enough to
correspond with the foliage and their value ;

as masses of solid colour amidst the smaller

and more broken detail is none the less on
that account.
As a rendering of the bird, and especially
of the bird's wing, the Indian example
leaves much to be desired —how much will
be seen if you compare it with the ancient
Egyptian renderings. The vultures over-
leaf, and the hawk on p. 189, afford types of
i88 Nature in Ornament.

145. Egyptian^wing treatment — vultures. f'

simple, dignified, and decorative wing-treat-

ment.
But it is not only in birds that wings occur
in ornament. They are appended (more
especially in Renaissance art) to every con-
ceivable thing, to sphinxes and chimeras, men
and animals, griffins and all manner of gro-
tesques, cherubs' heads, globes, hour-glasses,
and symbols of every sort.
In adapting wings to the human form the
great danger is that of disproportion. To make
them of sufficient size to support the body is
out of the question the design would appear
;

all wings. All that is to be done is to propor-

tion them decoratively to the figure, without
any attempt to make them mechanically
adequate. One may suppose them to be
features which through disuse have dwindled
to proportions artistically adequate. The
 Animals in Ornajuent. 189

tiny cupid's wing, for example, just budding

from his chubby shoulders, the mere germ of
a wing, seems to belong more intimately to
his body than any other form of wing yet
invented.
Still more difficult is it satisfactorily to
arrange the wings about a cherub's head.
One remembers windows a
in certain old
glory of colour resolving itself, as you look,
into a mystery of mingled wings and angel
faces ; but the attachment of the wings is

best not too closely inquired into. Neither

is it well to consider too accurately the
mechanique of the wings in which Delia
Robbia embeds his sweetest of child faces.
One is too thankful for their beauty to
blame him for not having accomplished what
is after all impossible.

146. Egyptian wing treatment —hawk.

IQO Nature in Ornament.

The idea, common enough, of wings in

the place of arms or in the place of ears
(it is beautifully carried out in the bronze
head of Hypnos, in the British Museum),
seems more anatomically possible, and may
be most ornamentally rendered.
In dealing with quadrupeds a single
device has for the most part sufficed alike :

in the winged bull of Assyria, in the Greek

gryphon, and in the Evangelistic symbols of
early Christian art, the wing is made usually
to grow from the shoulder so as to form, as it
were, one member with the fore leg remov- —
ing the creature, indeed, by so much from
nature, but not bringing it anywhere near to
the ideal winged creature. The mechanism
of the trick is too apparent. There is none of
that mystery by which alone we might pos-
sibly be impressed. In Sansovino's griffins,
on Plate 104, one misses the fore legs no
doubt, but the wings which take their place
seem on that very account to be anatomically
more possible.
The outspread bird's wing has always been
considered a most valuable "property" in
ornament but although it is usually the
;

bird's wing that one meets with in design, the

bat's wing occurs also, more or less in associa-
tion with devils and dragons, as the bird's
 q^late 97

-^LdterftlGb
tLL PHOTO-t-ITHO. 8.FUHN1VAL S"^ HOLBORN E.

CoDveotiopal Butterflies
 Animals in Orna^nent, 191

147. Bat diaper.

wing with angels and cherubim. The bat

itself is a symbol very frequent in Chinese

art and its derivative Japanese (pp. 184, 194,

and above). It is represented, however, in

the gayest of gay colours, and in shape so

turned to ornament that it is difficult at first
to identify it. Were either form or colour
more naturally rendered the effect would cer-
tainly be less distinctly decorative.
The wing of the butterfly is so obviously
ornamental that one wonders how it is that
only the Celestials have turned it to any
good account. In their embroideries especially
the Chinese have made admirable use of it

(Plate j6) —
ornamentalising it sometimes in

the most extravagant manner, as, for example,

in the most important instance on Plate 97,
where the under-wings are fringed somewhat
in the manner of the tail of their sacred bird,
which itself is a sight to see.
That the anatomy of the creatures found in
192 Nahire in Ornament.

ornament is so seldom all that a naturalist

might desire (the creatures on Plate 98 are
more realistic than an ornamentist could wish),
is sometimes, and to some extent, owing to

the exigences of ornamental design ; but it is

more often the fault of insufficient acquaint-

ance on the part of the designer with the
facts of zoology.
Few men have even nowadays the chance
of studying nature from end to end ; and in
the middle-ages the " Zoo " was not within a
shilling cab-fare of the church. The Medi-
aeval sculptor, however, was, according to his
possibilities, more studious of nature than we
are accustomed to suppose abundant
: there is

evidence of that in his work. His compara-

tive ignorance saved him as a rule from
too directly recalling this or that zoological
type in the demon or dragon of his invention
—and presumably of his belief.
Of the decorative, as distinguished from the
ornamental rendering of animal form, this is
not the occasion to speak at length. The
Egyptian lion statues and the Assyrian bas-
reliefs show what may be done in adapting it

to decoration and these abstract renderings

;

—
come very near to perfection nearer, at all
events, than any modern has come with his
zoological realism.
 ^laLe 98.

./AodeTD GcnuaD RizDaisaoce,- A 5ed^r.

 Animals in Ornament, 193

The sculptors of these master-works had

no occasion very likely —happy mortals — to !

concern themselves about treatment ; their

manner was and art had not yet
traditional,
"emancipated" itself from the control of fit-
ness. Possibly the sculptor exercised no sort
of conscious restraint over himself. He was
a slave, perhaps, and did as he was bid, or
belonged to a caste content to work patiently
on in the accustomed way. It matters little
to us why he did thus and thus so long as he
did it. The moral of his work is the same.
It is a plea (even though the artist thought of

no such thing) for self-restraint on our part

Where he stopped short instinctively, never
dreaming of realism, we may stay our hands
knowing the value of restraint.
deliberately,
This we should do in decoration. In orna-
ment, the modification of all natural form
being inherently essential to it, even the
human form divine must step down from its

pedestal and submit itself to the lowly use to

which it is put. Mention has been made of
two old masters who could, without offence to
nature, bend the human shape to ornamental
purposes. In our own day the late Alfred
Stevens and Walter Crane have shown them-
selves equal to the task. If others cannot
modify the human figure without degrading
O
194 Nature in Ornan:ent.

it, that may

be an argument for omitting it
from their scheme of ornament, it is no excuse
for the introduction of raw nature in the place
of art. It is one of the ill effects of compelling
every student of design to acquire a certain
acquaintance with the figure, that he is tempted
to introduce it in season and out of season
into his compositions, at the cost very often of
consistency and ornamental effect. One is

inclined to ask what the little Love on Plate

99 is doing amongst the scrollery. It would
be at least as satisfactory without him.

148. Embroidered bat — Chinese.

 T^kle 99.

17^!'CeT)iurv Scroll Work. b.Gnbelm^

 195

XII.

THE ELEMENT OF THE GROTESQUE.

That the element of the grotesque has been

abundantly abused in ornamental design is

no argument against the discreet use of it in

design. But if we would reconcile reasonable
persons to its use we must ourselves keep
within the bounds of reason not of fact —
indeed, but of sober fancy.
One has a right to expect of creatures, how-
ever remote from natural possibility, a greater
degree of consistency than the artists of the
Renaissance appear to have thought necessary.
We are not satisfied, for example, that a
substantial beast should suddenly taper off
into wiry lines obviously and absurdly out of
relation to it, or that its neck should be so
inordinately lengthened that when one comes
upon the head at last it is with something of
a surprise : our dissatisfaction is aggravated
if that head should not after all tally with
the body, as when a human head is joined to
the trunk of a quadruped.
O 2
 ;

iq6 Nature in Ornameni,

It is a peculiarly unpleasant shock to us to

find that a creature has not onlytwo heads,
but one at each extremity of body even its :

of a myth we expect a beginning and an end.

A scroll may, so to speak, blossom into
creatures, just as a creature may develop into
foliage ; but it should be that —development
it is not enough that the tail of a beast break
out into vegetation. We don't expect a
creature so far developed as to have what can
be called a tail, to make quite a new departure
in the direction of foliage or scrollery and we
;

resent such freaks, as evincing a want of taste

in the artist.
Itwould be mere pedantry to pretend to
define in so many words the precise limits
within which one may take liberties with
animal form but one may safely say that
;

the more familiar the form is to us, and the

more realistically rendered, the more dan-
gerous it is to take them. The grotesqu
which reminds us obviously of some par-
ticular animal, is apt to strike one as if it

changed into ornament instead of developing

into it and wherever a creature has the
;

appearance of having been put together the

limits of discretion have been passed.
Those creations are happiest which seem to
belong entirely to the imagination of the artist,
^late 100
 The Element of the Grotesque, 197

to have been conceived in the spirit of grace.

We cease to judge them then by any standard
but that of fit design and beauty.
There is a pecuHar difficulty in harmoniously
combining in one creature the characteristics
of various animals. The acceptable grotesque
must be less a combination of creatures than
their hybrid offspring in the artist's brain
—a dream, a remembrance, a fancy —any-
thing but a patchwork. There exist, no
doubt, in nature, impossible-looking animals
like the giraffe, with its preposterous neck and
absurd little misfit in the way of a head at the
end of it ; but that is no excuse for dispropor-
tion in design.
It is not as with plant form, where we are
at perfect liberty to shorten or elongate the
stalks and branches, seeing that under cer-
tain conditions nature will do much the same,
modifying them, indeed, almost out of our
knowing. She seldom takes such liberties
with the limbs of animals, and when she does
we take exception to it, and find deformity
abnormal proportion.
in the
The artist may, in short, only do what he
can make seem right. The romancer who
can imagine, Dumas, impossible persons
like
involved in impossible adventures, and yet
interest you in them, make you for the
198 Nature in Ornament.

moment believe while you read —or at least

forget to doubt — has, so far as you are con-
cerned, created them. The ornamentist may
equally be permitted to invent what never
was or could be, if he can but persuade you,
while you look, I will not say to believe in
the impossible, but to accept it.

The taste of the artist and the prejudices

of the critic will not always go together. There
will always be risk of offending susceptibilities
in introducing the grotesque element into
design. On the other hand, to repudiate the
grotesque is up a valuable element
to give
in design, one difficult to secure by means of
—
pure ornament and worth having, even at
some risk of offence.
One may recognise the temptation to its

abuse, and the remarkable unanimity with

which artists of the Renaissance succumbed
to temptation, and yet make bold to assert the
possibility, and the existence too, of such
tasteful and artistic use of the grotesque as
only a purist could find it in his uncomfortable
conscience to reject.
To persons of a somewhat rigid way of
thinking, and they are not a few, the impossi-
bility of grotesque creatures is quite enough
to condemn them ; they see only, as they
would say, the absurdity of it all ; they would
 (plate 101

Late Golbic llluiDipation.

 The Element of the Grotesque. 1 99

pass over the grotesque as a mere blot upon

Italian arabesque, of which it is so essential a
characteristic. I would maintain on the con-
trary, thatsomething at least of the variety
and pregnancy of Quattro- and Cinque-cento
design is due to it, and accept it for what it
is, a most convenient and effective means
of counteracting the dangerous tendency of
mere ornament to lapse into monotony and
all-overishness.
Moreover, whatever we may think of it indi-
vidually, would seem as though not only the
it

Cinque- centists, but artists before and after

them, came to the unanimous conclusion that
they could not well get on without something
—
of the sort and he would be a marvellously
clever fellow who could do without it all that
the craftsmen of the Renaissance did with its

help.
An artist must obey his conscience. It
treats him harshly when it cuts him from a
off
resource so helpful in design, so near at hand,
so needful.
The fact is, a mere scrollwork of something
like vegetable form does not always suffice.
The designer wants here and there certain
masses, or weight, which it is difficult to get
in the form of flowers and such like. The
difficulty has been solved sometimes, or rather
200 Nature in Ornament,

shirked, by the introduction of actual figures,

human or animal, among the foliage, excusable
only when they are reduced, by their treat-
ment, to strict conformity with the surrounding
foliage.
The nearer such approach to
creatures
reality, the more incongruous they appear in
the midst of non-natural foliage. You feel
that in the Italian decoration on Plate lOO,
the masks and griffins belong, in a way, fairly
well there and the goat-legged figures are not
;

so much amiss but the life-studies below are

;

entirely out of place. So are the little birds

in the corners. As for the disproportionate
duck, it beats the record of absurdity. Dispro-
portion of this kind is a very common failing
in design. For, to tell the truth, the difficulty
of keeping figures, human or animal, at all in

scale with the surrounding ornament is very

considerable. In the Persian panel on p. 169,
the ducks are disproportionately small. And
again, in Plate loi, the figures are for once
overpowered by the ornament. The artist
was no doubt naively pious to us such an :

" Annunciation " is simply grotesque.

In the case of creatures frankly ornamental,

with no claim to possibility, the danger of
disproportion is in great part avoided. You
are enabled by means of them not only to get
 ^late 102

Lustre Flaq-ues,
 The Element of the Grotesque, 201

just the weight and mass you require, but to

get it just where you want it whereas, in the
;

case of natural objects, there should be some

sort of dramatic reason for their occupying
this or that position. The creature in the
centre of the upper plaque on Plate 102 gave
weight just where it was wanted. In the case
of the less absolutely ornamental fishes in the
lower design, the worm supplied the necessary
centre of attraction.
The mere grouping together of creatures,
human, animal, or monstrous, though it may
form a kind of grotesque enrichment, seldom
results in anything which can properly be
called ornament. It is the resource of the

figure draughtsman, who relies naturally upon

forms with which he is familiar, and which
come more easily to his hand than any severer
type of ornament. He seldom succeeds in
producing ornament when he does, he
:

justifies himself by success.

One may have a personal opinion as to the
straight and narrow path in design, without
insisting that all the world should be driven
along it. And in the presence of masterly
work one recognises the master, and allows
that one's theorising does not apply to him.
In the work of Holbein and Luca Signorelli
one sees that the artist has digested his
202 Nature in Ornament,

knowledge of
the human figure.
In seeking orna-
mental lines, those
of the human
figure came natu-
rally to him, and
he was so familiar
with every turn of
it that it was easy

for him to bend it

absolutely to his
purpose — which
purpose was orna-
ment. It is sel-

dom indeed that

a master of the
figure cares enough
about ornament
to submit himself
to its conditions.
When he does, it

is probable that he
was well grounded
in it before ever
he took to the
figure. That was
certainly so in

149. Pilaster by Signorelli, Holbein's case.

 n)
mate 10^

.,0,0 Tint » t, r- • -.......^r ..ondon W I".

)tudies ID UrnaiDeDtal l^i6'ure\Vork

 The Element of the Grotesque. 203

You can see in Holbein's work (Plate 103),

how every line and every pose was dictated
by considerations of ornament, for all the dra-
matic intention he managed often to combine
with it. It is pretty plain to the designer that
such dramatic quality grew out of the lines
of his ornament, and did not suggest it. It is

that extra something which the consummate

artist always throws in — it was not bargained
for in the ornament.
Signorelli's pilaster (p. 202), is more entirely
made up of the figure —
and the upper portion
of it illustrates to some extent the dangers
which beset the painter. The lower half
illustrates how much can be done in figure-
work almost alone. Only a designer, per-
haps, can realise how studiously the lines of
the figures, actively engaged as these may be,
have been not merely controlled by decorative
requirements but suggested by them. The
figures were designed, not worked into orna-
ment they are conceived or remembered, not
;

taken from his sketch-book. Like Holbein,

Signorelli too delights to find a reason for the
form dictated by ornament.
The work of these men does not go to show
that the figure is peculiarly amenable to orna-
mental use but it shows at least to what good
;

ornamental purpose it may be put by those

204 Nature in Ornament.

150. Grotesque iron grille — German.

who have thoroughly mastered both the

figure and ornament. They are not many—
and never were.
Sansovino's monsters on Plate 104 are ex-
travagant, but still ornamental. The lines are
so cleverly schemed, and the effect is so un-
deniably decorative, that the strongest objec-
tion to such detail as that of the two-legged
quadrupeds at the top of the panel is swal-
lowed up in admiration of the composition as
a whole. But Sansovino's design is by no
means a model of what arabesque ornament
should be. It is an instance, rather, of what a
consummate artist may be excused for doing.
The artist begins by blotting in his design,
intent at mainly upon the lines of his
first

composition and the distribution of its masses.

We may take it that it was in order to get the
requisite weight of form that he roughed out
certain bolder masses, half accidental perhaps,
which suggested animals, much as one sees
faces in the fire. Once he has resolved upon
such masses in his composition, the designer
 9late ]04.

Photo Tiht ty James Akerm.ii Lonicn WC

Grotesque Fat) d, "by SansoVToo.

 The Element of tJie Grotesque. 205

is bound to give them an interest worthy of

their prominence. It is so, no doubt, that the
German ironworker came to design the hel-
meted and parrot-shaped heads in the grille
opposite it was his desire to avoid that
;

monotony of line which is the vice inherent

in wrought-iron work.
The imagined creatures are in
lines of
the best examples so essentially graceful, so
obviously inspired by considerations of orna-
ment, all is so entirely one, that it is self-

evident, to any one who has himself designed,

that it was the ornamental consideration which
suggested the animal element. Certainly it was
so in Plates 96, 103, 104. Only in that way
does it seem possible to arrive at a combina-
tion of grotesque and arabesque so essentially
harmonious that one has a difficulty in saying
where the one ends and the other begins.
The grotesque lends itself delightfully to
ornamental requirements, but only on one
—
condition that it follow the lines suggested
by ornamental design. It is especially amen-
able, because no thought of nature need enter
the mind of the designer, to hinder the free
play of his fancy. The lines may be the lines
of animal form more or less ; they must be
the lines of grace and beauty. Whether the
animal form be the root from which the orna-
 :

2o6 Nature in Ornament.

ment springs, as in Plate 105, or the outcome

of the scroll, as in the design on Plate 106,
the one essential thing is that it should be, not
merely in harmony with it, but part of it ;
gro-
tesque and arabesque must be one growth
the least shock to our sense of congruity is

disenchantment.
Scandinavian and Celtic ornament (Plate
107) never jar upon one. The strange and
impossible birds,and dragons dis-
beasts,
covered in the interlacings whether of carv-
ing or illumination, had doubtless a symbolic
origin but, so far as carver or penman was
;

concerned, he never conceived them first as

independent and then twisted them into
knot-work it is perfectly plain that the de-
;

signer gladly accepted the symbol because

he knew the value of emphatic masses in or-
nament, and found it most convenient to end
his strapwork with a head, to broaden it out
somewhere into a body, to make it branch
into legs or wings, as best suited his composi-
tion. In short, he invented his interlacings,
and then by the addition of legs, wings, head
and so on, converted it into a sort of dragon.
Abuse of the grotesque, which goes far to
account for the disfavour with which any-
thing of the kind is by some regarded,
comes partly at least from the fact of the work-
 q^late 10^.

Grotesqi:ie fi6,tire, Alarco^entc da Ra-VenDa

 The Elei7ient of the Grotesque. 207

man being more adept in figure-work than in

ornament. In the design, for example, of the
School of Fontainebleau there is no rest from
creatures, human or animal, starting out at
you ; it is bursting out into life all over.
The artist had usually, no doubt, some
reason of construction or balance for the in-
troduction of his perhaps ugly grotesque or
demi-figure — sufficient it may be to justify the
introduction of the figures, but certainly not to
excuse their ugliness. Memory calls to mind
certain human skulls in marble, bedecorated
with foliation in itself more or less graceful,
which are enough to make one loathe for the
time being the very thought of the grotesque.
This is just one of those cases in which
the absurdity of imitating old work becomes
most apparent. Here, at all events, one can-
not safely follow precedent it would be a ;

warrant for every imaginable extravagance.

In old work it is easy to forgive such things ;

one finds a certain compensating quaintness

about it ; but our pretence of quaintness is

intolerable affectation.
The problem of the modern designer is how,
without the ugliness or incongruity marring
the beauty of old work, to get that breadth of
mass, that variety of detail, that richness of
effect, which we see and admire in it. And he
2o8 Nature in Ornament.

will find the simplest solution of the difficulty

in removing his imagined creatures consider-
ably from nature. They should be fancies, not
misshapen or distorted facts. The foliation of
animal form, fantastic as it may be, should seem
to us almost a matter of course —what, under
certain impossible conditions, nature might
possibly have done. It is so in the land of
dreams.
The objection to the animals, grotesque or
natural, which figure among the scrollwork
with which the Loggie of the Vatican are deco-
rated, as also in the panel from Mantua by
Giulio Romano (Plate 17), is that they are
inconsistent with the ornament ; it is too thin
to support them, too conventional to har-
monise with them they are not part of the
;

ornament but patches in it.

This is a common fault, more apparent in
painting than in sculpture. In colour other
than monochrome one expects something in
the direction of natural colour ; and the
sphinx, for example, which is half flesh colour
and half fur colour, looks more than ever a
compound and not a creation. So also with
the texture which a painter is tempted to give.
The vaguer more possible he
a monster the
appears. Realise him and he becomes ridicu-
lous. When hair and scales and feathers are
 ^late 106.

O.e.FURNlVAt S^ M0L80R

Grotesque Scroll
 —

The Element of the Grotesque, 209

:,^

151. Wings reduced to ornament.

all naturally depicted you miss the natural-

ness in the creature to which they, it can't be
said belong, but are appended.
If a figure such as that on Plate 105 may
tail off into ornament (the doubt suggests
itself whether, in that case, the figure should
be quite so real) there is not only no reason
why be foliated and his
his ears should not
hair flow off into scrollery too, but every
reason why they should it is better so :

more logical certainly.

Again, winged head above,
in the case of the
it is surely permissible to remove such an im-

possibility still further from the possible. And

from the point of view of naturalism, the abso-
lutely ornamental appendages strike one, in
such a connection, as less absurd than obvious
goose-wings would appear. A fantastic ren-
dering of the wing is plainly compatible with
the grotesque (Plate 108). There at least
no one can quarrel with a departure from
naturalism, though the detail be so absolutely
P
2IO Nature in Ornament,

152. Ornamental dragon — Japanese.

ornamental as to partake, as it often does,

more of the nature of foliage than of feathers.
Over and over again the sculptors of the
Renaissance have shown that it is possible to
endow a monster with members which are
neither arms nor wings, and yet something
more alive than mere scroll-work. The one
essential thing, of course, is that such members
should belong to the creature.
The Japanese dragon above conforms ad-
mirably to the conditions of ornament. He
does not even break out into scroUery —he is

the scroll. His construction is anatomically

impossible : from the curl of his mane to the
turn of his claws he is unlike any imaginable
creature. Yet he is full of life and go, grace-
ful without any loss of energy, and altogether
one with himself —a fantastically ornamental
creation.
I have confined my remarks on grotesques
 ^late 107

F KELl , rnOTO-LlTHO.e.FURNIVAL S"' HOLiO«N,E C

. .

Keltic interlaced ornaTDent

 The Element of the Grotesque. 2 1 i

153. Arctic American grotesquerie.

mainly to the Renaissance, because in it and

its Classic precedent, but especially in it, the
ornamental capacities of grotesquerie have
been most fully developed. The grotesque
gave character to Gothic art, but did not
greatly enrich its store of ornament. The
monk or freemason or whoever he may have
been, found vent in it for his humour, his satire,

his humanity in short. It is because they

show us something of the man behind his

work that we like his grinning gurgoyles and
exuberantly humorous miserere seats, ugly
though they may be.
There is a certain naivety in all archaic
art which is likely to strike us as grotesque.
Of such unconscious grotesquerie it is not here
necessary to speak, further than to say that the
p 2
 1

212 Nature in Ornament.

conscious aim at anything of the kind on our

part argues us wanting in that first essential
towards practical design, common-sense if, —
indeed, it might not justify a certificate of
insanity. As the work of Arctic American
Indians one recognises in the design on p. 21
quahties decidedly ornamental; as to founding
ourselves upon it in any way, we might as
well throw off at once the clothes of civilisation
and tattoo ourselves forthwith.
 ,

^late 108

'Pkoto-Tiht'; iy J.me. Aierm.n.Undon.'W.C

CooVentiopal ^WTD^Tbrros
 213

XIII.

STILL LIFE IN ORNAMENT.

Considering the
popular and insa-
tiable desire for
novelty, it is re-
markable how little

variety there is in
motifs of decorative
design.
Our very famili-
arity with certain
obviously available
and consequently
well-worn types, to
say nothing of the 154. Spring blossoms on the
stream.
cheap travesties of
them, should be in itself an inducement
to us to go further afield in search of some-
thing less hackneyed.
The historic styles of ornament were, we
may be sure, much more alive than they
appear to us in the specimens surviving in the
collections and museums of to-day. To judge
 ;

214 Nature in Ornament,

155. Diaper of spiders' webs.

by them alone would be much as if we

estimated tropical scenery by the botanical
specimens at Kew. The impression one gets
from a casual glance round any museum is
that Greek ornament is all very much alike
so is Roman, and so is Renaissance and still ;

more so is Gothic, Byzantine, Assyrian, or

Egyptian ornament.
Undoubtedly there is always a certain dis-
tinguishing character about the work of any
ancient period, which is the first thing that
strikes us about it. The family likeness
asserts itself before everything to our unac-
customed eyes. But as the shepherd knows
his flock, though to us they are just sheep, so
the artist detects, even in ancient art (which
was not to our ideas particularly individual)
the individuality of the craftsman and the ;

more familiar he becomes with it the more he

sees in it a variety of which at first he had no
suspicion.
 ^^latelOg.

"PhoToTikt: bvJime.Ai:.rn..n Loudon W(

Ja.pa-nese'Piapers &^*?,vJith a iDeaniD^

 5

Still Life in Ornament, 2 1

156. Diaper of flames.

On an ancient Roman tripod in the Louvre

is carved a crown-imperial, quite conventional
and yet quite unmistakable. The top-knot
of leaves is very like the Greek anthemion ;

at the top is a bee two more bees attack

;

the flowers, and fill the gap where naturally

no leaves occur and again there are two
;

others between the foot-leaves and the leaves

of the stem, where there would be in nature an
empty length of stalk. If an artist of our day
had introduced such a composition into Greek
work he would have been accused of seeking
inspiration rather from a Japanese than from
any Classic source.
The truth is that all ancient art was once
alive, difficult as it seems to be to us to realise

that obvious fact.

Nevertheless would appear that Japanese
it

art is not only more directly and spontaneously

natural than, for example, Classic art, but that
its range is wider and more varied. Japanese
2l6 Nature in Ornament.

157. Cloud and bat pattern.

art has been fashionable, and is now for the

moment under a cloud of disfavour, the inevit-
able consequence of reaction. When that is

dispersed we shall still perhaps continue to

over-estimate or to undervalue it, according
to our idiosyncrasy. But, whatever its short-
comings in the way of grace and purity and
dignity of form, there is no denying its dis-
tinctive charm of spontaneity, variety, and
freshness.
No one was ever more alert to everything
in the shape of ornament about him, more
ready to seize a suggestion from nature, than
the Japanese craftsman. The snow falls, the

158. Cloud pattern. 159. Wave pattern.

 Tlate iiO

"Photo-Ti«T,' by J.mes Aierm.n London W, C

Garly Greek A\/aVe (S Lotus Diaper

 Still Life in Ornament. 217

almond blossoms drop, the rabbit huddles

itselftogether (Plate 109), birds leave their
footprints in the snow, fir needles and peach
blossoms strew the ground or float upon the
stream (p. 213), little fishes dart about in the
—
pool whatever happens furnishes him with
an idea for decoration. The spider's web,
with leaves
and flowers
caught in it

(p. 214), sug-

gests to him a
diaper.
He is far
indeed from
conforming to
our ideas of
symmetry. He
does little

more in some
cases than dis-
pose natural
160. Water and water-lilies.
shapes, ren-
dered in the simplest possible manner, in
an order which, if not precisely ornamental,
answers to some extent the purposes of orna-
ment (Plates 2, 91, 93, and 109).
would be pedantic to say that decoration
It
such as this may not on occasion serve all the
 2l8 Nature in Ornament.

i6i. Wave pattern, and water-fowl.

purposes of art pretending to no serious aim,

such, for example, as that of the cotton
printer. It is not essential that ladies' dresses
or peasants' petticoats should be designed
strictlyon architectural lines.
on the whole, inanimate nature has not
If,

been turned to full account in ornamental

design, historic ornament exemplifies pretty
well its fitness to our
purpose. The flames
of fire —to go beyond
still —were only
life

very occasionally
made use of by the
Japanese
-'*
(p.
^^ 215),
-'/'
,
162.
„.
Wave pattern.
 Still Life in Ornament, 219

163. Wave pattern.

but they were a very common motif of orna-

ment in Gothic art, so common indeed as to
give its character and its very name'^to the
style we Flamboyant.
call
In later times, William Blake founded his
wild style of ornament almost entirely upon
flames, and there has been even a later
sect, founding themselves upon him, whose

ornament is still more alive with tongues of

fire, still more restlessly flamboyant.

iiitiiC""

164. Wave ornament. i65._Wave ornament.

220 Nature in Ornament,

In Gothic art, again, cloud patterns are of

quite common occurrence, although so remote
from anything aerial that it is only by the use
to which they are put (as borders round a halo,
for example) that one knows them to have
any reference to clouds. That may be said
also of Chinese
and Japanese
cloud patterns
(p. 216). The
bats certainly
help to reassure
one that these
odd forms do
stand for clouds.
The birds on p.
238 are of similar
service. At all

events, there is

some variety in
the various Jap-
anese renderings.
The lines of
166. Wave and spray pattern.
waves have from
the first been used as ornament. The
Egyptian zigzag, the Assyrian water-diaper,
and the Greek wave, are among the earliest
border patterns. There is a late Renaissance
rendering of the Classic wave on p. 41,
 n^late 111

J Akerman.Photolnh London

S(^aW00d "Borders.
 Still Life in Or7iame7it, 221

.>. fln>u t i^^;>j^»^^^

...ii»..>,fc...i..>^^ .a>i>*>:ai>^j>*^**ai»* ^.

'f'^TJ*i>>

"^T^rii^

167. Decorative rendering of incoming wave.

In Celtic ornament one sees something of

the same kind. It is certain that the spiral
patterns on Plate 107 are suggested by water ;

as are also some of the carved ornaments of

the South Sea islanders. In the archaic Greek
diaper on Plate 1 10 (in which, by the way, there
is a strong family likeness to familiar Egyptian
diapers), the lotus is put there as if to prove
that it is not only taken from, but meant to
represent, water. Compare it with the wave
and lotus pattern on p. 217.
There are certain arrangements of waved
and zigzag lines which are so universally
employed in ornament that one can scarcely
describe them as Egyptian, Greek, Gothic, or
what not they are simply ornamental sym-
;

bols of water, as, for example, in the zodiacal

sign of Aquarius.
The Japanese patterns on p. 218 might
almost pass for Gothic ; but the distinctive
222 Nature in Ornament,

thing about Jap- the

anese renderings, and
they are very various,
is that there is more
movement in the water
(p. 219); and that the
artist turned to account
the crest of the wave
i68. Shell ornament.
and the spray
(pp. 219
and 220). Take away from the circular
wave ornament (164) on p. 219, the outer
frilling of conventional froth, and you have

a familiar Greek form. On pp. 219 and

220 the spray is represented by round dots.
The rendering of the in-coming waves on
p. 221 is more pictorial in intention, but in
effect is ornamental too.
It is only one more sign of the way in which

we borrow, and
have always bor-
rowed, our orna-
ment, that island-
ers like ourselves
should not have
gone more often to
the sea shore for
suggestions in de-
sign. Shells of all

kinds are in them- 169. Seaweed ornament.

 Plate 112.

C F KE.LL. rHOTO*LtTHO. e.FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN.e

Seaweed Paltei^n.
 Still Life in Ornament, 223

170. Heraldic mantling.

selves so beautiful in line and colour, that

they are quite sufficient to form the motif of
ornamental design.
It is, mainly the scallop shell
however,
which has been turned to account in orna-
—
ment for symbolic reasons, originally, no
doubt, but also because it is so obviously
ornamental. It falls, indeed, very nearly into
the lines of the anthemion, of which it has
been contended the Renaissance shell orna-
ment is only a variation. But, as in the days
of the Renaissance, and of the Roman Empire
before that, it was quite a common thing to
supplement decoration in mosaic or stucco
with actual cockle-shells embedded in the
walls and pillars, it is natural to conclude that
224 Nature in Ornament.

171. Heraldic mantling —wood carving.

it was thence the sculptor and the painter
derived their inspiration.
The shell is used in connection with a flow-
ing seaweed pattern on Plate in, on which
are also other varieties of seaweed borders.
But would have been better to have used
it

some other form of shell. Toujours cockle-

shell palls upon one at last one would prefer :

a limpet, or a mussel, anything for a change.

A more ornamental rendering of
distinctly
seaweed is given on Plate 1 1 2, in which the
scroll, conventional as it is, does not branch

either accidentally or after the manner of any

flower, butis forked as seaweeds and lichens
are. That form of growth is shown also in
the Japanese ornament on p. 222.
It is strange how we are inclined to branch
our scrolls always in the way suggested by
vegetable growth. Even mant-
in the heraldic
ling of the Middle Ages, where the idea was to
represent a scarf slashed about and cut into
 Pi^i'^j iitli I.ondoi^

"peacock l^eatber Pa11"cn7-Japa-^(^SG.

 Still Life in Ornanie7it. 225

ribbons, the shreds develop into something

so very much Hke conventional foliage, that
the idea of drapery is often altogether lost.

It is so in the frieze on p. 223 ; and in the old

German work on p. 224, where it takes almost
the form of strapwork, the strapwork is un-
commonly what in Mediaeval work of the
like
same period does duty for foliation.
Birds, natural and conventional, are of such
common occurrence in ornamenjt, that it

seems strange their feathers have not been

put to more use in design — more especially as
feather ornaments were always largely used,
not only among savage tribes, but in civilised
countries from China to the British Isles —the
very bedsteads of our ancestors were tricked
out in plumes, in a way which speaks volumes
as to their entire unconcern about hygiene and
even cleanliness : there are rooms of state in
many a noble mansion which can never have
been kept wholesome for long, and are some-
thing to shudder at now.
Feathers, were used as emblems of
too,
—
sovereignty those on which the vultures perch
on p. 1 88 have some such significance of course.
For all that, with one exception, they have
not been adequately adapted to design. That
exception is the peacock's feather.
It is interesting to compare the not too
Q
 5

226 Nature in Ornament.

naturalistic rendering of on Plate 113, with

it

the more strictly ornamental modifications

on Plate 114, and with Talbert's modern
Gothic inlay pattern below.
It is clear that the
Italian versions owe some-
thing to Oriental inspira-
tion. In the least natural
of them there is always
some character of the
original. The majolica
patterns, in particular, are
in their unlikeness yet so
like. The Coptic patterns
(p. 227) and the Persian
tile (p. 228) are further
removed than ever from
actuality, but still the
peacock's feather is un-
mistakable.
In all of these cases
the feather of itself suf-
172.
Inlaid feather ornament.
fices for its ornamental
B. J. Talbert. purpose. In Plate 1
1

a new principle comes in : there is a sort of

connecting stalk with tendrils, an element
of scroll-work not quite in keeping with the
feathers. But the way they are rendered is in-
teresting, and the effect is decorative enough.
 (Plate 114.

Feacock feather diapers.

 !

Still Life in Ornament. 227

It is a far cry from work of this kind to the

Rococo ; but one can hardly look at Plate 1 16
without seeing in this more than usually
graceful example of ultra-florid late Renais-
sance scrollery, a distinct resemblance to the
ostrich And, knowing how State
feather.
carriages were bedecked with plumes (the
custom comes
down to us in
the conventional
hearse), one can
easily imagine
how it occurred
to the coach-
builder to carve
feathers some-
what less flimsy,
which, moreover
173-4. Coptic feather border and he could gild
diaper.
The very notable
thing is that this feathery scroll-work is not
so unlike all other Rococo scrollery.
A not unusual form of ornament, or sub-
stitute for it, is the grouping together of
inanimate things, trophies, &c., as in the
pilaster panel on p. 229.
In connection with certain commemorative
monuments, there is a sort of reason for the
emblems and on occasion, as
introduction of ;

Q 2
 ;

228 Nature in Ornament.

for example in the

Doria Chapel at Ge-
noa, shields, helmets,
breastplates, swords,
and other insignia of
war can scarcely be
called out of place
but the conditions of
ornament are not
fulfilled by stringing

such things together

175. Persian peacock feather
pattern. down the length of a
pilaster. The composition on p. 229 may or
may not be ornamental —but it is not orna-
ment. Whatever excuse there may be in
Ancient art for the sacrificial emblem which
occurs at the top of the pilaster, it has no
significance, and no excuse in work of the
Renaissance.
In work of our own day, the bull's head
reminds one too much
of the butcher's shop,
and the Classic ox-skull is still more un-
pleasantly suggestive. Artists of the Renais-
sance, however, seem to have seen no reason
why they should not treat the skull orna-
mentally. To many of us the rather graceful
detail on p. 230 loses all its charm when we
realise that the cartouche is really a skull.
It is possible, of course, to dispose almost
any series of objects, natural or artificial, in
 Tlate 115.

J AkermaTi.PhotoLith London.

Peacock feather palters, Turkish.

 Still Life in Ornauient, 229

such order as to present

fX^h
what passes an orna-
for
mental appearance repeat ;

a shape several times over,

and it forms a sort of pat-
tern ; but that is not ex-
actly ornamental design.
The occasional introduc-
tion of such a thing as a cor-
nucopia (Plate 99), or a vase
(Plates 1 5, 57, 96, &c.), is not ^%
only useful sometimes as
affording a convenient start-
ing point for growth, but
it may be the means of in-
troducing a mass which is

very valuable in the com-

&^:
position. In that respect the
recurring vases in the centre
plaque on Plate 18, and in
the border on Plate 25, are "^^
useful, casually as they occur
in the design.
The most satisfactory of
such vases are the least re-
alistic. In Persian art in
particular we see the thing
reduced to the mere outline
of a vase filled in with orna-
ment, which by its treat- 176. Trophy panel
230 JSfahire in Orno.ment,

ment contrasts with the floral ornament

springing from it. An equally arbitrary
rendering of the vase occurs on Plate 28, the
pattern on which must be taken to represent
the water in it.

The shield, the tablet, and the cartouche

are so conspicuously useful in ornamental
composition, that at certain periods of design
artists seem with one accord to have relied

177. Renaissance skull ornament.

upon them, to the exclusion of other and more

fitting devices.
Used for its own sake, or merely for the
convenience of composition, shield, tablet, or
cartouche becomes a mere stock property, a
shift or stop-gap in design. Its introduc-
tion is quite happy only when it is called
for to bear a coat-of-arms,
an inscription, a
cypher, an emblem, or whatever may form
 (Plate 116,

tLl PHOTO-LtTHO.e.FURNIVAL S' HOUOHN £'

l^ococo Scroll work, Passarini

 Still Life ill Ornament. 231

178. Early Phcenician wreath.

part (and a prominent part) of the decorative

scheme.
Lifeless have thus their place in
things
ornament but they need to be used with
;

great discretion. This applies also to what is

more generally called still life. Bunches of
cut flowers are not in themselves ornament,
and the abundant use of them argues little
faculty of design. The garlands of fruits
and flowers which trail over late French
Renaissance art, are at best a makeshift, fit

only for a frivolous French boudoir. But

that a wreath may manly way
be used in a
is shown in the early Phcenician ornament
above, which is dignified enough in design
even for the decoration of a sarcophagus.
Nor is there any fault to find with Mr. Fox's
swags on p. 180.

There is nothing to wonder at, that in

countries where and
vines and roses all

manner of flowers are trained to grow in

 ;

232 Nature in Ornament.

garlands, and where it is the custom, as in Italy

to this day, to hang strings of fruit and maize
on the walls of the houses to dry in the sun
(where they form a delightful decoration), the
idea of something of the kind should have
found its way into ornament.
It was not altogether a bad idea, and it had

this to recommend it, that it afforded lines

not otherwise to be got, and lines, too, very
valuable in decoration.
That the device has been very much abused
is only too obvious. We cannot afford lightly
to give up the quality of vitality in ornament
and the festoon or swag is open to the objec-
tion that it is at best " still life," and as such
inferior in interest to living, growing form.
The inherent sinfulness of the device is an
invention of the purist. The offence is, once
more, mainly in proportion to the realism.
The more a swag looks like weight, the more
it wants suspending ribbons to hold it up and
nail-heads to attach it to, the less endurable
it is. There no occasion to waste one's
is

wrath over wreaths so absolutely ornamental

in intention as those of Nicolaus Drusse in
Plate 117.
The mere suggestion of a garland, such as
you see in quite early Renaissance work, can
offend no evenly balanced mind. It is often
 (i'late 117.

^3»lc4

^.M^hv^

'tb
17 . CeT)ttirv Scrollwork
 Still Life in Ornament. 233

E^^9I1
234 Nature in Ornament.

with its flying ribbons occupying the vacant

space.
Admitting the trivial purpose to which they
have been put during the last century or two,
I would like to say a word even in favour of

ribbons. Nothing could well be worse than

millinery in stone, in wood, or in serious
painted decoration ; but the frippery of the
later Renaissance is no reason why we should
not avail ourselves, within limits, of the grace
of line suggested by a strip of ribbon floating
in the air : that too is nature. Only pre-
serve us from actual millinery. The Gothic
variation of the ribbon or label is dignified
enough and admirably decorative.
It is pride of execution, and especially
of realistic execution, which is the real pit-
fall in the path of ornament. Even what
pretends to be no more than a memory of
something done before, should appear to be
always the outcome of the architectural or
other conditions, designed to go just there,
and introduced because just such enrichment
was wanted.
It must not be understood, however, that the

reproduction of merely architectural features

by way of ornament, is here advocated. The
Pompeian decoration on Plate ii8 is indeed
graceful and delicate, more especially as com-
 fplate 118

Fornpeian Wall painlin^

 Still Life in Ornaifient. 235

pared with the "canopies," which were the

stock in trade of so many Gothic craftsmen ;

but, whether in true or (what was more usual)

false perspective, such constructions are a
very poor substitute for design. They have
been employed pretty freely, and will be so
again no doubt. But the unprejudiced taste
is so little likely to be led astray by their
attractions, it is hardly necessary to point
out that the device is really banal beyond
endurance.
236 Nature in Ornament.

XIV.

SYMBOLIC ORNAMENT.

Ornament has primarily nothing to do

with story, poetry, or other purpose than
that which it sets itself —the purpose, that is

to say, of ornamenting some given space or

thing.
It may be quite true that ornament which
does no more than this deserves no very
high place in our esteem. The artist very
naturally magnifies art ; and to the crafts-
man craftsmanship is of the first impor-
tance ; but to him only. To mankind in
general it is the man behind the art that
is interesting ; and the Philistine is not such
a fool, after all, in asking of the artist who
claims his attention that he shall have some-
thing to say for himself When the everlast-
ing burden of his song is only, " See what an
artist am I !
" we soon weary of thatmono-
tonous brag, even though it be warranted by
some degree of achievement.
The craftsman very rightly insists upon
 (iVte 119

Photo Timt W I.bi.. Alt.fK." mJon Wf

bdian Na^a, Stone carVir)^.

 Symbolic Ornament, 237

ii:i!;.'iiu!iilli|l

180. Egyptian sacred beetle.

adequate craftsmanship. The rest of the

world finds craftsmanship inadequate, and
asks for something more.
We find accordingly that in ancient and
mediaeval ornament there is usually an under-
current of symbolism. Indeed, one might
safely say it is always there, and that when we
do not see it, it is only the distance that dims its

meaning to us. There is probably no single

detail of ancient ornament to which a sym-
bolic origin could not plausibly be assigned
by those who give themselves up to the inter-
pretation of such mysteries.
Eastern ornament, in particular, is apt to em-
body some sentiment or meaning. Egyptian
art was, practically speaking, hieroglyphic
picture-writing (Plate 79) of the same kind
(only much more nobly developed) as the
totems of the North American Indians.
Persian ornament, again, is always inspired
by some poetic notion — it is, in fact, a sort of
238 Nahire in Ornament.

language of flowers. The ^•••s

ornamentlst has in his mind
a bed of roses and tulips
(Plate 65), a garden, and
so on, and combines his

flowers, we may reasonably

suppose, so as to convey
to Persian eyes a distinct
sentiment.
In the ornament of other
Eastern countries there is a
kindred spirit of sugges-
tion. The Indian lattice

of which part is given on

Plate TJy is plainly intended
to convey the notion of a
^1^'
181. Diaper of waves,
forest. clouds, and sacred
In a very different way birds.

of his own the Japanese, again, loves to put

some meaning into his pattern (Plate 109),
and in a mere diaper (as above) will manage
to convey the suggestion .^. _
of fire, air, and water. 't^^-W ^^fy-^
Everywhere, more-
over, the symbols of n^
ligion have been turned |

to account, from the naja

or many-headed serpent - ^ i^f^
of Buddhistic worship 182. Cro^sof fleurs-de-Us.
 fPlate 120

&H'QoUild,a,8r^Bl.-r.l ft.l

CoDVentioDal Trees.
 Symbolic Orname^it. 239

(Plate 119) to the

cross of Christi-
anity and the cres-
cent of Islam. (The
cross is combined
with the fleur-de-lis
on p. 238.) The
183. Assyrian sacred tree.
and serpent, tree
and the tree alone (Plate 120) remain indeed
into mediaeval times characteristic ornamental
features, very common indeed in Byzantine
and Romanesque ornament (p. 143) the ;

symbol lingers in Sicilian silks down to the

fourteenth century.
In the earlier rendering of the tree of
life, which we see in Assyrian sculpture
more or less in the
form of palm fronds,
we have the pre-
cursor, if not the
parent, of the Greek
anthemion (see p.
158); and in the
winged bulls which
sometimes kneel in
adoration on each
side of it, the proto-
types of the Greek
184. Assyrian sacred tree. gryphons.
 —

240 Nature in Ornament,

The winged globes,

the sphinxes, the sacred
beetles and the like

(p. 237), together with

the Nile plants, deter-
mine the very character
of Egyptian design.
Emblems of sove-
reignty again, and he-
raldic badges of all kinds
—the rose, the lily, and
the fleur-de-lis, for ex-
ample (Plates 42, 43, 63,
64, 121, &c.) — have been
the "motifs" of ornament
185. Iris or fleur-de-lis
17th century Venetian.
?
down to quite recent
times, when symbolism
has given way to a realism altogether inade-
quate to supply its place in ornament.
A symbol must be removed from nature, or
it suggests not
the idea sym-
bolised but the
thing used as
symbol. A re-
alistic Agnus
Dei, let us say,
suggesting the
sheep-pen, is 186. Egyptian symbols.
 a>late 121

'Photo Tiht iy^tmes Akerman London WC

Late Gothic Fle'ur de-lis-Tracery.

 Symbolic Ornament. 241

an absolutely irre-
verent rendering of
the emblem. So,
again, the upper-
most of the embroi-
dered flowers on
p. 240 is clearly not so much a

fleur-de-lis as an iris. Compare

it with the one below it, with
Plates 44 and 121, and with the
flowers on p. 45, and you will
see that very plainly. There
are further examples of Gothic
fleurs-de-lis on this page.
Of the usefulness of heraldry
in ornament there is no possible
doubt, not even in the minds
of those who least respect the
blazon of the herald as a title

to distinction. The very need

of introducing helmet, shield,
badge, motto, or what not, has
led to fresh forms of decorative
design, admirable in themselves,
apart from any interest there
may be in tracing out their mean-
ing. But concerning heraldry, I
187. Gothic
have already said what I had fleurs-de-lis.

to say elsewhere.*
* '
Some Principles of Everyday Art,' p. 63
R
242 Nature in Ornament.

The mere repeti-

tion of symbols,
even when conven-
tionally rendered (as
in the Greek border
of eyes, p. 243), is

not a happy form of

ornament, if indeed
it can be called or-
nament at all. But
the additional in-

terest imparted to
mere foliage by the
introduction of oc-
casional badges and
the like (opposite),
needs no pointing
out.
The quarrel we
have with the mod-
ern Philistine is not
that he wants some-
thing more than
technique, not that
he is too exact-
ing, but that he
exacts mainly the
common-place.
Heraldic badges- century.
Whether he ask Mantua.
 T^late 122

y-^-^ Tr^nr^"^ r— .-i,, ;~r,,,T,,. > ..Vfi

If

^Hf
^^ f if / I'. 1^ // •jj
i
'

\i 4, %

frSUdf
M ^1

I
3

-f^

h* J '.
t
J

^ i

- /,

^ Vl

-MB J
1

1
%

(
\

1/ :r Mil
i !
I L«.«

J. i

Photo Tikt -_, .

/Har^-ueritiz Farads, Wood CarVin^.

 —

Sy))ibolic Ornaiuenf. 243

for poetry or for prose, some- it is

thing very obvious that he de-

mands. And it must be owned
that we are only too ready to
iJ\
189- Symbolic
supply what he wants from ;
eye ornament
Egyptian-
which readiness may be inferred
that, if there is no great demand for subtle
thought or graceful fancy in design, neither
are thought and fancy precisely abundant in
the market.
Far be it from me to urge the prosaic
to try and pump up poetry. Poets will try
for it, poorly as it may pay —that is in pounds,
shillings, and pence. For the rest, we live in

a world of prosaic people who will miss

nothing in our work, be it never so uninspired.
Whatever an artist has to say he will say
in his art. A thoughtful man is never content
without putting meaning into his work, not
that it has any commercial value, but for his

own satisfaction : to him it would not be

complete without it. If he make use of
scrolls, flowers, garlands,
animals, amorini, and so on,
it is not as the stale " pro-
perties " of Classic or Re-
naissance tradition, but with
190. Secment of Greek
border of eyes —
significance always a — sig-
from a painted dish. nificance which would by
R 2
244 Nature in Ornament.

no means justify poor design, but which

undoubtedly enhances the pleasure we derive
from good pattern.
Neither have they (if there be such) who
care solely for grace and beauty of design, any
just cause of complaint if the artist, over and
above the full weight of decorative design,
throw in, to my delight or yours, what may
be to them a superfluous wealth of meaning
— so long as it in no way interfere with the
essentially ornamental character of the design-
That is the condition of conditions. Sym-
bolism must not interfere with art. It will

not supply its place. hands of an

Yet in the

artist it may be made to minister to the main

purpose, and at the same time to raise design
to a point of interest which pattern in itself
always fails (and, as an ornamentist, I may be
allowed to say very naturally fails) to awaken
in the general mind.
On page 245 is a reduction from one of a
series of borders framing a selection of texts
"Touching the Resurrection," in which the
ornament was based mainly on the idea of
seed-vessels. In treating the maple seeds
the intention was not only to remove them
from nature but to emphasise the fact that
they v/ere " winged " seeds, and so add to their
signmcance.
 ^late 123.

'Photo -TiMT, iy J«me« A

Symbolic Or-namcnt, book cover.

Symbolic Ornament, 245
 246 Nature in Ornauient.

In the rendering of the marguerite on

Plate 123, the idea was that the meaning
should be there (just as there is a meaning

'. ' •-/

'~~
J, I
J,
^ ^

\- -..i

192. Heraldic oak— Italian Renaissance.

in the arrangement of the flowers) for the

satisfaction of a. personal sentiment, but that
itshould not be too obvious. For one's own
sake and for those whom it may concern,
 Sy:nbolic Ornament, 247

one may sometimes hint in ornament what

one does not care to say quite plainly.
Yet, though it be essential to general in-
terest that ornament should mean something,
it may fulfil its purpose perfectly without

meaning more than beauty and, in fact, its

;

true artistic interest is apart altogether from

any thought of symbolism.
The artist, for all that, who has anything to
say for himself, says it, say it and his
and will ;

art is by so much, not the more ornamental,

but the better worth having. For which
reason, as well as on account of the influence
symbolism has had, and must always have,
—
upon art since men are something more
—
than artists it has seemed necessary to
touch upon the inner meaning of ornament.
But, once more, the art is in the saying, not
in the thing said.
 INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS.

A. Assyrian
rosette p. 155
Abstract
symbolic ornament,
foliage p. 169
p. 151
ornament ...pp. 49, 152
tree pp. 142, 239
Acanthus PP- 34> 35 vine 106
p.
PI. 13, 14 Aster P- 50
vine-like 38
P* AuGuba PI. 5
Acorn patterns P' 53
AlbertoUi PP«95> 170 B.
Aldegrever P- 124 Bat
Animals PI. 94 diaper pp. 184, 191
Anthemion P- 158
embroidered p. 194
Gothic p. 162 pattern p. 216
Renaissance, pp. 20, 164 Bay PI. 5, 81
Apple PI. 8, 82 Beech PL 3, 8
and vine, frieze ...PI. 52 Beetle, Egyptian p. 237
Arab vine PL 54 Berberris PI. 5
Arabesque Berries PL 37
German ...p. 47, PI. 20 from nature PL 5
Italian PI. 17, 18, ivy p. 57
96, 100 Birch Pl,3
Archaic Greek, p. 65, PI. 41 Bird
Artichoke PI. 38 crest p. 181
Artificial & flower crest p. i8i
grace pp. 90, 97 diaper/ p. 185
rendering... p. 76, PI. 32 Birds p. 238, PI. 94
rendering of rose, PI. 62 in flight p. 181
Ash P1.8 Blossoms, Japanese jj^p. 213
Asparagus PI. 10 Book-cover PI. 22, 123
 5 3

250 Index to Illustrations,

Boragewort PI. 6 Chinese

BoucLuet p. 48, PI. 21 flower forms, pp. 50,157
Boulle p. 41 foliage pp.48, 51
Briony p. I4> PI- "kiss-me-quick," p. 171
Brocatelle p. 140 lotus PI. 88

Bronze p. 109 orchid PI. 76

PI. 41, 63,71 pomegranates ...PI. 73
Broom PI. 7 Wistaria p. 29
Brunelleschi Fl . 46 Chrysanthemum ...p. 182

Brush-work PI. 13 pattern PI. 40

pp. 34,66, 152 Classic
Buckwheat PL 10 leafage, modification
Buddhist sculpture... p. 134 of ...p. 39
PI. 67, 119 vine PI. 53
Budding branches, from Cloisonne enamel ...p. 189
nature PI. 3 Cloud pattern p. 216
Bud-like forms P- 63 Clouds p. 238
Buds Coboea scandens ......p. 14
from nature PI. 8 PL 89
or fruits? 58 PL 94
P- Cock
or seed-vessels ? ...p.57 Colour printing PI 7
Burges, W p. 185 Columbine PL 83
•

Butterflies PL 97 Confusion of effect... p. loi

Byzantine carving ...p. 115 Coptic
embroidery PL 25,
C. 49, 57
Candelabrum p. 19 feather border . . .p. 227
Canna PI. feather diaper ...p. 227
4
Carpet, Italo-Persian, PI. 65 Corn pp.89, 90
Carrot PI. 10 Cranes, Japanese PL 92
Carved door PI. 28 Cresswort PL 6
Carving Cretonne ...PL 48, 61, 106
Gothic ...p. 119, PI. 29 Crocket PL 29
wings PI. 108 hawthorn p. 59
Celandine ...p. 170, PI. 33 vine p. 59

Chinese Crocket-like foliage . . .p. 38

butterflies PL 97 Cross of fleurs-de-lis, p. 238
embroidery ... PI. 76, 97 Crown, imperial PL31
pp.29, 171, 194
 —

hidex to Illustrations. 251

Diaper
Japanese PI. 109
Damascening PI. 30 pp. 78, 159, 182, 238
Dandelion PI. 90 peacock-feathei", PL 1 14
Day, Lewis F, :
of spiders' webs, p. 214
Book-cover PI. 123 Diletra-spectabilis...p. 171
Chrysanthemum PI. 40 Dolphins p. 180
Coboea scandens, PL 89 Dragon, Japanese ...p. 210
Cretonne ...PI. 61, 106 Dragon-fly diaper ...p. 183
Dandelion PI. 90 Drusse, Nicolaus ...PL 117
Fig p. 173 Ducks PL 129
Frieze ...PI. 14, 52, 85 Diirer, Albrecht PL 60
Grotesque scroll, PI. 106 Dutch conventions ...PL 47
Heraldic mantling,
p. 223
Inlay PI. 31
E.
Lily PI. 39, 75
Linen damask ...PI. 89, Earthenware, Assyrian,

III, 132, 133 p. 151

Lustre PI. 102 Egyptian

Narcissus beetle p. 237
P- 93
Oak PI.9 enamel p. 189

Poppy ...p. 172, PI. 72

eyes p. 243
Scroll
lotus p. 240, PL 79
PI. 48
Seaweed ...PI. iii, 112 papyrus... p. 150, PL 79
Seed-vessels
sculpture PL 79
p. 245
Stained glass PL 59 vultures p. 188

Tiles PI. 9,
Eighteenth-century silk,
39
Tulip PI.
p.76,P1.32,33,44,62,7o
85
Vine PI. 59, 61 Elaborated flower,

Wall-paper ...PI. 37, 38 pp. 79, 80

Denaturalised floral Elm P1.3»8
details p. 98 Embossed silver PL 53
Diaper Embroidery PL 69, 73

of bats Arctic p. 211

pp. 184, 191
of birds p. 185 butterflies PL 97
of dragon-flies ...p. 183 Chinese PL 9776,

of flames p. 215 pp.29, 171, 194

Gothic p. 162 Coptic ...PL 25, 49, 57
 1

252 Index to Illustrations.

Embroidery Fir
German pp. 77, 80 cone p. 157, PI. 79
Gothic p. 79 Japanese PI. 109
Indian p. 187 tree PI. 80
Italian p. 135 Fish
Japanese p. 66 Assyrian PI. 80
Oriental, p. 131, PI. 114 Japanese PI. 109
Turkish PL 1 15 lustre Fl. 102
Enamel, Egyptian ...p. 189 Flames p.215
English Fleur-de-lis
Gothic PI. 29, 58 cross p. 238
silk PI. 62, 70 Gothic pp. 160, 241
Etruscan detail p. 158 PI. 121
Eyes, border of p. 243 Italian p. 240
Romanesque p. 160
tracery PL 121
F. Fleur deluce... PL i
Floetner, Peter ....p. 47
Faience
Floral forms within floral,
Italian PI. 114
P-73
lustred PI. 18
Footprints, Japanese, PL 109
Persian P- 46
Fox, George p, 180
Rhodian p. 132
French Gothic,
Rouen p. 47 pp.63, 116, 156
border p. 227
Frieze p. 180, PI. 14
diaper p. 227
Fritillary PL 3
Fifteenth-century detail,
Fruit pattern PL 87
P-I57 Fruits p. 58
Fig p.173 Fungus PL 76
Figure
Amorino PL 99
Egyptian PI. G.
79
Gothic PI. loi Galls PL9
grotesque PI. 105 Geese PI. 79
Holbein PI. 103 German
Italian PI. 100 arabesque, p. 47, PL 20
Japanese PI. 109 conventions PL 47
pattern p. 186 embroidery ...pp. 77, 80
Peruvian ..PI. 94 foliage ...p. 124, PL 83
 Index to Illustrations. 253

German Greek
Gothic p.8i,P1.9i anthemion p. 158
hammered work, PI. 36 archaic PI. 41

ironwork p. 204 border p. 61

mantling p. 224 detail p. 160
rosette p. 55 diaper PI. no
scroll PI. 16, 19 ivy p. 57, PI. 24,81
Ghiberti PI. 71 scroll PI. II

Giulio Romano PI. 17 that might be Gothic,

Glass painting p. 126 P-65
Goldsmiths' work ...p. 98 vase PI. 24, 8i

PI. 21, 53, 117 pp.108, 152, 153,243

Gooseberry PI. 98 Gribelin, S. ...p. 98, PL 99
Gothic Grotesque p. 202,
anthemion shape, p. 162 PI. 94, 96, 102, 104
carving Arctic p. 211
...p. 119, PI. 29
diaper figure PI. 103, 105
p. 162
embroidery ?• 79
German p. 204
English PI. 29, scroll PI. 106
58
fleur-de-lis, pp. 160, 241 Growth
PI. 121 conventional P1.37
French, pp. 63, 116, 156 natural PI. 10
German ...p. 81, PI. 91
glass pp.43. 126
inlay PI. 42
H.
ironwork PL 36 Hammered iron PI 36.

Italian ...p. 120, PI. 51 Hawthorn ...p. 59, PI. 3, 29

modern p. 139 Heartsease PL 35
oak PI. 29,74 Heaton, C p. 89
"pine" PI. 84 Hemlock PL 4
scroll PI. 19, loi Heraldry pp. 223, 224,
stencil p. 60 242, 247
stone-carving, pp.63, 1 16 Holbein PI. 103
tiles p. 62 Honeysuckle PL 44
tracery PI. 121 Hop pp. 81, no
wood-carving, Hopfer, D PL 16
PI. 58, 91, 121, Hornbeam PL 8
PP-55, 63,65, 81,111, Horse-chestnut PL 3
112, 1 18, 224 Hyacinth p. loi, PL 31
254 Index to Illustrations.

Italian
I.
scroll p. 123
Incising p. 156, PI. 73 silk p. 68, PI. 34
Inconsistency P-96 stone-carving PI. 51
Indian pp. 90, 247
corn p. 88 velvet p. 75
damascening PI- 30 wing-forms PI. 108
embroidery p. 187 wood-carving ...PI. 96
inlay PI. 66 pp. 88, no, 163, 209
iris PI. 30 Italo-Persian textile ...p. 73
lotus... p. 134, PI. 67, 68 PI. 65
naja PI. 119 Ivy
poppy p. 61 classic PI. 53
tree PI. 77 Greek, p. 57, PI. 24, 81

weaving PI. 26
wood-carving P- 65
Inlay p. 93, PI, 31 J.
Boulle p. 41 Japanese
Indian PI. 66 borders p, 58
Italian, p. 57, PI. 43, 69 butterflies Pi- 97
modern ...p. 226, PI. 42 cranes PI. 92
Persian p. 169 dragon p. 210
Interlacing, Keltic... PI. 107 diaper, pp.159, 191,215
Iris p. loi PL 109
embroidery P- ^35 diapering p. 78
Indian PI. 30 embroidery p. 66
in silk PI- 44 growth PI. 10
Japanese p. 66 leaf-sheaths PI, 4
velvet p. 240 leather 9^
p.
Walter Crane PI. i ornament, pp. 219, 222
Iris-like ornament P- 45 pattern ...pp. 186, 213,
Iron grille p. 204 214, 216-220
Italian peacock-feather pattern,
Arabesque ...PI. 17, 18, PI. 113

96, 100 roses PI. 2

embroidery p. 135 seed-vessels PI. 6
faience PI. 114 tortoises PI. 93
Gothic p. 120 wave pp. 219-221
inlay ...p. 57, PI. 48, 69 Jones, Owen PL 22
 . 5

Index to Ilcustratio7is. 255

Marble inlay PL 66
K.
Marco Dente da Ravenna,
Keltic interlacing ...PI. 107 PL 105
Kiss-me-quick, p. 171, PL 44 Marguerite PL 122
Mino da Fiesole p. 164

L.
Modern
classic p. 39
Lace, ivory point PL 35 German PL 98
Lacquer p. 219 Moorish
Larch PI. 8 oak treatment ...p. 141
Leaf sheaths PI. 4 vine treatment, pp. 113,
Lemon PI. 87 114
Lent lily PI. 31 Morris, Wm PL87
Lily Mosaic
forms p. 133 Pompeian PL 27
Greek p. 61 Roman, pp. PL 1
36, 59,
inlay PI. 42, 43, 66 Muckley, W.J PL 86
Italian pp. 91, 92
lace PL 35
naturalistic, p. 91, PL 75 N.
tiles PL'39 Narcissus p. 93
Lily-like details p. 160 Natural
Lime PL 3 berries P^-
Linen damask, pp.121, 174 branches PL 3
PL 89, III buds PL8
Lotus foliage P- 63
Assyrian P-I55 growth PL 10
Chinese PI. 88 leaf-sheaths PL 4
Egyptian, p. 240, PL 79 pods PL 7
Greek PL no seed-vessels P- 5^
Indian, p. 134, PL 67,68 Naturalism PL 83
Love- in-a-mist PL 44 Naturalistic
Lustre PL 102 birds PL 100
Italian PL 18 lily p.9i,P1.75
oak p. 22
peony PL 86
M.
poppy P- 172
Majolica. See Faience. snails PJ. 9

Maple . p. 24s, PL 29 Needlework P' 136

 7

256 Index to Illustrations.

p.6i, PI. 20 Peacock embroidery, p. 187

NieUo
Nightshade PL 83 Peacock-feather
...PI. 80 diapers PL 114
Ninevite sculpture
inlay p. 226
Nut PI. 29,45
pattern PL 113. "5
tiles p. 228
O.
Peony
Oak frieze PL 86
Albertolli p. 95 stencil P-64
galls PI. 9
Persian
Gothic PI. 29, 74 detail pp. 45, 46, 66
heraldic p. 247 PL 78
foliage
Moorish p. 141 p. 169
inlay
natural p. 22 48
porcelain, pp. 44, 45»
P. Quentel PI. 83 scroll ...p. 44
Roman p. 94 silk p. 74, PL 78
Sicilian p. 142
tiles pp. loi, 228
Oak-like leafage p 3 .

Peruvian stuffs PL 94
Olive
Phoenician wreath ...p. 231
classic PI. 50
Pierced stone PL 77
Greek PL 81
" Pine " ornaments ...PL 84
Olive-like leafage p 37 .

PL 8 Pink
Onion PL
lace 35
Orange PL87
needlework p. 136
Orchid p.96, PL 7^
textile pp. 73> 149
PL 70
P. tile-painting p. loi

.PL 17 various PL 69
Painted wall-panel
Plum PL 3
Painting
PL 30 Pods PL45
Indian
...PL 27, 118 from nature PL 7
Pompeian
PL 77 Pomegranate PL 73> 87
Palm tree
Papyrus p. 150* PL 79
embroidery p. 77
modern p. I39
Passarini, Philippe, PL 116
p. 14 stencil P-6o
Passion-flower
textile ...pp. 74-765 140
Pea PL 10, 83
Pea-pod ornament ...p. 20 Pompeian
PI. 46 bronze p. 1^9

PL 87 candelabrum p. 19
Peach
 Index to Illustratio7is. 257

Pompeian Roman
detail PI.
27 mosaic pp. 36, 59
painting PI, 27, 118 PI. 15
Poplar PI. 3 naturalism, p. 94, Pi. 82
Poppy- scroll p. 36, PI. 12
bronze PI. 71 Romanesque
inlay PI. 66 detail pp. 42, 160
naturalistic P- 172 stem p. 18
niello p. 61 tree p. 143
wall-paper PI. 72 Rose
Porcelain ...pp. 44, 45, 48, artificial PI. 62
66,218, PI. 88 embroidery p. 131
Privet PI. 5 Gothic PI.
29
Pugin, A. W PI, 74 Italo-Persian p 130
PI. 65
Japanese PI.
Q- Rhodian p. 132
Quattro-cento ...pp. 92, 123 Talbert PI. 23
Quentel, Peter PI. 83 Tudor PI. 63, 64
Rosette
Assyrian p. 155
R.
Gothic p. 55, Pi. 29
Rabbit PI, 109 Rouen ware P'47
Renaissance
anthemion p. 164
S.
Arabesque PI, 20
German p, 124 Sammicheli p. 91
Italian ...p, 163, PI. 104 Sansovino PI. 104
needlework p. 136 Scratched earthenware,
pea-pods p. 20 p. 117
silk p, 149 Scroll
stone-carving, PI. 45, 46 Boulle p. 41
tree p. 247 & foliage PI. 48
trophies p, 229 Gothic PL 19, loi
wing-forms PI. 108 Greek PI. ii
Rhodian faience p. 132 grotesque PI. 106
Rococo scroll.... PI. 116 Persian P-44
Roman rococo PI. 116
candelabrum p. 133 Roman ?• 36, PI. 12
S
258 Ifidex to Illustrations,

Scroll Silver, classic ...PL 53

seventeenth century, Simplified forms, pp. 54, 64
PL 99, 117 Sixteenth-century
transitional PI 16. Arabesque... PL 18, 100
Sculpture Arabesque German,
Assyrian... p. [06, PI. 80 p. 47
Egyptian PL 79 badges p. 242
Roman PI. 55,82 naturalism PL 83
Seaweed pp. 162, 222 silk PL 34
PL III, 112 wood-carving PL 96
Seder, Anton PL 98 Skull ornament p. 230
Seed-vessels pp. 56, 57 Snail PL 98
PL 6 Snowberry PL 5
symbolic p. 245 Solanum PL 5
Seventeenth-century Spanish
Boulle p. 41 carving ..p. 141
conventions PL 47 textile p. 140
embroidery p. 135 Spiders' webs.. p. 214
goldsmiths' work, p. 98 Spindle-berry PL 5
PL 21 Stained glass... p. 43, PL 59
scroll Pl-99> 117 Stem ...p. 18
silk p. 68, PL 32 Stencil
velvet p. 240 Gothic p. 60
Shell p. 222 peony P- 64
Sicilian silk PP. 58, 142 Sumner ...- PL 56
PL 95 Stone-carving
Signorelli, Luca p. 202 archaic Greek p. 65
Silk p. 68 Egyptian PI- 79
English PL 62, 70 Franfois 1^^ p. 38
eighteen th-centuiy, p. 76 Gothic pp.63, 116
PL 32, 33, 44, 62, 70 Indian ...p. 134, PL 77
Italian P^- 34 Indian Buddhist,
Italo-Persian p. 149 PL 67, 68
Lyons p. 97, PL 32 Italian ...p. 123, PL 69
Persian ...p. 74, PL 78 Renaissance... PL 45, 46
seventeenth-century, Storks p. 182
p. 68, PL 32 Strawberry p. 1 74
Sicihan pp. 58, 142 Street, G. E p- 54
PL 95 Stucco, classic PI. 53
 Index to Illustrations. 259

stuffs, Peruvian PL 94 Tree

Sumner, H. ...p. 64, PI. 56 of life pp. 142, 143
Sunflower PL 23 Roman p. 59
Swag P-233 sacred p. 239
Sycamore PL 3 Sicilian p. 58
Symbolic Trophy p. 229
border, Assyrian, p. 15^ Tuberose PL 4
diaper p. 238 Tudor rose PI. 63, 64
eye p. 243 Tulip PL 65, 85
figure PL I Tulip-tree PL 8
hawk p. 189
naja PL 119
ornament PL 123 V
papyrus ...pp. 150, 240
Velvet pp. 73» 75» 130
seed-vessels ?• 245
PL 120
Vine PL6i
trees
Arab PI. 54
vulture p. 188
Assyrian p. 106
Byzantine P- 1^5
T. carving PL 55
Talbert, B. J., pp. 139, 226
classic PL 53
PL 23, 42 Coptic PL49»57
Tapestry, Gothic PL 19 cretonne PL 29
Tare p. 14 Diirer PL 60
Tendrils... pp. 14, 15, PL 60 frieze PL 52
Terra-cotta, Greek, Gothic PI. 58

PL 24, p. 243 pp.59. III, 112, ii6,

Thistle p. 54, PL 83, 91 118, 119, 121, 126

Thoroughwax PL 4 Greek ...p. 108, PI. 24

Tile PL PL 39 inlaid in bronze... p. 109
9, p. 62,
Assyrian p. 151 Italian pp. no, 123
Gothic p.62 Italian-Gothic ...p. 120,

Persian p. loi, 228 PL 51

Tortoises PL 93 Moorish ...pp. 113, 114
Tracery, Gothic PL 121 Roman PL 50
Traditional, Indian... PL 26 sgraffitto p. 117

Tree PL 120 stained glass PL 59

Greek PL 24 stencil PJ. 56
Indian PL 77 tendrils p. 15
26o Index to Illustrations.

Vine-like acanthus ...p.38 Wave

Vultures p. 188 pattern, Japanese,
pp. 216, 218-220
Wheat-ears p. 68
W. Wing
Wall-painting forms PI. 108
Italian PI. 100 treatment, Egyptian,
Pompeian PI. 118 pp. 188, 189
Wall-paper, W. Burges, Italian p. 209
p. 185 Wistaria P- 29
L.F. D. ...Pl.37,38,72 Wood-carving
Wm. Morris PI. 87 Cairene ...PI. 28
B.J. Talbert PI. 23 French Renaissance,
Walnut PI. 3 p. 230, PI. 122
Water, Japanese p.2i7 Gothic ...PI. 58, 91, 121
Water-lilies, Japanese, PP- 55^63, 65, 81, III,
p. 217 112, 118, 224
Wave Indian p. 65
diaper, Japanese, p. 238 Italian PL 96
Japanese p. 221 pp. 88, no, 163, 209
& lotus diaper ...PL 1 10 Tudor PI. 64
ornament, Japanese, Wreath p. 231
p. 219

LONDON PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,

:

GREAT WINDMILL STREET, W., AND DUKE STREET, STAMFORD ST., S.E.
/ifg^}I
<
%,
5^ %