254 THE STONES OF VENICE DECORATION

I think, before inquiring what we like best of God’s work, we had better get rid of all this imitation of man’s, and be quite sure we do not like that.

§ 4. We shall rapidly glance, then, at the material of decoration hence derived. And now I cannot, as I before have done respecting construction, convince the reader of one thing being wrong, and another right. I have confessed as much again and again; I am now only to make appeal to him, and cross-question him, whether he really does like things or not. If he likes the ornament on the base of the column of the Place Vendôme, composed of Wellington boots and laced frock coats,¹ I cannot help it; I can only say I differ from him, and don’t like it. And if, therefore, I speak dictatorially, and say this is base or degraded or ugly, I mean only that I believe men of the longest experience in the matter would either think it so, or would be prevented from thinking it so only by some morbid condition of their minds; and I believe that the reader, if he examine himself candidly, will usually agree in my statements.

§ 5. The subjects of ornament found in man’s work may properly fall into four heads: (1.) Instruments of art, agriculture, and war; armour, and dress; (2.) Drapery; (3.) Shipping; (4.) Architecture itself.

(1.) Instruments, armour, and dress.

The custom of raising trophies on pillars, and of dedicating arms in temples, appears to have first suggested the idea of employing them as the subjects of sculptural ornament: thenceforward, this abuse has been chiefly characteristic of classical architecture, whether true or Renaissance. Armour is a noble thing in its proper service and subordination to the body; so is an animal’s hide, on its back; but a heap of cast skins, or of shed armour, is alike unworthy of all regard or imitation. We owe much true sublimity and more of delightful picturesqueness to the introduction of

¹ [See below, § 5, p. 256 n.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]