DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26747#0050
xlvi
INTRODU CTION.
secondly, becanse if the pliant forms of plants are macle to support, or
do tlie work of, Jiard stone, the incongruity is immediately apparent,
and the more perfect the imitation the greater the mistake.
In the instance (woodcut No. IV.),
any amount of literal imitation that the
sculptor thought proper may he indulged
in, hecause in it the stone construction is
so apparent everywhere, that the vege-
tahle form is the merest supplement con-
ceivable ; or in a hollow moulding round
a doorway, a vine may he sculptured
with any degree of imitation that can he
employed; for as it has no more work
to do tlran the ohject represented would
have in the same situation, it is a mere
adjunct, a statue of a plant placed in a
niche, as we might use the statue of a
man: hut if in the woodcut (No. V.)
imitations of real leaves were used to
support the upper moulding, the effect
would not he so satisfactory; indeed it is
questionahle if in hoth these last exam-
ples a little more conventionality would
not he desirahle.
In too rnany instances, even in the
hest Gothic architecture, the construction
is so overlaid hy imitative vegetahle forms as to he concealed, and the
work is apparently done h}r leaves or twigs, hut in the earliest and
purest style this is almost never the
case. As a general rule it may he
asserted that the hest lithic orna-
ments are those which approach near-
est to the grace and pliancy of plants,
and that the best vegetahle forms are
those which most resemhle the regu-
larity and symmetry of those which
are purely conventional.
Although the Greeks in one or two instances employed human
figures to support entahlatures or heams, the good taste of such an
arrangement is more than questionahle. They horrowed it, with
the Ionic order, from the Assyrians, with whom the employment of
caryatides and animal forms was the rule, not the exception, in contra-
distinction from the Egyptians, who never adopted this practice.1
Even the Romans avoided this mistake, and the Gothic architects also
as a general rule kept quite clear of it. Whenever th'ey did employ
ornamented figures for architectural purposes, they were either mon-
1 The Isis-headed Typhonian ciipitals cannot ave affixes, and never appear to be doing the
be quoted as an exception to this rule: they work of the pillar.
INTRODU CTION.
secondly, becanse if the pliant forms of plants are macle to support, or
do tlie work of, Jiard stone, the incongruity is immediately apparent,
and the more perfect the imitation the greater the mistake.
In the instance (woodcut No. IV.),
any amount of literal imitation that the
sculptor thought proper may he indulged
in, hecause in it the stone construction is
so apparent everywhere, that the vege-
tahle form is the merest supplement con-
ceivable ; or in a hollow moulding round
a doorway, a vine may he sculptured
with any degree of imitation that can he
employed; for as it has no more work
to do tlran the ohject represented would
have in the same situation, it is a mere
adjunct, a statue of a plant placed in a
niche, as we might use the statue of a
man: hut if in the woodcut (No. V.)
imitations of real leaves were used to
support the upper moulding, the effect
would not he so satisfactory; indeed it is
questionahle if in hoth these last exam-
ples a little more conventionality would
not he desirahle.
In too rnany instances, even in the
hest Gothic architecture, the construction
is so overlaid hy imitative vegetahle forms as to he concealed, and the
work is apparently done h}r leaves or twigs, hut in the earliest and
purest style this is almost never the
case. As a general rule it may he
asserted that the hest lithic orna-
ments are those which approach near-
est to the grace and pliancy of plants,
and that the best vegetahle forms are
those which most resemhle the regu-
larity and symmetry of those which
are purely conventional.
Although the Greeks in one or two instances employed human
figures to support entahlatures or heams, the good taste of such an
arrangement is more than questionahle. They horrowed it, with
the Ionic order, from the Assyrians, with whom the employment of
caryatides and animal forms was the rule, not the exception, in contra-
distinction from the Egyptians, who never adopted this practice.1
Even the Romans avoided this mistake, and the Gothic architects also
as a general rule kept quite clear of it. Whenever th'ey did employ
ornamented figures for architectural purposes, they were either mon-
1 The Isis-headed Typhonian ciipitals cannot ave affixes, and never appear to be doing the
be quoted as an exception to this rule: they work of the pillar.