There is no ornament more common or so universal in prehistoric, savage, Egyptian, Assyrian and Mediæval decoration than the ubiquitous zigzag, or chevron, and though extremely simple in itself, at least two-thirds of all conventional ornament is based or constructed on its lines: yet this simple ornament has been used as a symbol of totally opposite and different things, by nearly all the various tribes and nations that have used it in decoration. With the Egyptians and Assyrians it has been a symbol of water, with some savage tribes it denotes lightning, with others it does duty for a serpent, with some others it represents a series of bats, birds, and butterflies; as with the original tribes of Brazil, with the magic-loving Semang tribes of East Malacca, it means a frog, and in some instances the branches of trees; and lastly, with the natives of the Hervey Islands, it symbolizes the human figure when placed in duplicate parallel rows.
(For a fuller description, and illustrations of this and cognate savage ornament, the reader is referred to Haddon’s “Evolution in Art,” 1895.) We can hardly think of an ornament more simple or more common than the zigzag, and yet how varied in different countries are the sources from which it springs.
This may be taken as a warning that it is not safe to accept the same forms as always having the same origin, when we find them in the art of different countries.
Apart from the symbolic origin of ornamental forms, students of to-day may learn, from examples of the past, how far they can go, in the converting of natural forms to conventional ornament, without absolutely adapting such examples to their present needs. The past styles in ornament have, in one sense, died out with the nations that created them, and can never be satisfactorily revived, although, as we have often seen, a new style may be built on their foundations. The tendency of to-day is to undervalue the teachings of historic art, and, as a result, we see much work in which both fitness and beauty are conspicuous by their absence.
In any notice of the historical development of ornamental art, the concurrent styles of architecture should, in their general features at least, be illustrated, for it is not always possible to divorce ornament from architecture, and it is hardly possible to design or construct good ornament otherwise than according to the laws that govern good architecture. Of course, we must admit that some very beautiful ornament, or rather decoration, has been designed otherwise than on architectural lines, but this kind of decoration has its beauty of technique and execution to recommend it, rather than its constructive qualities. Chinese and Japanese ornament will occur to the reader as examples of this kind of work, but the best ornament the world has ever seen has been constructed and is based on the laws that govern good architecture.
Some of these laws, such as stability, repose, variety, and proportion, are derived from nature. As all architectural styles, however, possess them more or less in common, we must look elsewhere for the sources from which the peculiar characteristics that distinguish the styles are developed and derived. The causes and forces are so subtle and the developments so gradual, that it is almost impossible to arrive at a satisfactory explanation, as religions, inventive faculty, and symbolism play an important rôle in style development. It is rather to the inventive faculties of man, than to hints supplied by nature, that we must look for the origin and development of what is called style in architecture or ornament. In every case this is arrived at by a slow process, and by the extensive and persistent use of distinguishing features selected according to the needs and requirements of the time, to satisfy the prevailing tastes. “Style” is then the something that man has invented or created; it may be called the soul of architecture, without which, a building, however pretentious, ceases to exist as an artistic conception.
Apart from the greatest or more striking features in the various divisions of historic architecture, such as the horizontal beam in Greek, the round arch in Roman and Romanesque, the pointed arch in Gothic and Mohammadan buildings, there are the mouldings that are so important in determining the period—they alone of themselves will often determine the style or date of a building—and these features, above all others, are the least derived from nature. On the other hand, the decoration of mouldings, though suggested by their contours, is generally derived from natural forms.
The “best period” in the life of historic styles and its duration corresponds with that of the highest culture and religious thought of the people, at their settled and most flourishing epochs. When a change or revolution in the order of things sets in, we find generally the style of architecture changing also to adapt itself to the new laws and new thought. This illustrates, to a certain degree, the reason why the so-called Victorian Gothic has not developed to any great extent in England, although some of our best architects sought to revive the earlier Gothic some years ago.
The Mediæval mysticism, love for symbolism, and reverence are wanting in the mass of the people of this century, which characterized the people of Europe in the palmy days of Gothic architecture.
It has always been found that whatever the people ask for the artist is generally able to give, although he may not be always willing; but he must satisfy the popular demand if he is to live by his work, otherwise he must make way for others who are willing to produce work that will reflect the taste of the period.
We are handicapped in the development of anything new in the way of an architectural style by traditions of the past. Our knowledge of what has been done in the past, paradoxical as it may appear, has proved itself a great stumbling-block to the progress of new ideas. This partly accounts for the slowness of style-development in the present century. If fashion does not step in and disturb the march of events in the immediate future, we may hope for something distinct, if not exactly new, as an architectural style, in which a mixture of Gothic and Renaissance forms will be seen, the latter perhaps predominating. It may happen that later generations will look back and be able to discern something distinct in the way of style in buildings erected in the last quarter of this century, in the midst of much that is somewhat chaotic and confused.
In a book like this, which is intended chiefly as an introduction to the study of historic ornament, one cannot pretend to criticise the various styles of ornament, either from an artistic or scientific standpoint. It will be enough to attempt to point out the principal beauties or characteristics, to trace the history and overlapping of one style with another, and to trace, where possible, some units of ornamental forms to their symbolic ancestry. It is absurd to criticise the ornament of any period or country dogmatically, for we must remember, that although certain forms of art may not conform to the critics’ idiosyncrasy, they may be quite orthodox and good art when judged by the artistic laws of their own country. The difference in race, religion, manners, and customs, must always be taken into account, before we begin to criticise the art of a nation to which we do not belong.
As already remarked, we are hampered by tradition in our attempts to produce originality in ornament, but there is very little tradition for the absolute copying of a particular style, except from nations who have had no decided art of their own. As far as we know of the history and practice in the whole field of ornamental design, from its remote beginnings it has been mostly all along a series of systems of developments, sometimes for good and sometimes for the opposite, but rarely, if ever, a system of copying. Some notable exceptions to this may be noticed, as when, for the expediencies known as “tricks of the trade,” the Phœnicians made ivory carvings in exact imitation of Egyptian designs, and sold them to the Assyrians; and likewise bronze bowls and platters in both Assyrian and Egyptian imitations, and traded with them throughout the Ægean and Mediterranean, or when the Siculo-Arabian silks were made at Palermo in imitation of Saracen designs, with mock-Saracenic inscriptions, and sold for the real articles. Other instances might be cited, but these were among the most successful.
As regards the purity of styles it may be safely said, that, with rare exceptions, it is well-nigh impossible to find a well-designed and complete scheme of decoration,