an ornament, is conditional on its being
necessary to the representation of a scene, or explanation of an action.
On no terms whatever could any such subject be independently admissible.

Observe, therefore, the use of manufacture as ornament is--

1. With heroic figure sculpture, not admissible at all.
2. With picturesque figure sculpture, admissible in the degree of its
picturesqueness.
3. Without figure sculpture, not admissible at all.

So also in painting: Michael Angelo, in the Sistine Chapel, would not
have willingly painted a dress of figured damask or of watered satin;
his was heroic painting, not admitting accessories.

Tintoret, Titian, Veronese, Rubens, and Vandyck, would be very sorry to
part with their figured stuffs and lustrous silks; and sorry, observe,
exactly in the degree of their picturesque feeling. Should not _we_ also
be sorry to have Bishop Ambrose without his vest, in that picture of the
National Gallery?

But I think Vandyck would not have liked, on the other hand, the vest
without the bishop. I much doubt if Titian or Veronese would have
enjoyed going into Waterloo House, and making studies of dresses upon
the counter.

Sec. XIV. So, therefore, finally, neither architecture nor any other human
work is admissible as an ornament, except in subordination to figure
subject. And this law is grossly and painfully violated by those curious
examples of Gothic, both early and late, in the north, (but late, I
think, exclusively, in Italy,) in which the minor features of the
architecture were composed of _small models_ of the larger: examples
which led the way to a series of abuses materially affecting the life,
strength, and nobleness of the Northern Gothic,--abuses which no
Ninevite, nor Egyptian, nor Greek, nor Byzantine, nor Italian of the
earlier ages would have endured for an instant, and which strike me with
renewed surprise whenever I pass beneath a portal of thirteenth century
Northern Gothic, associated as they are with manifestations of exquisite
feeling and power in other directions. The porches of Bourges, Amiens,
Notre Dame of Paris, and Notre Dame of Dijon, may be noted as
conspicuous in error: small models of feudal towers with diminutive
windows and battlements, of cathedral spires with scaly pinnacles, mixed
with temple pediments and nondescript edifices of every kind, are
crowded together over the recess of the niche into a confused fool's cap
for the saint below.