e them for subordinate work still; but they
are nothing to be proud of, especially when you did not invent them: and
others of them are mistakes and impertinences in the Greek himself, such
as his so-called honeysuckle ornaments and others, in which there is a
starched and dull suggestion of vegetable form, and yet no real
resemblance nor life, for the conditions of them result from his own
conceit of himself, and ignorance of the physical sciences, and want of
relish for common nature, and vain fancy that he could improve
everything he touched, and that he honored it by taking it into his
service: by freedom from which conceits the true Christian architecture
is distinguished--not by points to its arches.

Sec. IX. There remains, therefore, only the mediaeval system, in which
I think, generally, more completion is permitted (though this often
because more was possible) in the inferior than in the higher portions
of ornamental subject. Leaves, and birds, and lizards are realised, or
nearly so; men and quadrupeds formalised. For observe, the smaller and
inferior subject remains subordinate, however richly finished; but the
human sculpture can only be subordinate by being imperfect. The
realisation is, however, in all cases, dangerous except under most
skilful management, and the abstraction, if true and noble, is almost
always more delightful.[70]

[Illustration: Plate VIII.
DECORATION BY DISKS.
PALAZZO DEI BADOARI PARTECIPAZZI.]

Sec. X. What, then, is noble abstraction? It is taking first the essential
elements of the thing to be represented, then the rest in the order of
importance (so that wherever we pause we shall always have obtained more
than we leave behind), and using any expedient to impress what we want
upon the mind, without caring about the mere literal accuracy of such
expedient. Suppose, for instance, we have to represent a peacock: now a
peacock has a graceful neck, so has a swan; it has a high crest, so has
a cockatoo; it has a long tail, so has a bird of Paradise. But the whole
spirit and power of peacock is in those eyes of the tail. It is true,
the argus pheasant, and one or two more birds, have something like them,
but nothing for a moment comparable to them in brilliancy: express the
gleaming of the blue eyes through the plumage, and you have nearly all
you want of peacock, but without this, nothing; and yet those eyes are
not in relief; a rigidly _true_ sculpture o