of his head. We may say of a thing, considered separately,
that it is a pretty thing; but before we can say it is a good ornament,
we must know what it is to adorn, and how. As, for instance, a ring of
gold is a pretty thing; it is a good ornament on a woman's finger; not a
good ornament hung through her under lip. A hollyhock, seven feet high,
would be a good ornament for a cottage-garden; not a good ornament for a
lady's head-dress. Might not Mr. Garbett have seen this without my
showing? and that, therefore, when I said "_good_" ornament, I said
"well-placed" ornament, in one word, and that, also, when Mr. Garbett
says "it may be overcharged by being misplaced," he merely says it may
be overcharged by being _bad_.

Secondly. But, granted that ornament _were_ independent of its position,
and might be pronounced good in a separate form, as books are good, or
men are good.--Suppose I had written to a student in Oxford, "You cannot
have too many books, if they be good books;" and he had answered me,
"Yes, for if I have many, I have no place to put them in but the
coal-cellar." Would that in anywise affect the general principle that
he could not have too many books?

Or suppose he had written, "I must not have too many, they confuse my
head." I should have written back to him: "Don't buy books to put in the
coal-hole, nor read them if they confuse your head; you cannot have too
many, if they be good: but if you are too lazy to take care of them, or
too dull to profit by them, you are better without them."

Exactly in the same tone, I repeat to Mr. Garbett, "You cannot have too
much ornament, if it be good: but if you are too indolent to arrange it,
or too dull to take advantage of it, assuredly you are better without
it."

The other points bearing on this question have already been stated in
the close of the 21st chapter.

The third reference I have to answer, is to my repeated assertion, that
the evidence of manual labor is one of the chief sources of value in
ornament, ("Seven Lamps," p. 49, "Modern Painters," Sec. 1, Chap. III.,)
to which objection is made in these terms: "We must here warn the reader
against a remarkable error of Ruskin. The value of ornaments in
architecture depends _not in the slightest degree_ on the _manual labor_
they contain. If it did, the finest ornaments ever executed would be the
stone chains that hang before certain Indian rock-temples." Is that so?
Hear a parallel argument. "The valu