Nothing is being talked about at present in Germany but the guns of great caliber that are manufacturing at the celebrated works on the banks of the Ruhr. As our neighbors appear to be elated over this wonderful work, it is expedient to examine the subject, in order to see whether their applause is legitimate.
We have known for a long time that the artillery materiel devoted to the defense of the German coasts consists of a long, stationary 5¾ inch gun; of long 7¾ inch hooped steel guns, closed by a cylindrico-prismatic wedge; of an 8 inch mortar; and of guns of 11¾ and 15 inch caliber. The 11¾ inch gun is 22 feet in length, and, including the closing mechanism, weighs 79,200 pounds. As regards the projectiles that this weapon throws, the ordinary shell is 33 inches in length, and weighs, all charged, 656 pounds, and the exploding shell, of the same length, weighs, all charged, 1,160 pounds. The initial velocity of the latter is 1,600 feet with a maximum charge of 148 pounds of powder.
The 15 inch gun is 32.8 feet in length, and weighs 158,400 pounds. Its projectiles are 3.67 feet in length. The ordinary shell, charge included, weighs 1,400 pounds, and the exploding shell, under the same circumstances, 1,700 pounds, that is, more than three quarters of a metric ton. The initial velocity of this last named projectile is 1,650 feet with a maximum charge of 1,650 pounds of powder. We also know that Mr. Krupp has two models of guns of 13½ inch caliber, and of a length equal to 35 times the caliber, say 39-5/12 feet. The lighter of these models (which was shown at Anvers) weighs no less than 264,000 pounds, carriage not included. Its cylindrico prismatic closing mechanism (Rundkeilverschluss) alone weighs 82,500 pounds. This is the weight of a 5¾ inch hooped steel gun!
FIG. 1.—NEW 52 FOOT KRUPP GUN AND A GERMAN FIELD PIECE FIGURED ON THE SAME SCALE.
FIG. 1.—NEW 52 FOOT KRUPP GUN AND A GERMAN FIELD PIECE FIGURED ON THE SAME SCALE.
We now learn that the Essen works have just begun the manufacture of a 314,600 pound gun. This piece, called "40 cm. kanone L/40," will, of course, be of 15.6 inch caliber, but it will differ from the one above described in that its length will be equal to 40 times the caliber, say 52 feet, or to the space occupied on the maneuvering ground by a field piece drawn by six horses (Fig. 1). This gun will be provided with two kinds of projectiles. One of these, called light, will be 3½ feet in length, weigh 1,628 pounds, and be capable of taking an initial velocity of 2,410 feet and of piercing, on its exit from the chamber, either a hammered iron plate 3¾ feet in thickness or two united plates 1¾ and 2¾ feet in thickness.
The shell called heavy will be 5¾ feet in length, and weigh 2,310 pounds, say more than a 4¾ inch siege piece! The charge employed will be 1,067 pounds of brown, prismatic Dunwald powder. Ten hundred and sixty-seven pounds—nearly half a metric ton, more than the weight of a field piece without its carriage! With this enormous charge, the heavy shell will be capable of an initial velocity of 2,100 feet and of piercing, on its exit from the chamber, either a hammered iron plate 4 feet in thickness or two united plates 2 and 2.88 feet in thickness.
The Cologne Gazette, from which we borrow most of the data just presented, adds that the "40 L/40" piece will be the largest cannon in the world, but that it will not long enjoy the privilege of such pre-eminence. It appears, in fact, that Mr. Krupp is preparing to manufacture a gun of 17½ inch caliber, weighing 330,000 pounds. The projectile for this monster will be 6 feet in length, say the stature of a full grown man, and will weigh no less than a ton and a half. A man of medium stature will measure a little less than this projectile (Fig. 2).
It is possible that all these figures have been slightly exaggerated by the ultra-Vosges journals, who doubtless intend to make an impression upon us; but we shall not dwell upon that point.
As regards the penetrating power of the large "40 L/40" gun, the German press observes that in 1868 artillery was incapable of piercing in one-hundredths of an inch what it is now piercing in tenths of an inch. The principle was formerly admitted, it says, that a shell should by right have a thickness equal to its caliber. Now, "the largest cannon in the world" perforates a plate whose thickness is three times the diameter of the gun's bore. What great progress! exclaim the German journals, and how jealous the French and English are going to be! Jealous of that? Why, indeed? We are not the least in the world so. How could we be? In the first place, we have a gun of very great caliber—a 13¼ inch steel coast and siege piece. This weighs 37 tons, and is 36¾ feet in length. Its projectile weighs from 924 to 1,320 pounds, according to its internal organization. Its conoid head is very elongated, and by reason of this elegant form it always falls upon its point, even at falling angles of an amplitude approaching 60 degrees. The charge used varies from 396 to 440 pounds, according to the nature of the powder. As for the ballistic properties of the piece, they are very remarkable. Its projectile has an initial velocity of 2,132 feet, and the maximum range is from 10 to 11 miles, say the distance from Paris to Montgeron by the Paris-Lyons-Mediterranean railroad, or from Paris to Versailles. Finally, the accuracy of this gun is much greater than that of the 9½ inch steel one. Now, the accuracy of this latter is such that it is impossible for its projectiles to miss a ship under way, and that we are sure of playing with it against the enemy that game whose device is "We win at every shot!" Well, we do not hesitate to say that these results appear to us to be satisfactory—we mean quite sufficient—and that there is no need of looking for a better gun. If there were, French industry would be capable of producing weapons of any caliber desired. As regards this, there is, so to speak, no limit; moreover, taking into account merely the terrestrial conditions of the problem, we may be satisfied that the great works of our country are more powerfully equipped than those of Essen, and consequently better able to forge large pieces of steel.
Mr. Krupp, it is said, is very proud of his two power hammers, which he has named Max and Fritz. But, on the whole, these two apparatus are only fifty ton ones, and have a fall of but ten feet. Now, Creusot and St. Chamond each has a hundred ton steam hammer with a fall of 16 feet, accompanied with four furnaces and four cranes.
FIG. 2.—3,300 POUND PROJECTILE OF A KRUPP GUN IN COURSE OF MANUFACTURE.
FIG. 2.—3,300 POUND PROJECTILE OF A KRUPP GUN IN COURSE OF MANUFACTURE.
But why proceed to the manufacture of monstrous guns, like those that Mr. Krupp has just produced, or meditates producing in the future; guns of such a caliber can be used only in special cases—in battery on the coast or on board of a ship. It is not with materiel of this kind that war is waged; it is with field pieces. Our ultra-Vosges neighbors well know this.
One of the reasons that the war that very recently threatened us did not break out, was because the Germans could not fail to see that their field materiel was not as powerful as ours; that the shell of our 3½ inch gun weighs 17½ pounds, while that of their heavy 3½ inch gun does not weigh 15. Now, this difference has its value.
Hunters well know what importance it is necessary to attach to the number of the ball that they use.
This granted, it is well to observe that the net cost of the "40 cm. kanone L/40" must not be less than $300,000 or $400,000. Now, on the interest of such a sum we could have from ten to fifteen complete batteries, that is to say, comprising, in addition to the sixty or eighty guns, all the necessary accessories, such as carriages, limbers, caissons, harness, etc.
Frankly, between the two acquisitions, there is no hesitation possible.
Finally, if we must say so, we do not think that foreign powers, when they believe it their duty to provide themselves with materiel of great caliber, will think of supplying themselves from the Essen works, on account of the memorable accidents due to the imperfection of guns coming from this celebrated establishment. The list of burstings that have occurred, not only in Germany, but also in Russia, Bohemia, Italy, Turkey, and Roumania, is already a long one. To speak here only of what occurred in France in 1870-71, it is certain that out of seventy German guns of large caliber in battery against the southwest front of the wall of Paris, thirty-six—say more than half—were put out of service during the first fifteen days of the bombardment, and that too through firing merely; and it was the opinion of Mr. De Moltke himself that the German siege batteries would have been reduced to silence, had the defenders been able to hold out for a week longer. It is equally certain that, during the course of the Loire campaign, eighty guns of Prince Frederick Charles' were put out of service by the sole fact of their firing. Summing up the history of these many accidents, the Duke of Cambridge asserted to the House of Lords (April 30, 1876) that two hundred Krupp guns burst during the Franco-German war. Have the engineers of the Essen works improved their processes of manufacture since that epoch? It is permissible to doubt it, seeing that, very recently, the Italian navy refused to take from Mr. Krupp some 15½ inch guns whose tubes were but very imperfectly welded.
Must the numerous accidents mentioned be attributed to defects in the metal employed? Were they due to defective hooping? Were they due to some one of the numerous inconveniences inherent to the cylindrico-prismatic system of closing (Rundkeilverschluss)?
They were doubtless owing to such causes combined.—La Nature.
The Right Hon. Lord Rayleigh lately delivered a lecture at the Royal Institution upon "The Colors of Thin Plates," a term which he explained was applied to thin films of substances, such as oily films on the surface of water or the equally familiar soap bubble. Although the reflection of colors from the surface of a soap bubble is probably the most noticeable, yet the "plate" which lends itself most readily for experiment is a film of air confined between two sheets of glass. If a ray of white light be reflected from the surface of the film upon a screen, the so-called Newton's rings, a series of colored concentric rings, are obtained. If, instead of reflected light, the ray of light transmitted through the film of air be allowed to fall upon the screen, the same phenomenon is observable, but the effect is very considerably minimized, owing to the great preponderance of white light, which overlies as it were the colored rings. Even in the first instance, as the lecturer was able to show later on, the colors are not nearly so intense as they may be obtained, owing to some white light being reflected from the surfaces of the two sheets of glass. With regard to the appearance of the phenomenon, it is observed that the part which corresponds to the thinnest part of the film is considerably darker than the rest of the spectrum; around this is a bright ring of white, succeeded by constantly increasing concentric rings of different colors apparently repeating themselves. Lord Rayleigh also obtained the same results with a film of a solution of soap and glycerine, but in this case the dark portion was observed at the top of the spectrum, the other colors arranging themselves in order in the soap film thinned by the force of gravitation, thus showing that the colors vary according to the thickness of the film. Another form of the experiment called forth a considerable amount of applause from the audience. Lord Rayleigh caused a gentle stream of air to play obliquely upon a soap film, so that the part struck was moved forward and the whole film rotated. Then with the alteration of the force of the current of air, which of course regulated the centrifugal force, alternating thicknesses of film were obtained, causing a varying display of beautiful colors and combinations of colors. This last experiment also tended to prove that the bands of color are not arranged in a certain order, but vary according to the thickness of the film, a conclusion arrived at by Brewster, who observed that if a film reflecting certain colors be carefully inverted so as not to disturb the gravity, the colors reflected are also inverted. Lord Rayleigh explained the phenomenon by referring to Young's wave theory of light. He regarded the film as having two surfaces from which light is reflected, an anterior exterior surface and a posterior interior surface. If a ray of light be thrown upon the film, a part of the light is reflected from the first surface, but the greater part is transmitted, and some of this is reflected from the second surface, passes back through the film, and is combined with the light reflected from the first surface. If then the light reflected from the second surface be in the same state of vibration as that reflected from the first surface, the effect of their combination will be to increase the amount of light reflected from the first surface, but if otherwise, the effect will be a partial neutralization of the light reflected from the first surface. That is to say, if the retardation of the light which is reflected from the second surface, owing to its twice traversing the thickness of the film, be equivalent to a wave length of the vibration of the light, it will increase the intensity of the light reflected from the first surface. If, however, the retardation be only equivalent to half a wave length, the intensity of the light will be decreased. Thus, then, with a ray of monochromatic light it will be seen that the effect of difference in the thickness of the film will be to alter the intensity of the reflected ray, but with a white light composed of several colors the result will be more complicated. As each color has a different wave length in vibration, it will be seen that each color will act independently of the others, and a certain thickness of film which, upon the combination of the two reflected rays, will cause one particular color to be intensified, will at the same time cause the other colors to be more or less obscured.
Thus as the thickness of the film is altered different colors preponderate, causing the appearance of rings or bands, according to the nature of the experiment. The dark appearance on the screen corresponding to the thinnest part of the film is probably due to refraction of the ray of light reflected from the second surface, consequent in its passing from a rare into a denser medium, and again from the denser medium into the rare, which refraction Lord Rayleigh considers to effect a retardation equivalent to half a wave length. Lord Rayleigh supported this theory of the formation of Newton's rings by several interesting experiments. A beam of light was intercepted by two of Nicol's prisms, one of which acted as a polarizer and the other as an analyzer of the light, so that no light was able to pass through both on to the screen. Between the two prisms a double refractive lens was now placed, in this case a double concave lens of selenite, when the same series of concentric rings observed with the film of air was obtained on the screen, only much more intense, while a wedge of selenite gave the bands of color in the same order as with the soap bubble.
But perhaps the most striking proof of the dependence of the colors upon the thickness of the film was shown by the reflection of a beam of light from a piece of mica composed of twenty-four very attenuated plates overlapping each other. With each layer a marked gradation in color was visible.
The remainder of the lecture was devoted to an explanation of the determination of the chromatic relations of the colors of the spectrum. Lord Rayleigh at this point made a rather startling statement that any color can be produced by two other colors. As an example of such a formation, a ray of white light was passed separately through a solution of yellow chromate of potash and an alkaline litmus solution, throwing respectively a yellow and violet-blue color upon the screen. When the ray was made to pass through the two solutions successively, an orange-yellow color was obtained upon the screen, which color Lord Rayleigh asserted to be made up of red and green rays. To prove this, the ray of white light was decomposed by means of a prism, and the decomposed rays passed through the two solutions. The one solution was found to exclude all the yellow and orange rays from the spectrum, while the other excluded all the blue and violet rays, so that when the ray had passed through both solutions, only the red and green rays were left. If, instead of allowing the decomposed ray of light to pass through a slit, and thus obtain definite bands in the spectrum, the ray was passed through a circular hole, the red and green colors overlapped each other on the screen, forming by their combination the identical orange-yellow color obtained with the primary white light. It was then stated that if three definite positions be taken in a spectrum in the red, green, and violet bands respectively, and these positions be represented by the corners of an equilateral triangle (Clerk Maxwell's triangle), it has been mathematically determined in what position within this triangle the colors of Newton's rings would fall. Lord Rayleigh, by means of a diagram and the selenite wedge, showed that the relations to the three standard colors in practice were identical with the position assigned them by theory.
In conclusion, the lecturer showed a piece of glass, the surface of which had been decomposed, a ray of light transmitted through which showed upon the screen patches of very pure color. These he considered to be due to the glass consisting of a number of thin plates, some of which had been removed by the decomposition.
From time to time, serious accidents have taken place, and the progress of work stopped, by the sudden snapping of driving belts in machinery, and, as a general rule, it is found that the collapse is attributable either to faulty leather or insecure joining. A great improvement of the leather intended for belts has been brought about during the last few years, by the introduction of improved processes for currying and the subsequent treatment. Paterson has worked successfully a patent for rendering belt leather more pliable, and lessening the tendency to stretch. Under this treatment the leather is either curried or rough dried, and then soaked in a solution of wood, resin, and gum thus, or frankincense, first melted together, and then dissolved, by the application of heat, in boiled or linseed oil. The leather, after this process, is soaked in petroleum or carbon bisulphide containing a little India-rubber solution, and is finally washed with petroleum benzoline. Should the mixture be found to be too thick, it is thinned down with benzoline spirit until it is about the consistency of molasses at the ordinary temperature. The leather so prepared is not liable to stretch, and can be joined in the usual way by copper riveting, or the ends can be sewn. A good material for smaller belts, and for strings and bands for connecting larger ones, is that recently patented by Vornberger, in which the gut of cattle is the basis. After careful cleansing, the gut is split up into strands, and treated with a bath of pearlash water for several days. The strands are then twisted together, and after being dipped in a solution of Condy's fluid, are dried. They are then sulphured in a wooden box for twenty-four hours, after which the twisting can be completed. They are by this process rendered pliable, and can be used in this state for stitching the leather ends of larger belts, or can be stiffened by plunging them into a bath of isinglass and white wine vinegar. After drying they are susceptible of a fine polish, emery cloth being usually employed, and the final "finish" is given to the material with gum arabic and oil.
Canvas and woven fabrics, coated with India-rubber, are also now being used for driving belts and for covering machine rollers. As this material can be made in one piece, without the necessity of a joint, it is uniform in strength, and is recommended as a substitute for leather belts requiring joints. A patented material of this description is due to Zingler, who boils the canvas or similar woven fabric under pressure in a solution of tungstate of soda for three hours. It is then transferred to a bath of acetate of lead solution, and drained, dried, and stretched. When in this condition it is coated, by means of a spreading machine, with repeated layers of a composition consisting of India-rubber, antimony sulphide, peroxide of iron, sulphur, lime, asbestos, chalk, sulphate of zinc, and carbonate of magnesia. When a sufficient thickness of this composition has been applied, it is vulcanized under pressure at a temperature of 250° F., or a little higher. The material produced in this manner is said to have the strength and durability of the best leather belts. Attempts have recently been made to obtain a glue suitable for joining the ends of driving belts, without the use of metal fastenings or sewing, and Messrs. David Kirkaldy & Son have reported favorably on such a belt glue, which is being introduced by Mr. W.V. Van Wyk, of 30 and 31 Newgate street, E.C. In the test applied by them, a joint of this "Hercules glue," as it is called, in a 4 in. single belt was stronger than the solid leather. When a tensile stress of 2,174 lb., equivalent to 2,860 lb. per square inch of section, was applied, the leather gave way, leaving the joint intact. Belts fastened by a scarf joint with this glue are said to be of absolutely the same thickness and pliability at the joint as in the main portion of the belt, and thus insure freedom from noise and perfect steadiness. The instructions for use are simple, and it requires only fifteen minutes for the joint to set before being ready for use. From a rough chemical analysis of the sample submitted to us, we find that it consists of gelatine, with small amounts of mineral ingredients. Josef Horadam, some few years ago, patented in Germany a process for preserving glues from decomposition, by the addition of from 8 to 10 per cent. of magnesium or calcium chlorides. The addition of these salts does not impair in any way the strength of the glue, but prevents it from decomposing, and it may be that the "Hercules glue" is preserved in a similar manner.
A cement of this nature, if thoroughly to be relied on, must be of great value, although the great variation in the quality of leather, apart from the difficulty hitherto experienced of securely connecting the ends together, opens a wide field for a material of uniform composition, and capable of being made in one piece in suitable lengths for driving belts and other machine gear.—Industries.
A large crowd was present recently at the inauguration of the statue of Denis Papin, which took place in the court of the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers, under the presidency of Mr. Lockroy, Minister of Commerce and the Industries.
DENIS PAPIN.
In the large hall in which the addresses were made there were several municipal counselors, the representatives of the Minister of War, Captains Driant and Frocard, several members of the Institute, and others. A delegation from the Syndical Chamber of Conductors, Enginemen, and Stokers, which contributed through a subscription toward the erection of the statue, was present at the ceremony with its banner. Mr. Lanssedat, superintendent of the Conservatoire, received the guests, assisted by all the professors. Mr. Lanssedat opened the proceedings by an address in which he paid homage to the scientists who were persecuted while living, to Denis Papin, who did for mechanics what Nicolas le Blanc did for chemistry, and to those men whose entire life was devoted to the triumph of the cause of science.
After this, an address was delivered by Mr. Lockroy, who expatiated upon the great services rendered by the master of all the sciences known at that epoch, who was in turn physician, physicist, mechanician, and mathematician, and who, in discovering the properties of steam, laid the foundation of modern society, which, so to speak, arose from this incomparable discovery.
Speeches were afterward made by Mr. Feray d'Essonnes, president of the Syndical Chamber of Conductors, Enginemen, and Stokers, and by Prof. Comberousse, of the Central School, who broadly outlined the life of Papin.
Along about four o'clock, the Minister of Commerce and the Industries, followed by all the invited guests, repaired to the court, and the veil that hid the statue was then lifted amid acclamation.
Papin is represented as standing and performing an experiment.
Upon the pedestal is the following inscription:
The inauguration is due to the initiative of Mr. Lanssedat, for it was he who in 1885 suggested the national subscription, which was quickly raised.
Denis Papin was born at Blois on the 22d of August, 1647. He was the son of a physician. After the example of his father and of several of his relatives, he studied medicine and took his degree; but his taste for mathematics, and especially for experimental physics, soon led him to abandon medicine.
It was in 1690 that he published in the Actes of Leipsic the memoir which will forever and irrevocably assign to him the priority in the invention of steam engines and steamboats, and the title of which was: "New method of cheaply obtaining the greatest motive powers."
In 1704, Papin, poor and obliged to do everything for himself, finished his first steamboat; but for want of money he was unable to make a trial of it until August 15, 1707. The trial was made upon the Fulda and Wera, affluents of the Weser.
The operation succeeded wonderfully, and, shortly afterward, Papin, being desirous of rendering the experiment complete, put his boat on the Weser; but the stupid boatmen of this river drew his craft ashore and broke it and its engine in pieces.
This catastrophe ruined Papin, and annihilated all his hopes. The great man, falling into shocking destitution, broken down and conquered by adversity, returned to England in 1712 to seek aid and an asylum.
Everywhere repulsed, he returned to Cassel about 1714, sad and discouraged; and the man to whom we owe that prodigy, the steam engine, that instrument of universal welfare and riches, disappeared without leaving any trace of his death.—Le Monde Illustre.
Decoration is the science and art of beautifying objects and rendering them more pleasing to the eye. As an art, individual taste and skill have much to do with the perfection of the results; as a science, it is subject to certain invariable laws and principles which cannot be violated, and a study of which, added to familiarity with some of the best examples, will enable any one to appreciate and understand it, even if lacking the skill and power to create original and beautiful designs.
The study of decoration offers many advantages. It cultivates the imagination and the taste; it develops our capacity for recognizing and enjoying the beautiful in both nature and art; it adds to the pleasure and refinement of life. Practically, its importance can hardly be overestimated, as it enters into almost all the industrial pursuits. We can think of but few classes of objects, even the most simple, in which some attempt at ornamentation is not made.
Ornament is one of the principal means of enhancing the value of the raw material. A piece of carved wood, or an artistically decorated porcelain vase, worth perhaps many hundred dollars, if reduced to the commercial value of the material of which they are composed would be valued at but a few dollars or cents. The higher the ornamentation ranks, from an artistic point of view, the greater becomes the value of the article to which it is applied. Knowledge of good designs is thus evidently important, to the purchaser of the object ornamented as well as to the designer who planned it. This can only be attained by cultivation.
To know and appreciate the best ornament should be an aim set forth in any scheme of general education. This knowledge and appreciation can be obtained by studying the application of the laws and principles of ornamental art as exemplified in the works of masters, and also by endeavoring to apply these principles in designs of our own creation.
We can only arrive at a knowledge of these principles by a consideration of the object. In other words, nature and history must be studied. First, nature, for she is the primary source and origin of all good ornament, whether ancient or modern; and if, as in everything else, we would not become servile imitators and weak copyists, we must go to the fountain head. Second, history, for by the study of the ornament of past ages we will not only become acquainted with the highest developments of which ornamental art is capable, but will moreover broaden our views as to its object and scope, and will stimulate our own imagination and invention, by leading us to the contemplation of the myriad beautiful and protean forms it has assumed, when surrounding conditions, such as religion, climate, temperament, nationality, etc., have been different. Knowledge of historic ornament will also prevent the imposition on the public, so common in our day, of weak and unworthy productions which claim to be based on classic originals, and which constitute a great stumbling block to the progress and appreciation of good art. The result is somewhat analogous to that produced upon conscientious but ill-informed minds, who make every effort to appreciate and enjoy the spurious productions of a great author, not knowing that they are not genuine.
I. Object of Ornamental Art.—The object or purpose of ornament, as in the other fine arts, is to please. In music and poetry this enjoyment is conveyed to the mind through the ear; in the decorative and pictorial arts, through the eye. Generally, the meaning that we find in such productions, the appeal that they make to the understanding or feelings, is as great a source of interest to us as their intrinsic beauty. Poetry and vocal music are greatly dependent for their effect upon the meaning they convey in words; painting and sculpture, upon the ideas or sentiments they suggest. In all four, however, and most decidedly in music unaccompanied by words, the appeal is frequently made almost exclusively to the æsthetic sense, the mind or intellect remaining almost dormant under the impression. Gems of rhythmical verse, such as Poe's "Bells," "The Raven," Whistler's "Symphonies in Color," nameless forms in statuary, expressionless save in the mere beauty of their proportions and curves, and, as has been stated, nearly the entire field of instrumental music, are cases in point. In the ornamental and decorative arts, as well as in architecture (from which they are indeed inseparable), beauty alone, in like manner, should be the principal aim and purpose. In the former, of course, it is indispensable that such should be the case, as they are entirely subordinate and accessory in their nature, their only raison d'etre being to beautify or render more agreeable objects already created for some purpose.
It must not be imagined that such artistic impressions—viz., where the appeal is made almost solely to the æsthetic sense, regardless of the reason, judgment, or feelings—are necessarily of a lower order. Their effect is almost analogous to that which nature herself produces upon us—the starry heavens, the mighty ocean, the tender flower. The impression, whether the object belongs to the domain of nature or art, may be a merely sensuous one; and if it stops there, as it certainly does for the majority of people, it ranks without doubt far below productions where the æsthetic element is only used to stimulate and heighten the appeal to the mind or the feelings. But if it extend beyond, and makes the sensuous impression but the parting link to the contemplation of ideal, abstract beauty, without the intermediate aid of the heart or the reason, it is the shortest and quickest road toward the realization of the infinite, and makes us indeed feel that it is but a short step "from nature up to nature's God." Thus architecture, which embodies, more than any other of the space arts, principles of abstract beauty, has been with reason called the noblest of them all.
However, ornamental and architectural forms frequently do convey a meaning, which we term symbolism in art. If this symbolism does not detract from the first object of ornament—viz., to beautify—it is perfectly legitimate and proper. It is impossible to fully appreciate many phases of art, as, for instance, the Egyptian and the early Christian, if we leave out of sight the symbolism which pervades them.
While beauty, or capacity for pleasing the eye, may be very definitely said to be the aim of ornamental art, it is difficult to arrive at a universal standard as to what constitutes beauty. What pleases one person will not always please another. The child loves glittering objects and gaudy combinations, which the mature taste of the man declares extravagant and unharmonious. Savages decorate their weapons, utensils, and their own persons with ornaments that appear uncouth and barbarous to civilized people.
Besides these differences in taste, which are due to different degrees of mental development, and which can consequently be easily disposed of, we find among highly civilized and cultured nations, at different periods, a great diversity of tastes. These varying and sometimes apparently conflicting products of ornamental art we designate as styles, viz., Egyptian style, Greek style, Gothic style, etc. So marked are the differences between them that we can sometimes tell at a glance to what period and to what style a small fragment of decoration belongs.
Notwithstanding these differences, which at first may appear very great, a careful study of the best styles—those that achieved the greatest and most lasting popularity—will reveal the fact that they are all based upon certain fundamental laws and principles, and that all are good, bad, or indifferent according as they conform to or violate these principles. These essentials having been preserved, the opportunities for the exercise of individual or national taste are almost boundless.
II. Position of Ornament.—The position that ornament occupies is necessarily a secondary one, as it cannot exist independently, but is always applied to objects created for some purpose entirely independent of their capacity for pleasing. This gives us one of the great underlying principles that should characterize all ornament, viz., it must be subordinate to the object which it adorns, and must not detract from its use. We often see this rule violated in personal, household, and architectural decoration—windows so overloaded with projecting cornices and lattice work as to almost exclude light and air; knife handles carved so elaborately that it is impossible to grasp them firmly; styles of dress in form or color that impede the motions of the wearer, and make the clothes, rather than the personality of the wearer, the most noticeable feature. From this principle there is but a step to another: All ornament should be modest and moderate. It must not obtrude itself, and a great profusion and ostentation in its application is always a sign of degeneracy and bad taste. Of course some objects, from their nature, position, and use, will admit of greater and more elaborate ornament than others.
Ornament, being entirely subordinate, should not conceal the construction of the object. In architecture it should follow the leading lines of the building, and should emphasize, or at least suggest, the construction. If architectural in character, it should so enter into the construction of the building that it could not be taken away without injuring it.
We must feel that a column, no matter how beautiful, is supporting something. A floor, always a plane surface, must not be tiled or decorated in any way to express relief. This would apparently destroy the essential constructive quality of a floor, viz., flatness. For the same reason, all shams, such as painted arches, pillars, etc., are not legitimate. As long as they do not actually exist, they are evidently not necessary to the construction, and have no purpose save an imaginary decorative one, and in the words of Owen Jones, construction must be decorated—not decoration constructed.
III. Scope of Ornament.—The scope of ornamental art is almost boundless. It is applied to objects large and small, adapted to the most various uses, constructed of the most different materials. As the ornamentation is always to be subordinate to the object, considerations regarding size, use, position, material, etc., must govern it. An ornament that would be admirable applied to one object, might be detestable if applied to another. A design cannot be made without reference to its future application.
First: The material must be considered. Heavy and hard materials, such as wood and stone, will not admit of as delicate curves and lines as textile fabrics, such as cotton and woolen goods, laces, etc.
Second: The manner in which the article is to be made, whether by weaving, cutting, carving, casting, etc.
Third: The position the object is to occupy. If elevated or otherwise remote from the eye, elaborate finish and minute detail are useless. Ornamental art, from time immemorial, has attained its greatest excellence and exercised its greatest influence in connection with architecture.
In fact, the study of ornament is inseparable from that of architecture. It is upon architectural forms that the greatest artists have in all ages expended their greatest efforts and skill, and in a treatise on historic ornament they are decidedly the most interesting and important object of study.
IV. Material of Ornament.—The two great sources of ornament are geometry and nature. The latter includes the former; for not only must natural forms, in order to be available as material for ornament, be first conventionalized, or reduced to regular, symmetrical, geometric outlines, but any and all designs, whether the unit of repetition be geometric or conventional, must be founded upon geometric construction. This refers to the regularity, repetition, and distribution of parts; so that every good design, if reduced to its principal lines of construction, would exhibit but a few geometric lines and inclosing spaces. Many designs are not only geometric in their basis or plan, but make use of geometric figures as the units or materials of design. Such designs, however, rank lower than those in which natural forms conventionalized are taken as the subjects of repetition; and as the ornament rises in the scale toward perfection, even the geometric basis becomes less and less apparent, and sinks into a decidedly subordinate position; so that in many of the most perfect specimens it can be traced only in a few leading lines of the composition. Its presence, however, is necessary, and is the foundation, if not the most important element, of beauty in the design.
While the natural world, including leaves, flowers, animals, etc., is the greatest source of ornament, it is generally the opinion of the best authorities, derived from the study of the best styles and by a consideration of the principles of fitness and propriety which underlie the entire physical and moral world, that natural forms in ornamental and decorative art should not be literally copied or imitated. That is the aim of painting, sculpture, and the other representative arts, where the object is to present something to the eye which will suggest at once the actual presence of the object. To produce that effect, the object, whether animal or vegetable, is represented as much as possible in the actual circumstances of its existence, surrounded by the necessary conditions of its well-being and growth. A frame is placed around it, to shut it off as much as possible from other surroundings, and thus help us delude ourselves that we are in the presence of the real thing, either as it would impress us through our senses or our imagination.
But in ornamental art the case is entirely different. As it is to be applied and consequently subordinated to something, and does not exist for itself, it would be impossible, except in very rare instances, to introduce in a design a natural object in a realistic manner and not violate some important law of its growth or the conditions of its well-being. For instance, to exactly repeat a certain rose, with all the accidents of its growth, many times in a carpet is not natural. Nature never repeats herself. Moreover, to tread on that which is supposed to suggest to us real roses is barbarous. It would really be outraging and distorting nature while pretending to be her faithful disciple and imitator.
We not only derive from nature the most important materials for our designs, but also the various modes of arranging this material. Various modes of repetition—radical, bilateral, etc.—were all probably suggested by some natural arrangement observed in flowers, leaves, etc. Of these different arrangements it is curious to note that the bilateral is more characteristic of the higher forms of nature and the radiating of the lower. The leading principles of ornament—symmetry, proportion, rhythm, contrast, unity, variety, repose, etc.—are all exemplified in natural forms. The latter have also suggested many of the most important architectural forms. The Gothic cathedral, with its clustered columns branching and forming pointed arches overhead, was probably suggested by a grove of trees with overarching branches and boughs. The idea of the column was derived from the papyrus plant, a species of reed growing in the river Nile. The bud or flower suggested the capital of the column; the stalk, the shaft; and the bulbous root, the pedestal. The blue vault of the sky undoubtedly suggested the dome, etc.
The following are a few of the leading principles of ornamental art as set forth by Owen Jones in his Grammar of Ornament, a fine work, magnificently illustrated, whose perusal could hardly fail to delight the most indifferent:
"All good ornamental art should possess fitness, proportion, harmony, the result of all which is repose."
"Construction should be decorated. Decoration should never be purposely constructed."
"All ornament should be based upon geometrical construction."
"Harmony of form consists in the proper balancing and contrast of the straight, the inclined, and the curved."
"In surface decoration all lines should flow out of a parent stem. Every part, however distant, should be traced to its branch or root. Natural law."
"All junctions of curved lines with each other, or with straight lines, should be tangential to each other. Natural law."
"Natural forms, as subjects of ornament, should not be imitated, but should be conventionalized."
The origin of all attempts at decorating or beautifying objects lies in the universal love of mankind for the beautiful. Once the necessaries of life provided for, man instinctively, the world over, turns his attention toward gratifying this feeling, by improving and decorating the forms around him—his arms, utensils, dwelling, or his own person. The history of every nation proves this, and no matter how rude, and even ugly, their efforts may seem to us, we are bound to recognize in them the same motives that actuated the builders of the Parthenon or of St. Peter's at Rome. This awakening and gratification of the æsthetic sense seems to be the first advance from a condition of mere animal existence, in which food, shelter, and comfort are the only considerations, to tastes and desires that are higher and, consequently, more impersonal.
The term historic ornament is applied to the various styles of ornamental art which have flourished at various periods in the world's history, from the Egyptian, dating from the 14th century B.C., to those that exist at the present day. Their number is, consequently, almost unlimited, and we will confine ourselves to the consideration of a few of the principal ones only—those that have achieved the most enduring fame, or those that exercised the most marked influence upon succeeding styles.
In considering the various styles, we must always bear in mind that, with the exception of the Egyptian, all show very markedly the influence of the styles that preceded them, being very often merely an outgrowth or development of a preceding one. Thus the Greeks borrowed many forms from the Egyptians. The Romans simply adapted and elaborated the Greek style, etc. So that while each style is usually known by certain prominent characteristics, it does not follow that these characteristics are peculiar to it alone.[2] They may be found in other styles, though not to such a great extent. While similar features will thus be seen to run through many styles, each will usually be found to possess an individuality of its own. Every nation, like every individual, possesses different wants and capabilities, and will develop itself accordingly. Differences in religion, climate, manners, customs, etc., will cause differences in their art and literature, the most lasting monuments of their morals, taste, and feelings.
It is rather by the study of the art and literature of a people that we arrive at a true knowledge of them than from the perusal of mere historic facts concerning them—when they lived, who conquered them, etc.