less than it has, and needing nothing more. It may, indeed,
receive additional decoration afterwards, exactly as a woman may
gracefully put a bracelet on her arm, or set a flower in her hair: but
that additional decoration is _not_ the _architecture_. It is of
curtains, pictures, statues, things that may be taken away from the
building, and not hurt it. What has the architect to do with these? He
has only to do with what is part of the building itself, that is to say,
its own inherent beauty. And because Mr. Garbett does not understand or
acknowledge this, he is led on from error to error; for we next find him
endeavoring to define beauty as distinct from ornament, and saying that
"Positive beauty may be produced by a studious collation of whatever
will display design, order, and congruity." (p. 14.) Is that so? There
is a highly studious collation of whatever will display design, order,
and congruity, in a skull, is there not?--yet small beauty. The nose is
a decorative feature,--yet slightly necessary to beauty, it seems to me;
now, at least, for I once thought I must be wrong in considering a skull
disagreeable. I gave it fair trial: put one on my bed-room
chimney-piece, and looked at it by sunrise every morning, and by
moonlight every night, and by all the best lights I could think of, for
a month, in vain. I found it as ugly at last as I did at first. So,
also, the hair is a decoration, and its natural curl is of little use;
but can Mr. Garbett conceive a bald beauty; or does he prefer a wig,
because that is a "_studious_ collation" of whatever will produce
design, order, and congruity? So the flush of the cheek is a
decoration,--God's painting of the temple of his spirit,--and the
redness of the lip; and yet poor Viola thought it beauty truly blent;
and I hold with her.

I have answered enough to this count.

The second point questioned is my assertion, "Ornament cannot be
overcharged if it is good, and is always overcharged when it is bad." To
which Mr. Garbett objects in these terms: "I must contend, on the
contrary, that the very best ornament may be overcharged by being
misplaced."

A short sentence with two mistakes in it.

First. Mr. Garbett cannot get rid of his unfortunate notion that
ornament is a thing to be manufactured separately, and fastened on. He
supposes that an ornament may be called good in itself, in the
stonemason's yard or in the ironmonger's shop: Once for all, let him put
this idea out