centuries. Morris at least saw the absurdity of the 
thing. He felt that it was monstrous that the modern man, who was 
pre-eminently capable of realising the strangest and most contradictory 
beauties, who could feel at once the fiery aureole of the ascetic, and the 
colossal calm of the Hellenic god, should himself, by a farcical bathos, 
be buried in a black coat, and hidden under a chimney-pot hat. He 
could not see why the harmless man who desired to be an artist in 
raiment should be condemned to be, at best, a black and white artist. It 
is indeed difficult to account for the clinging curse of ugliness which 
blights everything brought forth by the most prosperous of centuries. In
all created nature there is not, perhaps, anything so completely ugly as 
a pillar-box. Its shape is the most unmeaning of shapes, its height and 
thickness just neutralising each other; its colour is the most repulsive of 
colours--a fat and soulless red, a red without a touch of blood or fire, 
like the scarlet of dead men's sins. Yet there is no reason whatever why 
such hideousness should possess an object full of civic dignity, the 
treasure-house of a thousand secrets, the fortress of a thousand souls. If 
the old Greeks had had such an institution, we may be sure that it 
would have been surmounted by the severe, but graceful, figure of the 
god of letter-writing. If the mediæval Christians had possessed it, it 
would have had a niche filled with the golden aureole of St Rowland of 
the Postage Stamps. As it is, there it stands at all our street-corners, 
disguising one of the most beautiful of ideas under one of the most 
preposterous of forms. It is useless to deny that the miracles of science 
have not been such an incentive to art and imagination as were the 
miracles of religion. If men in the twelfth century had been told that the 
lightning had been driven for leagues underground, and had dragged at 
its destroying tail loads of laughing human beings, and if they had then 
been told that the people alluded to this pulverising portent chirpily as 
'The Twopenny Tube,' they would have called down the fire of Heaven 
on us as a race of half-witted atheists. Probably they would have been 
quite right. 
This clear and fine perception of what may be called the anæsthetic 
element in the Victorian era was, undoubtedly, the work of a great 
reformer: it requires a fine effort of the imagination to see an evil that 
surrounds us on every side. The manner in which Morris carried out his 
crusade may, considering the circumstances, be called triumphant. Our 
carpets began to bloom under our feet like the meadows in spring, and 
our hitherto prosaic stools and sofas seemed growing legs and arms at 
their own wild will. An element of freedom and rugged dignity came in 
with plain and strong ornaments of copper and iron. So delicate and 
universal has been the revolution in domestic art that almost every 
family in England has had its taste cunningly and treacherously 
improved, and if we look back at the early Victorian drawing-rooms it 
is only to realise the strange but essential truth that art, or human 
decoration, has, nine times out of ten in history, made things uglier than
they were before, from the 'coiffure' of a Papuan savage to the 
wall-paper of a British merchant in 1830. 
But great and beneficent as was the æsthetic revolution of Morris, there 
was a very definite limit to it. It did not lie only in the fact that his 
revolution was in truth a reaction, though this was a partial explanation 
of his partial failure. When he was denouncing the dresses of modern 
ladies, 'upholstered like arm-chairs instead of being draped like 
women,' as he forcibly expressed it, he would hold up for practical 
imitation the costumes and handicrafts of the Middle Ages. Further 
than this retrogressive and imitative movement he never seemed to go. 
Now, the men of the time of Chaucer had many evil qualities, but there 
was at least one exhibition of moral weakness they did not give. They 
would have laughed at the idea of dressing themselves in the manner of 
the bowmen at the battle of Senlac, or painting themselves an æsthetic 
blue, after the custom of the ancient Britons. They would not have 
called that a movement at all. Whatever was beautiful in their dress or 
manners sprang honestly and naturally out of the life they led and 
preferred to lead. And it may surely be maintained that any real 
advance in the beauty of modern dress must spring honestly and 
naturally out of the life we lead and prefer to lead. We are not 
altogether without hints and    
    
		
	
	
	Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code
	 	
	
	
	    Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the 
Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.