As already remarked, we are hampered by tradition in our attempts to produce originality in ornament, but there is very little tradition for the absolute copying of a particular style, except from nations who have had no decided art of their own. As far as we know of the history and practice in the whole field of ornamental design, from its remote beginnings it has been mostly all along a series of systems of developments, sometimes for good and sometimes for the opposite, but rarely, if ever, a system of copying. Some notable exceptions to this may be noticed, as when, for the expediencies known as “tricks of the trade,” the Phœnicians made ivory carvings in exact imitation of Egyptian designs, and sold them to the Assyrians; and likewise bronze bowls and platters in both Assyrian and Egyptian imitations, and traded with them throughout the Ægean and Mediterranean, or when the Siculo-Arabian silks were made at Palermo in imitation of Saracen designs, with mock-Saracenic inscriptions, and sold for the real articles. Other instances might be cited, but these were among the most successful. As regards the purity of styles it may be safely said, that, with rare exceptions, it is well-nigh impossible to find a well-designed and complete scheme of decoration, or a building that will stand the test of having perfect unity in style; in fact, it may be more artistic on account of its incompleteness in this respect, for any work of art that is designed by receipt, like the Egyptian temples or Mohammadan ornament, is rather wearisome. It is pleasant to see at times a little bit showing here and there of the designer’s individuality. When the monotonous repetition of the laws peculiar to any arbitrary style are broken by a wilful and, perhaps, sinful artist, we often get a refreshing and original rendering that is not by any means displeasing. In transitional design from one style to another, much beautiful work may be seen. In connection with this the Byzantine style may be mentioned, with its Classic and Oriental forms, Elizabethan, Jacobean, Lombard Gothic, and the French styles of Henri Deux and François 1^{er}, in most of which Gothic and Renaissance forms are happily blended; and in the beautiful Siculo-Arabian textiles, where Italian and Saracenic forms make an interesting union. We learn from these examples that the successful designer of ornament should have a thorough knowledge of the historic styles, not for the purpose of reproducing their forms, but in order to discover for himself the methods by which the old artists arrived at the successful treatment of nature and of former styles, so that by the application of his knowledge, derived from the study of nature and the works of former artists, he may be enabled to give to the world some original and interesting work. CHAPTER II. PREHISTORIC ORNAMENT—PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD OR EARLY STONE AGE—RIVER DRIFT AND CAVE-MEN.