panel with a circle, or diamond of conventional treatment with a
spandrel in each corner (door of T’ai-hê Hall, Pekin). A very Chinese
feature is the finial of the newel post, so constantly left more or less
straight in profile and deeply carved with monsters and scrolls. A
heavily enriched moulding bearing a strong resemblance to the
gadroon pattern is commonly used to give emphasis to edges, and
the dragon arranged in curves imitative of nature is frequently
employed over a closely designed and subordinated background.
The general rule that in every country designers use much the
same means whereby a pattern is obtained holds good in China.
There are forms of band decoration here which closely resemble those
of Gothic Europe, and a chair from Turkestan (3rd century) might
almost be Elizabethan, so like are the details. Screens of grill form,
so familiar in Mahommedan countries, are common, and the deeply
grounded, closely arranged patterns of Bombay also have their
counterparts. The imperial dais in the Ch’ien-Ch’ing Hall, Pekin, is
a masterpiece of intricate design. The back consists of one central
panel of considerable height, with two of lesser degree on either side
luxuriously carved. The whole is crowned with a very heavy crest
of dragons and scroll work; the throne also is a wonderful example
of carved treatment, and the doors of a cabinet in the same building
show how rich an effect of foliage can be produced without the
employment of stalk or scroll. The Chinaman, who is unequalled as a
microscopic worker, does not limit himself to ivory or metal. One
might almost say, he wastes his talent on such an ungrateful material
as wood. In this material fans and other trifles are carved with a
delicacy that courts disaster.
In Japan much of the Chinese type is apparent. The native carver is fond of massing foliage without the stalk to lead him. He appears to put in his foliage, fruit and flowers first and then to indicate a stalk here and there, thus reversing the order of the Western method. Such a treatment, especially when birds and beasts are introduced, has the highest decorative effect. But, as such close treatment is bound to do, it depends for success to some extent upon its scheme of colour. A long panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, depicting merchants with their packhorse (Plate IV. fig. 7), strongly resembles in its grouping and treatment Gothic work of the 15th century, as for example the panel of St Hubert in the museum at Châlons. The strength and character of Japanese figure work is quite equal to the best Gothic sculpture of the 15th century.
Savage Races.—There is a general similarity running through the carved design of most races of primitive culture, the “chip” form of ornament being almost universally employed. Decorated surfaces depending almost entirely upon the incised line also obtain all over the uncivilized world, and may no doubt be accounted for by the extensive use of stonecutting tools. The savage carver shows the same tendency to over-exalt his art by crowding on too much design as the more civilized craftsman of other lands, while he also on occasion exercises a good deal of restraint by a harmonious balance of decoration and plain space. So far as his chip designs and those patterns more or less depending on the line are concerned, his work as a rule is good and suitable, but when he takes to figure work his attempts do not usually meet with success. Primitive carving, generally, shows that very similar stages of artistic development are passed through by men of every age and race.
A very favourite style of “chip” pattern is that formed by small triangles and squares entirely covering a surface (Hervey Islanders), the monotony being sometimes varied by a band of different arrangement in the middle of the article or at the top or bottom. This form of art is hardly of a kind calculated to enlarge the imagination, though so far as the cultivation of patience and accuracy is concerned, has no equal. But many natives, as for example the Fiji Islanders, employ chip designs rivalling those of Europe in variety. Upon occasion the savage appreciates the way in which plain surfaces contrast and emphasize decorated parts, and judiciously restricts his skill to bands of decoration or to special points (Marquesa Islands). The Ijos of the lower Niger design their paddles in a masterly way, and show a fine sense of proportion between the plain and the decorated surface. Their designs, though slightly in relief, are of the chip nature. The method of decorating a subject with groups of incised lines, straight or curved, though often very effective and in every way suitable, is not a very advanced form of art and has decided limits. The native of the Congo does good work of this kind.
Carving in relief is common enough, idols being produced in many forms, but savage relief work seldom calls for praise. The Kafir carves the handle of his spoon perhaps in the form of a giraffe, and in the round, with each leg cut separately and the four hoofs meeting at the bowl, hardly a comfortable form of handle to hold. The North American Indian shows a wider invention than some nations, the twist in various shapes being a favourite treatment say of pipe stems. The Papuan has quite a style of his own; he uses a scroll of the form familiar in Indian shawls, and in some cases the scroll entwines in a way which faintly suggests the guilloche. The native of New Guinea also employs the scroll for a motive, the flat treatment of which reminds one of a similar method in use in Scandinavian countries. The work of the New Zealander is greatly in advance of the average primitive type; he uses a very good scheme of scroll work for decorative purposes, the lines of the scrolls often being enriched with a small pattern in a way reminding one of the familiar Norman treatment, as for example the prows of his canoes. The Maori sometimes carves not only the “barge boards” of his house but the gables also, snakes and grotesque figures being as a rule introduced; the main posts and rafters, too, of the inside receive attention. Unlike the Hindu he has a good idea of decorative proportion, and does not plan his scheme of design on too small a scale.
Authorities.—Marshall, Specimens of Antique Carved Furniture and Woodwork (1888); Franklyn Crallan, Details of Gothic Wood-carving (1890); Spring Gardens Sketch-book; Sanders, Examples of Carved Oak Woodwork of the 16th and 17th Centuries (1883); Colling, Medieval Foliage and Decoration (1874); Bond, Screens and Galleries (1908); Paukert, Die Zimmergothick (1904); J. Lessing, Holzschnitzereien (Berlin, 1882); Rouyer, La Renaissance; Rowe, Practical Wood-carving (1907). (F. A. C.)
WOODCHUCK, the vernacular name of the common North American representative of the marmots (see Marmot), scientifically known as Arctomys monax. The typical race of this species ranges from New York to Georgia and westward to the Dakotas, but it is represented by a second and darker race in Labrador, and by a third in Canada; while several other North American species have been named. The ordinary woodchuck measures about 18 in. in length, of which the tail forms a third. In colour it is usually brownish black above, with the nose, chin, cheeks and throat tending to whitish, and the under parts brownish chestnut; while the feet and tail are black and blackish. Like other marmots it is a burrower.
WOODCOCK (O. Eng. wude-cocc, wudu-coc, and wudu-snite) the Scolopax rusticula[1] of ornithology, a game-bird which is prized both by the sportsman and for its excellence for the table. It has a long bill, short legs and large eyes—suggestive of its nocturnal or crepuscular habits—with mottled plumage of black, chestnut- and umber-brown, ashy-grey, buff and shining white—the last being confined to the tip of the lower side of the tail-quills, but the rest intermixed for the most part in beautiful combination. Setting aside the many extreme aberrations from the normal colouring which examples of this species occasionally present (and some of them are extremely curious, not to say beautiful), there is much variation to be almost constantly observed in the plumage of individual, in some of which the richer tints prevail while others exhibit a greyer coloration. This variation is often, but not always, accompanied by a variation in size or at least in weight.[2] The paler birds are generally the larger, but the difference, whether in bulk or tint, cannot be attributed to age, sex, season or, so far as can be ascertained, to locality. It is, notwithstanding, a very common belief among sportsmen that there are two “species” of woodcock, and many persons of experience will have it that, beside the differences just named, the “little red woodcock” invariably flies more sharply than the other. However, a sluggish behaviour is not really associated with colour, though it may possibly be correlated with weight—for it is quite conceivable that a fat bird will rise more slowly, when flushed, than one which is in poor condition. Ornithologists are practically unanimous in declaring against the existence of two “species” or even “races,” and, moreover, in agreeing that the sex of the bird cannot be determined from its plumage, though there are a few who believe that the young of the year can be discriminated from the adults by having the outer web of the first quill-feather in the wing marked with angular notches of a light colour, while the old birds have no trace of this “vandyke” ornament. Careful dissections, weightings and measuring seem to show that the male varies most in size; on an average he is slightly heavier than the female, yet some of the lightest birds have proved to be cocks.[3]
Though there are probably few if any counties in the United Kingdom in which the woodcock does not almost yearly breed, especially since a “close time” has been afforded by the legislature for the protection of the species, there can be no doubt that by far the greater number of those shot in the British Islands have come from
- ↑ By Linnaeus, and many others after him, misspelt rusticola. The correct form of Pliny and the older writers seems to have been first restored in 1816 by Oken (Zoologie, ii. p. 589).
- ↑ The difference in weight is very great, though this seems to have been exaggerated by some writers. A friend who has had much experience tells us that the heaviest bird he ever knew weighed 16¼ oz., and the lightest 9 oz. and a fraction.
- ↑ Cf. Dr Hoffmann’s monograph Die Waldschnepfe, ed. 2, p. 35, published at Stuttgart in 1887.
