I 



LlKK-FOllM ]N ART 289 

 Fig. S. Fig. 9. 



Clomposite of ancient Mediterranean design. (*) C!omposite of Aztec Design. 



(e.) The Grotesque. The grotesque forms, so-called, are always inventions or 

 rather composites suggested hj natural models. They conform to our standard of 

 what is ugly or bizarre more by accident than intention. Had the conceptions of the 

 designei-s of the startling and hideous been in consonance with our own, such forms as 

 the toad and the bat — those traditional sources of metaphors of the ugly — would be 

 more frequently seen. But these animals are rare in art. The toad occasionally makes 

 its appearance in Aztec and Peruvian records, while the bat is met with, so far as we can 

 recall, but in four instances,-)" and each of these is simplicity itself compared to the 

 creations from their own art resources. Had the native Mexican souo-ht in nature 

 for examples of ugliness, he must have been a poor observer to overlook the CenturioX 

 (Fig. 10), whose claims to a position among the ugly things of this world must be 

 conceded 



Fig. 10. 



Centurio. 



{f.) Tendencies of the Conventional. Let us glance at some of the common 



*Ingliraini, II, pi. 1.38. 



fGalindos, account of Men. about Lake Yashau, Arcliioologia, xxv, pi. 00; Kingsborough, IV, Dupaix ; Bollaert, 

 S. Ant. of A., 1860. Frontispiece ; "Waldeck, F. do. I. c. See also Whipple, q. v., p. 45. 



Voyage of the Sulphur, Mammalia, pi. 7. Hrassour de T?ourbi>urg identifies a profile seri>ent-head as a bat's. 

 See "Manuscrit Troano," 1859, 209. 



