are indeed inseparable), beauty alone, in like manner, should be the
principal aim and purpose. In the former, of course, it is indispensable
that such should be the case, as they are entirely subordinate and
accessory in their nature, their only _raison d'etre_ being to beautify or
render more agreeable objects already created for some purpose.

It must not be imagined that such artistic impressions--viz., where the
appeal is made almost solely to the æsthetic sense, regardless of the
reason, judgment, or feelings--are necessarily of a lower order. Their
effect is almost analogous to that which nature herself produces upon
us--the starry heavens, the mighty ocean, the tender flower. The
impression, whether the object belongs to the domain of nature or art, may
be a merely sensuous one; and if it stops there, as it certainly does for
the majority of people, it ranks without doubt far below productions where
the æsthetic element is only used to stimulate and heighten the appeal to
the mind or the feelings. But if it extend beyond, and makes the sensuous
impression but the parting link to the contemplation of ideal, abstract
beauty, without the intermediate aid of the heart or the reason, it is the
shortest and quickest road toward the realization of the infinite, and
makes us indeed feel that it is but a short step "from nature up to
nature's God." Thus architecture, which embodies, more than any other of
the space arts, principles of abstract beauty, has been with reason called
the noblest of them all.

However, ornamental and architectural forms frequently do convey a meaning,
which we term symbolism in art. If this symbolism does not detract from the
first object of ornament--viz., to beautify--it is perfectly legitimate and
proper. It is impossible to fully appreciate many phases of art, as, for
instance, the Egyptian and the early Christian, if we leave out of sight
the symbolism which pervades them.