instrumental music, are cases in point.  In the ornamental and decorative arts, as well as in architecture (from which they 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 aesthetic 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 aesthetic 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.

While beauty, or capacity for pleasing the eye, may be very definitely said to be the aim of ornamental art, it is difficult to arrive at a universal standard as to what constitutes beauty.  What pleases one person will not always please another.  The child loves glittering objects and gaudy combinations, which the mature taste of the man declares extravagant and unharmonious.  Savages decorate their weapons, utensils, and their own persons with ornaments that appear uncouth and barbarous to civilized people.

Besides these differences in taste, which are due to different degrees of mental development, and which can consequently be easily disposed of, we find among highly civilized and cultured nations, at different periods, a great diversity of tastes.  These varying and sometimes apparently conflicting products of ornamental art we designate as styles, viz., Egyptian style, Greek style, Gothic style, etc.  So marked are the differences between them that we can sometimes tell at a glance to what period and to what style a small fragment of decoration belongs.