This art, essentially comprehensive, demands of its masters varied knowledge and that power of cooerdination which, according to the learned philosopher Antoine Cros, is the highest function of the human intellect.  The relation of aesthetics to the totality of the faculties is here more evident than ever.  After the manifestation of mind in the composition of the plan, the architect’s next duty is to please the eye.  To this end he employs marble, stone, wood, bronze or gold, and the result is that element of the symphony which responds to sensation.  The third and only remaining element of the trinity is sentiment.  In order that, rising above its utilitarian purpose, appropriateness and mathematical rules of stability, the architect may fulfil the requisition of aesthetics and arrive at the “Grand Art,” the remaining element as well as the other two must be perfected in result.  The perfection of this element of sentiment is shown in the work by the impression of grandeur or elegance, of grace, severity or delicacy.  The triple necessity thus filled, the result is truly a work of art.

Application of the Law to Sculpture.

The relation of Delsarte’s system to sculpture has already been alluded to.  Its application here lies principally in the realm of form.  The sculptor aims to reproduce finest proportions of face and figure.  He delights in a beautiful contour and, as Mengs has said, “in lines undulating and serpentine,” while he studiously avoids all simple straight lines.

The more limited range of outlook demands more studied beauties and more significant expressions.  The statue—­unlike the monument, which at once arouses spontaneous emotions in the spectator—­should express the human being, his sensations, his affections, his passions and struggles, and should arouse an enthusiasm of admiration while it awakens sympathetic echoes in the heart of the observer.  Here more strikingly than ever must we recognize “Man the object of art.”  In the light of this truth we should demand of sculpture the manifestation of the human life with its constituent faculties, not in a perfectly equal accord which is never met in nature, but with such predominance as the subject presents.

In Greek art the predominance is of the physical aspect.  They had before them exquisite models of plastic beauty; not the sensual beauty which is fleshly, but a plastic beauty consisting of harmony of line and form.  Let us further consider this difference as shown in comparison of the Apollo and the Bacchus.

The Apollo satisfies alike the intellect and the eye by its beautiful outlines. [We are not yet ready to discuss beauty of expression.] The Bacchus less ideal and more humanly natural cannot so satisfy a highly aesthetic temperament.  In neither work is there much of sentiment expressed.  The distinctively moral side plays a secondary part, unless we consider beauty itself a moral factor,—­a theory that