distinction between the Artist
and the Moralist.
With the one Form is all in all, with the other Tendency.
The aim of the one is to delight, of the other to convince.
The one is master of his purpose, the other mastered by it. The whole range of perception and thought is valuable to the one as it will minister to imagination, to the other only as it is available for argument.
With the moralist use is beauty, good only as it serves an ulterior purpose; with the artist beauty is use, good in and for itself.
In the fine arts the vehicle makes part of the thought, coalesces with it. The living conception shapes itself a body in marble, color, or modulated sound, and henceforth the two are inseparable.
The results of the moralist pass into the intellectual atmosphere of mankind, it matters little by what mode of conveyance.
But where, as in Dante
, the religious sentiment and the imagination are both organic, something interfused with the whole being of the man, so that they work in kindly sympathy, the moral will insensibly suffuse itself with beauty as a cloud with light.
Then that fine sense of remote analogies, awake to the assonance between facts seemingly remote and unrelated, between the outward and inward worlds, though convinced that the things of this life are shadows, will be persuaded also that they are not fantastic merely, but imply a substance somewhere, and will love to set forth the beauty of the visible image because it suggests the ineffably higher charm of the unseen original.
's ideal of life, the enlightening and strengthening of that native instinct of the soul which leads it to strive backward toward its divine source, may sublimate the senses till each becomes a window for the light of truth and the splendor of God to shine through.
In him as in Calderon
the perpetual presence of imagination not only glorifies the philosophy of life and the science of