A corollary of this is the impossibility of _translations,_ in so far as they pretend to effect the re-moulding of one expression into another, like a liquid poured from a vase of a certain shape into a vase of another shape. We can elaborate logically what we have already elaborated in æsthetic form only; but we cannot reduce what has already possessed its æsthetic form to another form also æsthetic. Indeed, every translation either diminishes and spoils, or it creates a new expression, by putting the former back into the crucible and mingling it with the personal impressions of the so-called translator. In the former case, the expression always remains one, that of the original, the translation being more or less deficient, that is to say, not properly expression: in the other case, there would certainly be two expressions, but with two different contents. "Faithful ugliness or faithless beauty" is a proverb that well expresses the dilemma with which every translator is faced. Un-æsthetic translations, such as those that are word for word, or paraphrastic, are to be looked upon as simple commentaries upon the original. [Sidenote: _Criticism of the rhetorical categories._] The illegitimate division of expressions into various grades is known in literature by the name of doctrine of _ornament_ or of _rhetorical categories._ But similar attempts at distinctions in other artistic groups are not wanting: suffice it to recall the _realistic_ and _symbolic_ forms, so often mentioned in relation to painting and sculpture.