And now for the first time we can see the opposition between these two sides of every art in all its depth. Imitation spiritualizes and quickens, ornament enchants and kills. The one becomes, the other is. And therefore the one is allied to love and, above all—in songs and riot and dance—to the _sexual love_, which turns existence to face the future; and the other to care of the past, to recollection[219] and to the _funerary_. The beautiful is longingly pursued, the significant instils dread, and there is no deeper contrast than that between the house of the living and the house of the dead.[220] The peasant’s cottage[221] and its derivative the country noble’s hall, the fenced town and the castle are mansions of life, unconscious expressions of circling blood, that no art produced and no art can alter. The idea of the family appears in the plan of the proto-house, the inner form of the stock in the plan of its villages—which after many a century and many a change of occupation still show what race it was that founded them[222]— the life of a nation and its social ordering in the plan (_not_ the elevation or silhouette) of the city.[223] On the other hand, Ornamentation of the high order develops itself on the stiff symbols of death, the urn, the sarcophagus, the stele and the temple of the dead,[224] and beyond these in gods’ temples and cathedrals _which are Ornament through and through_, not the expressions of a race but the language of a world-view. They are pure art through and through—just what the castle and the cottage are not.[225]