(_a_) This identity of significance and bodily form may be approached yet more closely under the view of it that no separation of these opposed aspects[129] takes place within their consummated union; and consequently the ideal principle does not, as _purely inward spirituality_, return upon itself from out of the corporeal and concrete reality, under a process which would give us once more the distinction of these aspects in opposition. And inasmuch as the objective and external, in which Spirit is made visible as an object of sense, according to the very notion of it, is at once throughout _defined_ and _separate_, mind which is free, and which it is the function of art to elaborate in the form of reality truly commensurate with it, can only be that spiritual individuality which is not merely _defined_ but essentially _self-consistent_ in its natural form. For this reason it is the _human_ which constitutes the centre and content of true beauty and art; but as content of art--we have already developed the subject in discussing the notion of the Ideal--it is brought under the essential determination of concrete individuality and the external appearance adequate thereto, which in its objectivization has been thus purified from the imperfection of the finite condition. (_b_) Under such a consideration of the matter it is at once obvious that the classical mode of representation, if we take it for what it _essentially_ is, can no longer be of the _symbolic_ type in the strict sense of the term, however much now and again we may find along with it the play of that which belongs to symbolism. Greek mythology, for example, which, in so far as art asserts its mastery over it, belongs to the classical Ideal, is, if we grasp it in its fundamental character, not of a beauty which is symbolical, but unfolded under the genuine character of the Art-ideal, albeit there may be certain remnants of symbolism which adhere to it, as we shall shortly see.