Moreover, the particular examples are every one of them to be distinguished from all the others in their essentially definite and self-exclusive individuality, albeit they are not thus set apart by virtue of the characteristics of a purely abstract mintage, but rather, on the contrary, include much which they share in common relatively to their ideal and divine substance. We will now pass in review the distinctions above indicated under the following aspects: _First_, we have to examine purely external marks, incidental attributes, style of drapery, style of armour, and such like, indications with the detail of which Winckelmann deals at exceptional length. _Secondly_, we shall see how the most important differences do not merely consist in external marks and traits of this kind, but rather in the individual configuration and _habitus_ of the entire figure. What is most important in this respect is the distinction of _age_, _sex_, no less than that of the _different sphere_, from which the works receive their content and form, whether they are the impressions of gods, heroes, satyrs, fawns, or such representations as reach their final dissolution in the attempt to render animal images. And, _thirdly_, we propose to direct the attention on a _particular_ example of each class, in the individual form of which sculpture elaborates these general differences. Here, no doubt, we are faced with a multiplicity of material, and can only permit ourselves to deduce parts of it by way of example, a province, too, as it moreover is which implies a large experience.