beatings of the heart that gave life to all this strange and mysterious grandeur.'[1] This is only what might be expected; for the symbolism of any religion is apt to assume an unmeaning and often a grotesque appearance in the eyes of men professing another faith, and no religion was ever so pervaded by symbolism as that of ancient Egypt. Symbols are not, in any sense, works of art; they are never chosen for intrinsic worth or beauty,[2] and are valueless, excepting for the sake of some association of idea, which led to their selection. They are intended to represent, but not seldom also to veil, thoughts and mysteries that cannot be uttered in language, or expressed in any form or image. But in all religions there is a tendency to separate the symbol from the thought, and this, carried to its fullest extent, ends in idolatry; the mere
- ↑ Max Müller, Science of Religion.
- ↑ Take in illustration the symbols on any national flag. There is no intrinsic beauty in three coloured stripes, or in the grotesque figures of lions rampant. Yet for the sake of the nation of which they have become symbolic, men will die sooner than surrender the banners on which they are depicted. It is the same with the symbols of rival religions. How fierce the conflict waged by Saracen and Christian beneath the respective symbols of the Crescent and the Cross!
