Although all the arts are essentially autonomous, owing to the different materials and techniques which they employ with, there (1) is clearly a kind of bond between them. We speak of the "architecture" of a symphony, and call architecture, in return, "frozen music". (2) Again, we say that certain writing has a "sculptural" quality, and sometime describe a piece of sculpture as "a poem in stone". (3) Admittedly, much of the phraseology which traffic between (4) the arts is pure metaphorical, being concerned only with the (5) effect of a work of art. Thus, in calling a statue "a poem in stone", we merely indicate that its effect on us is that impalpable kind we (6) normally receive from poetry; we do not make an objective statement about the sculptor’s intention or technical procedure. Such a metaphor, while useful descriptive purposes, cannot help us to gain a deeper (7) understanding of the nature of art. On the other hand, comparison between one art and another cannot (8) help towards this end, when the comparison is not metaphorical, but analogical, being concerned with the artist’s intention and technical procedure. Thus, when we speak of the "architecture" of a fugue, we are taking an objective statement that its composer has constructed it by methods (9) analogous to those of the Architect-that he has grouped masses of non-representational material (tone instead of stone) into significant form, governing by the principles of proportion, balance, and symmetry; (10) and this throws some light on a particular type of music.