A　schoolboy　at　home　for　the　holidays　wants　another　plate　of　pudding；
  and　does　not　like　to　apply　officially　for　more。　　He　catches　the
  servant's　eye　and　looks　at　the　pudding；　the　servant　understands；
  takes　his　plate　without　a　word；　and　gets　him　some。　　Is　it　metaphor
  to　say　that　the　boy　asked　the　servant　to　do　this；　or　is　it　not
  rather　pedantry　to　insist　on　the　letter　of　a　bond　and　deny　its
  spirit；　by　denying　that　language　passed；　on　the　ground　that　the
  symbols　covenanted　upon　and　assented　to　by　both　were　uttered　and
  received　by　eyes　and　not　by　mouth　and　ears？　　When　the　lady　drank　to
  the　gentleman　only　with　her　eyes；　and　he　pledged　with　his；　was　there
  no　conversation　because　there　was　neither　noun　nor　verb？　　Eyes　are
  verbs；　and　glasses　of　wine　are　good　nouns　enough　as　between　those
  who　understand　one　another。　　Whether　the　ideas　underlying　them　are
  expressed　and　conveyed　by　eyeage　or　by　tonguage　is　a　detail　that
  matters　nothing。
  But　everything　we　say　is　metaphorical　if　we　choose　to　be　captious。
  Scratch　the　simplest　expressions；　and　you　will　find　the　metaphor。
  Written　words　are　handage；　inkage　and　paperage；　it　is　only　by
  metaphor；　or　substitution　and　transposition　of　ideas；　that　we　can
  call　them　language。　　They　are　indeed　potential　language；　and　the
  symbols　employed　presuppose　nouns；　verbs；　and　the　other　parts　of
  speech；　but　for　the　most　part　it　is　in　what　we　read　between　the
  lines　that　the　profounder　meaning　of　any　letter　is　conveyed。　　There
  are　words　unwritten　and　untranslatable　into　any　nouns　that　are
  nevertheless　felt　as　above；　about　and　underneath　the　gross　material
  symbols　that　lie　scrawled　upon　the　paper；　and　the　deeper　the　feeling
  with　which　anything　is　written　the　more　pregnant　will　it　be　of
  meaning　which　can　be　conveyed　securely　enough；　but　which　loses
  rather　than　gains　if　it　is　squeezed　into　a　sentence；　and　limited　by
  the　parts　of　speech。　　The　language　is　not　in　the　words　but　in　the
  heart…to…heartness　of　the　thing；　which　is　helped　by　words；　but　is
  nearer　and　farther　than　they。　　A　correspondent　wrote　to　me　once；
  many　years　ago；　〃If　I　could　think　to　you　without　words　you　would
  understand　me　better。〃　　But　surely　in　this　he　was　thinking　to　me；
  and　without　words；　and　I　did　understand　him　better　。　。　。　　So　it　is
  not　by　the　words　that　I　am　too　presumptuously　venturing　to　speak　to…
  night　that　your　opinions　will　be　formed　or　modified。　　They　will　be
  formed　or　modified；　if　either；　by　something　that　you　will　feel；　but
  which　I　have　not　spoken；　to　the　full　as　much　as　by　anything　that　I
  have　actually　uttered。　　You　may　say　that　this　borders　on　mysticism。
  Perhaps　it　does；　but　their　really　is　some　mysticism　in　nature。
  To　return；　however；　to　terra　firma。　　I　believe　I　am　right　in　saying
  that　the　essence　of　language　lies　in　the　intentional　conveyance　of
  ideas　from　one　living　being　to　another　through　the　instrumentality
  of　arbitrary　tokens　or　symbols　agreed　upon；　and　understood　by　both
  as　being　associated　with　the　particular　ideas　in　question。　　The
  nature　of　the　symbol　chosen　is　a　matter　of　indifference；　it　may　be
  anything　that　appeals　to　human　senses；　and　is　not　too　hot　or　too
  heavy；　the　essence　of　the　matter　lies　in　a　mutual　covenant　that
  whatever　it　is　it　shall　stand　invariably　for　the　same　thing；　or
  nearly　so。
  We　shall　see　this　more　easily　if　we　observe　the　differences　between
  written　and　spoken　language。　　The　written　word　〃stone；〃　and　the
  spoken　word；　are　each　of　them　symbols　arrived　at　in　the　first
  instance　arbitrarily。　　They　are　neither　of　them　more　like　the　other
  than　they　are　to　the　idea　of　a　stone　which　rises　before　our　minds；
  when　we　either　see　or　hear　the　word；　or　than　this　idea　again　is　like
  the　actual　stone　itself；　but　nevertheless　the　spoken　symbol　and　the
  written　one　each　alike　convey　with　certainty　the　combination　of
  ideas　to　which　we　have　agreed　to　attach　them。
  The　written　symbol　is　formed　with　the　hand；　appeals　to　the　eye；
  leaves　a　material　trace　as　long　as　paper　and　ink　last；　can　travel　as
  far　as　paper　and　ink　can　travel；　and　can　be　imprinted　on　eye　after
  eye　practically　ad　infinitum　both　as　regards　time　and　space。
  The　spoken　symbol　is　formed　by　means　of　various　organs　in　or　about
  the　mouth；　appeals　to　the　ear；　not　the　eye；　perishes　instantly
  without　material　trace；　and　if　it　lives　at　all　does　so　only　in　the
  minds　of　those　who　heard　it。　　The　range　of　its　action　is　no　wider
  than　that　within　which　a　voice　can　be　heard；　and　every　time　a　fresh
  impression　is　wanted　the　type　must　be　set　up　anew。
  The　written　symbol　extends　infinitely；　as　regards　time　and　space；
  the　range　within　which　one　mind　can　communicate　with　another；　it
  gives　the　writer's　mind　a　life　limited　by　the　duration　of　ink；
  paper；　and　readers；　as　against　that　of　his　flesh　and　blood　body。　　On
  the　other　hand；　it　takes　longer　to　learn　the　rules　so　as　to　be　able
  to　apply　them　with　ease　and　security；　and　even　then　they　cannot　be
  applied　so　quickly　and　easily　as　those　attaching　to　spoken　symbols。
  Moreover；　the　spoken　symbol　admits　of　a　hundred　quick　and　subtle
  adjuncts　by　way　of　action；　tone　and　expression；　so　that　no　one　will
  use　written　symbols　unless　either　for　the　special　advantages　of
  permanence　and　travelling　power；　or　because　he　is　incapacitated　from
  using　spoken　ones。　　This；　however；　is　hardly　to　the　point；　the　point
  is　that　these　two　conventional　combinations　of　symbols；　that　are　as
  unlike　one　another　as　the　Hallelujah　Chorus　is　to　St。　Paul's
  Cathedral；　are　the　one　as　much　language　as　the　other；　and　we
  therefore　inquire　what　this　very　patent　fact　reveals　to　us　about　the
  more　essential　characteristics　of　language　itself。　　What　is　the
  common　bond　that　unites　these　two　classes　of　symbols　that　seem　at
  first　sight　to　have　nothing　in　common；　and　makes　the　one　raise　the
  idea　of　language　in　our　minds　as　readily　as　the　other？　　The　bond
  lies　in　the　fact　that　both　are　a　set　of　conventional　tokens　or
  symbols；　agreed　upon　between　the　parties　to　whom　they　appeal　as
  being　attached　invariably　to　the　same　ideas；　and　because　they　are
  being　made　as　a　means　of　communion　between　one　mind　and　another；
  for　a　memorandum　made　for　a　person's　own　later　use　is　nothing　but　a
  communication　from　an　earlier　mind　to　a　later　and　modified　one；　it
  is　therefore　in　reality　a　communication　from　one　mind　to　another　as
  much　as　though　it　had　been　addressed　to　another　person。
  We　see；　therefore；　that　the　nature　of　the　outward　and　visible　sign
  to　which　the　inward　and　spiritual　idea　of　language　is　attached　does
  not　matter。　　It　may　be　the　firing　of　a　gun；　it　may　be　an　old
  semaphore　telegraph；　it　may　be　the　movements　of　a　needle；　a　look；　a
  gesture；　the　breaking　of　a　twig　by　an　Indian　to　tell　some　one　that
  he　has　passed　that　way：　　a　twig　broken　designedly　with　this　end　in
  view　is　a　letter　addressed　to　whomsoever　it　may　concern；　as　much　as
  though　it　had　been　written　out　in　full　on　bark　or　paper。　　It　does
  not　matter　one　straw　what　it　is；　provided　it　is　agreed　upon　in
  concert；　and　stuck　to。　　Just　as　the　lowest　forms　of　life
  nevertheless　present　us　with　all　the　essential　characteristics　of
  livingness；　and　are　as　much　alive　in　their　own　humble　way　as　the
  most　highly　developed　organisms；　so　the　rudest　intentional　and
  effectual　communication　between　two　minds　through　the
  instrumentality　of　a　concerted　symbol　is　as　much　language　as　the
  most　finished　oratory　of　Mr。　Gladstone。　　I　demur　therefore　to　the
  assertion　that　the　lower　animals　have　no　language；　inasmuch　as　they
  cannot　themselves　articulate　a　grammatical　sentence。　　I　do　not
  indeed　pretend　that　when　the　cat　calls　upon　the　tiles　it　uses　what
  it　consciously　and　introspectively　recognises　as　language；　it　says
  what　it　has　to　say　without　introspection；　and　in　the　ordinary　course
  of　business；　as　one　of　the　common　forms　of　courtship。　　It　no　more
  knows　that　it　has　been　using　language　than　M。　Jourdain　knew　he　had
  been　speaking　prose；　but　M。　Jourdain's　knowing　or　not　knowing　was
  neither　here　nor　there。
  Anything　which　can　be　made　to　hitch　on　invariably　to　a　definite　idea
  that　can　carry　some　distancesay　an　inch　at　the　least；　and　which
  can　be　repeated　at　pleasure；　can　be　pressed　into　the　service　of
  language。　　Mrs。　Bentley；　wife　of　the　famous　Dr。　Bentley　of　Trinity
  College；　Cambridge；　used　to　send　her　snuff…box　to　the　college
  buttery　when　she　wanted　beer；　instead　of　a　written　order。　　If　the
  snuff…box　came　the　beer　was　sent；　but　if　there　was　no　snuff…box
  there　was　no　beer。　　Wherein　did　the　snuff…box　differ　more　from　a
  written　order；　than　a　written　order　differs　from　a　spoken　one？　　The
  snuff…box　was　for　the　time　being　language。　　It　sounds　strange　to　say
  that　one　might　take　a　pinch　of　snuff　out　of　a　sentence；　but　if　the
  servant　had　helped　him　or　herself　to　a　pinch　while　carrying　it　to
  the　buttery　this　is　what　would　have　been　done；　for　if　a　snuff…box
  can　say　〃Send　me　a　quart　of　beer；〃　so　efficiently　that　the　beer　is
  sent；　it　is　impossible　to　say　that　it　is　not　a　bona　fide　sentence。
  As　for　the　recipient　of　the　message；　the　butler　did　not　probably
  translate　the　snuff…box　into　articulate　nouns　and　verbs；　as　soon　as
  he　saw　it　he　just　went　down　into　the　cellar　and　drew　the　beer；　and
  if　he　thought　at　all；　it　was　probably　about　something　else。　　Yet