if　he　thought　at　all；　it　was　probably　about　something　else。　　Yet　he
  must　have　been　thinking　without　words；　or　he　would　have　drawn　too
  much　beer　or　too　little；　or　have　spilt　it　in　the　bringing　it　up；　and
  we　may　be　sure　that　he　did　none　of　these　things。
  You　will；　of　course；　observe　that　if　Mrs。　Bentley　had　sent　the
  snuff…box　to　the　buttery　of　St。　John's　College　instead　of　Trinity；
  it　would　not　have　been　language；　for　there　would　have　been　no
  covenant　between　sayer　and　sayee　as　to　what　the　symbol　should
  represent；　there　would　have　been　no　previously　established
  association　of　ideas　in　the　mind　of　the　butler　of　St。　John's　between
  beer　and　snuff…box；　the　connection　was　artificial；　arbitrary；　and　by
  no　means　one　of　those　in　respect　of　which　an　impromptu　bargain　might
  be　proposed　by　the　very　symbol　itself；　and　assented　to　without
  previous　formality　by　the　person　to　whom　it　was　presented。　　More
  briefly；　the　butler　of　St。　John's　would　not　have　been　able　to
  understand　and　read　it　aright。　　It　would　have　been　a　dead　letter　to
  hima　snuff…box　and　not　a　letter；　whereas　to　the　butler　of　Trinity
  it　was　a　letter　and　not　a　snuff…box。
  You　will　also　note　that　it　was　only　at　the　moment　when　he　was
  looking　at　it　and　accepting　it　as　a　message　that　it　flashed　forth
  from　snuff…box…hood　into　the　light　and　life　of　living　utterance。　　As
  soon　as　it　had　kindled　the　butler　into　sending　a　single　quart　of
  beer；　its　force　was　spent　until　Mrs。　Bentley　threw　her　soul　into　it
  again　and　charged　it　anew　by　wanting　more　beer；　and　sending　it　down
  accordingly。
  Again；　take　the　ring　which　the　Earl　of　Essex　sent　to　Queen
  Elizabeth；　but　which　the　queen　did　not　receive。　　This　was　intended
  as　a　sentence；　but　failed　to　become　effectual　language　because　the
  sensible　material　symbol　never　reached　those　sentient　organs　which
  it　was　intended　to　affect。　　A　book；　again；　however　full　of　excellent
  words　it　may　be；　is　not　language　when　it　is　merely　standing　on　a
  bookshelf。　　It　speaks　to　no　one；　unless　when　being　actually　read；　or
  quoted　from　by　an　act　of　memory。　　It　is　potential　language　as　a
  lucifer…match　is　potential　fire；　but　it　is　no　more　language　till　it
  is　in　contact　with　a　recipient　mind；　than　a　match　is　fire　till　it　is
  struck；　and　is　being　consumed。
  A　piece　of　music；　again；　without　any　words　at　all；　or　a　song　with
  words　that　have　nothing　in　the　world　to　do　with　the　ideas　which　it
  is　nevertheless　made　to　convey；　is　often　very　effectual　language。
  Much　lying；　and　all　irony　depends　on　tampering　with　covenanted
  symbols；　and　making　those　that　are　usually　associated　with　one　set
  of　ideas　convey　by　a　sleight　of　mind　others　of　a　different　nature。
  That　is　why　irony　is　intolerably　fatiguing　unless　very　sparingly
  used。　　Take　the　song　which　Blondel　sang　under　the　window　of　King
  Richard's　prison。　　There　was　not　one　syllable　in　it　to　say　that
  Blondel　was　there；　and　was　going　to　help　the　king　to　get　out　of
  prison。　　It　was　about　some　silly　love　affair；　but　it　was　a　letter
  all　the　same；　and　the　king　made　language　of　what　would　otherwise
  have　been　no　language；　by　guessing　the　meaning；　that　is　to　say　by
  perceiving　that　he　was　expected　to　enter　then　and　there　into　a　new
  covenant　as　to　the　meaning　of　the　symbols　that　were　presented　to
  him；　understanding　what　this　covenant　was　to　be；　and　acquiescing　in
  it。
  On　the　other　hand；　no　ingenuity　can　torture　language　into　being　a
  fit　word　to　use　in　connection　with　either　sounds　or　any　other
  symbols　that　have　not　been　intended　to　convey　a　meaning；　or　again　in
  connection　with　either　sounds　or　symbols　in　respect　of　which　there
  has　been　no　covenant　between　sayer　and　sayee。　　When　we　hear　people
  speaking　a　foreign　languagewe　will　say　Welshwe　feel　that　though
  they　are　no　doubt　using　what　is　very　good　language　as　between
  themselves；　there　is　no　language　whatever　as　far　as　we　are
  concerned。　　We　call　it　lingo；　not　language。　　The　Chinese　letters　on
  a　tea…chest　might　as　well　not　be　there；　for　all　that　they　say　to　us；
  though　the　Chinese　find　them　very　much　to　the　purpose。　　They　are　a
  covenant　to　which　we　have　been　no　partiesto　which　our　intelligence
  has　affixed　no　signature。
  We　have　already　seen　that　it　is　in　virtue　of　such　an　understood
  covenant　that　symbols　so　unlike　one　another　as　the　written　word
  〃stone〃　and　the　spoken　word　alike　at　once　raise　the　idea　of　a　stone
  in　our　minds。　　See　how　the　same　holds　good　as　regards　the　different
  languages　that　pass　current　in　different　nations。　　The　letters　p；　i；
  e；　r；　r；　e　convey　the　idea　of　a　stone　to　a　Frenchman　as　readily　as
  s；　t；　o；　n；　e　do　to　ourselves。　　And　why？　because　that　is　the
  covenant　that　has　been　struck　between　those　who　speak　and　those　who
  are　spoken　to。　　Our　〃stone〃　conveys　no　idea　to　a　Frenchman；　nor　his
  〃pierre〃　to　us；　unless　we　have　done　what　is　commonly　called
  acquiring　one　another's　language。　　To　acquire　a　foreign　language　is
  only　to　learn　and　adhere　to　the　covenants　in　respect　of　symbols
  which　the　nation　in　question　has　adopted　and　adheres　to。
  Till　we　have　done　this　we　neither　of　us　know　the　rules；　so　to　speak；
  of　the　game　that　the　other　is　playing；　and　cannot；　therefore；　play
  together；　but　the　convention　being　once　known　and　assented　to；　it
  does　not　matter　whether　we　raise　the　idea　of　a　stone　by　the　word
  〃lapis；〃　or　by　〃lithos；〃　〃pietra；〃　〃pierre；〃　〃stein；〃　〃stane〃　or
  〃stone〃；　we　may　choose　what　symbols　written　or　spoken　we　choose；　and
  one　set；　unless　they　are　of　unwieldy　length　will　do　as　well　as
  another；　if　we　can　get　other　people　to　choose　the　same　and　stick　to
  them；　it　is　the　accepting　and　sticking　to　them　that　matters；　not　the
  symbols。　　The　whole　power　of　spoken　language　is　vested　in　the
  invariableness　with　which　certain　symbols　are　associated　with
  certain　ideas。　　If　we　are　strict　in　always　connecting　the　same
  symbols　with　the　same　ideas；　we　speak　well；　keep　our　meaning　clear
  to　ourselves；　and　convey　it　readily　and　accurately　to　any　one　who　is
  also　fairly　strict。　　If；　on　the　other　hand；　we　use　the　same
  combination　of　symbols　for　one　thing　one　day　and　for　another　the
  next；　we　abuse　our　symbols　instead　of　using　them；　and　those　who
  indulge　in　slovenly　habits　in　this　respect　ere　long　lose　the　power
  alike　of　thinking　and　of　expressing　themselves　correctly。　　The
  symbols；　however；　in　the　first　instance；　may　be　anything　in　the　wide
  world　that　we　have　a　fancy　for。　　They　have　no　more　to　do　with　the
  ideas　they　serve　to　convey　than　money　has　with　the　things　that　it
  serves　to　buy。
  The　principle　of　association；　as　every　one　knows；　involves　that
  whenever　two　things　have　been　associated　sufficiently　together；　the
  suggestion　of　one　of　them　to　the　mind　shall　immediately　raise　a
  suggestion　of　the　other。　　It　is　in　virtue　of　this　principle　that
  language；　as　we　so　call　it；　exists　at　all；　for　the　essence　of
  language　consists；　as　I　have　said　perhaps　already　too　often；　in　the
  fixity　with　which　certain　ideas　are　invariably　connected　with
  certain　symbols。　　But　this　being　so；　it　is　hard　to　see　how　we　can
  deny　that　the　lower　animals　possess　the　germs　of　a　highly　rude　and
  unspecialised；　but　still　true　language；　unless　we　also　deny　that
  they　have　any　ideas　at　all；　and　this　I　gather　is　what　Professor　Max
  Muller　in　a　quiet　way　rather　wishes　to　do。　　Thus　he　says；　〃It　is
  easy　enough　to　show　that　animals　communicate；　but　this　is　a　fact
  which　has　never　been　doubted。　　Dogs　who　growl　and　bark　leave　no
  doubt　in　the　minds　of　other　dogs　or　cats；　or　even　of　man；　of　what
  they　mean；　but　growling　and　barking　are　not　language；　nor　do　they
  even　contain　the　elements　of　language。〃　｛18｝
  I　observe　the　Professor　says　that　animals　communicate　without　saying
  what　it　is　that　they　communicate。　　I　believe　this　to　have　been
  because　if　he　said　that　the　lower　animals　communicate　their　ideas；
  this　would　be　to　admit　that　they　have　ideas；　if　so；　and　if；　as　they
  present　every　appearance　of　doing；　they　can　remember；　reflect　upon；
  modify　these　ideas　according　to　modified　surroundings；　and
  interchange　them　with　one　another；　how　is　it　possible　to　deny　them
  the　germs　of　thought；　language；　and　reasonnot　to　say　a　good　deal
  more　than　the　germs？　　It　seems　to　me　that　not　knowing　what　else　to
  say　that　animals　communicated　if　it　was　not　ideas；　and　not　knowing
  what　mess　he　might　not　get　into　if　he　admitted　that　they　had　ideas
  at　all；　he　thought　it　safer　to　omit　his　accusative　case　altogether。
  That　growling　and　barking　cannot　be　called　a　very　highly　specialised
  language　goes　without　saying；　they　are；　however；　so　much　diversified
  in　character；　according　to　circumstances；　that　they　place　a
  considerable　number　of　symbols　at　an　animal's　command；　and　he
  invariably　attaches　the　same　symbol　to　the　same　idea。　　A　cat　never
  purrs　when　she　is　angry；　nor　spits　when　she　is　pleased。　　When　she
  rubs　her　head　against　any　one　affectionately　it　is　her　symbol　for
  saying　that　she　is　very　fond　of　him；　and　she　expects；　and　usually
  finds　that　it　will　be　understood。　　If　she　sees　her　mistress　raise
  her　hand　as　though　to　pretend　to　strike　her；　she　knows　that　it　is
  the　symbol　her　mistress　invariably　attaches　to　the　idea　of　sending
  her　away；　and　as　such　she　accepts　it。　　Granted　that　the　symbols　in
  use　among　the　lower　animals　are　fewer　and　less　highly　differentia