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