a psychologic interest, and as connected with the vocal
expression, often also invented at the same time, has further value.

_DANGER OF SYMBOLIC INTERPRETATION._

In the examination of sign language it is important to form a clear
distinction between signs proper and symbols. The terms signs
and symbols are often used interchangeably, but with liability to
misconstruction, as many persons, whether with right or wrong lexical
definition, ascribe to symbols an occult and mystic signification. All
characters in Indian picture-writing have been loosely styled symbols,
and, as there is no logical distinction, between the characters
impressed with enduring form and when merely outlined in the ambient
air, all Indian gestures, motions, and attitudes might with equal
appropriateness be called symbolic. While, however, all symbols
come under the generic head of signs, very few signs are in accurate
classification symbols. S.T. Coleridge has defined a symbol to be a
sign included in the idea it represents. This may be intelligible if
it is intended that an ordinary sign is extraneous to the concept
and, rather than suggested by it, is invented to express it by some
representation or analogy, while a symbol may be evolved by a process
of thought from the concept itself; but it is no very exhaustive or
practically useful distinction. Symbols are less obvious and more
artificial than mere signs, require convention, are not only abstract,
but metaphysical, and often need explanation from history, religion,
and customs. They do not depict but suggest subjects; do not speak
directly through the eye to the intelligence, but presuppose in the
mind knowledge of an event or fact which the sign recalls. The
symbols of the ark, dove, olive branch, and rainbow would be wholly
meaningless to people unfamiliar with the Mosaic or some similar
cosmology, as would be the cross and the crescent to those ignorant
of history. The last named objects appeared in the class of _emblems_
when used in designating the conflicting powers of Christendom and
Islamism. Emblems do not necessarily require any analogy between the
objects representing, and the objects or qualities represented, but
may arise from pure accident. After a scurrilous jest the beggar's
wallet became the emblem of the confederated nobles, the Gueux of
the Netherlands; and a sling, in the early minority of Louis XIV,
was adopted from the refrain of a song by the Frondeur opponents of