Restrictions of Language

(1) Lessing's Limitation.—Lessing seems to have gone too far in his generalization of the proper spheres of poetry and painting. He truly says : "Paint¬ing makes use of figures and colors in apace. Poetry,
of articulate sounds in time. The signs of the forme/ are natural ; those of the latter are arbitrary." But he seems to err when he adds : "Express painting of bo lies [by which he means description] is forbidden to poetry." Mackintosh well asks what Chinese artist could paint a butterfly better than Spenser.
"The velvet nap which on his wings doth lie, The silken down with which his back is dight, His broad outstretched horns, his hairy thighs, His glorious colors and his glistening eyes !"*
Here is a picture from Hood which is its own justi¬fication against this limitation :
"Loud hissed the sea beneath her lee—my little boat flew fast, But faster still the rushing storm came borne upon the blast. Lord! what a roaring hurricane beset the straining sail!
What furious sleet, with level drift, and fierce assaults of hail! What darksome caverns yawned before! what jagged steeps
behind
Like battle steeds, with foamy manes, wild tossing in the wind, Each after each sank down astern, exhausted in the chase,
But where it sank another rose and galloped in its place ;
As black as night—they turned to white, and cast against the
cloud
A snowy sheet, as if each surge upturned a sailor's shroud."
If language is not as impressive as painting in ex¬press description, it falls little short of it ; while in the communication of ideas of time, motion, and the results of the penetrative imagination, language surpasses all other means of expression. Nevertheless, with all these excellences, language haa serious disadvantages as a medium of expression.
(2) The Symbolic Character of Worde.—Words
may be distinguished as presentive or symbolic, accord 
* Quoted by Sir Robert Phillimore.
ing as they do or do not suggest substantive objects to the mind. Thus at, but, where, and the present no objects to the mind, and are merely symbols for mental notions. Such words as lamp, post, flag-staff, and house do suggest objects to the mind. But aside from this important distinction, all words are symbolic in a broader sense, although, so strong is the tie of as¬sociation between words and things, we are in danger of forgetting the symbolism. "When barbers' poles were first erected, they were pictorial and presentive, for they indicated by white bands of paint the linen bandages which were used in blood-letting, an opera¬tion performed by the old surgeon-barbers. In our time we only know (speaking of the popular mind) that the pole indicates a barber's shop, but why or how is unknown. And this is symbolism." * Now most of our words have no more connection with the objects they signify than the barber's pole has with shaving or hair-cutting. The connection is purely arbitrary and accidental ; not natural and necessary.
(3) The trimatablV of Mao ao a Medium. —
Words are not, then, images of ideas reflected in a faultless mirror. They are not even photographs re¬quiring only the addition of color. They are scarce¬ly "fragmentary sketches," furnishing the bare out¬lines of an idea, while much must be supplied by the imagination to fill up the picture. However careful and extended our training may have been, it cannot be presumed that we know all the verbal signs in our own language. The child can converse on only a few sub¬jects, and can understand only the most common terms. In this respect all men are more or less
children. The English language contains over a hundred thousand words. Of this vast number only a few thousand are used by any single person. To a nucleus of a few hundred common terms every speaker or writer adds many which are peculiar to his profes¬sion, his subject, his district, or the social class to which he belongs, but which are unintelligible to the major¬ity of those who speak the same tongue. Each mind, too, has feelings, cognitions, and conceptions which other minds do not have. There are various proper styles of expressing the same idea, depending upon the discernment of different relations and analogies. There are distinctions in thought which all have not made. So we do not speak the same words, or attach to them the same meaning. Thus a liability of being misun¬derstood or unintelligible belongs to all language, however carefully it may be used.
(4) Language an Impediment.—Again, language is an actual impediment in the communication of ideas. The shaft which communicates the power of an engine to the machinery is itself an obstruction, since some of the power is required to move the shaft. If it can be reduced in size and weight without failing to transmit the force, so ranch the better ; and, by progressive approach, it follows that it would best serve the purpose when its weight should be reduced to zero. So in language, words are often an incum¬brance. A simple pointing to the door is much more impressive than to say, "leave the room." A smile of approbation or of contempt is more suggestive than an elaborate sentence. As power cannot be applied to some kinds of machinery except by a complex system of cog-wheels so some ideas cannot be expressed except
by words ; yet the cog-wheels are an incumbrance ren¬dered necessary by the conditions of the case, and so are words. They are media of power, but themselves absorb some of it.
6. Excellence of Style Relative.
The perfection of style is, therefore, merely relative, and not absolute. It cannot be perfect in melody, for while sometimes it may glide along with liquid smooth¬ness, at others it must grate upon the ear, or fail to ex¬press its contained idea. It cannot be perfect in uni¬versality, for, since its signs are conventional, it must change with those to whom it is addressed. The fleet¬ing and mutable elements of language render it impos¬sible for it to be perfect, or even intelligible, for more than a few generations, except in the most mature and stationary languages ; and a stationary living language is impossible among a progressive people. The poems of Chaucer cannot be said to be written in a style which we can recognize as good, until, by the help of a glossary, we become Englishmen of the fourteenth century.
In all these respects, language is placed at a great disadvantage as a means of expression. All men who have eyes may perceive the genius of Zeuxis and Phid¬ias, but Homer and Aschylus are nonentities to the masses of men, unless their works are translated ; in other words, their expression must go for naught, :aid their ideas must be revealed anew.