In England, which has made great Symbolic Art, most people dislike an art if they are told it is symbolic, for they confuse symbol and allegory. Even Johnson’s Dictionary sees no great difference, for it calls a Symbol “That which comprehends in its figure a representation of something else;” and an Allegory, “A figurative discourse, in which something other is intended than is contained in the words literally taken.” It is only a very modern Dictionary that calls a Symbol “The sign or representation of any moral thing by the images or properties of natural things,” which, though an imperfect definition, is not unlike “The things below are as the things above” of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes! _The Faery Queen_ and _The Pilgrim’s Progress_ have been so important in England that Allegory has overtopped Symbolism, and for a time has overwhelmed it in its own downfall. William Blake was perhaps the first modern to insist on a difference; and the other day, when I sat for my portrait to a German Symbolist in Paris, whose talk was all of his love for Symbolism and his hatred for Allegory, his definitions were the same as William Blake’s, of whom he knew nothing. William Blake has written, “Vision or imagination”--meaning symbolism by these words--“is a representation of what actually exists, really or unchangeably. Fable or Allegory is formed by the daughters of Memory.” The German insisted in broken English, and with many gestures, that Symbolism said things which could not be said so perfectly in any other way, and needed but a right instinct for its understanding; while Allegory said things which could be said as well, or better, in another way, and needed a right knowledge for its understanding. The one gave dumb things voices, and bodiless things bodies; while the other read a meaning--which had never lacked its voice or its body--into something heard or seen, and loved less for the meaning than for its own sake. The only symbols he cared for were the shapes and motions of the body; ears hidden by the hair, to make one think of a mind busy with inner voices; and a head so bent that back and neck made the one curve, as in Blake’s _Vision of Bloodthirstiness_, to call up an emotion of bodily strength; and he would not put even a lily, or a rose, or a poppy into a picture to express purity, or love, or sleep, because he thought such emblems were allegorical, and had their meaning by a traditional and not by a natural right. I said that the rose, and the lily, and the poppy were so married, by their colour, and their odour, and their use, to love and purity and sleep, or to other symbols of love and purity and sleep, and had been so long a part of the imagination of the world, that a symbolist might use them to help out his meaning without becoming an allegorist. I think I quoted the lily in the hand of the angel in Rossetti’s _Annunciation_, and the lily in the jar in his _Childhood of Mary Virgin_, and thought they made the more important