Claude Marginality, or Minōs, the famous commentator on the Emblems of Andreas Alciatus, in his Tract, _Concerning Symbols, Coats of Arms, and Emblems_,—eds. 1581, or 1608, or 1614,—maintains there is a clear distinction between emblems and symbols, which, as he affirms, “many persons rashly and ignorantly confound together.”[2] “We confess,” he adds, “that the force of the Emblem depends upon the Symbol: but they differ, I say, as Man and Animal; for people who have any judgment at all know, that here of a certainty the latter is taken more generally, the former more specially.” Mignault’s meaning may be carried out by saying, that all men are animals,—but all animals are not men; so all emblems are symbols, tokens, or signs, but all symbols are not emblems;—the two possess affinity but not identity,—they have no absolute convertibility of the one for the other. [Illustration: _Symeoni, 1559._] An example of Emblem and Symbol united occurs in Symeoni’s Dedication[3] “To Madame Diana of Poitiers, Dutchess of Valentinois;” for Emblem, there are “picture and short posie” expressing the particular conceit, “Quodcunque petit, consequitur,”—_She attains whatever she seeks_; and for Symbols, or signs, the sun, the temple, the dogs, the arrow, and the stag; and for exposition, the stanza; “_Sante le Muse son, santa è Diana, Caste son quelle, et casta è questa anchora. Dalle Muse il Sol mai non s’ allontana, Et d’ Apollo Diana vnica è suora. Nelle Muse è d’ Amore ogni arte vana, Et de i lacci d’ Amor Diana è fuora. Chi fia Diana quel dunque che dica, Che voi non siete delle Muse amica?_” Thus metrically rendered, “Holy the Muses are, holy is Diana, Chaste are they, and chaste also is she. From the Muses the Sun indeed moves not afar, And alone of Apollo Diana is sister. Against the Muses Love’s every art is vain, And free is Diana from all snares of Love. Who then is the Diana that says, That you are not a friend of the Muses?”