deceive or at any rate to express himself ambiguously. In the same way we must know whether the legislator is laying traps or snares by using ambiguous words (we remember the so-called “elastic paragraphs”); whether the scholar is intentionally shrouding himself in obscurity, and increasing the volume of words because concepts fail him. It is always here, especially when we have only the written signs of the words, that the widest field remains for explication (interpretation). This is essentially always translation into a more easily understood language or mode of expression. Generally speaking it is the more difficult within the same language, i.e. within a formally connected system, in proportion as the words have diverged from the social will originally contained in them. Hence the methods of interpretation are, (1) at the first stage Etymology; (2) at the second, inquiry into the best, i.e. most fixed and regular usage; (3) at the third, the fundamental intuitions, opinions, comparisons, images, etc., by which we can derive special meanings from general, higher from simpler, nonliteral from literal. Such derivation comes into play also at all the following stages. Here we must investigate, not only the original but also the most recent, modern sense, which the words are meant to have according to the intention of the conventionally bound individuals, according to the intention of the legislator, according to the intention of the scientific authors. It is chiefly concepts which are here denoted, i.e., mental constructions of definite intention, which can only be explained in the words of ordinary language (1-3). In proportion as these words are ambiguous, of uncertain origin, wavering in usage, and figurative, a clear and certain interpretation is difficult. Hence the abundance of commentaries and of controversies upon ritual prescriptions of all sorts, after they have grown conventional; upon codes which attain or are to attain the force of law; upon philosophical systems in proportion as these are unhesitatingly recognised as valid, as for so many years were the Physic and Metaphysic of Aristotle; as recently upon Kant and for some time upon Hegel. So too poets and other authors who are held to be “classic” need explanations of their use of language. Holy books again and “oracles,” which wilfully make use of ambiguous words.
60. We need only refer briefly to the fact that the analogy between the sign “money” and the sign “word” may be also extended to the kinds of communication and explanation, although this analogy cannot be carried into detail. In narrow circumstances of life, where needs are homogeneous,
