A DICTIONARY of SYMBOLS, Second Edition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A DICTIONARY OF SYMBOLS A DICTIONARY OF SYMBOLS Second Edition by J. E. CIRLOT Translated from the Spanish by JACK SAGE Foreword by Herbert Read LONDON Translated from the Spanish DICCIONARIO DE SIMBOLOS TRADICIONALES This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2001. English translation © Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd 1962 Second edition 1971 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data available. ISBN 0–415–03649–6 (Print Edition) ISBN 0-203-13375-7 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-18928-0 (Glassbook Format) CONTENTS FOREWORD page ix INTRODUCTION xi DICTIONARY 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRINCIPAL SOURCES 387 ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 389 INDEX 401 PLATES Between pages 104 and 105 I. Roman sculpture incorporating symbolic motifs II. Modesto Cuixart. Painting, 1958 III. Portal of the church of San Pablo del Campo, Barcelona IV. Silver chalice, from Ardagh, Co. Longford V. Tenth-century monument at Clonmacnois VI. Chinese version of the cosmic dragon VII. A renaissance relief, from the Doge’s Palace at Venice VIII. Capitals, monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos IX. Early Christian Symbol—thirteenth-century gravestone X. Gothic fountain—Casa del Arcediano, Barcelona XI. Giorgione, The Storm XII. Roman statue of the Twins XIII. Gothic Miniature of The Apparition of the Holy Grail XIV. Bosch, Garden of Delights XV. Portal of the Romanesque cathedral at Clonfert, Co. Galway XVI. Chinese symbol of heaven Between pages 296 and 297 XVII. Archetypal image of the Archangel XVIII. Celtic candelabra incorporating symbolic horse and solar wheel XIX. Antonio Tapies. A painting, 1958 XX. Door to the sanctuary of the church of San Plácido, Madrid XXI. Libra and other signs of the Zodiac XXII. Gothic miniature of ship and whale XXIII. ‘Bird-woman’—relief in Barcelona cathedral XXIV. Roman painting of twin-tailed siren XXV. Greek sphinx, fifth century B.C. XXVI. Jacob’s dream (after an old engraving) XXVII. Heraldic supporters—College of San Gregorio, Valladolid XXVIII. Tetramorph. Romanesque painting PLATES viii XXIX. Roman composition of Adam and Eve XXX. The sixth sign of the Zodiac XXXI. Detail of a painting by Pedro Berruguete, c. 1500 XXXII. Circular representation of the signs of the Zodiac FOREWORD IN THE INTRODUCTION to this volume Señor Cirlot shows his wide and learned conception of the subject-matter of this dictionary, and the only task left to me is to present the author himself, who has been familiar to me for some years as the leading protagonist of a very vital group of painters and poets in Barcelona. Juan Eduardo Cirlot was born in Barcelona in 1916, and after matriculating from the College of the Jesuits there, studied music. From 1943 onwards he was active as a poet, and published four volumes of verse between 1946 and 1953. Meanwhile the group of painters and poets already mentioned had been fo rmed (Dau al Set), and Cirlot became its leading theoretician. For historical or political reasons, Spain had been slow to develop a contemporary movement in the arts comparable to those in other European countries; its greatest artists, Picasso and Miró, had identified themselves with the School of Paris. But now a vigorous and independent ‘School of Barcelona’ was to emerge, with Antonio Tapies and Modesto Cuixart as its outstanding representatives. In a series of books and brochures Cirlot not only presented the individual artists of this group, but also instructed the Spanish public in the history and theoretical foundations of the modern movement as a whole. In the course of this critical activity Señor Cirlot inevitably became aware of the ‘symbolist ethos’ of modern art. A symbolic element is present in all art, in so far as art is subject to psychological interpretation. But in so far as art has evolved in our time away from the representation of an objective reality towards the expression of subjective states of feeling, to that extent it has become a wholly symbolic art, and it was perhaps the necessity for a clarification of this function in art which led Señor Cirlot to his profound study of symbolism in all its aspects. The result is a volume which can either be used as a work of reference, or simply read for pleasure and instruction. There are many entries in this dictionary— those on Architecture, Colour, Cross, Graphics, Mandala, Numbers, Serpent, Water, Zodiac, to give a few examples—which can be read as independent essays. FOREWORD x But in general the greatest use of the volume will be for the elucidation of those many symbols which we encounter in the arts and in the history of ideas. Man, it has been said, is a symbolizing animal; it is evident that at no stage in the development of civilization has man been able to dispense with symbols. Science and technology have not freed man from his dependence on symbols: indeed, it might be argued that they have increased his need for them. In any case, symbology itself is now a science, and this volume is a necessary instrument in its study. HERBERT READ INTRODUCTION ACTUALITY OF THE SYMBOL Delimitation of the Symbolic On entering the realms of symbolism, whether by way of systematized artistic forms or the living, dynamic forms of dreams and visions, we have constantly kept in mind the essential need to mark out the field of symbolic action, in order to prevent confusion between phenomena which might appear to be identical when they are merely similar or externally related. The temptation to over-substantiate an argument is one which is difficult to resist. It is necessary to be on one’s guard against this danger, even if full compli- ance with the ideals of scholarship is not always feasible; for we believe with Marius Schneider that there is no such thing as ‘ideas or beliefs’, only ‘ideas and beliefs’, that is to say that in the one there is always at least something of the other—quite apart from the fact that, as far as symbolism is concerned, other phenomena of a spiritual kind play an important part. When a critic such as Caro Baroja (10) declares himself against any symbolic interpretation of myth, he doubtless has his reasons for so doing, although one reason may be that nothing approaching a complete evaluation of symbolism has yet appeared. He says: ‘When they seek to convince us that Mars is the symbol of War, and Hercules of Strength, we can roundly refute them. All this may once have been true for rhetoricians, for idealist philosophers or for a group of more or less pedantic graeculi. But, for those who really believed in ancient deities and heroes, Mars had an objective reality, even if this reality was quite different from that which we are groping for today. Symbolism occurs when natural religions are degenerating.’ In point of fact, the mere equation of Mars with War and of Her- cules with Labour has never been characteristic of the symbolist ethos, which always eschews the categorical and restrictive. This comes about through alle- gory, a mechanical and restricting derivative of the symbol, whereas the symbol proper is a dynamic and polysymbolic reality, imbued with emotive and concep- tual values: in other words, with true life. ACTUALITY OF THE SYMBOL xii However, the above quotation is extremely helpful in enabling us to mark out the limits of the symbolic. If there is or if there may be a symbolic function in everything, a ‘communicating tension’, nevertheless this fleeting possession of the being or the object by the symbolic does not wholly transform it into a symbol. The error of symbolist artists and writers has always been precisely this: that they sought to turn the entire sphere of reality into a vehicle for impal- pable ‘correspondences’, into an obsessive conjunction of analogies, without being aware that the symbolic is opposed to the existential and instrumental and without realizing that the laws of symbolism hold good only within its own particular sphere. This distinction is one which we would also apply to the Pythagorean thesis that ‘everything is disposed according to numbers’, as well as to microbiological theory. Neither the assertion of the Greek philosopher on the one hand, nor the vital pullulation subjected invisibly to the science of Weights and Measures on the other, is false; but all life and all reality cannot be forced to conform with either one theory or the other, simply because of its certitude, for it is certain only within the limits of theory. In the same way, the symbolic is true and active on one plane of reality, but it is almost unthinkable to apply it system- atically and consistently on the plane of existence. The consequent scepticism concerning this plane of reality—the magnetic life-source of symbols and their concomitants—explains the widespread reluctance to admit symbolical values; but such an attitude is lacking in any scientific justification. Carl Gustav Jung, to whom present-day symbology owes so much, points out in defence of this branch of human thought that: ‘For the modern mind, analogies—even when they are analogies with the most unexpected symbolic meanings—are nothing but self-evident absurdities. This worthy judgement does not, however, in any way alter the fact that such affinities of thought do exist and that they have been playing an important rôle for centuries. Psychology has a duty to recognize these facts; it should leave it to the profane to denigrate them as absurdities or as obscurantism’ (32).