Bygone Beliefs Part 9

If there be an abuse of correspondences, or symbols, there surely must also be a use, to which the word "magic" is not inapplicable. As such, religious ritual, and especially the sacraments of the Christian Church, will, no doubt, occur to the minds of those who regard these symbols as efficacious, though they would probably hesitate to apply the term "magical" to them. But in using this term as applying thereto, I do not wish to suggest that any such rites or ceremonies possess, or can possess, any CAUSAL efficacy in the moral evolution of the soul. The will alone, in virtue of the power vouchsafed to it by the Source of all power, can achieve this; but I do think that the soul may be a.s.sisted by ritual, harmoniously related to the states of mind which it is desired to induce. No doubt there is a danger of religious ritual, especially when its meaning is lost, being engaged in for its own sake. It is then mere superst.i.tion;(1) and, in view of the danger of this degeneracy, many robust minds, such as the members of the Society of Friends, prefer to dispense with its aid altogether. When ritual is a.s.sociated with erroneous doctrines, the results are even more disastrous, as I have indicated in "The Belief in Talismans". But when ritual is allied with, and based upon, as adequately symbolising, the high teaching of genuine religion, it may be, and, in fact, is, found very helpful by many people. As such its efficacy seems to me to be altogether magical, in the best sense of that word.

(1) As "ELIPHAS LEVI" well says: "Superst.i.tion... is the sign surviving the thought; it is the dead body of a religious rite." (_Op cit_., p.

150.)

But, indeed, I think a still wider application of the word "magic" is possible. "All experience is magic," says NOVALIS (1772-1801), "and only magically explicable";(2a) and again: "It is only because of the feebleness of our perceptions and activity that we do not perceive ourselves to be in a fairy world." No doubt it will be objected that the common experiences of daily life are "natural," whereas magic postulates the "supernatural". If, as is frequently done, we use the term "natural," as relating exclusively to the physical realm, then, indeed, we may well speak of magic as "supernatural," because its aims are psychical. On the other hand, the term "natural" is sometimes employed as referring to the whole realm of order, and in this sense one can use the word "magic" as descriptive of Nature herself when viewed in the light of an idealistic philosophy, such as that of SWEDENBORG, in which all causation is seen to be essentially spiritual, the things of this world being envisaged as symbols of ideas or spiritual verities, and thus physical causation regarded as an appearance produced in virtue of the magical, non-causal efficacy of symbols.(1) Says CORNELIUS AGRIPPA: "... every day some natural thing is drawn by art and some divine thing is drawn by Nature which, the Egyptians, seeing, called Nature a Magicianess (_i.e_.) the very Magical power itself, in the attracting of like by like, and of suitable things by suitable."(2)

(2a) NOVALIS: _Schriften_ (ed. by LUDWIG TIECK and FR. SCHLEGEL, 1805), vol. ii. p. 195

(1) For a discussion of the essentially magical character of inductive reasoning, see my _The Magic of Experience_ (1915)

(2) _Op. cit_., bk. i. chap. x.x.xvii. p. 119.

I would suggest, in conclusion, that there is nothing really opposed to the spirit of modern science in the thesis that "all experience is magic, and only magically explicable." Science does not pretend to reveal the fundamental or underlying cause of phenomena, does not pretend to answer the final Why? This is rather the business of philosophy, though, in thus distinguis.h.i.+ng between science and philosophy, I am far from insinuating that philosophy should be otherwise than scientific. We often hear religious but non-scientific men complain because scientific and perhaps equally as religious men do not in their books ascribe the production of natural phenomena to the Divine Power. But if they were so to do they would be transcending their business as scientists. In every science certain simple facts of experience are taken for granted: it is the business of the scientist to reduce other and more complex facts of experience to terms of these data, not to explain these data themselves. Thus the physicist attempts to reduce other related phenomena of greater complexity to terms of simple force and motion; but, What are force and motion? Why does force produce or result in motion? are questions which lie beyond the scope of physics. In order to answer these questions, if, indeed, this be possible, we must first inquire, How and why do these ideas of force and motion arise in our minds? These problems land us in the psychical or spiritual world, and the term "magic" at once becomes significant.

"If, says THOMAS CARLYLE,... we... have led thee into the true Land of Dreams; and... thou lookest, even for moments, into the region of the Wonderful, and seest and feelest that thy daily life is girt with Wonder, and based on Wonder, and thy very blankets and breeches are Miracles,--then art thou profited beyond money's worth...."(1)

(1) THOMAS CARLYLE: _Sartor Resartus_, bk. iii. chap. ix.

VIII. ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLISM

I WAS once rash enough to suggest in an essay "On Symbolism in Art"(1) that "a true work of art is at once realistic, imaginative, and symbolical," and that its aim is to make manifest the spiritual significance of the natural objects dealt with. I trust that those artists (no doubt many) who disagree with me will forgive me--a man of science--for having ventured to express any opinion whatever on the subject. But, at any rate, if the suggestions in question are accepted, then a criterion for distinguis.h.i.+ng between art and craft is at once available; for we may say that, whilst craft aims at producing works which are physically useful, art aims at producing works which are spiritually useful. Architecture, from this point of view, is a combination of craft and art. It may, indeed, be said that the modern architecture which creates our dwelling-houses, factories, and even to a large extent our places of wors.h.i.+p, is pure craft unmixed with art On the other hand, it might be argued that such works of architecture are not always devoid of decoration, and that "decorative art," even though the "decorative artist" is unconscious of this fact, is based upon rules and employs symbols which have a deep significance. The truly artistic element in architecture, however, is more clearly manifest if we turn our gaze to the past. One thinks at once, of course, of the pyramids and sphinx of Egypt, and the rich and varied symbolism of design and decoration of antique structures to be found in Persia and elsewhere in the East. It is highly probable that the Egyptian pyramids were employed for astronomical purposes, and thus subserved physical utility, but it seems no less likely that their shape was suggested by a belief in some system of geometrical symbolism, and was intended to embody certain of their philosophical or religious doctrines.

(1) Published in _The Occult Review_ for August 1912, vol. xvi. pp. 98 to 102.

The mediaeval cathedrals and churches of Europe admirably exhibit this combination of art with craft. Craft was needed to design and construct permanent buildings to protect wors.h.i.+ppers from the inclemency of the weather; art was employed not only to decorate such buildings, but it dictated to craft many points in connection with their design. The builders of the mediaeval churches endeavoured so to construct their works that these might, as a whole and in their various parts, embody the truths, as they believed them, of the Christian religion: thus the cruciform shape of churches, their orientation, etc. The practical value of symbolism in church architecture is obvious. As Mr F. E. HULME remarks, "The sculptured fonts or stained-gla.s.s windows in the churches of the Middle Ages were full of teaching to a congregation of whom the greater part could not read, to whom therefore one great avenue of knowledge was closed. The ignorant are especially impressed by pictorial teaching, and grasp its meaning far more readily than they can follow a written description or a spoken discourse."(1)

(1) F. EDWARD HULME, F.L.S., F.S.A.: _The History, Principles, and Practice of Symbolism in Christian Art_ (1909), p. 2.

The subject of symbolism in church architecture is an extensive one, involving many side issues. In these excursions we shall consider only one aspect of it, namely, the symbolic use of animal forms in English church architecture.

As Mr COLLINS, who has written, in recent years, an interesting work on this topic of much use to archaeologists as a book of data,(2a) points out, the great sources of animal symbolism were the famous _Physiologus_ and other natural history books of the Middle Ages (generally called "Bestiaries"), and the Bible, mystically understood. The modern tendency is somewhat unsympathetic towards any attempt to interpret the Bible symbolically, and certainly some of the interpretations that have been forced upon it in the name of symbolism are crude and fantastic enough.

But in the belief of the mystics, culminating in the elaborate system of correspondences of SWEDENBORG, that every natural object, every event in the history of the human race, and every word of the Bible, has a symbolic and spiritual significance, there is, I think, a fundamental truth. We must, however, as I have suggested already, distinguish between true and forced symbolism. The early Christians employed the fish as a symbol of Christ, because the Greek word for fish, icqus, is obtained by _notariqon_(1) from the phrase --"JESUS CHRIST, the Son of G.o.d, the Saviour." Of course, the obvious use of such a symbol was its entire unintelligibility to those who had not yet been instructed in the mysteries of the Christian faith, since in the days of persecution some degree of secrecy was necessary. But the symbol has significance only in the Greek language, and that of an entirely arbitrary nature. There is nothing in the nature of the fish, apart from its name in Greek, which renders it suitable to be used as a symbol of CHRIST. Contrast this pseudo-symbol, however, with that of the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of G.o.d (fig. 34), or the Lion of Judah. Here we have what may be regarded as true symbols, something of whose meanings are clear to the smallest degree of spiritual sight, even though the second of them has frequently been badly misinterpreted.

(2a) ARTHUR H. COLLINS, M.A.: _Symbolism of Animals and Birds represented in English Church Architecture_ (1913).

(1) A Kabalistic process by which a word is formed by taking the initial letters of a sentence or phrase.

It was a belief in the spiritual or moral significance of nature similar to that of the mystical expositors of the Bible, that inspired the mediaeval naturalists. The Bestiaries almost invariably conclude the account of each animal with the moral that might be drawn from its behaviour. The interpretations are frequently very far-fetched, and as the writers were more interested in the morals than in the facts of natural history themselves, the supposed facts from which they drew their morals were frequently very far from being of the nature of facts.

Sometimes the product of this inaccuracy is grotesque, as shown by the following quotation: "The elephants are in an absurd way typical of Adam and Eve, who ate of the forbidden fruit, and also have the dragon for their enemy. It was supposed that the elephant... used to sleep by leaning against a tree. The hunters would come by night, and cut the trunk through. Down he would come, roaring helplessly. None of his friends would be able to help him, until a small elephant should come and lever him up with his trunk. This small elephant was symbolic of Jesus Christ, Who came in great humility to rescue the human race which had fallen 'through a tree.' "(1)

(1) A. H. COLLINS: _Symbolism of Animals, etc_., pp. 41 and 42.

In some cases, though the symbolism is based upon quite erroneous notions concerning natural history, and is so far fantastic, it is not devoid of charm. The use of the pelican to symbolise the Saviour is a case in point. Legend tells us that when other food is un.o.btainable, the pelican thrusts its bill into its breast (whence the red colour of the bill) and feeds its young with its life-blood. Were this only a fact, the symbol would be most appropriate. There is another and far less charming form of the legend, though more in accord with current perversions of Christian doctrine, according to which the pelican uses its blood to revive its young, after having slain them through anger aroused by the great provocation which they are supposed to give it. For an example of the use of the pelican in church architecture see fig. 36.

Mention must also be made of the purely fabulous animals of the Bestiaries, such as the basilisk, centaur, dragon, griffin, hydra, mantichora, unicorn, phoenix, _etc_. The centaur (fig. 39) was a beast, half man, half horse. It typified the flesh or carnal mind of man, and the legend of the perpetual war between the centaur and a certain tribe of simple savages who were said to live in trees in India, symbolised the combat between the flesh and the spirit.(1)

(1) A H. COLLINS: _Symbolism of Animals, etc_., pp. 150 and 153.

With bow and arrow in its hands the centaur forms the astrological sign Sagittarius (or the Archer). An interesting example of this sign occurring in church architecture is to be found on the western doorway of Portchester Church--a most beautiful piece of Norman architecture.

"This sign of the Zodiac," writes the Rev. Canon VAUGHAN, M.A., a former Vicar of Portchester, "was the badge of King Stephen, and its presence on the west front (of Portchester Church) seems to indicate, what was often the case elsewhere, that the elaborate Norman carving was not carried out until after the completion of the building."(2) The facts, however, that this Sagittarius is accompanied on the other side of the doorway by a couple of fishes, which form the astrological sign Pisces (or the Fishes), and that these two signs are what are termed, in astrological phraseology, the "houses" of the planet Jupiter, the "Major Fortune," suggest that the architect responsible for the design, influenced by the astrological notions of his day, may have put the signs there in order to attract Jupiter's beneficent influence. Or he may have had the Sagittarius carved for the reason Canon VAUGHAN suggests, and then, remembering how good a sign it was astrologically, had the Pisces added to complete the effect.(1b)

(2) Rev. Canon VAUGHAN, M.A.: A Short History of Portchester Castle, p.

14.

(1b) Two other possible explanations of the Pisces have been suggested by the Rev. A. HEADLEY. In his MS. book written in 1888, when he was Vicar of Portchester, he writes: "I have discovered an interesting proof that it (the Church) was finished in Stephen's reign, namely, the figure of Sagittarius in the Western Doorway.

"Stephen adopted this as his badge for the double reason that it formed part of the arms of the city of Blois, and that the sun was in Sagittarius in December when he came to the throne. I, therefore, conclude that this badge was placed where it is to mark the completion of the church.

"There is another sign of the Zodiac in the archway, apparently Pisces.

This may have been chosen to mark the month in which the church was finished, or simply on account of its nearness to the sea. At one time I fancied it might refer to March, the month in which Lady Day occurred, thus referring to the Patron Saint, St Mary. As the sun leaves Pisces just before Lady Day this does not explain it. Possibly in the old calendar it might do so. This is a matter for further research." (I have to thank the Rev. H. LAWRENCE FRY, present Vicar of Portchester, for this quotation, and the Rev. A. HEADLEY for permission to utilise it.)

The phoenix and griffin we have encountered already in our excursions.

The latter, we are told, inhabits desert places in India, where it can find nothing for its young to eat. It flies away to other regions to seek food, and is sufficiently strong to carry off an ox. Thus it symbolises the devil, who is ever anxious to carry away our souls to the deserts of h.e.l.l. Fig. 37 ill.u.s.trates an example of the use of this symbolic beast in church architecture.

The mantichora is described by PLINY (whose statements were unquestioningly accepted by the mediaeval naturalists), on the authority of CTESIAS (_fl_. 400 B.C.), as having "A triple row of teeth, which fit into each other like those of a comb, the face and ears of a man, and azure eyes, is the colour of blood, has the body of the lion, and a tail ending in a sting, like that of the scorpion. Its voice resembles the union of the sound of the flute and the trumpet; it is of excessive swiftness, and is particularly fond of human flesh."(1)

(1) PLINY: _Natural History_, bk. viii. chap. x.x.x. (BOSTOCK and RILEY'S trans., vol. ii., 1855, p. 280.)

Concerning the unicorn, in an eighteenth-century work on natural history we read that this is "a Beast, which though doubted of by many Writers, yet is by others thus described: He has but one Horn, and that an exceedingly rich one, growing out of the middle of his Forehead. His Head resembles an Hart's, his Feet an Elephant's, his tail a Boar's, and the rest of his Body an Horse's. The Horn is about a Foot and half in length. His Voice is like the Lowing of an Ox. His Mane and Hair are of a yellowish Colour. His Horn is as hard as Iron, and as rough as any File, twisted or curled, like a flaming Sword; very straight, sharp, and every where black, excepting the Point. Great Virtues are attributed to it, in expelling of Poison and curing of several Diseases. He is not a Beast of prey."(2) The method of capturing the animal believed in by mediaeval writers was a curious one. The following is a literal translation from the _Bestiary_ of PHILIPPE DE THAUN (12th century):--

(2) (THOMAS BOREMAN): _A Description of Three Hundred Animals_ (1730), p. 6.

"Monosceros is an animal which has one horn on its head, Therefore it is so named; it has the form of a goat, It is caught by means of a virgin, now hear in what manner.

When a man intends to hunt it and to take and ensnare it He goes to the forest where is its repair; There he places a virgin, with her breast uncovered, And by its smell the monosceros perceives it; Then it comes to the virgin, and kisses her breast, Falls asleep on her lap, and so comes to its death; The man arrives immediately, and kills it in its sleep, Or takes it alive and does as he likes with it.

It signifies much, I will not omit to tell it you.