Signor G. Ferrero[196] has investigated the psychological laws of
symbolism, using that term in its widest aspect. After giving a sketch
of the history of the Fylfot, which is largely borrowed from that
by Count Goblet d’Alviella, he proceeds to give its psychological
interpretation in the following words (p. 148):—
[196] Guillaume Ferrero, _Les Lois Psychologiques du
Symbolisme_, 1895. (Translated from the Italian.) I am indebted
to my friend Havelock Ellis for the reference to and loan of
this book.
“I believe that this symbol of the motion of the sun became transformed
into a mystic symbol, precisely because it was a metaphorical symbol.
The signification of a pictographic symbol can not be forgotten,
for the sensation of the symbol directly recalls the image or the
idea of the object; there are not in that case intermediate states
of consciousness which can be eliminated. But when it concerns a
metaphorical symbol, these intermediate states of consciousness exist,
for the symbol must be interpreted, especially if a very imperfect
and rude delineation is in question, whose relation to the object
represented is of the slightest. The figure of a tree directly recalls
to me the idea or image of the tree; but a circle drawn with three
or four legs does not directly suggest to me in itself the precise
idea of the motion of the sun; there is at least the possibility of
different interpretations, and at all events there must be an original
and independent act of interpretation. The significance of the symbol,
finally, can only be known if one undertakes an investigation of
induction and interpretation, or if one associates with an inspection
of the symbol the remembrance of an explanation which has been given,
or of an interpretation which we had formerly discovered for ourselves.
“Now this state of consciousness, which serves for the interpretation
of the symbol, would have been necessary if the symbol of the cross
had ministered to the needs of existence, to commerce or politics,
for example; but as it was a religious symbol whose use did not vary
according to the truth and the exactness of its interpretation, it is
evident that this state of consciousness would become useless in the
long run, and the brain would relieve itself of it in a short time.
The _croix gammée_ (fylfot) was, like genuflexions and the other
mimic symbols of ceremonial, a symbol employed in relation with the
divinity; accordingly, the same cause which rendered useless in the
ceremonial the state of consciousness, which we have called γ,[197]
has rendered useless the state of consciousness which could interpret
the solar signification of the cross. It was, in short, a religious
symbol employed in relation to God; rightly or wrongly interpreted as
it may be, prayer and other propitiations tended to the same result;
the state of consciousness which served for its interpretation was then
not necessary, and the brain little by little relieved itself from it.
This state of consciousness being eliminated, it was forgotten that the
sign of the cross represented the sun, because this was a metaphorical
symbol too vague to directly recall the idea of solar movement.
[197] See note on next page.
“When the state of consciousness which served for the interpretation of
the design was gradually eliminated, all the religious sentiments which
had the sun and its cult for their object were addressed to the cross;
that is why it has become the object of so profound a veneration,
without any one knowing its signification or origin; the cross reaps
for its profit the inheritance of the solar cult of which it has ceased
to be a symbol, in order to become almost a divinity by itself. The
cross thus became a mystic symbol of which the applications became very
numerous, and even very confused.
“All this, I repeat, is only a supposition, but it may enable us to
affirm that, whatever may be the origin of the cross, its evolution,
very probably, can only be explained from the point of view of the
theory of the ideo-emotional arrest.”