DOI article:
Charles H. [Henry] Caffin, Symbolism and Allegory
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30586#0034
A manually made transcription or edition is also available for this page. Please change to the tab "transrciption" or "edition."
movement of the Spirit breathing through the rhythm of Things," then we
shall often be surprised at the superior beauty of the child-mind. Our little
children, now and again, in the expression of a thought, as artless as the
movement of their limbs, start our wonder, so simply and so surely does it
strike the note in key with what we conceive of the universal harmony.
The spirit in them, as yet unshadowed by pain and distrust, unscorched by
the heat of passion, or distorted by the encumbrances of knowledge, seems
to flash forth a tiny reflection of the universal spirit, as a dewdrop gives
back the glory of the sun.
In art, this harmony is represented by the sculpture of Pheidias, when
the mind of a man, responding like a child’s to the influences both of
matter and spirit, contrived to body forth their union in forms, harmonious
and rhythmic. Compared with these, the creations of Michelangelo are
confused and stuttering ; painful strivings after the unattainable ; the product
of a mind not in accord with, but in revolt against, the conditions of life ;
expressing the discord, not the harmony, of the universe. Even the sovereign
wisdom of his Moses is oppressed with the ponderousness of knowledge ;
his Bound Captive, of the Louvre, lyric as it is, and exquisitely lovely, is
bodily and mentally in pain of conflict. It is the expression of the man-
mind, not the child’s.
And these two statues—is it symbolism or allegory that they represent ?
Emblematic accessories are introduced in each ; the tables of the Law and
horns in Moses, a bandage across the breast of the captive. Some people,
who have formulated their theory of symbolism by the rigid exclusion of
every added suggestion, would say that the presence of these emblems
reduces both works to allegory. Others, not excluding emblems as such,
distinguish between their uses ; as we may do here. The tables of the Law
may be set down as purely allegorical, a local allusion in the first place to
Moses writing the Law, and secondly, by association, an obvious way of
explaining that the figure, bearing this emblem, is a lawgiver. Equally
obvious is the device of the bandage around the body of the captive.
It is a notification to all and sundry that the figure is bound ; an appeal to
the experience of knowledge, and not to the abstract feeling of the imagina-
tion. But the effect of the horns is different. The very diversity of
opinions as to their meaning proves that they are not obvious explanations.
Their suggestion, indeed, is of the very nature of symbolism, in that it
gives partial expression to what in its essence is indefinable ; you can not
corral their significance within the enclosure of a statement; they are merely
the point at which the angle of infinity reaches our retina.
The tablets may be overlooked, as perhaps a concession to popular
notions ; not so the horns. They cease to be an accessory ; rooted in the
head, they seem to be an outcropping of the force that heaves within the
mighty bulk of the figure. And that force surges also to the surface in
waves of muscle, in fissures of drapery, channeled as by lava streams, in the
animal abundance of the beard as in the brow, embossed with thought,
overhanging the distance-piercing eyes of one who has looked on God. The
18
U
shall often be surprised at the superior beauty of the child-mind. Our little
children, now and again, in the expression of a thought, as artless as the
movement of their limbs, start our wonder, so simply and so surely does it
strike the note in key with what we conceive of the universal harmony.
The spirit in them, as yet unshadowed by pain and distrust, unscorched by
the heat of passion, or distorted by the encumbrances of knowledge, seems
to flash forth a tiny reflection of the universal spirit, as a dewdrop gives
back the glory of the sun.
In art, this harmony is represented by the sculpture of Pheidias, when
the mind of a man, responding like a child’s to the influences both of
matter and spirit, contrived to body forth their union in forms, harmonious
and rhythmic. Compared with these, the creations of Michelangelo are
confused and stuttering ; painful strivings after the unattainable ; the product
of a mind not in accord with, but in revolt against, the conditions of life ;
expressing the discord, not the harmony, of the universe. Even the sovereign
wisdom of his Moses is oppressed with the ponderousness of knowledge ;
his Bound Captive, of the Louvre, lyric as it is, and exquisitely lovely, is
bodily and mentally in pain of conflict. It is the expression of the man-
mind, not the child’s.
And these two statues—is it symbolism or allegory that they represent ?
Emblematic accessories are introduced in each ; the tables of the Law and
horns in Moses, a bandage across the breast of the captive. Some people,
who have formulated their theory of symbolism by the rigid exclusion of
every added suggestion, would say that the presence of these emblems
reduces both works to allegory. Others, not excluding emblems as such,
distinguish between their uses ; as we may do here. The tables of the Law
may be set down as purely allegorical, a local allusion in the first place to
Moses writing the Law, and secondly, by association, an obvious way of
explaining that the figure, bearing this emblem, is a lawgiver. Equally
obvious is the device of the bandage around the body of the captive.
It is a notification to all and sundry that the figure is bound ; an appeal to
the experience of knowledge, and not to the abstract feeling of the imagina-
tion. But the effect of the horns is different. The very diversity of
opinions as to their meaning proves that they are not obvious explanations.
Their suggestion, indeed, is of the very nature of symbolism, in that it
gives partial expression to what in its essence is indefinable ; you can not
corral their significance within the enclosure of a statement; they are merely
the point at which the angle of infinity reaches our retina.
The tablets may be overlooked, as perhaps a concession to popular
notions ; not so the horns. They cease to be an accessory ; rooted in the
head, they seem to be an outcropping of the force that heaves within the
mighty bulk of the figure. And that force surges also to the surface in
waves of muscle, in fissures of drapery, channeled as by lava streams, in the
animal abundance of the beard as in the brow, embossed with thought,
overhanging the distance-piercing eyes of one who has looked on God. The
18
U
