interpreted strictly by reference to the mental life and personal history of the person who uses the symbol. Psychologically it is of no avail merely to say that x has had such and such a symbolic reference in the past, or even that x has such and such a symbolic implication within the community to which the person who employs it belongs.
It follows from what has just been said that doctrines concerning symbolism are peculiarly liable to error. As Ricklin says, all symbols tend to be extremely ambiguous. This means that they can readily be fitted into any context, or, what is in fact the same thing, that practically any symbol may plausibly enough be held to indicate the same general context. If the context has to do with a very powerful and widely shared human interest or tendency, this pliability of symbols is the more marked. The "howlers" committed in this manner by religious symbolists have often been pointed out. Anything whatever may be found to have some deep-lying religious significance by the earnest seeker.[1] This is because, as a matter of fact, the religious attitude may very easily pervade almost all forms of human expression. It is the same with the tendencies that are grouped about sex relations. Precisely because any mortal thing may be a sexual symbol, we should be exceedingly cautious in asserting that any particular thing is a sexual symbol. No such caution is apparent in Ricklin's discussion.[2]
The various points of criticism which have been advanced may now be briefly resumed:
(1) Wish fulfilment cannot be taken as a principle of explanation which itself does not require explaining. Both
- ↑ See e.g. Mallery's Picture-Writing of the American Indians. Rep. Ann. Bur. Eth., 1888-9, p. 133, et passim; D'Alviella's Migration of Symbols; or Keble's On the Mysticism attributed to Early Fathers of the Church, etc.
- ↑ Ricklin certainly speaks of other than sexual symbols, but practically does no more than mention the fact that they are to be found.
