The Symbolism of the Zodiac Among the Pythagoreans
In treating the question of the solstitial gates, we have referred especially and directly to the Hindu tradition because it is there that the relevant information is most clearly given; but this question in itself is something that is really common to all traditions and evidence of it is to be found in
Western antiquity as well as in Hinduism. In Pythagoreanism, especially, zodiacal symbolism seems to have had just as considerable an importance. The expressions 'gateway of men' and 'gateway of the gods', which we have used, belong, moreover, to the Greek tradition. Only the information on these topics that has come down to us is so fragmentary and incomplete that their interpretation can give rise to many confusions which those who have considered them in isolation and without clarifying them by comparison with other traditions have not failed to commit, as we shall see.
First of all, in order to avoid certain ambiguities with regard to the respective positions of the two gates, what we have said about the application of the 'inversion' must be remembered according to whether they are considered in relation to the terrestrial order of things or to the celestial order. The solstitial gate of winter, or the sign of Capricorn, corresponds to the North in the annual cycle, but to the South as regards the path of the sun in the heavens; similarly, the summer solstitial gate, or the sign of Cancer, corresponds to the South in the annual cycle and to the North as regards the path of the sun. This is why, while the ascendant movement of the sun goes from South to North, and its descendant movement from North to South, the ascendant period of the year must be regarded, on the contrary, as being accomplished in moving from North to South and its descendant period in moving from South to North, as we have already said. It is in relation to this last viewpoint that, according to the Vedic symbolism, the gateway of the deva-loka is situated towards the North, and that of the pitri-loka towards the South, without there being in all this, despite appearances, the least contradiction with what we are now going to find elsewhere.
We will quote, with the necessary explanations and rectifications, the summing up of Pythagorean information on this subject given by Jerome Carcopino. [1] 'The Pythagoreans', he says, 'had constructed a whole theory on the relation of the Zodiac with the migration of souls. How far back does this go? It is impossible to know. The fact remains that in the second century of our era, it blossomed forth in the writings of the Pythagorean Numenius to which we have access through a dry and late summary of Proclus, in his commentary on the Republic of Plato, and through an analysis, both fuller and older, by Porphyry in chapters 21 and 22 of De Antro Nympharum.' We have here, be it said at once, a typical example of 'historicism': the truth is that it is in no way a question of a theory 'constructed' more or less artificially, at such and such a date, by the Pythagoreans or by others in the way of a mere philosophical view or of an individual conception of any kind. It is a question of traditional knowledge concerning an initiatic reality which by the very reason of its traditional nature has not and cannot have any chronologically assignable origin. These are considerations, of course, that may elude
a 'scholar'; but he must be able to understand this at least: if the theory in question had been 'constructed by the Pythagoreans', how then are we to explain that it is to be found everywhere, beyond any Greek influence, and in particular in the Vedic texts which assuredly are very much earlier than Pythagoreanism? Carcopino, as a 'specialist' in Greco-Latin antiquity, may well be ignorant of this, unfortunately; but according to what he himself relates in what follows, this idea is already to be found in Homer. Even among the Greeks, therefore, it was known not only before Numenius, which is all too obvious, but before Pythagoras himself. It is a traditional teaching which was transmitted continuously down through the centuries; and the somewhat 'late' date at which certain authors-who invented nothing and did not claim to have done so-formulated the doctrine in writing is of little importance.
Let us now return to Proclus and Porphyry: 'Our two authors agree in attributing to Numenius the determination of the extreme points of the heavens, the tropic of winter under the sign of Capricorn, and the tropic of summer under that of Cancer, and, evidently following him and the 'theologians' whom he cites and who served him as guides, they agree in defining Cancer and Capricorn as the two gateways to the heavens. Whether it was to descend into generation or to re-ascend to God, souls thus had necessarily to pass through one of them'. By 'extreme points of the heavens', too elliptical an expression to be perfectly clear in itself, we must naturally understand the extreme points reached by the sun in its annual course, where it stops as it were-whence the name 'solstices'. It is to these solstitial points that the 'gateways of the heavens' correspond, which is indeed exactly the traditional doctrine which we already know. As we have indicated elsewhere, [2] these two points sometimes were symbolised-for example, under the tripod at Delphi and under the feet of the steeds of the solar chariot-by the octopus and the dolphin which represent respectively Cancer and Capricorn. On the other hand, it goes without saying that the authors in question were not able to attribute to Numenius the actual determination of the solstitial points, which were known at all times. They simply referred to Numenius as one of those who had spoken of these points prior to themselves and who had himself referred to other 'theologians'.
It is a question next of specifying the real function of each of the two gates and it is here that the confusion is going to become apparent: 'According to Proclus, Numenius had narrowly differentiated them: by the gate of Cancer, the fall of souls to the earth; by that of Capricorn, the ascension of souls into the ether. With Porphyry, on the contrary, it is said only that Cancer is to the North and favourable to the descent, and Capricorn to the South and favourable to the ascent: so that instead of being strictly subject to a "one way" path, souls would have kept a certain freedom of circulation, to go and to return.' The end of this quotation really expresses nothing but an interpretation for which the sole responsibility is Carcopino's. We do not see at all why what Porphyry says is
contrary to what was said by Proclus. It may be formulated somewhat more vaguely, but it seems, indeed, to say basically the same thing. What is 'favourable' to the descent or to the ascent must doubtless be understood as that which makes it possible; for it is hardly likely that Porphyry would have wished to leave the impression of any kind of indeterminacy which, being incompatible with the rigorous nature of traditional science, would in any case be nothing but a proof of his ignorance on this point. However that may be, it is obvious that Numenius only repeated the known traditional teaching on the function of the two gates. On the other hand, if he places Cancer to the North and Capricorn to the South, as Porphyry indicated, it is because he is considering their situation in the heavens. This is indicated quite clearly, moreover, by the fact that in what is said earlier, it is a question of the 'tropics', which can only have a spatial meaning, and not of the 'solstices', which on the contrary relate more directly to the annual cycle; and this is why the situation given here is the inverse of that given by Vedic symbolism, without it making any real difference, since we have here two equally legitimate points of view which agree perfectly once their relationship is understood.
We are now about to see something still more extraordinary: Carcopino goes on to say that 'it is difficult, in the absence of the original, to disentangle from these divergent allusions'-not really divergent except in his mind-'the true doctrine of Numenius', which, as we have seen, is not his own doctrine but simply the teaching reported by him, which makes it all the more important and more worthy of interest. 'But it is evident from the context of Porphyry that, even expounded in its most elastic form'-as if there could be 'elasticity' in a question that is solely a matter of exact knowledge-'it would remain in contradiction with those of some of his predecessors, and in particular with the system that the older Pythagoreans had based on their interpretation of verses of the Odyssey where Homer described the grotto of Ithaca', that is, the 'cave of the Nymphs' which is nothing other than one of the figurations of the 'cosmic cave' of which we have spoken earlier. 'Homer, Porphyry observes, did not limit himself to saying that this grotto had two gates. He specified that one of them faced to the North, and the other, more divine, faced South; and that one descended by the northern gateway. But he has not indicated whether one could descend by the southern gateway. He says only: it is the entry of the gods. Never does man take the path of the immortals'. We believe that this must be the very text of Porphyry, and we do not see in it the announced contradiction. But here is the commentary of Carcopino: 'By this exegesis, one perceives, in this epitome of the universe which the cave of the Nymphs is, the two gates which open to the heavens and under which the souls pass; and, contrary to what Proclus ascribes to Numenius, it is that of the North, Capricorn, which was at first reserved for the departure of souls; and that of the South, Cancer, that was consequently assigned for their return to God'.
Now that we have completed the citation, we can understand that the asserted contradiction, here again, is only of Carcopino's making. In fact, in the last phrase there is a manifest error and even a double error, which
seems truly inexplicable. First of all, it is Carcopino who on his own initiative mentions Capricorn and Cancer. According to Porphyry, Homer only designates the two gates by their situation to the North and the South, without indicating the corresponding zodiacal signs. But as he indicates that the 'divine' gate is that of the South, it must be inferred that it is this one which for him corresponds to Capricorn just as for Numenius, which means that he also situates these gates according to their position in the heavens, which thus appears to have been the dominant point of view throughout the Greek tradition, even before Pythagoreanism. Next, the exit of souls from the cosmos and their 'return to God' are in fact one and the same thing, so that Carcopino, apparently without perceiving it, attributes the same function to each gate. Homer, on the contrary, says that it is by the northern gate that the 'descent' is made, that is, the entry into the 'cosmic cave', or in other words, into the world of generation or of individual manifestation. As to the southern gateway, it is the exit from the cosmos, and consequently it is through it that the 'ascent' of beings on the way to liberation is accomplished. Homer does not say expressly if one can also descend by this gate, but that is not necessary, for in designating it as the 'entry of the gods', he tells us clearly enough what are the exceptional 'descents' which are made thereby, as we have explained in our previous study. Finally, whether the situation of the two gates be looked at in relation to the movement of the sun in the heavens as in the Greek tradition, or in relation to the seasons in the annual terrestrial cycle, as in the Hindu tradition, it is clearly always Cancer which is the 'gateway of men' and Capricorn which is the 'gateway of the gods'. There can be no variation on this point, and in fact there is none. It is only the incomprehension of modern 'academics' who credit themselves with the discovery, in the various interpreters of traditional doctrines, of divergences and contradictions which are not really there at all.