68 § Frameworks and Labyrinths
A n a n d a Coomaraswamy has studied [1] the symbolic meaning of certain 'knots' which are to be found among the engravings of Albrecht Dürer. These 'knots' are very complicated tangles formed by the tracing of a single line, the whole being arranged in a circular figure. In several cases, the name of Dürer is inscribed in the central portion. These knots have been compared with a similar figure generally attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, and at the centre of which one reads the words Academia Leonardo Vinci (figures 22 & 23). Some have been inclined to see in this design the 'collective signature' of an esoteric 'Academy', a number of these having existed in Italy in that period, and doubtless this is not incorrect. In fact, these designs have but sometimes been called 'mazes' or 'labyrinths' and, as Coomaraswamy remarks, despite the differences in form which may be due in part to technical reasons, in actual fact they are closely related to labyrinths and more particularly to those outlined on the pavement of certain medieval churches. Now these are also thought of as constituting a 'collective signature' of the construction guilds. Insofar as they signify the link uniting the members of an initiatic or at least esoteric organisation among themselves, these diagrams obviously offer a striking similarity with the Masonic 'chain of union'; and if the knots in the 'chain' are recalled, the name of 'knots' (Knoten) given to the designs, apparently by Dürer himself, is likewise very significant. For this reason, as well as for another which we will come to later, it is also important to call attention to the fact that these lines are of unbroken continuity. [2] The labyrinths of churches could likewise be traversed from one end to the other without at any point encountering a break that made it necessary to stop or
Frameworks and Labyrinths 269
Figure 22
Leonardo's
'Concatenation'
Figure 23
One of Durer's
'Sechs Knoten'
to turn back, so that in reality they simply constituted a very long pathway that had to be entirely completed before reaching the centre. [3] In certain cases, as at Amiens, the master craftsman had himself depicted in the central part, just as da Vinci and Dürer inscribed their names at the centre of their designs. They thereby symbolically placed themselves in a 'Holy Land', [4] in a place reserved for the 'elect', as we have explained elsewhere, [5] or in a spiritual centre which in every case was an image or reflection of the true 'centre of the World', just as in the Far Eastern tradition, the Emperor was always situated at the central place. [6]
This leads us directly to considerations of another order which relate to a more inward and more profound significance of this symbolism. As the being who traverses the labyrinth or any other equivalent representation, thereby finally succeeds in finding the 'central place', that is, from the point of view of initiatic realisation, his own centre, [7] the traversal itself, with all its complications, is obviously a representation of the multiplicity of the states or the modalities of manifested existence, [8] throughout the indefinite series of which the being must first 'wander' before being able to establish himself in this centre. The continuous line is then the image of the süträtmä which links all the states together, and moreover, in the case of the 'thread of Ariadne' and the passage through the labyrinth, this image is so clear that it is surprising that anyone could fail to perceive it. [9] Thus, the remark with which we ended our previous study on the 'chain of union' finds its justification. On the other hand, we insisted more particularly on this chain's function of acting as a frame; and it is enough to look at the figures of Dürer and da Vinci to see that they too form true 'frameworks' around the central part
which constitutes yet one more similarity between these symbols; and there are other cases where we shall find the same feature, in a way that once more brings out the perfect concordance of the different traditions.
Figure 24
Clay models of Greek buildings of the Geometric Age found in 1933 in Heracum at Perechore near Corinth, which show for the first time how close was the ideal connection among Greeks between the maze or meandor and the walls of houses (after H. G. G. Payne, JHS 54, 1934, 191).
In a book of which we have already spoken elsewhere, [10] Jackson Knight has called attention to the discovery in Greece, near Corinth, of two miniature clay models of houses, dating back to the archaic period, the
so-called 'geometric age'. [11] On the outer walls are meanders that surround the house, the lines of which seem in some way to have constituted a kind of substitute for the labyrinth. In so far as this represented a defense, either against human enemies or especially against hostile psychic influences, these meanders can also be considered as having a protective value, even doubly so, not only impeding malefic influences from penetrating into the home, but also impeding benefic influences from leaving it and being dispersed outside. It may have happened at certain times that nothing more was seen in all this; but it must not be forgotten that the reduction of symbols to a more or less 'magical' use already corresponds to a state of degeneration from the traditional point of view, a state in which deeper meanings have been forgotten. [12] Accordingly, at the origin there must have been something else, and it is easy to understand what is really meant if we remember that, traditionally, every edifice is constructed according to a cosmic model. So as long as there was no distinction between sacred and profane, that is, so long as the profane point of view had not arisen as a result of a diminishment of the tradition, it was everywhere and always the case, even for private homes. The home was then an image of the Cosmos, that is, a 'little world', closed and complete in itself; and if it be noted that it is 'framed' by the meander in exactly the same way as the 'chain of union' frames the Lodge-the cosmic significance of which has not been lost-the identity of the two symbols becomes altogether obvious: in both cases we are faced by what is unquestionably nothing other than a representation of the very 'frame' of the Cosmos.
Another remarkable example from the point of view of the symbolism of 'framework' is provided by certain Chinese characters, referring primitively to rites of fixation or stabilisation [13] which consisted of drawing concentric circles or spirals around objects. The character hēng, designating such a rite, was formed in ancient Chinese script by a spiral or by two concentric circles between two straight lines. Throughout the ancient world, new foundations, whether of camps, of cities, or of villages, were 'stabilised' by drawing spirals or circles around them; [14] and let it be added that here the real identity of frameworks with labyrinths can still be seen. As regards the character chich, which recent commentators render simply as 'great', the author we have just cited says that it denotes the magic that ensures the integrity of spaces by framing them with protective signs. Such is the aim of border designs in ancient works of art. A chich fu is a benediction which has
been directly or symbolically 'framed' in this way. A plague can also be 'framed' to prevent it from spreading. Here, too, it is explicitly a question of 'magic' only, or of what is supposed to be magic. But the idea of 'fixation' or 'stabilisation' shows clearly enough what is fundamentally involved. It is a question of the framework's already mentioned essential function of gathering together and keeping in place the diverse elements it surrounds. There are moreover passages in Lao-tzu where the characters in question are to be found and which are very significant in this respect: 'When one acts so as to enframe (or circumscribe, ying, a character that evokes an idea similar to that of hèng) the seven animal spirits and to embrace Unity, one may be closed, impervious and incorruptible'; [15] and elsewhere: 'Thanks to a knowledge appropriately enframed (chich) we walk without difficulty in the great Way'. [16] In the first of these two passages, it is obviously a question of establishing or maintaining the normal order of the different constitutive elements of the being in order to unify it. In the second passage, a 'well enframed knowledge' is precisely a knowledge in which everything is in exactly the place suited to it. Moreover the cosmic significance of the 'frame' itself has in no way disappeared in such a case. In fact, according to all traditional conceptions, is not the human being the 'microcosm', and must not knowledge, too, somehow embrace the totality of the Cosmos?