Church Symbolism

I work in a library, and I found this great one:

Church Symbolism

An Explanation of the More Important Symbols of the Old and New Testament, The Primitive, The Mediaeval and the Modern Church.
By F. R. Webber.

First printed in 1927, but I found the 1938 revision.

While it mentions Chartres and some English churches, it seems most of the churches are here in the U.S.A. The back of this 1938 even features ads for organ makers and stained glass studios. You can find old library copies on bookfinder.com, but it apparently was reprinted in the 90’s and newer printings are available on amazon.

A few gems:

From the introduction by Ralph Adams Cram:

“….The abandonment of ceremonial in the affairs of life that, for some inexplicable reason, accompanied by the spread of democracy and was held to be of its esse; the renunciation of ritual and liturgics as well as all forms of art and beauty that was equally held to be (and probably was) a part of Protestantism, were not only a fatal weakening of the causes themselves, but a clear evidence of an internal and essential lack for which no substitute was possible, or even imaginable. Man lives by symbols, and if those that are just and veracious are taken from him he will invent others, but these are always thin, poor, ugly and without significance, in that they are made to order by ingenious though ignorant mechanicians, and do not lay hold on ultimate things…."

From the author’s preface:

“…There is a close analogy between the correct use of symbolism and the use of church music. Any thoughtful musician will say that church music is not to be used as an end in itself. It is only a means to an end. Its purpose is to express beautifully certain religious truths. To do this, it must be impersonal. When music becomes so ornate or so assertive that we are led to admire the melody itself, and lose sight of the truths it seeks to proclaim, it has failed in its purpose. It has become mere performance, to exhibit the skill of the singers, rather than a vehicle used to express profound thoughts. So it is with symbolism. Like music, it must be subordinated to the truths it seeks to set forth. Too much of our modern symbolism has attracted attention to itself, rather than to the meaning back of it. …'

Finally, this bit of irony:

“…When a Philadelphia lawyer undertakes to sell a tract of land, he does not simply sell it. He states in an imposing document that he has “granted, bargained, sold, alienated, enfoeffed, released and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, aliene, enfoeff, release and confirm” the following parcel of land as described hereafter to wit. No attorney, however matter-of-fact in other things, would think of discarding the traditional verbiage of his profession. The same may be said of the physician, the chemist,the scientist, the architect, and of all the trades and crafts.

Such technical language serves an important purpose.It may sound absurd to the uninitiated, but it is of highest value to the specialist, for it enables him to express exact shades of meaning. The title to one’s property, or his very life, may depend upon the ability of one’s attorney or his physician to express his intentions accurately.

In all branches of Christian art, whether it be architecture, painting, sculpture, music, ceremonial or symbolism, there are certain technical terms employed by all writers, regardless of their theological views. To disregard such traditional expressions would cause a person to seem as ridiculous as a seminarian of some years ago who had an hour of extreme practicality, and translated the stately language of the old Church Year Collects into very pithy, modern, Anglo-Saxon terms. He was utterly sincere, but his efforts resulted in furtive merriment rather than the edification of those who heard him..”

I'm looking forward to reading the whole book, and learning to learn from church architecture.