14 ORGANIZACIÓN DEL PERSONAL DOCENTE Y ASISTENTES DE LA EDUCACIÓN

In light of the preceding discussion of symbol theory and the intention of formulating a theory of Johannine symbolism, the aim of this section is to explain why this research has selected the symbol as the primary figure of speech for interpreting the Johannine narrative. The symbols in the Gospel do not operate alone; they are connected to mainly imageries and metaphors. This discussion therefore centers on the structural and semantic link between symbols, imageries, and metaphors, the three main figures of speech in the Gospel. The discussion first describes imageries and explains how they relate to symbols; discussion of metaphors follows the same format and the section

197 _{Some may argue that philosophical theories are not suited for the ancient Johannine text;}

however, the aim of this study is not to focus on complexities of philosophical thought, but rather highlight contributions made towards better understanding the power of the symbol.

78

concludes with an explanation of the dominating power of symbols over imageries and metaphors.

Imagery, which is the “making of likenesses,”198 entails more than

visualization;199 it is the use of language to represent objects, actions, feelings, thoughts, ideas, and sensory or extra-sensory experiences.200 The process of an image begins with the direction of a transitive verb of “seeing” towards an object; when the object is seen, the act of seeing is concretized and this act leads to an imagined picture.201 Imagery conveys meaning in pictorial form and is therefore the base of all figurative language including symbols. Imagery is a core component of symbols, forms the basis of the symbol, and lends concreteness and clarity to symbolic meaning. Since imagery is a structural component of the symbol, an inherent connection exists between the two. First, images function symbolically because symbols utilize images from the realm of sense perception to deepen meaning.202 Second, the symbol combines an image with a concept,203 allowing authors to use symbols to project conceptual images upon readers.

198

J. A. Cuddon, A Dictionary of Literary Terms (New York: Double Day, 1977), 316. Merriam- Webster's Dictionary explains that the word “imagery” is from the Latin imagin-, imago; perhaps akin to Latin imitari to imitate. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.; Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster, 1996).

199 _{According to Caird, imagery overwhelms the imagination and locates points of a comparison.}

Caird, Language and Imagery of the Bible, 149-150.

200

J. A. Cuddon, A Dictionary of Literary Terms (New York: Double Day, 1977), 316. The symbolist poet Baudelaire states, “The whole visible universe is but a storehouse of images and signs to which the imagination will give a relative place and value; it is a sort of pasture which the imagination must digest and transform.” Charles Baudelaire, The Mirror of Art: Critical Studies (trans. J Mayne; New York: Doubleday, 1956), 241.

201 _{Zimmermann, Christologie Der Bilder, 61.}

202

Koester, Symbolism, 7. Koester’s definition of image is: “things that can be perceived by the senses.” Koester, Symbolism, 4.

203 _{Cuddon, Dictionary of Literary Terms, 655. Urban states the essential character of all}

79

Frye’s definition of image is: “a symbol in its aspect as a formal unit of art with a natural content” (emphasis mine).204 This definition views imagery as a basic form of symbols. The visualization and inward perception imageries evoke transcendent meaning in symbols. René Wellek and Austin Warren emphasize that if an image persistently recurs in a narrative it becomes a symbol and may even become part of a symbolic system.205 Imageries, therefore, link with symbols to form symbolic networks.

Metaphor is a figure of speech that refers to objects in a semantically

inappropriate way.206 In metaphor, the literal meaning of a particular object/action is applied to a different object/action without asserting a comparison,207 as in the statement “life is a journey.”208 The objects in a metaphor are literal and the figuration lies in the copula “is.”209 Although symbols and metaphors are distinct, both work closely together in narratives. The main distinction between symbols and metaphors is their basic

structures. The metaphor has two components—vehicle and tenor with both clearly

notes although the category of image is broader than symbol, not all images are symbols. Wesley Kort,

Narrative Elements and Religious Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 9.

204

Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, 366.

205

René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (3rd ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970), 189.

206

Harris, Dictionary of Concepts, 222. Μεταθορά (from µετά, beyond or over, and φέρειν to

carry), means “transference,” thus, “carrying over or across.” Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 735.

Wheelwright explains similarly that a “semantic motion” is implicit in the word “metaphor;” the motion (phora) consists of outreaching and combining. Philip Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), 71-72.

207 _{Abrams, Glossary of Literary Terms, 67.}

208

A simile, on the other hand would read: “Life is like a journey.” Bullinger explains: The metaphor, owing to some association or connection with object expressed, declares that one thing is the other. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 735.

209

Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 735. Bullinger’s description is echoed by Ricoeur: “The ‘place’ of metaphor, its most intimate and ultimate abode, is neither the name, nor the sentence, nor even

discourse, but the copula of the verb to be.” Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies

80

represented in the text. The symbol consists only of the vehicle; its referent is outside the text, which enables the symbol to transcend the limitations of the text.210 A close and complex relation exists between symbols and metaphors, both are representational—they point to and represent something beyond themselves. Since they both significantly change the use and meaning of familiar or ordinary words, these two figures of speech are therefore often viewed similarly.

Some scholars view symbol as a strong form of metaphor.211 According to Urban, the character of all symbols is that they are in their original sense, metaphors.212 Just as Wellek and Warren explain the connection between imagery and symbol,213 likewise, Wheelwright states that a metaphor becomes symbolic only when it recurs.214 Ricoeur describes two main similarities between symbol and metaphor. First, the “semantic impertinence” of the metaphor is similar to the “extension of meaning” in symbols. 215 Second, the work of resemblance in symbols is also present in metaphors.216 Hence,

210 _{Ricoeur, Conflict of Interpretation, 57.}

211

Metaphor is also described as the first degree of the symbol. Harris, Dictionary of Concepts, 399, 402. Pierre Grelot describes the symbol as “a kind of developed metaphor.” Pierre Grelot, The

Language of Symbolism: Biblical Theology, Semantics, and Exegesis (trans. Christopher R. Smith;

Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 18. Similarly, Wead explains the symbol is the final or solidified step of the metaphorical process. Wead, Literary Devices, 73-74.

212 _{Urban, Language and Reality, 429.}

213

See previous page.

214 _{Philip Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 93.}

215

Semantic impertinence is the absurdity that occurs when attempt is made to literally interpret a metaphorical utterance. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 50.

216

Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 55-56. McGaughey also points out similarities between symbol and metaphor, some of which are as follows: 1) metaphor and symbol both involve understanding and experience, 2) metaphor and symbol serve as a shock to make readers think more, 3) symbols function like metaphors but at the level of the narrative rather than of the sentence, and 4) symbols have the same tensions as metaphors—tensions between tenor and vehicle, and between literal and figurative interpretation. McGaughey, “Ricoeur’s Metaphor and Narrative Theories, 415-432.

81

according to Ricoeur, the metaphor expresses what is implicit in the symbol and also clarifies what is confusing in the symbol, thus, metaphors are “the linguistic surface of symbols.”217 Ricoeur’s analysis reveals the intricate relation between metaphor and symbol. In the symbol/metaphor interplay, metaphors are drawn into symbolic systems where they function symbolically and contribute to symbolic meaning in narratives.

In narratives, imageries, metaphors, and symbols associate with one another semantically. While structural similarities exist between the three figures of speech, the symbol appears to be the most powerful. First, the profound power of the symbol is evident in its inability to be contained by narratives.218 The unspoken potential of the symbol is always discovered outside the confines of the semantics of narrative. The symbol’s ability to create meaning inside the text by operating outside the text, gives it literary and narrative potency. Therefore, because it is not bound by language, the symbol is able to communicate more expansively than imagery or metaphor.

Second, the transcendent nature of symbols gives them a wider range of operation than imageries and metaphors enabling symbols to have a stronger effect in the narrative. The symbol by its sheer power of elevation is able to surpass other figures of speech in a narrative and draw them into its symbolic systems. This strong influence gives imagery and metaphor symbolic overtones, causing them to function symbolically in a narrative. When imageries and metaphors function within a symbolic narrative, the possibility exists for a symbol to overshadow and extend the meaning of imageries and metaphors outside the semantic range of the text.

217 _{Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 69.}

82

Third, symbols are generally regarded as more central to the meaning of a work and are therefore viewed as the stronger figure of speech.219 This factor gives the symbol a greater force and dominance in narratives. Roman Jakobson describes the dominant element in literary works as the focusing component that rules, determines, transforms the remaining components, and guarantees the integrity of the narrative structure. According to Jakobson, “The dominant specifies the work . . . dominates the entire structure and thus acts as its mandatory and inalienable constituent, dominating all the remaining elements and exerting direct influence upon them.”220 Jakobson’s observations aptly describe the operation of symbols in the Johannine narrative where symbols not only dominate the entire Gospel but also influence and transform the function of imageries and metaphors.

In conclusion, while imageries and metaphors form the basis of Johannine symbolism and facilitate symbolic meaning, this symbolic function takes place because of the transcendent power of the symbol. Its transcendent nature gives the symbol an innate ability to ascend the text, influence other figures of speech, and draw them into its network. The theoretical structure and function of the transcendent symbol show that it is

sui generis among other figures of speech.

219

Harris, Dictionary of Concepts, 402.

220 _{Roman Jakobson, “The Dominant,” in Language in Literature (ed. Krystyna Pomorska and}

Stephen Rudy; Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1987), 41. Roman Jakobson is a Russian Formalist who identifies as “the dominant” as one of the main characteristics of Russian Formalist literature.

83