is more firmly believed than that which we know list"
Michel de Montaigne
wide and differentiated use of the term "symbol" in the most varied
fields of application (from mathematics to saussarian linguistic philosophy or
otherwise; from philosophy to anthropology; from art to literary criticism, to
religion and the events of everyday life) makes not only a merely even a
generalized but constant nucleus, but also the individuation of property 
order to delineate an initial first notion of the term, we just refer to the
actual data deriving from our own everyday experience. In this way we note the
presence of those symbols that identify,' institutions, assosiations, parties
and other conoscitive forms that can be defined as "social", and the
so-called "status symbols".
this first stage, the term "the symbol simply indicates any element that
refers to another independently of the methods by which the other is
represented. Clearly, at such a level the symbol tends to be confused with the
sign. The difference with the sign is re-established however by the effect that
one wishes to achieve: the representative must render the presence of the
represented in an immediately effective manner. However the referral must not be
conventional, but must communicate, apart from the meaning, a
leads us to presume (as does Samuel Coleridge, one of the most diligent
researchers of the symbol) that the representative himself takes part in the
that the symbol is always a part of the whole that it represents, Coleridge
intended that this bond between the two terms representative\represented and not
the "synecdoche" (that, which gives the part as a whole) of which,
however, the symbol can always make use as of the other rhetorical figures.
this way, the symbol allows us to enter into contact with that basic union
between significant and significance: a bond made more magical the more it is
indefinite. The aim of this short work is not, however, to provide an even brief
history of the term restricted to the work of literary art. The references to
the varying successive theories of the past have to be viewed as an introductive
instrument concerning the allegory postulated by Walter Benjamin, particularly
in the second part of his essay "The origin of the German Baroque
drama" (Usprung des deutschen trauelspiels) 
origins of the concept of the symbol as established in the theory of
interpretation, are essentially logical and phenomenological. Symbolization, in
fact, can be traced bach as a form of representation to a more general theory of
expression and meaning which had its origin in the "first research" by
Husserl. The historical critical reference system thus obtained, is represented
by a hernieneutical tradition, by an analisys of the significance which starting
from Husserl reaches, through Diltbey and Heidegger to Gadamer. The dominating
theme of the theory of the forms of symbolism, is the structure of
Heidegger, as for Gadamer (even if for the latter in a double way: historical-
critical, or aesthetic erlebnis; and theoretical, or rather as a critic of the
aesthetic conscience), allegory and symbol differ one from the other in
different forms of reference: one says, and the other gathers together. In any
event thir aim is identical, since it is the configuration of the
"other" that constitutes the artistic.
Geog Gadamer ,
reconstracts the origins of the term "symbol" referring directly to
its Greek etymology. In fact, symbol derives from the Greek substance
"symbolon" that in its turn originates from the verb
"symballein" which means "throw together" and that expresses
a close bondwith a particular emphasis.
the Greek world symbolon indicated a fragment of pottery (tessera hospitalis)
given to the guest which perfectly matched another fragment retained by the
house-owner thus allowing identification even afler a long time. Northorp Frye
refers back to the term symbolon underlining that as well as the matter of the
gender, the substantive was also used in the masculine (gender)
"symbolos" meaning "auspice
or divination and therefore, linked to something which is fur too complex and
mysterious for our immediate understanding" 
two meanings could be assumed as roots of the two sides of the symbol: in the
first meaning remains a conventional bond (in fact the tessera hospitalis was
used as an ancient counter mark or receipt), whilst in the second meaning magic
power prevails. But looking closely at this fact, the two meaning are not in
contradiction; in the neuter term the fragmentation of the original union itself
contains an auspice for the recomposition and the renewal of plenitude 
though the idea of symbol became part of the theological store of knowledge, in
the Middle Ages it played a secondary role compared to the allegory that was
preferred both in scriptural exegis and in literature, becoming the interpreter
of the physiological components. Nowadays the symbol according to Umberto Eco,
has taken on a role in the field of hermetic mysticism remaining linked to the
aesthetic- magical experience. The symbol definitively enters the literary and
phylosophical field with the romantic idealistic. As Schlegel and Novalis with
their oscillating terminology and Hegel with his devaluation of the role of
"symbolic art" (on the other hand we can see how nearly every page
written by Hegel is characterized by the use of symbols; from those of the mole
and the owl, to that of "painting in chiaroscuro" etc.) still
represent the initial phase of this period, Schelling, in the view of Gadamer,
represents the highest point. In fuct, it is with Schelling that the symbol
comes to coincide with the artistic and beauty as such up to the assertion that
"art is symbolical"
links directly his reflection on the symbol with that of ancient mythology: the
mythological forms "are that which they mean" or rather at the same
time they do not cease to be themselves. It is clear that "the romantic-
idealistic aesthetic", in its tendency to assume art both as intransitive
(and not longer a camouflaged copy of the world) as well as ideal (Hegel's
formula of beauty as a "sensitive aspect of the idea") had to meet of
necessity, in its course the idea of the symbol(...).
research of authenticity of the exposition and the consequent sentence, because
insincere, of any imitation of the past, tenical artifice or scholarly learning,
comes to the "death of rhetoric" and with it allegory, which
considered only a "cold" intellectual exercise (...). The symbol is
applied not to the mechanic reference, but to a representation that shows its
meaning spontaneously as an organic birth of its own nature .
In this way the symbol assumes in itself a transcendent content obtained
intuitively on the model of the "incoronation", even if the attitudes
in the romantic- idealistic aesthetic field have not been able to explain if
this subject was due to the plurality of Kant's ideas or to the highest concept
of "infinite" and "absolute".
was Goethe duty in his "Massime" who then clarified that both the
mission of allegory and of the symbol is to connect the peculiar to the
universal: the allegory through the concept searches for something outside
itself; the symbol instead finds it immediately, demonstrating nothing more than
itself, it is just through its self-evident reason of existence that it carries
within itself the essence of the universal.
1885 and 1891, the symbol definitively enters the poetic and literate field
mostly due to the French writers and intellectuals who with Teodor Wyzewa come
to affirm that << allis symbol>> (historical symbolism).
fact that the symbol had become accepted by wide fringes of intellectuals and
writers, did not mean that the problems connected with its definition had been
investigated and resolved. In fact it is exactly in this period of greater power
in the literary field that the symbol begins to assume within itself,
is the case of Baudelaire who wrongly, due to "the forest of symbols"
present in his "Correspondence", is considered to be a symbolist, but
as demonstrated by Benjamin must instead, be counted among the greatest
representatives of the opposite current, that of allegory.
spite of the confusion perceivable within itself, in the French area the concept
of a connection between symbol and idea persists. But this idea in Renè Ghil
and in Jean Moréas loaded with mystical significance (the first and last idea,
or truth of Ghil) esoteric and occultist meaning (the idea does not manifest
itself entirely, but it remains wrapped in the heavy clothes of analogies,
according to Moréas).
symbolism uses an initiatory and obscure language losing that transparency and
naturalness indicated by Goethe as innate elements of the symbol, when in his
"Massime" he established that <<true symbolism is that in which
the particular element represents the more general one, not as a dream or a
shadow, but as a vivid and instantaneous revelation of the inscrutable>>.
This loss of clarity can be considered as an involution, which perhaps finds its
most intense expression, as far as the French cultural field is concerned, in
Huysmans, and in particular in his "Aurebours", in which the symbols
are completely emptied, becoming superficial experiences of aesthetic and the
aim of historical symbolism is to achieve the "exceptional" and the
poetical subject, becomes, therefore, gifted with outstanding sensitiveness
<<sensitive refinement is at the apex of the "aristocratic"
qualities of the symbolic poetry: which is why poetry establishes itself as the
field of initiation to the divine. This ritualistic prerogative, that distances
social obligations, can imply a clash with taboos and a certain amount of share
of return of repression (in perverse ceremonials); but the transgression (the
damnation) does not belong exactly to the symbol if not only for what is
concerned with its functionality, to the universal coniucto>> 
the repressed necessarily re-emerges, it will be sublimed in the ornamental
stylization. In that way it will be rendered harmless and will not represent a
danger for that fine net of "fine and ethereal" connections ("the
Gospel of correspondences") in which symbolistic poetry is substantiated.
At the basis of the symbolistic connections, there is a synaesthetic vision of
reality in which all the phenomena of nature are similar to each other inasmuch
as all are linked with the essence.
the opposite direction to that suggested by Goethe, the symbolists concentrate
on evanescence; the symbol is not to be found in a single element, but in a
multiplicity which establishes an atmosphere. <<In the atmosphere it is
not so much the "rapport" between a particular and the related ideal,
but a group of particulars, even more infinitesimal, that to a sense of
globality which is however, an unattainable ideal. The atmosphere carries the
mystery (...); it is the mystery itself, which no longer consists on established
metaphysics, but in this evasion and confusion of meaning>>.
Charles Maurice explains that the truth must be obscured by symbols in order not
to blind the beholden with its astonishing light. The prosecution of symbolism
in the 1900's, whilst renouncing to over accentrated rituality and prefusing to
lapse into the usual symbolic epiphany, places itself in this track without
modifying its main characteristics. In fact, the sublimation of real life
further weakens the symbolic agent reconsigning it to the ephemeral and
emptiness. The symbolic transfiguration usually occurs when the symbols appear
to the mute: <<in the crises of relative power it is sufficient however
that there be insistent interrogation and the hypothesis of more, to renew the
spell and refresh - be it "in extremis"- the sacrality of
the psychoanalistical interpretation the function of the symbol is not univocal.
Referring to the theories of Breuer on histeria, Freud in "Hysteria and
Anguish" treats the symbol on a sort of" indirect figuration"
through which the patient speacks of his trauma Therefore, symbol as symptom.
But Freud corrects his theory later in <<Interpretation of Dreams>>
when he affirms that it is the symptom which utilizes the symbols which are
recalled from the patient's already formed representative representative
there free associations of the patient are not sufficient, the analyst resorts
to his symbolic experience, that is, his cultural background. In this way
elements of dreams may be traced to mystical images, folcrore, to that which
Freud calls "the age-old dreams of humanity". Jung conceives of an
unchangeable collective unconscious. He sees the symbol as a myth in its
archetypical state which lies at the root of the unconscious and feeds the
manifestations. Whilst for Freud it is always the "symbol of
something" and this something is in fact parts of the body and sexual
organs, in Jung the symbols are the inexhaustible patterns of primitive images.
Psychic disturbances are thus considered to be incidents occurring during the
process of emergence from the images.
to Jung the unconscious nature of the symbol is clearly enounced. Just as clear
is the opposition between symbol and allegory bases itself on the dualism of
conscious\unconscious. Like the artist also the interpreter unconsciously
reaches the symbolic depths abandoning his critical vigilance and letting
himself be carried along by the action of the work (also in Jung the
"mystic" promise of the symbol is fulfilled).
anthropology( above all in "The Structural Anthropology" of Lévi-Stauss
and in "The language and its doubles"). The researchers of the
"savage thought" see the symbol as fruit of analogic logic of the
primitives: the magic impinges on the real, the mark on the thing.
is a position which has been profoundly criticized by Wittgenstein, according to
whom there are no logical leaps in the use of symbols and in fact, such forms of
mental operations belong to the entire humanity in each stage of its
development, and are universal. In fact, according to Wittgenstein, the
"primitive" who points an animal on a rock face with the aim of
propitiating its capture, is also perfectly capable of constructing instruments,
houses, of making projects, exactly like our contemporaries. Wittgenstein
writes:" The same primitive who pierces the image of his enemy, apparently
to kill him, actually builds his own shelter of wood and he makes real lethal
arrows, not effigies>> 
as in psychoanalysis, also in anthropology one speaks more of the symbol in the
singular than of a plurality of symbols forming a symbology. This symbology is a
primary formation of the imaginary of man: the aim of art is to rediscover it,
being lost ancient knowledge. It is in this track that Cesare Pavese sets his
concept of the symbol as a unique and unrepeatable event, which defines the
space of the holy, occurring once and all time, but producing an inexhaustible
significance (" Holidays of August" and Dialogues with Leucò").
the brief historical accounts cited above, it clearly emerges, that for all the
1900's right from the beginning; qualities have been assigned to the term and
concept of the symbol that have placed it in an advantageous position compared
to the allegory, to which instead has always been assigned, also on the basis
ofthe crocian-aesthetic opinion, a subordinate and negative role, denying in
some cases the status of "form of expression".
1928 Walter Benjamin published in Berlin his essay "On the origin of the
German Baroque Drama" with which he tried to qualify as university lecturer
at the University of Frankfurt on Main. The intentions of Benjamin's work, as
Gyorgy Lukàcs, one of his most convinced antagonist, has observed go well
beyond the subject dealt with. The aim is to lay the basis of the most daring
theorization of artistic question of the 1900's: through the analysis of the use
of allegory in German baroque, Benjamin gives a clear reading of the avant-garde
trends of 1900's, and in particular of the Expressionism.
kind of research of Benjamin, sets himself within a context of work peculiar to
that of the thinker, still today of extreme originality: having grown up in a
wealthy family of Jewish origin, the young Benjamin approaches Marxism
linguistics and literary criticism in a critical way. His attempt is, as satated
repeatedly by Gheorshom Scholem, his close friend and author of several essays
about him, is to construct an articulated synthesis among cultural currents,
including mystical of Hebraism (within which most remarkable, and in fact
crucial, were the issues of language, of the symbol and allegory), the critical
thinking of Marxist origin, and some of the heritage which Marx has defined as
"The classical German philosophy", in particular some German Romantic
and Idealist elements.
open conflict with Herbert Cysarz and the empty "aesthetic symbolism"
theorized by Winckelmann, Creuzer was criticized by the group of Stefan George,
Benjamin asserts that << allegory
and the pages that follow will help to demonstrate it - is not a playful
technique to create images, but expression, as is expression language and indeed
re-establishes the relation between allegory and symbol stressing the difference
and contrast, so denying to allegory the role of the discarded symbol, poor
relative of the symbol.
speech it is not defined from an exegetical and interpretative point of view,
but both terms are analyzed as ways of expression and of construction of the
text. Thus what it is placed at the centre of the attention it is not which
context is from time to time represented, but what happens to the terms of the
representation when they are asked to "say something else".
allegorical mode dealing with the elements of representation like words of
speech, it empties them of the sensitive immediacy; the usual and intuitive link
between significative and significance is put aside by the hypothesis of a new
meaning, and a gap opens between the two levels; in this can be found the
critical attitude that does not take for granted the appearance of the world.
The opposition to the symbol is strong: that promises to the implied elements
the salvifical transfiguration and the realization, whereas the allegory
operates in a double direction:" devaluates" the images endowed with
vital representative plenitude, and "promotes their rank", restoring
to them a significative function, those whose prestige has diminished in the
course of history>> .
interior essence that the symbol preserves within itself rendering invisible,
hiding, is projected out of itself externalized, exposing it in things by the
allegory; to the blending unity of the symbol, its mystic union (so dear to
Romanticism), corresponds the fragmentariness, the irreparable dissolution of
the reality achieved by the allegory that, being fragment and nine, leaves no
lasting appearance, no illusion of regaining the totality: to the classical
harmony of the symbol is opposed the "unbalanced" and
"rebellious" nature of the allegory that destroys any aura of magic
and sense of the world totality.
who attributes to the symbol a function of preservation opposes the mystic
cultural and mysterious moment of the symbol, the progressive dialecticism of
the allegory (the allegory as a fragment knows no mysteries, but only enigma
that are waiting to be recomposed in a whole).
dialecticism, that of the allegory which does not address itself only towards
the external, but which is also internal and that manifests itself in antitheses
and antinomies of a Hegelian nature. Such a dialecticism therefore, does not
provide for any mythical narrative or epic itinerary. On the contrary, the myth
remains as an appanage of the symbol, being an event outside of history.
is the element on which the allegory operates. In order to give them a meaning,
the allegory detracts the single things from the vital flow and through
"the contradiction" identifies their banal and obvious side.
to Furio Jesi, Benjamin theorizes on << a linguistic mythology, based on
the belief in a fundamental and lost reality which can be revealed, even if each
time insufficiently, by the strength of interpretation. The perfect original
correspondence between things and the divine word has vanished since men began
to denominate things in their language>> 
is the role of the critic, that of pointing out, indicating through
hermeneutics, through <<the recoding of human approximation>> the
way in order to compose or recompose a new network of approximations.
his "Philosophical essay of history" (1940), Benjamin, in opposition
to the "intuitive" pretext of the "philosophy of life" of
Deithey and of "phenomenology" by Husserl and rather influenced by the
neokantism, according to which concept and judgement are weapons of
knowledgewhose field of investigation is limited at the phenomenal and are
unable to grasp the subject in its totality and truth, he affirms that the
totality and trough of things appear to the intellect through the artistic work
in an enigmatic way and with these enigma philosophy has to measure itself.
more in his "Philosophical essay of history" Benjamin affirms that
<< to speak in an allegorical manner in the modern world is to be
submitted to a continuous temptation of sacred speech, but at the same time to
submit to the realization of that sad loss (given the unattainability of the
mirage) that prevents the illusion of being able to recompose that which is
this theory of history subtends an underlying neoplatonism characterized
indirectly by a strongly Messianic note, as Gersham Scholem recalls, through the
cabala. It is to this that must be traced the reference to the pure language of
primitive names considered as a last unattached and untouchables code, set by
Benjamin as a dialectical alternative with the linguistic of men and witch can
be by any chance object of technical-functional penetration.
term Ursprung in the title of the work on the German baroque drama, does not
simply mean "genesis", "origins" or "source". It
indicates, instead, <<that primitive leap in the existence that, meantime,
reveals and determins the structure unveiling itself and the central dynamics of
the term in an organic or spiritual phenomenon>> 
Hence a dynamic tension by which the object and the inquirer maintain a constant
relationship with the truth that operates and materializes trough the ideas.
attempt, destined to irreparable failure of which the author is aware, is to
save the fragmentation of phenomena (in the case of that of German Trauerspiel).
Schiavoni underlines that << This" salvation of the phenomenon"
is foreseen by Benjamin in the track of the platoman doctrine of ideas, rather
than in that of the spirit of reductio ad unum characteristic of historism,
which resolves the dialectical richness of history in what has been definitively
confirmed. The critic seems to be called to "represent"
philosophically certain elements of truth, avoiding the obsession to accomplish
the synthesis of historical data typical of the traditional historical sciences.
Formulating his own interrogation of truth, which represent the "death of
the intention", he remains aware that knowledge cannot coincide with truth
without destroying it (...). In this way he prepares himself to escape from the
malediction of the concept and to his maniacal questioning in order to capture.
Only in this light does it become possible to comprehend the insistence of
Benjamin on the display of ideas in the language without nevertheless agreeing
with it, without ending in comprehension, in the representation, and in the
ideas however cannot be grasped either by intuition nor by a scientific
inductive type of research of positivists. Benjamin on the one hand, detaching
himself from intuitionism and from vitalism (respectively of Dilthey and
Husserl) and on the other hand from neopositivism, speaks of "vision",
remaining with a cognitive experience in which the ideas are given , taken away,
however, from the subjective-intentional sphere, deprived that is of any
pursuit of a losted totality, Benjamin examines the fragment, the emblems, the
hieroglyphics. With the German Baroque, he is convinced to find himself faced
with an era endowed with an interior coherence. His aim is to rediscover it in
its most contradictory and extreme aspects:
any historistic triumphalism, he tries to bring out all that official history
has denied and destroyed.
himself to this line of thought Furio Jesi emphasises the political implication
of the denouncement by Benjamin at the optimistic progressivism of the
relativistic historicism and positivism of the late 1800's and of the early
1900's: a radical criticism orientated in an anti middle-class and
anticapitalistic direction in opposition to this philosophy of history. The
presumed rationality of history is, for the German philosopher, an apologia of
the present inspired <<by mythology and law of a"winner"(...).
appears to him as a phenomenology of the being of the world of supremacy: the
capitalistic middle-class has abolished the residues of apparent autonomy of the
subject and has transformed men into goods. The redemption of man can only be
achieved by a radical break with the past characterized by dominion and by a
recovery of the messianic tradition. But without elements of faith, as premises
in the absence of liberation-redemption are not given, so the liberating
subjectivity waits to be established>> .
rarely, in the so-called post-modern period new attempts to absorb the allegory
into the symbol and viceversa, can be seen. These attempts are always based on
the supposition of the linguistic equivocability. Thus Paul Ricoeur, from
existentialist and phenomenologist of religions, detouching itself ibm
linguistics and semiotics, considers language not just as a function of
communication. In fact, besides the signs whose significance is univocal, he
identifies the symbols to which he attributes not only an immanent linguistic
reference, but also a plurality of mythical religious and poetic references the
meanings of which coincide with the anthological and transcendent meaning of
human existence. Making the symbol an object of interpretation and assigning to
it the role of opening up the possibility of the meaning and, so, the status of
inexhaustible source of awareness that can never be codified, Ricoeur considers
it the constitutive element of the human thought and will.
light of the above, because the symbol (that according to Ricoeur is the holy
word, the language of religion) is identified with all that represents a
duplicity of meaning, its contrast to allegory can be placed only on an
interpretative plane. In this way therefore we are witnesses of the reassumption
on the part of allegory, of its previous negative role: that of representating
the attempt to definitely closing the opening up of meanings offered by the
Paul de Man seems to consider the symbol and allegory two forms of expression.
But he separates them and places them in opposition schematically. In the first
he recognizes the spatial simultaneity (of image and substance), in the second
the temporal difference (temporal disjunction). Moreover, the "saying
something else" does not refer, according to de Man to something that is
set outside the literary ritual. On the contrary, with nihilistic results, it is
the negation of the represented reality.
conclusion, we can affirm that the symbol and the allegory have to be considered
as ways of organization, that is to say the "tendency" that guides the
entire work (artistic): in the symbol one finds a return of the melding and
salvifical element, in the allegory the lacerating dialectic which is life. The
one is inexplicable mystery, the other an enigma always ready to be reassembled.
should be remembered that the symbol like all thought based on analogy is
considered by a certain field of criticism (not only literary and not only that
which follows the interpretative line of Benjamin) to be negative, since being
self referencing and lacking the progressive element, it favorus the
conservative and traditional .
<< What is wrong with the symbol? The pretence to operate beyond the level
of the conscious, which confers a culturally "high" profile with
overtones of the occult; The irrationalism of the intuititive suggestion that
induces a reply that is passive and inevitably more predetermined and
foreseeable, facilitated by the confusion of the meanings. The symbol can be
considered inexhaustible inasmuch as each new recipient finds in it the meaning
most accessible on the horizon of his own culture: it is therefore not truly of
multiple meanings, and it does not enrich the language and culture (nor does it
leave its imprint), but tends to to reinforce and reconfirm the characteristics habitually accepted>>
Umberto Eco, "The symbolic method", in "Semiotics and the
philosophy of language", Turin 1994
Walter Benjamin, "The Baroque German Drama", Turin 1971 "The
Baroque German Drama", new edition, Turin 1999
Giulio Raio, " Hermeneutics and theory of the symbol", Naples 1988
Hans Georg Gadamer, "Truth and method", Milan 1960
Frye, "The symbol as a means of exchange" in "Mith, methaphor and
symbol", Rome 1999, quoted by Francesco Muzzioli, "Pascoli and the
symbol", Rome 1993
Muzzioli, quoted work
I would like to thank Stefano Adami for advices, the suggestions and the
friendship of which he demonstrate me, not only in the occasion of the editing
of this article.
Muzzioli, quoted work
Wittgenstein, "Notes on The Golden Bough", Milan 1975
Walter Benjamin, quoted work
Muzzioli, quoted work
Furio Jesi, voice Benjamin Walter in "Encyclopedia of philosophy",
George Steiner, "Introduction to Walter Benjamin", London 1977 quoted
by Giulio Schiavoni in "Out of the chorus"
Giulio Schiavone, quoted work
Furio Jesi, quoted work
Theasis which was confirmed by the intentions of certain authors (Baltrusaitis,
Davy, Meslin, Schwaller de Lubicz) or editors.
Muzzioli, quoted work
S., Marcucci M. and Ricci S. (edited by) Chronologies- Imagines, experiences,
Chelliana, Grosseto- Milan 1997
W., Angelus Novus, Turin 1995
W., The German Baroque Drama, Turin 1971 new edition, Turin 1999
W., On the concept of history, Turin 1997
J., The fantastical Middle-Ages, Milan 1993
Jean- Gheebrant Main, Dictionary of symbols, Milan 1999
M.,-H., The symbolism in the Middle-Ages
H. G., "Truth and Method", Milan 1960, new edition, Milan 2002
M., (edited by), The mervellous. Mysteries and symbols of the imaginary in the
West, Milan 1988
F., Pascoli and the symbol, Rome 1993
G., Hermeneutics and theiry of the symbol, Naples 1988
G., Walter Benjamin and his angel, Milan 1996
de Lubicz R.D., Esoterism and symbol, Milan 1997
T., theories of the symbol, Milan 1991
L., Notes on " The Golden Bough ", Milan 1975